• InverseParallax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m surprised, usually that bleeding edge the foundry still sets the terms. Even if yields are lower (55% is low for that small a die), they should have the power to set the terms, or just offer a discount if they fail the contract promise, though this might be the failure clause kicking in.

    • LetMeEatCake@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Apple is the only customer after TSMC’s N3B node. Everyone else wants N3E, which will not be available until next year. N3E has better yields but worse performance, while being easier/cheaper to manufacture. The increase in yields is greater than the loss in performance.

      If TSMC didn’t offer terms to make up for the faults of N3B, there’s a very real chance that Apple would have balked and stuck with N4 again. In this case, Apple had a strong hand: without Apple, the entire N3B line would be idle and the capital expenditure to set them up would be wasted. If yields improve enough Apple might stick with N3B in the future, which would save TSMC even more money and allow them to shift back over to a better (for them) pricing model.

      Apple had a comparatively strong hand for these negotiations.

      • InverseParallax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah I figured it was a sweetheart deal to keep the design on that process, I’m still surprised there isn’t more demand, but all the volume guys (amd, nvidia, apple) are going to wait for stability, amd might do some server chips because the margins are worth it, and they can eat yields with their chiplets.

        Nvidia don’t give a fuck, they’ll stay at n5 or even n6 for the price and efficiency, they’re power gated.