註冊並分享邀請連結,可獲得影片播放與邀請獎勵。

駿HaYaO
@QQ_Timmy
居住在網路的麻雀
加入 December 2016
191 正在關注    32.2K 粉絲
〈對台積電可能應 NVIDIA 要求切入 3D DRAM 傳聞的看法〉 傳聞本身:「3D DRAM」指的是什麼不清楚 1)傳聞是台積電(TSMC, $TSM, NVIDIA( $NVDA)要求切入 3D DRAM。 財報狗指出,傳聞沒有說清楚「3D DRAM」是哪一種,他列出三種可能,逐一判斷可能性。 第一種可能:前段製程的 3D 結構,財報狗認為可能性較低 1)這指的是在前段晶圓製造時做出 3D 結構,提高單位晶片面積的儲存容量。 2)財報狗認為,若是這種,NVIDIA 的動機會是扶植另一家 DRAM 供應商來擴大晶圓供給,壓低目前的高價。 3)這和台積電依客戶需求代工的模式不太契合,所以他認為可能性較低。 第二種可能:類似 HBM 的封裝堆疊,財報狗同樣認為不太合理 1)傳聞說這個專案由台積電先進封裝技術開發副總帶領,所以 3D DRAM 也可能指封裝階段的垂直堆疊,就像 HBM。 2)NVIDIA 的 HBM 基礎晶粒(base die)已經改走客製化設計、由台積電製造,DRAM 晶粒和堆疊封裝目前仍由三大 DRAM 廠負責。 3)若要台積電接手這兩個步驟,等於要它直接和 DRAM 廠競爭、生產 HBM,動機同樣是擴大供給、壓低價格。這也和台積電的模式不太契合。 第三種可能:d-Matrix Raptor 那種客製化 3D DRAM,財報狗認為最合理 1)d-Matrix 今年在 Hot Chips 發表的推論晶片「Raptor」也用封裝階段的垂直堆疊,但做法和 HBM 不同。 2)現行 HBM 是客製化基礎晶粒,搭配標準設計的 DRAM 晶粒;Raptor 則是 DRAM 晶粒本身高度客製化,不再需要另一顆基礎晶粒當資料介面。 3)DRAM 設計和堆疊架構都高度客製化,本質上是接單生產。由晶片設計公司主導 DRAM 設計,台積電提供製造和堆疊服務。 4)這種情況下,台積電和 DRAM 廠的競爭比較間接,對 DRAM 廠也不一定是負面影響。財報狗認為,如果 NVIDIA 要台積電做的是這種客製化 3D DRAM,最符合台積電的商業模式,他個人認為可能性最高。 不論是哪一種,台積電的商業模式都和 DRAM 廠不同 1)財報狗預期,就算台積電真的進入這個市場,仍會依客戶訂單生產。 2)台積電不用承擔 DRAM 廠那種庫存去化風險,所以獲利波動預期會小很多。
顯示更多
A bit late to the party, but still want to share some of my thoughts on the rumor that TSMC may enter 3D DRAM at NVIDIA’s request: (1) What does “3D DRAM” mean here? The rumor leaves that unclear. If it means a 3D structure built during front-end fabrication to increase storage capacity per unit of die area, I would see NVIDIA’s motive as backing another DRAM supplier to expand wafer supply and push down today’s high prices. That seems a weaker fit for TSMC’s customer-specific foundry model, so I find this scenario less likely. (2) The rumor said the 3D DRAM project would be led by TSMC’s VP of advanced packaging technology development, which means that 3D DRAM could also mean vertical stacking during packaging, just like HBM. NVIDIA’s HBM base dies are already moving toward custom designs manufactured by TSMC. The three major DRAM makers still produce the DRAM dies and handle stacking and packaging. Asking TSMC to take over those two steps would basically mean asking it to manufacture HBM in direct competition with the DRAM makers. Again, I would see the motive as expanding supply to lower prices. This also seems a weaker fit for TSMC’s model, so to me the claim doesn’t work as well. (3) Another possibility is the kind of 3D DRAM in d-matrix’s “Raptor” inference chip, presented at this year’s Hot Chips. Like HBM, it uses vertical stacking during packaging. But while current HBM pairs a custom base die with DRAM dies that retain a standard design, Raptor’s DRAM dies themselves are highly customized, removing the need for a separate base die as the data interface. Both the DRAM design and stacking architecture are highly customized, making this inherently a made-to-order business. The chip designer leads the DRAM design, just like d-matrix does for Raptor, while TSMC provides fabrication and stacking services. Competition with DRAM makers would be more indirect, and the impact on them would not necessarily be negative. If NVIDIA is asking TSMC to manufacture this kind of custom 3D DRAM, that fits TSMC’s business model much better. Personally, I find this scenario more plausible. (4) Whatever “3D DRAM” means, TSMC’s business model is significantly different from that of DRAM makers. If TSMC do enter the market, I would still expect it to manufacture against customer orders. It would not bear the same inventory sell-through risk as DRAM makers, so I would expect much less dramatic profit swings.
顯示更多