Monday, May 29th 2023

TSMC N3 Nodes Show SRAM Scaling is Hitting the Wall

When TSMC introduced its N3 lineup of nodes, the company only talked about the logic scaling of the two new semiconductor manufacturing steps. However, it turns out that there was a reason for it, as WikiChip confirms that the SRAM bit cells of N3 nodes are almost identical to the SRAM bit cells of N5 nodes. At TSMC 2023 Technology Symposium, TSMC presented additional details about its N3 node lineup, including logic and SRAM density. For starters, the N3 node is TSMC's "3 nm" node family that has two products: a Base N3 node (N3B) and an Enhanced N3 node (N3E). The base N3B uses a new (for TSMC) self-aligned contact (SAC) scheme that Intel introduced back in 2011 with a 22 nm node, which improves the node's yield.

Regardless of N3's logic density improvements compared to the "last-generation" N5, the SRAM density is almost identical. Initially, TSMC claimed N3B SRAM density was 1.2x over the N5 process. However, recent information shows that the actual SRAM density is merely a 5% difference. With SRAM taking a large portion of the transistor and area budget of a processor, N3B's soaring manufacturing costs are harder to justify when there is almost no area improvement. For some time, SRAM scaling wasn't following logic scaling; however, the two have now completely decoupled.
Source: WikiChip
Add your own comment

31 Comments on TSMC N3 Nodes Show SRAM Scaling is Hitting the Wall

#26
user556
SRAM dimensions won't be a special case component. Publishing SRAM density is an indicative metric of all surface structures on the die. Scaling has been losing ground on node numbers for years.

Yes, optical resolution is a huge hurdle that has been tweaked to the extreme. FinFET was introduced to exchange horizontal space for vertical. GAA takes that another step.
WirkoWhat do you mean, nothing? 1 MB of L2 is about one third the size of a slice of L3 (= 4 MB next to each core).
Also, L1 in particular, will be multi-ported. These can easily need 10x the real-estate per cell.
Posted on Reply
#27
TheinsanegamerN
Chrispy_This is why AMD pushed cache+memory for Navi 31 to older process node chiplets - because the cache and memory controller scaling with new process nodes has been up against diminishing returns for several years. The fact that TSMC are admitting almost non-existent cache scaling isn't news, it's been godawful for the last half-dozen node shrinks.

IMO the first-gen GPU chiplet design barely justified the effort, but it ought to improve with subsequent generations.
*looks at 529mm2 7900xtx*

*looks at 379m2 geforce 4080*

Yeah I think its a little early to call the chiplet GPU "justified".
Posted on Reply
#28
thegnome
TheinsanegamerN*looks at 529mm2 7900xtx*

*looks at 379m2 geforce 4080*

Yeah I think its a little early to call the chiplet GPU "justified".
Yeah, justified as a first gen product. The problem isn't too much the tech itself most likely, just that AMD's gpu designs aren't as good as Nvidia's. They've always been behind in efficiency and performance while using similar nodes. Zen's chiplet approach also took years before it got actually quite good.
Posted on Reply
#29
Wirko
TheinsanegamerN*looks at 529mm2 7900xtx*

*looks at 379m2 geforce 4080*

Yeah I think its a little early to call the chiplet GPU "justified".
Agreed but don't judge by the millimeters, and of those 529, only 304 are of the more expensive kind. Besides, AMD probably can get 6 nm silicon in less restricted quantities than 5 nm silicon.
Posted on Reply
#30
AnotherReader
thegnomeYeah, justified as a first gen product. The problem isn't too much the tech itself most likely, just that AMD's gpu designs aren't as good as Nvidia's. They've always been behind in efficiency and performance while using similar nodes. Zen's chiplet approach also took years before it got actually quite good.
You're right about the tech not being at fault for RDNA3's lackluster showing. Funnily enough, there was a time when AMD led in both performance per watt and performance per square mm. Maxwell was the start of Nvidia's dominance; since then, AMD hasn't been able to come close.
Posted on Reply
#31
THU31
TristanXthere is no problem with small size of caches, but problem with unoptimized software.
For well optimized software, few megabytes of cache is sufficient
But then how will Jensen cut the memory controllers for the 50 series if he can't increase the cache size? He might still have to put a 128-bit bus on a $500 card. He might lose some sleep over that.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 17th, 2024 02:10 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts