M1 chip has a bog standard Package-on-Package architecture - there is nothing special about it. The CoWoS and other 3D packaging technologies from TSMC's marketing pages aren't on the M1 chip. I believe there isn't even a silicon interposer due to cost presumably [1]. It is substrate on top of substrate (PoP) to connect the memory and CPU. CPU+GPU are on the same die which is pretty remarkable (Intel's IGPUs have been on the same die as well albeit they're not as powerful as M1s graphics) but that's somewhat unrelated to the packaging.
Btw, memory has been stacked like that for a decade or more. Used to be stacked + wirebonded. But now, we have through-silicon vias (TSVs). The reason you can stack memory like that are many, one of them being thermals / power density.
I think what hurt intel in the long run was actually their fully integrated stack.
They couldn't really sell fab time to other companies cuz they didn't have a good attempt at fabbing for 3rd parties. So they were only fabricating intel chips, that's not nearly as big of a business as TSMC. So basically, TSMC can keep their last 3+ gens of fabs open and making product, while intel couldn't really reap any benefit from keeping old process nodes open.
AMD made a good call selling off global foundries when it was apparent they couldnt keep up with Intel even.
I think the really rough issue here is what happens if China does try to take Taiwan (and this is not unrealistic as China has been more aggressive towards them recently).
TSMC is now a strategic asset for the USA. We've been attempting to get them to build a fab in the states for exactly this reason.
Intel fabs plenty of stuff at the 22 nm node, including chipsets for their CPUs[1], RF and other analog uses[2], novel RAM technologies, and their Lakefield/Foreveros thing. Given Intel's expanding product portfolio, there's likely additional internal customers for older nodes.
Intel has a large number of fabs and I think capacity is reallocated over time; for example, a 22nm fab might be converted to 10nm to adapt to changing demand. They can eventually get down to just one 22nm fab which won't require as much demand to fill.
To be fair, there are limits on how far and how fast one can upgrade a fab and upgrades are planned out many years in advance. Equipment for the smaller nodes tends to be larger and more complex and involving more steps; this requires more space. Additionally, ASML only makes around a dozen of the EUV machines each year and they are booked years in advance.
What hurt Intel was missing the mobile CPU boat. If Intel wasn't so braindead in management, they probably could have won a substantial segment of mobile.
Because of mobile, TSMC had so much revenue to advance their process and catch/surpass Intel. Heck, Apple's M1 is probably due to the same reason in the Apple ecosystem, they couldn't win the iPhone either, and IIRC various "what's wrong with Intel" threads stated many of the best Intel engineers went to Apple.
Like the myth that China's GFW is to protect local business, this is just retrospective fairytale.
TSMC succeeded because of the chip and high-quality talents on the island. It was not setup to become a high-value precious.
And the logic also easily break down, if anyone bother to think about the consequence. I.e., put a high-value target in a contended geographical location, just makes the conflict more desirable for the aggressor.
Sure the protector would be more concerned if the target is lost, but the value of acquiring that target suddenly becomes way more attractive, in comparison to the potential loss to the protectors.
You are mistaken. This was a deliberate and overt tactic by the Taiwanese government. It's been heavily discussed in geopolitical circles for decades.
TSMC is not something that can be "acquired" by military force. That's not how things work. If China does follow through on their threats to take the island by force, they won't be able to simply operate TSMC as if they were new management. The organization itself will cease to exist, along with all the institutional knowledge necessary to duplicate their success, even assuming China was able to secure the fab lines without damage. Likewise all customer relationships become essentially void, and the finely tuned money machine that sustains TSMC's intense R&D ceases to exist as well.
The situation is much more complex than "forgot." Since the 80s KMT and several allied parties have favored eventual unification with the mainland. Try reading up on the Pan Blue Coalition, or just skimming the wiki page on Taiwanese political parties.
It gets tiresome how flippant hn is to throw out these narrative based explanations that are pure invention of armchair imagination, rather than like spending literally 5 minutes to understand the very basics of what people are attempting to comment on.
The value of the target is probably irrelevant. What matters is probability of success. Any Chinese will be decided by expected loses and gains. This is probably why IS continues to arm Taiwan as it is the biggest deterrent.
No Workaround AFAIK, the idea right now is not to stack compute die on top of each other but other things like SRAM or parts that uses little energy for both cost and space efficiency.
The goals here are kind of sideways from heat dissipation.
* Different parts from different processes — for example DRAM and CPU need different processes, so it doesn't work to put them on the same chip — this integration is a step closer than on-package.
* Yield — if you really want sixteen cores, and you're pushing the edge of your process, your yield for perfect eight-core chiplets will be dramatically better than for a sixteen-core chip or chiplet.
But yeah concentrating all that into multi-chip chip will also concentrate the heat.
It is like national security matter and relatively inexpensive when talking about nation's budget scale. Why countries don't make their own chips? Should this be in the realm of public companies just like healthcare or energy in some countries?
The US does recognize the strategic importance of semiconductor manufacturing and spends billions on it each year. Many devices for markets like aerospace and defense are only manufactured domestically. That said, the US has a defensive pact with Taiwan and to attack the island would be to start World War 3.
It's not really inexpensive in terms of a budget when you look at the nations that could benefit from the investment as a national security concern. Look outside the US nuclear umbrella and NATO to nations not friendly with the PRC - who among them is wealthy enough to start a chip industry that can compete?
I wish all this technology were more accesible. but they gotta protect their trade secrets (I guess...).
I've heard about something called 'dycryl process' (in chip photolitography) but it is not the kind of info that it's easily found, nor easily understood even if I could google for it.
>I wish all this technology were more accesible. but they gotta protect their trade secrets (I guess...).
open source their manufacturing process? everyone can get EUV machine and all the components to make chip. you figure out the better yield part or packaging like TSMC
Here is a good diagram (sans the silicon interposer): https://www.researchgate.net/figure/3D-stacked-DRAM-example-...
Btw, memory has been stacked like that for a decade or more. Used to be stacked + wirebonded. But now, we have through-silicon vias (TSVs). The reason you can stack memory like that are many, one of them being thermals / power density.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6KUnC-oU5g