Samsung Announces 14nm FinFET for Exynos 7
by Joshua Ho on February 16, 2015 4:04 AM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mobile
- Tablets
- SoCs
While we've known about the existence of the Exynos 7420 for a while now, we didn't really know what to expect until recently. Today, it seems that Samsung is ready to start disclosing at least a few details about an upcoming Exynos 7 SoC, which is likely to be the Exynos 7420.
At a high level Exynos 7 will have four Cortex A57s clocked at 2.1 GHz, in addition to four Cortex A53s along with an LPDDR4-capable memory interface. According to Samsung Tomorrow, we can expect a 20% increase to device performance, which is likely a reference to clock speed, and 35% lower power consumption. In addition, there is a reference to a 30% productivity gain, which is likely to be referencing performance per watt. Samsung claims that these figures come from a comparison to their 20nm HKMG process, which we've examined before with the Exynos 5433 in the Note 4 Exynos review.
Although there is no direct statement of which version of 14nm is used for this upcoming Exynos 7 Octa, judging by how this is the first 14nm IC to come from Samsung it's likely that this SoC will use 14LPE, which focuses on reducing leakage and power consumption rather than switching speed.
Source: Samsung Tomorrow
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
111 Comments
View All Comments
Guest8 - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
By surpassed you mean charge their customers per wafer instead of per chip. Only then do I see them having yield issues worked out. I have a feeling these new processors are going to be pricey probably 2 times what the previous generation was assuming the yields can get up to 50% TSM starting shipping A8 with 50%ish yields so yeah that's one way to go about it. Intel would never ship anything with yields this bad.Michael Bay - Monday, February 23, 2015 - link
Apple is looking at Samsung not because of better process technology, but because TSMC simply couldn`t deliver the volume of chips(what was it, A7 or A8?) they required. Nobody but intel or Samsung could produce something at such volumes, and Apple considered Samsung to be the lesser of two evils.witeken - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
"and so lost something of their lead"The jury is still out on that one: Intel might start HVM of 10nm at the end of 2015, less then 2 quarters after TSMC started HVM of their 20+FF node. So the TTM that Intel lost at 14 might be regained at 10 (Intel's 10nm will be comparable to TSMC/Samsung's 7nm). But Intel is very quiet about 10nm, so we'll have to see what happens with Intel's lead in the long run. I'm betting on a status quo of 3-4 years.
CiccioB - Wednesday, February 18, 2015 - link
Technically it appears Intel can start 10nm at the end of the year.Problem is how much money that will cost.
Remember that to be profitable (and winning) on the market you do not have only to offer a good product, but it mainly has to be on par with competition about the price.
Intel already took a big hit in their finance with 22 and 14nm PP. Added costs, delays and the need to subside 22nm mobile chips because they clearly misses all those "fancy advantages" Intel proclaimed they could offer. We are speaking of something as 6 billions of extra costs for 14nm + 8 billions in two years for try to give a meaning to 22nm in mobile market. Clearly failing in that. Going so soon for 10nm would mean another financial bleed, as 10nm in desktop/server maket is not needed (no competition at all there) and in mobile market Intel is still having big issue with its not so really competitive chips. Agt 10nm they would costs really too much even though could be on par with the competition.
When Intel claimed the "supremacy" of their 22nm over the competition, the rest of the world was still producing at 40nm. I can remember all tests (here too) where done comparing early samples of Bay Trail with some random A9 (40nm) SoC already on the market for a year at least.
The time it took Bay Trail to enter in a device, 28nm ARM SoCs were already in production. The time someone could buy a Bay Trail device, 28nm ARM Socs were still into new devices. Intel clearly could not compete with a 22nm chip vs ARM 28nm chips. Not in term of perf/Watt and surely not for cost.
I can see a worse situation here: Intel has tried (again) to be early on the mabile market with a new Atom (the first chip produced at 14nm) while all others were 28nm. Intel did not probably expected Samsung to go from 28 to 20 and then 20+FinFet (called 14nm or every MyTastyYogurt for what that matters) in less that 2 years.
This 14nm "MyTastyYogurt" PP is quite a manace for them. It means that Intel won't be competitive again for a single day on the mobile market. Despite the huge quantity of money Intel put in their advanced PP. Be it 3 months, or 6 or 9, soon enough (well before 10nm can be ready) all other ARM SoC producers will saturate TMSC/Samsung 14/16nm capacity with billions (not just few millions x86 mobile chips) of ARM SoCs flooding in the mobile market. A nightmare for a company that knows that it needs to be at least 1 PP ahead to be somewhat competitive on thechnical field but still well behing for costs.
If 16/14nm production capacity will be big enough at the end of the year, I think it will put an end to Intel hope (and investments) in the mobile market. At least on any device that does not have Windows on it.
Let we see how long this trailing Wintel simbiosys will last. We have already seen that to be productive one does not really needs Windows and all the associated costs (that means bigger devices, bigger batteries, higher costs). With ARM SoC becoming more and more powerful, it is possible for them to take a quite big piece of the low end x86 market even without (or even because there's not) Windows on those devices.
costeakai - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
samsung vs the rest of the world; i love it , i love you south coreans.DanNeely - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
The real question is how quickly can they scale production up. This is the first second generation double patterning process; working out all the problems with DP has been responsible for Intels 14nm, and everyone else's 20nm processes being badly delayed and having very slow volume ramps. If Samsung is able to quickly ramp this process to high volumes it suggests we should still be able to count on a few more iterations of new processes every two years. If it ends up being a very slow trickle like the first gen DP processes are, it will strongly suggest that the time to market for new processes is going to be permanently stretched going forward.tipoo - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
Samsung's 14 nm production is a hybrid design. It uses 14 nm for front end of line, and 20 nm for back end of line. Intel's production is 14 nm throughout.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_end_of_line
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_end_of_line
PC Perv - Monday, February 16, 2015 - link
You seem desperate, posting same links twice. Haha.I understand.
IntelUser2000 - Tuesday, February 17, 2015 - link
Does anyone REALLY believe that Intel is 3.5 years ahead of competitors because they shipped 22nm with FinFETS 3.5 years before others?They aren't even 3.5 years ahead in timeframe wise:
Ivy Bridge: Mid 2012
Atom 22nm: Q3 2013
Samsung 14nm FF: Q2 2015
That's only 3 years. Then again, 22nm Atoms had hard time competing against 28nm ARM parts. At this point I would bet that Intel is fudging numbers about process and leadership more than ARM guys are.
patrickjp93 - Tuesday, February 17, 2015 - link
Too bad Samsung's 14nm process is bigger than its 20nm process... https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/3884-who-wi...