TSMC’s FinFET Density Claim Seems Questionable

When Intel (NASDAQ: INTC  ) gave its "analyst day" presentation on Nov. 21, 2013, Intel showed a chart that confirmed the company means pretty serious business in both transistor leadership and metal stack density leadership. Indeed, Intel admitted that its 22-nanometer process was roughly on par with TSMC's (NYSE: TSM  ) 28-nanometer process with respect to density, though it offered a significant performance advantage. However, at 14-nanometers, Intel claims that the game changes.

Intel's claim -- a focus on the metal stack
When it comes to semiconductor manufacturing technology, there are two major components:

  • Front-End-Of-Line, or FEOL, which refers to the actual transistors from which the semiconductor devices are built
  • Back-End-Of-Line, or BEOL, which refers to where the devices (transistors and other components) are connected together via metal wires.

The interesting thing here is that, as the FEOL gets smaller, transistors typically offer better performance. This is widely considered the "magic" of Moore's Law. However, metal wires have a tendency to offer worse performance when they are made smaller, so an "easy" solution -- particularly for designers interested more in performance than density -- is simply to be less aggressive in scaling the BEOL than the FEOL.

So, take a look at the following slide:


Source: Intel

Intel is claiming that, based on TSMC's claim that its metal stack at 16FF will be carried over from the 20-nanometer generation, its 14-nanometer process will offer a roughly 35% density edge on TSMC's 16FF process. Note that Intel appears to be using the minimum metal pitch as a proxy for density.

TSMC's dubious claim
On its most recent earnings call, TSMC gave the following explanation for why Intel's chart was "highly misleading":

Therefore, we leverage the volume experience in the volume production this year to be able to immediately go down to the 16 volume production next year, within 1 year, and this transistor performance and innovative layout methodology can improve the chip size by about 15%. This is because the driving of the transistor is much stronger so that you don't need such a big area to deliver the same driving circuitry.

In essence, TSMC is claiming that, because the chip designers can trade off performance for density with a density-focused layout, this allows them to claim a "15% density advantage" over its 20-nanometer process, even with the same metal stack. Unfortunately, this doesn't pass the smell test because Intel, with its own designs, could do the exact same thing and have a denser metal stack, thereby nullifying any density "advantage" that TSMC can garner from an improved layout methodology. This -- not Intel's claims -- is what appears to be misleading here.

Foolish bottom line
TSMC is trying to convince investors that it is keeping up with Intel with regard to transistor technology, but the truth is that Intel has been ahead for many generations. Sure, TSMC is increasing its investments here, but so is Intel. Further, since Intel is an integrated device manufacturer, it can co-optimize the process and design in ways that a fabless/foundry relationships would have a tough time emulating.

In addition, TSMC is claiming that customers will begin "taping out" designs during 2014 on the 16FF process. This is a dead giveaway that Intel is still ahead, given that it has demonstrated fully functional designs built on its 14-nanometer process. This means that tape-out happened quite a while ago, and with Intel's roadmap also suggesting that a 14-nanometer mobile SoC is on track for late 2014, Intel is very likely ahead in both high performance CPU and low power SoC flavors of its process.

There's money in the cloud
There are few things that Bill Gates fears. Cloud computing is one of them. It's a radical shift in technology that has early investors getting filthy rich, and we want you to join them. That's why we are highlighting three companies that could make investors like you rich. You've likely only heard of one of them, so be sure to click here to watch this shocking video presentation!


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (4)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On January 27, 2014, at 6:04 PM, SSchlesinger wrote:

    My question is, who's going to pay for the 20nm TSMC processors? The model only works when there is high demand for the ARM processors on the newest node, to the point that people will pay a premium for it. The new CEO of ARMH is stating the point that Apple confirmed today, the market is more price sensitive and cheap smartphones are the future. Intel has a sunk cost in the 14nm node. It's going to be Johnny on the spot with it, increasing capacity for cutting edge mobile processors, thus decreasing demand.

    You said that Apple will be the acid test for TSMC, I think that test has passed. TSMC needed the iPhone 5S. Without some very large volume at 20nm, TSMC won't be able to push the new nodes. Sure, Qualcom could push a new SoC that is amazing and can get some orders at just about any price. But unfortunately not enough to matter.

    The writing is on the wall for TSMC, things haven't worked out quite the way they wanted it to go. I'm saying now, in January that by the end of the year there will be less ARM foundry players in the market. The model of having ARM foundries beat each other up for orders while fighting the good fight against Intel won't work. It's making the battle a bit too easy for Intel.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2809298, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/28/2014 1:26:11 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement