TSMC 2nm Chip Production Hits 60% Yield, on Track for iPhone 18 Pro

Cancelled my iPhone 17 preorder.

meanwhile intel is rumored to be at 10% yield on 18A

There are two major inputs to yield. Defect density and size of the die. Larger dies have lower yield rates for the same defect density.

Intel has reported that they have about 0.4 defect density ( before HVM status. )

" ... Generally, it is considered that a defect density below 0.5 defects per square centimeter is a good result, so even keeping in mind that defect density varies by process and application, Intel 18A’s defect density of 0.4 defects per square centimeter is a reasonably good result considering its timing. Yet, TSMC’s N7 and N5 technologies had a defect density of 0.33 at a similar development stage, and when TSMC’s N5 reached mass production, its defect density dropped to 0.1. Yet, TSMC’s N3 started with a higher defect density but matched N5’s defect rate after five to six quarters ..."
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/broadcom-disappointed-with-intel-18a-process-technology-says-its-not-currently-viable-for-high-volume-production


https://semianalysis.com/die-yield-calculator/

For the nominal die settings for the above calculator, 0.4 gives a yield rate of 77% . No where near 10%.

However if try to make reticle busting sized dies that are popular with Nvidia and Broadcom that has problems. For example 25 mm x 30 mm dies drop all the way to ... wait for it .... 10% . Coincidence or source of the disconnect?

[ NOTE: if move that 25 mm x 30 mm die to 0.3 defect rate it jump to 15%. ]


The implementation design is also another factor. ( e.g., Nvidia had to tweak Blackwell to get around some packing yield issues. ) Don't need 'perfect' dies to have a binned working product if have some redundancies . It is more straightforward cheaper to have a lower defect density.


Is TSMC talking reticle sized test dies for their 60% ? Nope. Pretty decent chance what we have here is 'apples to oranges' stuff. Semiaccurate and Korean ( possible Samsung Foundry fans ) throwing 'doom and gloom' at Intel. Intel is off from TSMC's defect density, but 10% is suggestive that probably not talking standard test dies.

18A would not be a good match for Apple because Apple isn't big on chiplets. The 'Max' variant is a relatively big die ( not in the reticle busting zone, but 'big'. ). The huge potential problem for Intel is that their data center dies have tended to run somewhat large ( AMD is making more true chiplets to compose their solutions). 0.4 would make it hard to be profitable unless they start using substantively smaller dies as basic building blocks.

It also cuts Intel out as being a "mega AI die" boundary options. The boundary isn't going to be able to ride the AI hype train. Broadcom probably is twitchy if not doing chiplets ( glue two 600+ mm^2 dies together isn't really 'good' chiplet design. It is really just a means of making something 'even bigger' rather than functional decomposition. ). It is going to be hard for Intel to quickly get some "cost doesn't matter" AI clients in the intermediate term. Nor will their discrete GPU comes back in quicker ( if it survives).

The short term problem for the Intel foundary is that the still only have 'one' big customer. The client PC SoC shop that wants keep the single threaded drag racing crown and the expensive multicore crown. 18A might work well enough for that. But it isn't what the upper 20% die sized folks are looking for. It is a better fit for perhaps folks ding RISC-V / Arm speciality SoCs that are not trying to bust into the datacenter AI/HPC market.

Intel has lots more work to do on better design kits and ecosystem, for broad ranging fab offerings , and establishing expectations with external customers. But 10% yield is likely is just 'doom and gloom' that sells clicks and ad (click bait).

A very long time ago, I remember hearing a report on public radio saying that the semiconductor industry had an insurmountable barrier to overcome: due to the laws of physics and the wavelength limitations of light energy when etching the silicon wafer through a stencil, there was a 13nm chip size limit. Something tells my memory is faulty, or I missed the technological changes which have happened.

Yes, however a couple decades ago many of the chip manufacturers (not Intel initially, but they are doing it now too to sound competitive) starting using marketing terms to name their manufacturing processes and while chip density has continued to increase the density isn't as much as the name would suggest. For example the N3E which Apple currently uses in the A18 and M4 chips has a transistor gate pitch of 48 nm and an an interconnect pitch of 23 nm so they haven't actually reached the physical limits of what you can do with silicon yet.

Cancelled my iPhone 17 preorder.

These have gone old...

meanwhile intel is rumored to be at 10% yield on 18A

My wife were planning on trying to keep our phones until at least the 18 series so this sounds good to me.