Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/gf-delays-14nm.5166/page-2
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

GF Delays 14nm?

Daniel Nenni said:
A third and much more likely scenario is that GF is expanding capacity beyond what they had planned to satisfy a very demanding customer and is simply doing so in a creative manner. The new GF CEO, who I would consider one of the top ten currently, is a VERY clever and educated man so do not expect GF to operate as before, not even close. And remember, this is a fabless CEO so do not expect him to operate within the bounds of other fab CEOs either.

This will be a very interesting year for the fabless semiconductor ecosystem, absolutely.
Click to expand...

What you described can be a third possibility. But on the other hand, we don't know why GF asked suppliers to modify payment terms (according to Mr. Robert Maire) after placing the orders or even after delivering the product. Most likely GF won't comment on such matter.

We always see buyers try to negotiate best payment terms before singing contract or issuing PO. We don't see too often is asking vendors to modify payment terms after products delivered. Usually it's not a good sign. Under normal situation those people from finance department know quite well about how to manage payment terms for all contracts in advance, not afterwards.

Indeed this will be a very interesting year.
 
Last edited:
Daniel Nenni said:
A third and much more likely scenario is that GF is expanding capacity beyond what they had planned to satisfy a very demanding customer and is simply doing so in a creative manner. The new GF CEO, who I would consider one of the top ten currently, is a VERY clever and educated man so do not expect GF to operate as before, not even close. And remember, this is a fabless CEO so do not expect him to operate within the bounds of other fab CEOs either.
Click to expand...
This sounds definitely more reasonable to me. Thanks Daniel.
 
So to summarize:
-Abu Dhabi could be pulling in the financial reins on GF due to the oil price crash (which is incredible and ongoing). Just as their capital needs increase due to ramping 14nm. This seems plausible to me. No amount of cleverness from the CEO can fix needing $1-2B dollars in capital equipment and not being able to get it from your financier.
-Samsung Austin is starting 14nm, according to sources: Register ETNews This could mean less demand for wafers from Fab8 in Malta, since, if true, Samsung would have an internal source to supply A9s which is US-based and acceptable to the client. I believe the ramp is much earlier days in Austin than Malta though, which suggests Malta is not being "left behind", just that there will be two US-based points of supply for A9s.
-Dan is offering the theory that there is a retrofit underway to another facility near Fab8, which caused the equipment diversion. That's plausible, since a retrofit that left dust in the cleanroom would be a problem. New equipment is pristine-you don't want to contaminate it with construction dust if at all possible.
-Finally there is TSMC ramping 16nm production. TSMC 16nm has somewhat larger minimum features than Samsung 14nm and so perhaps less preferred by Apple. But plausibly, Apple has given TSMC some of the A9 business. VRZone This would also contribute to Fab8 being left behind, as Austin and Tainan get the bulk of the business and Fab8 only gets scraps.

What I think: Austin would not be starting wafers unless the 14nm process is robust. It is not an R&D site, it is a high volume production site. Fab8 and Fab14P7 are in relatively early stages of ramping, compared to Austin. It appears to me that Austin is in the lead for the A9 business (There are some things I don't understand, like how Samsung can ramp a new technology using 28nm equipment, but TSMC is re-using 20nm equipment for 16 so it may not be that implausible), followed by TSMC Fab14P7, with GF Fab8 eating scraps. Which would put them and their once-rich financier in a very tough spot for 2015.
 
Last edited:
Benb,

You assume it is a fact that Samsung had started A9 production at Austin, and then develop your entire reasoning from that assumption.

But, the assumption is based on a highly dubious report from a Korean web site, citing some unnamed “insiders.” The Korean PR had been debunked:

Samsung misinformation
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/f293/misinformation-intel-tsmc-4952-3.html#post17455

Do you know of any evidences, outside of pro-Samsung PR, to support the notion that Austin has begun A9 production?

There are conflicting reports. The following is one of them. The news story cites a prominent research firm MIC, unlike the unnamed “insiders” in the Korean PR. Perhaps Benb should also consider these contrary reports, instead of taking a cheap Korean rumor at face value.

A story of Dec 27 from Taipei Times:

The key for TSMC to win over its main competitor, Samsung Electronics Co, in vying for Apple’s orders is its production yield, the Market Intelligence and Consulting Institute (MIC) told a press conference on technology industry trends for next year.

TSMC likely to stay key Apple supplier - Taipei Times

MIC web site includes a rich collection of its past researches. AND, the site lists the phone numbers at the bottom of each page. Journalists can call MIC for clarifications or comments.

Market Intelligence & Consulting Institute (MIC) in Taiwan
MIC- Insight with an Asian Perspective
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top