Yeah chips on a shelf for too long will get soggy..
Anyway, I actually think the first product that will launch with this 3nm chip will be the headset.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Supplier TSMC Starts Mass Production on 3nm Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anyway, I actually think the first product that will launch with this 3nm chip will be the headset.
Great news!! Looking forward to all the new Apple products with the new 3nm chip.
Imagine jumping from
- 2012 iMac 27" 22nm chip using 229W that was bought on Valentines 2013
to
- 2023 iMac 27" replacement 3nm chip using more than 80W to be sold by Valentines 2023
- 2012 iMac 27" 22nm chip using 229W that was bought on Valentines 2013
to
- 2023 iMac 27" replacement 3nm chip using more than 80W to be sold by Valentines 2023
Theorithically 0.5 nm that is the highest diameter of atom (0.1 -0.5 nm)
I think it's pretty clear at this point that Apple focuses primarily on producing a product that makes people happy, and that's always going to result in profit. The cynicism isn't as insightful as you seem to think.
January/February 2023:
- All N3B
- M2 24" iMac
- M2 Mac mini
- M2 Pro Mac mini
- All N3E
- M2 Pro 14"/16" MacBook Pro
- M2 Max 14"/16" MacBook Pro
- All N3E
- M2 Max Mac Studio
- M2 Ultra Mac Studio
- M2 Ultra Mac Pro
New iPhones are still 9 months off, these new 3nm chips are for a new product that require efficiency.
my money is on:
1) apple VR glasses
2) m2 pro chip lines, to more differentiate between MacBook Air and more powerful alternatives.
Then in September we get the new a17 3nm chips for IPhones.
my money is on:
1) apple VR glasses
2) m2 pro chip lines, to more differentiate between MacBook Air and more powerful alternatives.
Then in September we get the new a17 3nm chips for IPhones
.
Holy crap, I completely forgot that the iMac and Mac mini are still running M1 chips.
Get your act together Apple!
It is a good rule of thumb to be successful, but Apple definitely deliberately introduces ways to push consumers to a more expensive product segment. Not allowing M1/M2 chips to have multimonitor support, removing iPhone mini from future iPhone line up. As a iPhone mini owner and an owner of 2 monitors both at work and at home this is frustrating. I could do with m2 MacBook but get pushed to m2 pro which is almost 2x as expensive.
There are plans for future chip designs to go smaller than 1 nm. There is research in other materials for semiconductors for higher efficiency, smaller atoms etc. (no silicon). The other way to improve chip performance is to go vertical, stacked 3D chips. With possible cooling channels within.
Also it's important to note that the 2nm nodes is not true 2 nm features.
e.g. for 5nm: "5 nm node is expected to have a contacted gate pitch of 51 nanometers and a tightest metal pitch of 30 nanometers"
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Are Apple people happy that Apple discontinued the very popular and relatively best(?) overall value iMac 27” and pushed Mac Studio “starting at $1999 + Studio monitor (about $2K more) as THE iMac replacement?
Are Apple people happy that the “starting at” price of the Studio Monitor alone is about where many recall the “starting at” price of the same monitor with a whole Mac inside + keyboard and mouse?
Both rhetorical: there’s plenty of posts in countless threads clearly illustrating UNhappiness among the most passionate of fans at both.
But yes, Apple continues to drive that “result in (record) profit” part anyway… so at least Apple is very happy with all such decisions.
Myself: I went the Mac Studio route as basically only choice on the death of my last iMac 27”. What I actually wanted was the strongly rumored Mac Mini MAX at the time so I wasn’t thrilled to pay so much more for a fat mini.
Studio is a great & powerful Mac “starting at” more than a traditionally great Mac that also shipped with a great monitor, new keyboard and mouse. Personally, I still would have been ‘happiest’ with the rumored new Mac Mini plus the third party monitor I chose. Why? Because that would have probably delivered more value for the money spent on a brand new Mac. Instead, I feel I delivered more profit for the money spent to Apple.
I respect the opinion but I stand by my own: IMO, profit rules all now… more than ever before. I think the philosophy you describe was of the Jobsian era. We simply want to believe that it is still that way. I miss that Apple myself… where corporate profit seemed almost a byproduct of "insanely great products" with “just works” OS software. To me, now it’s “But I still prefer…” products with “wait for the .3 or .4 version of the new OS” and still have buggy issues that will hopefully get resolved in as little as “one (more) software update away.”
Last edited:
My wife and I each acquired the fully speced 2019 16" MacBook Pro at the end of December 2019. She has the 4TB SSD and I have the 8TB SSD.
Apple Care + for 3 years was set to expire at the end of 2022, but we can and will buy the annual extensions. She does not chase the upgrade monkey as she still uses her 17" MacBook Pro. We need to keep these Intel models to run vintage software and devices.
To see for myself the merits of the M1 chip, I bought the 2020 M1 MacBook Air 16GB/1TB SSD. I was impressed with the improved performance.
I then added a 14" M1 Max with 32 Core GPU, 64GB of memory and a 4TB SDSD.
My 2013 Mac Pro with two 27" Tunderbolt VESA mount monitors was replaced this year with a Mac Studio M1 Ultra with 64 core GPU, 120GB of memory and 8TB SSD with two new VESA mount Studio Displays.
All three M1 chips have the same single core speed so boot times are nearly identical. There is a world of difference working on photos as the processors improved by adding more cores.
The M1 MBAir will fall to the wayside to a family member and not be replaced. The 14" MBPro will continue as is until at least a third generation. The Mac Studio will probably be my last major device at my age of 77.
We have for the last five years or so done the trickle down policy with iPhones. I get the new one, my wife gets the one just replaced and her unit goes to a family member.
One needs to contemplate the ever decreasing purchase power of the dollar and the effects of inflation. Then a $200 price increase makes sense for the top iPhone with the latest whiz bang features.
Apple Care + for 3 years was set to expire at the end of 2022, but we can and will buy the annual extensions. She does not chase the upgrade monkey as she still uses her 17" MacBook Pro. We need to keep these Intel models to run vintage software and devices.
To see for myself the merits of the M1 chip, I bought the 2020 M1 MacBook Air 16GB/1TB SSD. I was impressed with the improved performance.
I then added a 14" M1 Max with 32 Core GPU, 64GB of memory and a 4TB SDSD.
My 2013 Mac Pro with two 27" Tunderbolt VESA mount monitors was replaced this year with a Mac Studio M1 Ultra with 64 core GPU, 120GB of memory and 8TB SSD with two new VESA mount Studio Displays.
All three M1 chips have the same single core speed so boot times are nearly identical. There is a world of difference working on photos as the processors improved by adding more cores.
The M1 MBAir will fall to the wayside to a family member and not be replaced. The 14" MBPro will continue as is until at least a third generation. The Mac Studio will probably be my last major device at my age of 77.
We have for the last five years or so done the trickle down policy with iPhones. I get the new one, my wife gets the one just replaced and her unit goes to a family member.
One needs to contemplate the ever decreasing purchase power of the dollar and the effects of inflation. Then a $200 price increase makes sense for the top iPhone with the latest whiz bang features.
Something I was reading elsewhere - TSMC announced (not in a headline way cause its not a good thing) - the 3nm process is their first big die shrink (~25% - 40%) depending on how you measure things where they could not increase the density of SRAM (cache ram) on chip - cache is a super fast memory pool(s) in the CPU / SOC. This isn't a total stoppage of Moore's law for this generation, but it is a stoppage for a really big / important part of the CPU / SOC.
The cache RAM has been marching along getting larger in capacity with the rest of the CPU / SOC's all these years as it keeps the CPU / SOC fed with information (so as everything gets bigger in capacity you want your cache capacity to get bigger as well). There some ways around this (chiplets being one thing, AMD has gone to these with their CPU's for last generation or two), but it'll all be more expensive and probably not on deck for this generation of Apple iPhone SOC. I was hoping for a big boost with this much of a die shrink, but it's likely to be a smaller one or more focused on efficiency as a result.
The cache RAM has been marching along getting larger in capacity with the rest of the CPU / SOC's all these years as it keeps the CPU / SOC fed with information (so as everything gets bigger in capacity you want your cache capacity to get bigger as well). There some ways around this (chiplets being one thing, AMD has gone to these with their CPU's for last generation or two), but it'll all be more expensive and probably not on deck for this generation of Apple iPhone SOC. I was hoping for a big boost with this much of a die shrink, but it's likely to be a smaller one or more focused on efficiency as a result.
(c) N3B gives, among other improvements, a density boost of 1.7x and a power reduction of ~25%
N3E gives, among other improvements, a density boost of 1.6x but a power reduction of ~34%
(d) It APPEARS to be the case that N3B began volume production in late September:
TSMC Confirms Plans to Start 3nm Production Shortly
TSMC’s 3nm era set to begin in the coming weekswww.tomshardware.com
(e) It APPEARS that this ceremony refers to N3E, but it's honestly impossible to tell whether N3B was delayed three months, or N3E is being rushed into production ASAP. My GUESS is that it's the latter, N3B was on schedule in September, but N3B is yesterday's news, an experiment that pushed things too far and that is being abandoned by TSMC as soon as contractual obligations to Apple (and anyone else?) are done.Since N3E will be the only option going forward, that's the one they want to get all the media oxygen.
Doubtful this the N3E. Just several months ago TMSC 'pulled forward' N3E to Q2/Q3 2023 from Q3/Q4 2023 as when HVM would kick off. A quarter ahead of schedule on a variant that is a scaling back on complexity is creditable. To a couple months later to hand wave and say pulling forward yet another quarter would be a stretch.
Decent chance that TSMC is just talking about the same N3 (N3B) as they were in September. September was win a full set of 'blank' wafers went in and this is just when there is a full production pipeline of when finished wafers are coming out the other end. It is "start" of where HVM N3 will start getting paid for. Which is what Wall St. actually really care about ("when is N3 going to start to contribute to revenues").
Also aligns with guidance outlined by TSMC a quarter call (or so) ago were they said there would be N3 wafer revenue at end of Q4 '22 (i.e., now) , but it wouldn't make substantive difference in overall revenue. And that the revenue flow would start in Q1. (customer(s) taking receipt of finished N3 wafers. ) For TSMC to finish substantial numbers of N3 wafers in mid-late Q1 they would have needed to start filling the production pipeline around September/October and all the production pipeline kinks worked out by now.
What is dubious about Thursdays exact date for N3 (or N3E) is that it also was covered in the press release that it was the 'topping off' for Phase 8 at the 'Gigafactory' site were N3 is being made. ( the 8th fab building finished at that site). The likelihood that a physical construction phase would just happen to finished on the exact same date as fab processs went HVM is probably up there with Nottingham Forest finishing on top of the Premiere League this season ( or NY Jets winning Super Bowl 2023). This specific date is more likely about that factory topping off and the fab status stuff is being 'sprinkled' around the ceremony for PR and symbology reasons. It probably isn't about announcing yet another status change for N3E.
Initial N3 being whispered to be "bad" is good reason why they'd need to bump up the PR about it shipping in volume.
Tomshardware had a write up about the N3 ceremony yesterday
TSMC Kicks Off 3nm Production: A Long Node to Power Leading Chips
TSMC's 3nm production is behind Samsung, but ahead of Intel.
But they also have an article today saying that Nvidia, AMD, Intel, and others are chopping orders.
AMD, Intel, and Nvidia Reportedly Slash Orders with TSMC
Large customers revise orders to TSMC due to the economy slowdown.
" ... , the utilization rate of TSMC's N7-capable lines (7nm, 6nm-class technologies) will decline to around 50% in early 2023. Furthermore, even TSMC's N5/N4-capable lines will be underutilized, though this may not come as a surprise since these are used to make leading-edge products, ..."
The days of 100% capacity and large backlogs of orders is basically over. So when the N3 wafers are going to start contributing to the revenues is an even more urgent issue for TSMC at this point.
Except a healthy chunk of N3 was started before Covid-19 even infected anyone.
July 2019.
"... As it appears, the manufacturing technology is out of its pathfinding mode and TSMC has already started engaging with early customers. ..
...
... TSMC said that it had evaluated all possible transistor structure options for 3nm and came out with ‘a very good solution’ for its clients. ..."
AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
www.anandtech.com
August 2020 [ while after Covid-19 the N5 family extension of N4 highly likely was not scheduled in 2019 to arrive at the same time , or before , N3 . ]
" ... We’ll be seeing N4 risk production start in 4Q21 for volume production later in 2022.
...
...N3 is planned to enter risk production in 2021 and enter volume production in 2H22 ... " . " ...
AnandTech Forums: Technology, Hardware, Software, and Deals
Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
www.anandtech.com
Even early on N3 was never a Q1-Q2 22 target. (and therefore not a good iPhone SoC target). Is TSMC landing at the end of the range estimate they gave ( 2H22)? Yes.
N3's FinFlex was always something that a number of design shops were going to eschew because it was going to be more complexity than they needed .
TSMC FINFLEX™ – Ultimate Performance, Power Efficiency, Density and Flexibility - Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Limited
Many product designs are a series of compromises. Take for example, electric vehicles, wouldn’t it be great to have a 1000-mile or 1600-kilometer range in an EV? But consider what compromises would need to be made to achieve this goal. The battery would be massive and heavy, leading to an...
There probably always was going to be a 'simpler track' N3 that cost less to design with because not everyone needs to pack 'everything and the kitchen sink' onto a single, expensive monolithic die.
In principle, yes.
In practice, I'm not sure they will bother respinning the M2 from N5P to N3B. Why? Just not worth it; use the existing M2 for the low-end versions, wait for the (much improved) Pro/Max/Ultra for the higher end.
My model is that the Pro/Max/Ultra will be
- definitely on N3B
- probably based on the CPU and GPU that were supposed to be in the A16 (so we will get not just the process benefits on N3B but also two years of pending IPC benefits)
N3E will be used by Apple for A17 but not earlier than that.
I guess all this based on a combination of risk management and sunk costs. The "should-have-been A16/M2 Pro+Max+Ultra" track was on N3B and is known to work on that. The benefits to switching to N3E are a mixed (slightly larger chip, slightly lower power) - just not worth the costs of new masks and possible unexpected behavior.
A17 however was likely design-finalize around when N3E became the replacement for N3B, so it's reasonable to move that to N3E.
To my mind the most interesting question is the following:
- does do a renaming (all the new chips are M3's) in which case I think there will be a M3 low-end that goes into the "wall-power" low-end macs (iMac and mini) rather than the M2
- or do they avoid such a renaming, in which case I think the "wall-power" low-end macs (iMac and mini) will use current M2, and will have a substantial gap compared to the "M2" (but A16-based) Pro and Max.
Which maybe is fine, maybe Apple is happy to open up such a gap and even maintain it, so that in future essentially
+ iPhone Pro and M# Pro/Max have the currentest bestest CPU and GPU
+ iPhone non-Pro and M# non-Pro/Max have last year's CPU and GPU?
Maybe that sort of product segmentation is actually a pretty good idea in terms of maximizing revenue while minimizing whining about "the Pro devices are not Pro enough; the cheap devices are not cheap enough"?
That SRAM is not shrinking is unsurprising and was expected years ago.
There is a solution (BSPD) which is understood in theory and being tooled out as we speak. It's schedule to be implemented as a second phase to N2, but I expect TSMC will bring it forward as part of the standard N2 if they can get it ready in time.
Intel will run into exactly the same issue except that their densities are so pathetically behind TSMC that they haven't hit this particular issue *yet*. But they are also working on the solution, Intel trademark PowerVia.
Now imagine an iPhone 14 Pro Max is the 3 month salary of a Foxconn worker and how fortunate you already are.
I think you way over estimate the actual wages paid at Foxconn in China to their assembly line workers