TSMC Builds a Dedicated 28nm Fab for Sony Orders
image-sensors-world.blogspot.com
image-sensors-world.blogspot.com
It is like a map without a legend. It is so confusing.
And I am an expert on electronics, I can guess it, most people will read that as nonsense.
Given the context, its not always required to reiterate acronyms.
Even among specialists acronyms may cause confusion.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/6828/was-the-ex...
CMOS is widely known. And in the context of Image Sensor, as long as you write CMOS everyone should understand. But CIS isn't, not to mention it keep repeating itself like this sentence below
"In the face of Samsung's close pursuit, Sony decided to expand its partnership with TSMC, hoping to win 60% of the global Market Share of CIS Image Sensors by 2025."
What exactly is CIS Image Sensors? CMOS Image Sensor Image Sensor?
Just call it CMOS Image Sensor. Not everything has to be an acronyms.
It's what you use to take a picture of the LCD display in an ATM Machine. An ATM machine runs on AC current and you need to enter your PIN number, which it will verify over its LAN network connection.
HN gathers all kinds of people from the technology world. We can't all be expected to know all of of the acronyms from all of the various sectors.
The parent comment received 15 upvotes in a few hours, so I'm guessing most people on here don't know what "CIS" means in this context.
As always, tailor your message to the likely reader.
People are more likely to have opinions on writing style than imaging chip economics and manufacturing.
By posting on HN to complain about writing style, that comment took the discussion off topic and provided plenty of room for people to bikeshed.
It's time [to] explain the meaning of "Hurd". "Hurd" stands for "Hird of Unix-Replacing Daemons". And, then, "Hird" stands for "Hurd of Interfaces Representing Depth". We have here, to my knowledge, the first software to be named by a pair of mutually recursive acronyms. — Thomas (then Michael) Bushnell
The Nikon D850's image sensor was designed by Nikon but Sony made it.
They have a 'firewall' in place between the custom-contracted fab work they did for Nikon vs the team that designs Sony sensors, so that the Nikon IP stays only with Nikon.
See https://m.dpreview.com/news/1234108119/nikon-d850-sensor-con...
Only Canon at this point has stuck with their own image sensor IP and designs, as I understand it.
Not sure where Ricoh/Pentax gets their sensors from, it's believed some are Samsung and some are Sony.
TLDW, Forza Silicon. ( https://www.forzasilicon.com/) now owned by https://www.ametek.com/
May not be true for all of Red's sensors. Other hardware is made by https://www.sanmina.com/
And certainly this new production facility will support whatever Apple is doing with the glasses thing.
Rear illuminated sensors were getting more, and more "smart" over they years.
They are getting lower.. thats what the article is about?
You did.. read the article right?
> You did.. read the article right?
Please don't be snarky like this. Asking whether someone read the article is specifically against HN guidelines. [1]
--
I don’t think there’s a fundamental reason for that, it’s just a feature of the processes that exist. As you get smaller, the savings from miniaturizing components are outweighed by the need for more complicated equipment.
I would think opex per transistor is always much lower on smaller processes. Even with higher opex of smaller nodes, the geometry heavily favors smaller nodes.
In addition, it's just going to be harder to get fab time on more cutting edge nodes. Your going to be competing for fab time against bigger competitors with more at stake, and that's going to cost you as well.
Finally, it's only true that the long-run opex per working transistor is lower on smaller processes. Many processes are actually more expensive on a "per working chip" basis at introduction than their predecessors. It's only as process is worked on and improved that the per chip cost (ignoring opex) actually beats the preceding node.
Usually a fab will start shipping product on a process once it's "good enough" - the yields and costs (and therefore profit per unit) is sufficient to make sense (even if it's not necessarily cheaper than the old process).
Yes, but if there is a design that uses a fixed amount of transistors, then the chip size will be smaller on smaller nodes. So even if there are more defects per transistor on a new/small node, it is possible that the yield per cost (even with more expensive wafers) might be higher.
I have no idea where exactly the state of the art stands (certainly Intel was/is having trouble getting their 10nm to squeeze out any type of economically viable product).
I don't know. The parts of the chip that are shuffling the data off the sensor obviously benefit from having the latest process node (minimizing rolling shutter is a huge deal), and reducing heat is also a big benefit (see Canon's R5 overheating problems), but maybe the design is gated by the photosite size?
Or memory and CIS will merge, and each photosite gets its own AD and a 4 byte memory location. By having CIS sensors directly on the DRAM or PCIe bus means they could feed a DL with higher bandwidth and lower latency. Even at 20Mpix, 4 byte pixels as 120 fps, that is just under 10GB/s, it might DMA it directly into the gpu. So the other place to put a sensor is in RDMA hardware, or if it is on the PCIe bus, it could talk directly to Infiniband nics.
Imagining have a CIS device that is also a PCIe device. It could many device classes (network, memory, storage, display). It could DMA directly to a nic, or memory controller. In the os you could trap a read to a specific inode, interpose the call and return an image. No drivers necessary.
Or a NN that runs on the chip and detects objects, infers a depth map, colorizes, smooths, augments, up res, object removal, with enough compute, you could run all the kernels or a subset on every frame.
28nm might be ok for vanilla MIPI interface CIS, but it would make a lot of sense for future innovative CIS sensors to use the smallest node they can.
The physical size of the sensor is locked because it is tied to entire families of camera, lens, etc sizes that are very difficult to change. So that is the given constraint, and the other parameters flow from it.
It's not that they really want this size/node. It just is the optimization of what they are allowed to work within.
Sony used to make their own CIS and only used TSMC for CMOS logic chips. But starting this year, Sony switched the production of their CIS chip from their foundary to TSMC (40nm.) The 28nm move is a continuation of their collaboration. Both sides are taking this very serious, with TSMC asking the surrounding factories to move out as quickly as they can.
As for why, the article claims that advances in 5G will lead to more IoT and self-driving cars. These devices will need more CIS to sense their surrounding. Due to this trend the CIS market has grown ~17% year over year. Samsung, Sony's biggest CIS competition and 2nd in market share, is also targeting this particular market. Samsung is rapidly converting some of the DRAM foundaries in Taiwan to CIS production.
Is TSMC just going to start rolling up every mom and pop fab? Are they the Sinclair of Silicon?