The RV870 Story: AMD Showing up to the Fight
by Anand Lal Shimpi on February 14, 2010 12:00 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
The Cost of Jumping to 40nm
This part of the story could almost stand on its own, but it directly impacts much of what happened with Cypress and the entire Evergreen stack that it’s worth talking about here.
By now you’ve most likely heard about issues with TSMC’s 40nm process. While the word is that the issues are finally over, poor yields and a slower than expected ramp lead to Cypress shortages last year and contributed to NVIDIA’s Fermi/GF100 delay. For the next couple of pages I want to talk about the move to 40nm and why it’s been so difficult.
The biggest issue with being a fabless semiconductor is that you have one more vendor to deal with when you’re trying to get out a new product. On top of dealing with memory companies, component manufacturers and folks who have IP you need, you also have to deal with a third party that’s going to actually make your chip. To make matters worse, every year or so, your foundry partner comes to you with a brand new process to use.
The pitch always goes the same way. This new process is usually a lot smaller, can run faster and uses less power. As with any company whose job it is to sell something, your foundry partner wants you to buy its latest and greatest as soon as possible. And as is usually the case in the PC industry, they want you to buy it before it's actually ready.
But have no fear. What normally happens is your foundry company will come to you with a list of design rules and hints. If you follow all of the guidelines, the foundry will guarantee that they can produce your chip and that it will work. In other words, do what we tell you to do, and your chip will yield.
Global Foundries' 2010 - 2011 Manufacturing Roadmap
The problem is that if you follow every last one of these design rules and hints your chip won’t be any faster than it was on the older manufacturing process. Your yield will be about the same but your cost will be higher since you’ll bloat your design taking into account these “hints”.
Generally between process nodes the size of the wafer doesn’t change. We were at 200mm wafers for a while and now modern fabs use 300mm wafers. The transistor size does shrink however, so in theory you could fit more die on a wafer with each process shrink.
The problem is with any new process, the cost per wafer goes up. It’s a new process, most likely more complex, and thus the wafer cost is higher. If the wafer costs are 50% higher, then you need to fit at least 50% more die on each wafer in order to break even with your costs on the old process. In reality you actually need to fit more than 50% die per wafer on the new process because yields usually suck at the start. But if you follow the foundry’s guidelines to guarantee yield, you won’t even be close to breaking even.
The end result is you get zero benefit from moving to the new process. That’s not an option for anyone looking to actually use Moore’s Law to their advantage. Definitely not for a GPU company.
The solution is to have some very smart people in your company that can take these design rules and hints the foundry provides, and figure out which ones can be ignored, and ways to work around the others. This is an area where ATI and NVIDIA differ greatly.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
132 Comments
View All Comments
Stas - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
Awesome. Thanks!Adul - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
Really helps pass the time at work today. :) Keep it up.Btw when can we expect to see the new site launch?
aapocketz - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
[quote]I was convinced that ATI had embraced a new, refocused approach to GPU design, only to learn that they nearly threw out all of the learnings with the RV870. [/quote]It sounds like they have had some successes trying different techniques, but without stability in their production process it is hard to repeat success. I understand that they require constant innovation to stay competitive, but throwing out whole processes seems chaotic to me. I would like them to refine and improve successful processes rather than toss everything every time a new business guru is in charge.
Also half of their effort was all about openness and collaboration. The opening up of the PRS document so that "everyone was involved in the process" seems to clash with the hyper-secret groups where "AMD has since incorporated much of Carrell’s brand of information compartmentalization into how it handled other upcoming features." This seems like a recipe for disaster to me. Which is it, broad openness, collaboration and consesus; or secret teams that have no idea what the other teams are doing?
SuperGee - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
The story told us that they didn't know it will become a succes because these desision where made before RV770 release. So doing the high risk choice again. Wasn't a nobrainer. But a risky choice. We know that it turn out good now.mckirkus - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
It's kind of funny that you're not yet running one of these companies yet Anand.One of the reasons I check this site on a daily basis is because you also seem to also get the business side of the equation. It's downright refreshing to see someone bridging that gap. You pretty much saved the Vertex from self destruction. I'd like to see what interesting things you could build us if you put your mind to it.
deputc26 - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
Articles like these are what differentiate AnandTech from all the other sites out there. AnandTech goes from being one of the best review sites out there to something special.Beyond excellent, thanks Anand.
rickyv - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
As a loyal follower of your website for the past 15 years, I also felt that I just had to register and compliment you on an excellent article.With the rapid advancement of technology, it is very easy just to get caught up in the PR and marketing hype or focus only on the numbers game. We often lose sight of the fact that it is teams of dedicated people who make this possible. You have always had the ability to bring out the "human" side to this. I have not seen this on any other site nor in printed form (that is not an unashamedly PR marketing exercise).
Thanks for staying true to your roots by giving honest opinions of the technology that you review. The latest releases are not necessarily always the greatest (as much as the marketing departments would like us to believe :-) )
krish123 - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
After i read the article, I found that "Engine is running well and firing on all the cylinders", It can create better products in the future, I can trust and buy ATI products, hope they deliver better products in the future for my upgrade."Kudos to Anand for the excellent article".
By the way graphics card is a product, not just hardware, it has to work in tandem with the software, its better ATI put some more effort on the driver/software side and fix all the issues.
Krish
smartalec - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
"When companies like AMD and NVIDIA do a product the engineers don't know all of the answers, and the knowledge they do have isn't binary - it's probability, it's weight, it's guesses. Sometimes they guess right, and sometimes they guess very wrong. The best they can do is to all weigh in with their individual experiences and together come up with the best group of guesses to implement."I'm afraid this is how all engineering works. Project managers think that engineers can predict the future. That we know exactly how much time it'll take, and how much risk a given feature will bring.
We don't. There's a lot of educated guesses. Sometimes we're pleasantly surprised that what we thought was a tough problem wasn't. Sometimes we're the bearer of bad news-- something we assumed would be trivial wasn't.
My most frustrating issues aren't technical at all. I ask for 2000 hours, and are given 1000. Or are given 2 engineers instead of 3, and told-- figure out a way to get it done anyway, without impacting schedule.
Great article Anand.
mckirkus - Sunday, February 14, 2010 - link
Any decent project manager (I do software) reviews the risks up front with the engineers before building the project plan / timeline.The fact that most project managers don't really understand the products they manage is the rule not the exception. The problem is that great engineers don't always make great PMs. Having a good tech lead helps.