TSMC May Win Bulk of A9 Orders Due to Better Production Yield

Sounds like a good strategy to me. It also likely gets them to compete on price as well.

Don't worry, the savings won't be passed upon to you

I would rather see Samsung as the main supplier. We all say "bad things" about the Korean company, bla bla bla...
and then pray to get their screen or hd. LOL

Hope this isn't true.

TSMC has had a BAD history of delivering.

Wasn't A8 suppose to be bulk TSMC? They failed and Samsung had to take over.

Apple has wanted to stop using Samsung to make its parts but the truth is...they make the BETTER parts

Samsung > TSMC over chips.
Samsung > LG over displays.

I don't think I follow... Why would these companies need different tape-outs and if that is the case, why couldn't Apple supply multiple tape-outs for the manufactures? Could you explain a little?

Different tape-outs will likely be needed for several reasons, even though Apple might be using 14nm (for example) processes from both TSMC and Samsung. "Why?", you might ask...

Samsung and TSMC are unlikely to have identical processes, even if they do use the same equipment in their fabs. Why different processes? Because they were developed differently - unless they licensed the process in its entirety from a 3rd party...

Manufacturing a complex semiconductor involves a lot of steps, some of which require the use of pretty nasty chemicals to etch away other chemicals, thus forming various patterns and structures on the silicon wafer on to which metals like aluminum or copper are deposited (to form signal pathways) or to which dopants are added to form the N type and P type junctions that make up transistors.

The complex computer aided design systems used by Apple and other designers need to know about the characteristics of the target manufacturing process in order to make sure that dopant areas are big enough to enable the transistors to work as intended, that signal pathways aren't too close together that they might short out in manufacturing, or become too narrow and so perhaps affect system timings in a variety of subtle ways. Remember there are upwards of 1-2 BILLION transistors on each of these devices... they pretty much ALL need to work as expected...

So different manufacturing processes equates to different design rules - if you are going to manufacture on 2 different processes, even if they are very similar, you are going to need to simulate your system against each set of design rules, and do your chip layout according to the different process/engineering/layout rules of each - and layout and simulation represent the majority of design time... So you don't go for 2 suppliers with these complex parts for the hell of it - it's a critical decision to make... requires a lot of engineering resources...

But if you're going to be selling 40-80 million devices a quarter, and it's core to your business reputation and model, then you'd be almost negligent to put all your 'eggs in one basket', so to speak... or at least, all in one fab, even if it's only with one supplier...

Creating the mask sets needed for TSMC and Samsung (because they won't be the same) for the 10-14nm process node is likely to cost $10s MILLION per set, and my $10s MILLION we're talking closer to $80M than $30M! If not more...

In summary, it's very unlikely that 2 fab processes developed by 2 different companies, even if they worked together closely, will be sufficiently similar for only 1 tape out to be needed AND still get the maximum density and performance out of the manufactured chips...

... and the cost of each tape out and mask set for each supplier at these process nodes/geometries is VERY HIGH!! So you'd think twice, and then twice again, before going down the road of multiple supplier...

UNLESS it's so critical to your business that you can't afford the risk of poor yields / capacity & supply constraints from your supply chain.

For the procurement/supply chain side of this topic, investigate the financial risk vs supply chain risk 'grid' put forward by Kraljic (it's the basis of supply chain management studies these days, I believe). Google 'kraljic purchasing model'.

----------

Not worth it? Well over 100M chips at near $40 a pop makes 20% a roughly $1B business. There are companies that spend as much on tape-outs for lesser business opportunities.

Tape-outs & mask sets at the 10-14nm process nodes can cost 'in the region of $100M'...

So development by trial and error is out! Hence a LOT of simulation work... and that TAKES TIME and some serious computing power!

Also, just because we're talking Apple, TSMC & Samsung here - about the biggest buyer/suppliers of chips on the planet, doesn't mean that any of them will 'play nice and easy' when it comes to apportioning risk!

All these analysts claiming the production run is split between two companies… I have yet to see the first person with actual chip production experience state that it’s even possible.

So far I only see experts claiming that it’s technically almost impossible to split advanced production runs because different companies have different requirements. You can’t send the same tape-out to both companies because tape-outs for TSMC wouldn’t be compatible with Samsung’s equipment and vice-versa.

Instead of printing speculation from “analysts” could MacRumors instead try to speak to a subject expert to get real insight? You know, someone who actually knows a thing or two about chip design and production?

The last official reports had TSMC's FinFET schedule well behind Samsung. I doubt much has drastically changed in the last few months.

Their processes are also not compatible, so it's not simply flipping a switch to decide between the two.

Hope this isn't true.

TSMC has had a BAD history of delivering.

Wasn't A8 suppose to be bulk TSMC? They failed and Samsung had to take over.

Apple has wanted to stop using Samsung to make its parts but the truth is...they make the BETTER parts

Samsung > TSMC over chips.
Samsung > LG over displays.

In view of the article this seems wilful ignorance.

I don't think I follow... Why would these companies need different tape-outs and if that is the case, why couldn't Apple supply multiple tape-outs for the manufactures? Could you explain a little?

The difference between CPUs and other parts is that most things Apple buys from third parties are off-the-shelf products. As long as they meet a certain spec Apple can buy them and integrate them. However, the CPU is one of the few more complex things Apple actually fully designs in-house.

Now, I am not a chip manufacturing expert, that’s why I’m asking this question. What I hear from people who actually do this sort of stuff for a living is that you can’t just send the same tape-out to both. A tape-out needs to be created specifically with the foundry’s requirements in mind. Obviously you could create two different designs for two different manufacturers but the overhead and engineering headache for Apple would be substantial and possibly not worth it for only 20% of the production run.

I’d like MacRumors to actually do some digging and speak with people who commission big CPU production runs to see how feasible all this speculation actually is. If MacRumors can reveal that all this talk by business analysts is utter nonsense it could be a good story.

Not sure why you portray the GTA sapphire contract as "unfavorable".

If GTA hadn't oversold its ability and delivered on the goods, the deal would have been anything but unfavorable.

Am I the only one who doesn't care about who is making A9 SoC?