[HN Gopher] Wafer Shortage Improvement in Sight for 300mm, but N...
___________________________________________________________________
Wafer Shortage Improvement in Sight for 300mm, but Not 200mm
Author : PaulHoule
Score : 62 points
Date : 2022-05-19 15:57 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (semiengineering.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (semiengineering.com)
| hristov wrote:
| One thing that should be mentioned is that a lot of 200 mm
| production is moving to 300 mm. On Semi are probably the poster
| child for this with their new 300 mm fab in Fishkill, new york
| (acquired from global foundries) intended to take over production
| from a lot of small 200 mm fabs. There is also texas instruments
| that is building several new 300 mm fabs where they will build
| products that were previously made on 200 mm.
|
| However, moving from 200 mm to 300 mm requires a total redesign
| and for some chips the redesign is not worth it. There are other
| differences between 200 and 300 mm than just the size of the
| wafer.
|
| Regardless, the industry is trying to move everything they can to
| 300 mm, and hopefully will thus leave some space for the
| remaining 200 mm devices to grow.
| PeterisP wrote:
| > moving from 200 mm to 300 mm requires a total redesign and
| for some chips the redesign is not worth it. There are other
| differences between 200 and 300 mm than just the size of the
| wafer.
|
| That is very interesting, I would not have thought so and I'd
| like to know more, can you elaborate?
|
| Naively I would have expected that you would "just" make new
| 'master masks' (or whatever they're properly called) which have
| more copies of the exact same design - i.e. something that
| takes some money to fabricate the new tooling but not any
| significant design choices.
| j_walter wrote:
| The entire 300mm process is different on a microscopic level.
| For instance generally 200mm fabs don't need to use copper at
| all because the benefit of that is the dual-damascene process
| which isn't seen on the bigger tech nodes. Wafer stresses on
| 300mm wafers is dealt with a lot differently too so that is
| factored into the manufacturing processes as well.
|
| The major transition from 200mm -> 300mm will be when people
| like Broadcom use newer nodes for their chips as they go from
| iPhone 13->14->15->16...and eventually that will require
| 300mm processing.
| picture wrote:
| They likely have changed the process to better optimize for
| the bigger size. This might mean the layout of individual
| transistor structures may have to be different due to
| chemistry (different chemical processes may be used to
| accommodate the requirement of even distribution over larger
| area), or things like different number or order of various
| doping and metalization layers, etc. Most designs are packed
| to maximize efficiency, so even if a small part of the chip
| needs to be modified, it can require cascading redesign.
| saurik wrote:
| What will be interesting to me is whether Tesla starts putting
| radar back in their cars--which they dropped last year for a
| camera-only approach that has become somewhat infamous for
| "phantom breaking"--after this all resolves.
| ajross wrote:
| "Somewhat infamous" just means that a bunch of people got it
| into press hits. In practice they tuned this out a few months
| back. There are still circumstances where the car will slow for
| obstacles that I don't see as the driver, but frankly at this
| point is close to 50/50 as to who is right. The car reacts to
| stuff I miss at least as often as it tries to slow down for
| shadows.
| saurik wrote:
| I mean, I went on a test drive of a Model Y and it happened
| to me _before I knew about this issue_ (so it isn 't like I
| was looking for it! it was just extremely noticeable and was
| one of my bigger complaints coming out of the test drive);
| and, last night, I was in a conversation with someone who
| owns a Tesla--someone who didn't even know about the radar
| being removed, much less that "phantom braking" was a thing
| people talked about a lot; and, critically, someone whom I
| had not talked to about the issue--and he was complaining
| about all the false positive collision warnings that would
| cause the car to jerk to a halt constantly (which made my
| subsequent explanation of the radar issue fun ;P)... you make
| it sound like this is some kind of solved problem, but it
| really isn't. (I'm glad you are happy with your car, FWIW.)
| picture wrote:
| Do you mean LIDAR? I thought they are using combination of
| radar and camera, instead of only camera.
| valine wrote:
| They removed the radar last year on the Model 3 and Y.
| saurik wrote:
| And as of mid-February it has also been removed from the S
| and X.
| picture wrote:
| Ah.
| valine wrote:
| Unlikely, their most recent software update increased the max
| speed back up to 85mph. They've got feature parity between the
| stacks now, no reason for them to spend money on radar.
| londons_explore wrote:
| Users complain about the false positives (ie. Phantom
| braking). But users don't complain about the false negatives
| (ie. Not braking when it should) because they usually die,
| especially at the higher speeds.
|
| When there is such one-sided pressure on a team, I imagine
| there is a huge pressure to make the system pass the
| regulatory tests but basically nothing more. Sure, lots of
| people will die, but at least you don't have managers and
| shareholders yelling about phantom braking right?
| daniel-cussen wrote:
| Yes. You know I think Tesla is striking the balance
| correctly between phantom breaking and crashes with
| fatalities. I think there was one recent one with 3 deaths,
| and now it appears phantom braking is a thing, meaning many
| people experience it and know about it. You know what at
| some point it's not just the machine adapting to the
| person, the person must also adapt to the machine. What did
| you lose with the phantom breaking? I've seen people
| phantom brake in a biological human capacity, it's not that
| unusual. Like when you think you see a speed bump, or don't
| not sure.
|
| False alarms are cheap. Failed alarms? Not so cheap.
| dangrossman wrote:
| I see you're getting downvoted for this, but NHTSA just
| released some data yesterday showing that out of 42 crashes
| involving cars operating under ADAS systems, 37 of those
| crashes were Teslas. 14 people have died in Tesla vehicles
| with Autopilot enabled, while only 1 person has died in an
| ADAS related crash in any other make of vehicle.
|
| https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FTH1w3SXoAEVS7K?format=jpg&name
| =...
| theferalrobot wrote:
| Anecdotally teslas account for 100% of the ADAS vehicles
| I've seen on the road so that seems like they are
| comparatively better
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Of course whether or not this is bad depends on the
| percentage of ADAS systems out there from each
| manufacturer. If Tesla simply has more cars on the road
| with ADAS systems, the figure would not be surprising.
| That probably isn't the case, but without this
| information the crash figure is hard to evaluate. It may
| be that they have the most advanced ADAS system, causing
| drivers to behave differently with it.
| samus wrote:
| Allowing excessive casualties from autonomous driving is a
| surefire way to kill the whole field. Increased safety is
| one of the main selling points of autonomous driving.
| dmpk2k wrote:
| I realise this is a nitpick, but:
|
| > consumers are not willing to buy cars without radar, or washing
| machines without advanced sensors
|
| What?
|
| Am I that out of touch?
| est31 wrote:
| The EU safety directive requires many safety features for new
| cars:
| https://www.bmvi.de/SharedDocs/EN/Articles/StV/Roadtraffic/n...
|
| Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature remains
| optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them mandatory
| saves lives. But it also means that if you want your car to be
| sold in the EU, you must integrate these features, which means
| you need more chips.
| nybble41 wrote:
| > Which is a good idea because if such a safety feature
| remains optional, many people won't opt for it. Making them
| mandatory saves lives.
|
| On the other hand, making them mandatory makes cars more
| expensive, which means (especially during a shortage) that
| some can't afford them at all while the rest are forced to do
| without other things to compensate; either way it reduces
| their qualify of life. But of course the government knows
| better than those actually affected by these laws where the
| ideal balance lies between safety and QoL.
| Beldin wrote:
| On the other other hand, you can easily use the same
| reasoning in favor of mandating safety features:
|
| Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive
| extras, more expensive than if required on all cars. That
| means second hand cars with these features will be
| significantly more expensive than those without. Which
| means that some can never afford these features, while
| others have to do without other things to compensate.
| Either way, quality of life is reduced - and more than in
| your scenario, because the features do not benefit from
| economy of scale as much when they're optional.
| nybble41 wrote:
| > Not making them mandatory means they remain expensive
| extras, more expensive than if required on all cars.
|
| If they were _rare_ they might be more expensive, but
| otherwise it 's the same system and will cost about the
| same amount to incorporate into a vehicle. Making it
| mandatory doesn't make it any cheaper. (Usually the
| opposite, in fact. From the POV of those manufacturing
| the safety systems, there's nothing quite like having the
| government mandate that people buy your product.)
|
| Economy of scale is not guaranteed, or even really all
| that common once you get past early research and
| development or one-off custom products and into the realm
| of mass production. In general commodities become _more_
| expensive in response to higher demand, not less. If
| these systems are something most people actually want and
| consider worthwhile then they 'll already have the
| benefit of any economy of scale which may apply _without_
| the mandate.
| cjmb wrote:
| "...requires many safety features for new cars:"
|
| > "Making them mandatory saves lives."
|
| Alternatively: making them mandatory raises the price of new
| cars and pushes more consumers to buy used older cars, which
| are generally less safe for a variety of reasons & often
| worse for the environment.
|
| Economics is always about tradeoffs. Not saying this one _isn
| 't_ worth it, but you're not getting a free lunch here.
|
| source: have not bought a new car despite being in the market
| for one since 2020 because prices make it a bad decision.
| Have added an additional 20k miles to existing car.
| est31 wrote:
| I think a lot of potential car buyers are waiting for the
| price crisis to end. My comment was made in a more general
| sense.
|
| Note that the price of the non-optional features is lower
| than if it were an optional feature thanks to economics of
| scale. So making them mandatory reduces the costs of the
| features.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| That isn't how economics works. You can't cite a
| government mandated outcome and declare that the
| intermediary processes are cheaper because the government
| ordered more production of something. An "economy of
| scale" is something that happens in some circumstances
| where it is possible to increase production without
| incurring non-linear pressure on prices. Not a law of
| production or economics.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most of the things we are discussing here are places
| where good manufacturing principals can bring the prices
| down, but it is only worth putting that investment in if
| demand goes up by a lot. As such government mandated
| outcomes often to come to pass just because the mandate
| ensures there is enough future demand as to make the
| investment worth it.
|
| Of course the car makers are strongly involved. Things
| where there is no potential to reduce price don't get
| mandated unless they are already cheap.
| bluGill wrote:
| Only in the short term. In the long term cars only last so
| long. Plastic starts to wear out from sunlight exposure
| (ozone?) in about 10 years. Spare parts go out off
| production so when something breaks it is live without.
| Some things just aren't worth fixing. Sure it is possible
| to fix anything, but the labor is too high in general.
| Collectors sometimes pay $100,000 to restore an old care to
| brand new, realistically if the assembly line still existed
| the car would be about $8,000 (of course it wouldn't meet
| modern standards)
|
| The current new car problems mean some people will be
| keeping old cars running a bit longer than normal, but all
| those cars are headed for scrap eventually. Eventually
| everyone will be jumping to newer cars.
| wnevets wrote:
| > Am I that out of touch?
|
| We probably are out of touch. There is a reason so much
| marketing is about listing all of the features a product has,
| it works.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| "People can be made to want" != "people want". We may be more
| in touch with peoples' real desires, but out of touch with
| what marketing wants to sell us.
| [deleted]
| pvg wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik
| edhelas wrote:
| Nope same for me.
|
| I want "dumb" devices that just do what their main goals are.
|
| I have a "dumb" fridge, a "dumb" washing machine and even a
| "dumb" TV that is basically a big screen with some HDMI
| connectors.
|
| Is is ok if in 2022 we don't actually want those smart devices
| ?
| tintor wrote:
| I believe instead of word "dumb" you mean "aligned with
| customer": doesn't steal their data, doesn't extract more
| money from them, doesn't deny them service, doesn't prevent
| repair
| xxpor wrote:
| A dumb washing machine where dumb == not connected to wifi: I
| think most would agree.
|
| A dumb washing machine that doesn't sense the amount of
| clothes to pick the right amount of water: What is it, 1972
| still?
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Exactly. Even in a "dumb" TV there are dozens of ics, lots
| of complexity that we don't see. Removing the smart TV part
| removes the equivalent of a roku stick worth of components.
| It doesn't change the calculus, it's a red hering. Ok, so
| you remove 4 ics out of 100, still in the same boat.
| zorlack wrote:
| If I'm shopping for a new car I expect it to have lane-keeping
| and adaptive-cruise-control and a host of other safety features
| which require sensors.
|
| That said, I'd still drive an old beater. It's just that when I
| shell out for a new thing, it's because I want the new
| features.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| When I shell out for the new thing, it's because my current
| one died. If I wanted the new features, I wouldn't be driving
| a 16-year-old car.
|
| I want airbags, anti-lock brakes, adaptive suspension,
| intermittent wipers, and a back-up camera. I don't need the
| rest. I even fear some of the rest. (Remote hackability is
| _not_ a feature!)
|
| Same but even more for a washing machine. I don't need
| advanced sensors. I don't need my washing machine to hang out
| on the internet. It's not a celebrity with its own blog, it's
| just there to wash my clothes.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| GM has been making hackable cars since 1996
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OnStar
|
| I always wanted to make a spoof of the GM ads that promoted
| OnStar for "safety". That is, a white collar criminal is
| heading for the hydrofoil with suitcases crammed with cash
| and the FBI calls up OnStar to track the vehicle and turn
| off the ignition.
| moistly wrote:
| A more likely scenario: you're heading out to attend a
| million man protest. The government disagrees and
| disables your car.
|
| https://hothardware.com/news/bidens-infrastructure-bill-
| mand...
| missedthecue wrote:
| This is hacker news. Yes, you're all out of touch.
| [deleted]
| paxys wrote:
| No, you just need to translate it in marketing terms.
|
| You don't want a car with radar, but do want one with blind
| spot detection, cross traffic alerts, back up camera, traction
| control, ABS, collision prevention.
|
| You don't want a washing machine with advanced sensors, but do
| want one with auto shut off, door locks, automatic tumble,
| balancing.
| [deleted]
| mort96 wrote:
| An unusual example of where translating technical language
| into marketing speak clarifies the situation. Thank you.
| msmenardi wrote:
| Clarifying technical specifics for general audiences is the
| ethical form of marketing.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| I thought I never would, but I've gotten used to those safety
| features in cars and won't ever go back for my daily driver.
| I'm sure many are the same.
| wtallis wrote:
| I also really don't want to be sharing a road (or parking
| lot) with cars that lack most of those features.
| nawgz wrote:
| They are very useful. Augmented situational awareness is
| clearly valuable in a high-risk relatively-low-tolerance
| environment like driving at highway speeds
| PaulHoule wrote:
| When my son heard that "luxury cars are being shipped without
| touchscreen infotainment systems" he thought "Great!"
|
| That is, a touchscreen infotainment system in a car inevitably
| sucks, and takes away a bit of the "luxury" that a "luxury car"
| has.
|
| At 19 years old he definitely is into retrotechnology,
| particularly when it comes to cars. He wants a boat car from
| the 1970s so he can get away from all the junk in modern cars.
| flak48 wrote:
| Is a boat car an amphibious car?
| gwbas1c wrote:
| This is a tongue in cheek example of a boat car:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w44qGwA1t58
|
| Real-world examples:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Mark_series
| Kerrick wrote:
| No, it's a colloquialism that refers to sedans as large as
| a boat. Of course boats come in all sizes, but it's usually
| referring to something the size of, say, a present-day
| Chrysler 300 or larger. A truly full-size four-door sedan.
|
| Also known as Land Yacht when they are also a luxury sedan:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_yacht_(automobile)
| bigbillheck wrote:
| > He wants a boat car from the 1970s so he can get away from
| all the junk in modern cars
|
| Hope he enjoys getting single-digit miles per gallon, and
| you'll have to decide how you feel about him driving around
| in a car without modern junk like "airbags".
| foobarian wrote:
| > Hope he enjoys getting single-digit miles per gallon
|
| But where will he find the leaded gasoline to run it???
| humanwhosits wrote:
| the airport
| bigbillheck wrote:
| You can just use unleaded gas, you might have to replace
| valves and such but it'll work.
| bluGill wrote:
| Most cars ran just fine on unleaded. Unless you actually
| raced them, or otherwise worked the engine hard the rest
| of the car would die before the lack of lead killed the
| engine.
|
| Note that I live in an area where we salt the roads in
| winter. If you live in a dry desert old cars last a lot
| longer, and you might actually need to worry about your
| valves.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| The unleaded transition started in the early 1970s you
| can find plenty of boats that take unleaded gas.
|
| Of all the problems cars of that generation have the one
| that bugs me the most is poor rustproofing. You see
| people driving classic cars all the time in dry places
| like California and New Mexico but in Upstate NY road
| salt will eat a car like that alive if you drive it in
| the winter.
|
| So if we got a boat we'd need a garage to keep it in and
| another car to be a driver in the winter.
| sidewndr46 wrote:
| You can't really rustproof against salt, at least for
| metals. It's an abrasive and it accelerates the chemical
| reactions on the surface of the metal.
| hinkley wrote:
| The instant gratification part of my brain is constantly at war
| with the environmentalist part of my brain and that passion
| play happens at least weekly due to my HE washing machine,
| which takes fucking forever to finish a load, especially now
| that yardwork has become a priority hobby (pre-soak + heavy
| soil).
|
| I don't know if the solution is fewer sensors or more sensors,
| but the way it fills the bowl feels like watching an episode of
| Monk. And not the ones where his OCD is cute, the ones where it
| ends up costing him dearly.
| wrycoder wrote:
| Speaking for out of touch, I used to process 50 mm wafers.
|
| 200 mm is frisbee size.
| foobarian wrote:
| Radar was not a great example. Backup cameras would have been
| better - even if they were not mandatory they are the best
| thing since sliced bread.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-19 23:01 UTC)