Breaking down TSMC's glass core substrate slide On June 11, at JPCA Show 2026 in Japan, TSMC gave a roughly 40-slide presentation titled "Advanced Packaging Technology Essential to the Evolution of AI" (AIの進化に不可欠な先端パッケージング技術). One slide from the deck, titled "Glass Substrate Development for CoWoS," has since leaked online and widespread attention. Here's a closer read of that slide (see attached image). I'll skip the technical background that is already widely available. One thing to flag: the "COP" on the slide does not stand for Chip-on-Package. It means Coplanarity. ▌ Key conclusions: 1. TSMC has officially announced a partnership with Ibiden and Innolux to develop a glass core substrate. The structure is a three-layer design, a glass core sandwiched between two ABF build-up layers. This is the "oS" in CoPoS. 2. The market underestimates how important the glass core substrate is. It's a must-have capability for TSMC. In other words, within CoPoS the "oS" matters more than the "CoP", which is also why, when it was tested, it was paired with the existing CoW rather than with CoP. 3. The glass core substrate costs several times more per unit than existing ABF substrates. The glass processed by Innolux is very expensive per unit and is the single most critical material. Besides Nvidia, two US-based customers have also expressed strong interest. ▌ Industry checks tied to this slide: 1. The glass core substrate shown on the slide is cut from a full-size 250×250mm one. The ABF build-up layers mainly use Ajinomoto's GL107, mixed with ABF-GCP, and were tested at 24–28 layers, which is the mainstream ABF spec for AI chips in 2027–2028. 2. The CoW used in TSMC's experiment is a test vehicle. It is sufficient to validate the most challenging mechanical-structure issues that arise when working with composite materials. Good results mean TSMC, Ibiden, and Innolux have together broken through the critical technical bottleneck. 3. Ibiden currently handles cutting the 250×250mm glass core substrate. When the 510×515mm format is used for pre-mass-production simulation in 2H27, if Ibiden still wants to reduce production complexity to protect its ultra-high gross margins, it may hand the cutting over to Innolux, which is more familiar with the properties of glass. ▌ The leaked slide shows the validation results of pairing CoW with the "oS" in CoPoS, i.e., the glass core substrate (labeled "glass-SBT" on the slide). This addresses the "Substrate mechanical and electrical Dilemma" raised on the previous slide, and it strongly underscores how important the "oS" is within CoPoS. 1. Within CoPoS, what CoP solves is production efficiency / cutting economics, which ties to cost and price. What the oS solves is warpage and durability, which determines whether the chip can be made at all, and whether it can work. 2. CoP and oS complement each other well when integrated, but looking out over the next few years their technical roles still differ. CoP is a very-nice-to-have optimization, and going without it simply means a more expensive chip. But the oS is a must-have. Without it, even being able to make a usable chip is in doubt. 3. Comparing their roles isn't about elevating oS at the expense of CoP. It comes down to the practical question of which technical piece customers are willing to pay for. Details below. ▌ The real gold here is the power integrity (PI) improvement shown on the slide. This matters a great deal to customers, and it means that once glass core substrate production stabilizes, TSMC's profitability and competitive edge should rise in tandem. 1. How it works: the glass core substrate is thin → the vertical conduction path through TGV (through-glass vias) is short → conduction-path resistance (R) and loop inductance (L) both drop → PI improves. 2. Why it matters to customers: better PI → more stable power delivery → frees up power headroom → room to integrate more transistors, or to push clock speeds higher → more AI compute. 3. For customers, production efficiency is TSMC's basic responsibility, so they won't pay extra for it. But gains in AI compute translate directly into the customer's own competitiveness and profit, so customers are willing to pay for that. This is why Nvidia is so positive on the glass core substrate. 4. For TSMC, the glass core substrate raises yield and lowers cost while also boosting both the compute and the selling price of AI chips. It's both a cost-cutting tool and a pricing lever, a plus for profitability and competitiveness alike. 5. Substrate cost currently accounts for a low single-digit percentage of an AI chip's BOM, while losses from packaging yield run roughly 5–10× the substrate cost. So even if the glass core substrate ends up costing several times more than today's, its share of the BOM stays low, and it can cut the losses from packaging yield. The high unit price is therefore not expected to dampen customers' willingness to adopt it. ▌ In the Q&A after the presentation, an audience member asked about TGV details for the glass core substrate. TSMC declined to answer on the spot, because TGV is the key technology behind the glass core substrate, and the core know-how currently sits with TSMC and Innolux. By contrast, when another attendee asked about integrating IVR, eDTC, and LSI, TSMC answered at length. ▌ According to industry checks, if all goes well, TSMC is aiming to start mass production of the glass core substrate in 4Q28–1Q29, to match the cadence of Nvidia's AI chip iterations. As a side note: the Ibiden earnings presentation slide that many people have been circulating lists the glass core substrate timeline as CY30. My read is this: Ibiden, which has always been conservative and cautious in public, has now formally put the glass core substrate on its roadmap, which further confirms the long-term trend for this technology. That said, some other details on Ibiden's slide don't fully line up with what's known in the market. For example, its reticle timeline is off from TSMC's public claims by about a generation, and the Rubin Ultra substrate size is clearly larger than the 90×90 it marked for CY26–27. It's a reminder to always cross-check across multiple sources when forecasting the future.

企業、関係者向けカンファレンス G&G 24 を行いました！ 自社ビル、自社レーベル、 組織図 / 経営方針 / アーティストマネジメント方針 環境問題 / 音楽業界のビジネス構造 トレーニーの育成方針 / new ??? などなど。自分もCEOピッチは初でしたし、アーティストのパフォーマンスも。皆様にお楽しみいただけた…且つ、BMSGが見る未来が如何に"楽しそう"かお伝えできたのでは、と思っております。 プレゼン部分はYoutubeにも上がっているのでご覧ください！ 東京を拠点に、世界の音楽市場へ。【2024 BMSG CEO PRESENTATION】

<<Angel or Devil>>RG30冬新刊 予約注文 Overseas preorder ❥ トワ様まじてんし⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾ I could only say : Towa Sama Maji Tenshi⁽⁽ଘ( ˊᵕˋ )ଓ⁾⁾ Hope you like my presentation of Towa💜 😈 📸x2WilsonPhoto #TOWART#

#初音ミク# #ARTOFMIKU# 【ART OF MIKU｜Art Gallery】 Artist: 松山しげき / Shigeki Matsuyama Title: Portrait of dazzle MH-05 Size: H145.5 x 112 cm 2020年から制作している作品《 Portrait of dazzle 》の初音ミクコラボレーションVer.です。作品《 Portrait of dazzle 》シリーズは、SNSなどインターネット上にアップロードされているセルフィーから「目」だけを正確にトレースし、肖像の輪郭はモデルにした実際の人物の人種や性別、髪型、体型などを全く別の人間に描き変えることで、インターネットの匿名性や情報の不確かさを表現した「現代人の肖像画」です。コラボレーションのお話を頂き、物理的には存在しない初音ミクというバーチャルシンガーの、「演出や文脈により流動的に構築される人格像」に、私の作品との親和性を感じ、初音ミクコラボレーションVer.として《 Portrait of dazzle 》を描きました。 This is a Hatsune Miku collaboration version of the work "Portrait of dazzle," a series I have been creating since 2020. The "Portrait of dazzle" series serves as a "portrait of contemporary people" that reflects the anonymity of the internet and the uncertainty of information; while the eyes are precisely traced from selfies uploaded online, the subject's facial contours—including race, gender, hairstyle, and physique—are redrawn to depict a completely different person. When approached for this collaboration, I felt a strong affinity between my work and the persona of Hatsune Miku—a virtual singer who does not physically exist but whose identity is fluidly constructed through various presentations and contexts—and thus created this Hatsune Miku collaboration version of "Portrait of dazzle." 【Other works】 他作品はオフィシャルサイトよりご覧いただけます。 Please visit the official website to see the other works.

🎮 「AIエージェントは、実際のゲームエンジンで“遊べるゲーム”を最後まで作れるのか？」——この問いに正面から答えるベンチマークが登場しました。結果は、最強でも成功率41%という厳しいものでした。 タイトル: GameCraft-Bench: Can Agents Build Playable Games End-to-End in a Real Game Engine? URL: 🎮 概要 GameCraft-Benchは、自然言語の仕様から実エンジン（Godot 4）上で完成・起動・プレイ可能なゲームをエンドツーエンドで作れるかを評価するベンチマークです。15ジャンル・計140タスクで構成されています。 ❓ 解決する課題 これまでのコーディング評価は「コードが正しいか」が中心でした。 ・ゲームの良し悪しは、実際に動かしたときの挙動で決まる ・既存ベンチマークは実エンジン上の「遊べる成果物」を評価できていなかった 💡 方法論と提案手法 3つの評価原則を立てています。 ・Engine Grounding：実エンジンGodot 4上で開発（ヘッドレス実行で再現可能な自動テスト） ・Artifact Completeness：起動可能で自己完結したプロジェクトを提出。起動できなければ0点（Build Gate） ・Interactive Verification：エージェントが入力トレース（マウス/キー操作列）を提出し、検証器がGodotで再生して動画化、GPT-5.5がルーブリックで採点 採点はCore Mechanics・Content Depth・Functional Visuals・Art & Presentationの4観点で重み付けします。 🎯 ユースケース コーディングエージェントを「コードの正しさ」ではなく「遊べる成果物を作り切れるか」で測れます。自動でプレイ検証まで回るため、ゲーム生成やUI生成エージェントの実力評価に使えます。 📊 実験結果 ・最高はClaude Opus-4.7で41.46%、GPT-5.5が39.49%、多くは40%未満 ・Core Mechanicsは比較的強い（上位で約55%）が、Art & Presentationが最も弱い（約36%） ・スクリーンショットで確認を重ねるエージェントほど好成績。一方でツール使用量と最終スコアの相関はほぼゼロ（r=+0.016）で、build→replay→evaluateのループを閉じることが鍵でした #AIエージェント# #ゲーム生成#