Quote Originally Posted by Heinz68 View Post
Any links about that, I can't Google any but there are plenty reports about TSMC 32nm cancellation. Personally I believe TSMC cancelled the node because of so much problem with 40nm and GLobalFoundries announcing to work on 28nm.

The bottom line is, if GLobalFoundries got successful 28nm process against the TSMC 32nm than TSMC could have even loose the Nvidia business. They sure could not afford that.

Just in case no one gave you any links, Charlie sums it up rather nicely in this article:

http://www.semiaccurate.com/2010/12/...thern-islands/

It actually backs up everything SKYTML said, just in more detail. And I really don't care about any bias toward the author, he actually admits he was wrong a lot in this article and he f*d up. But explains why.

"That explains Cayman, but why weren't Cozumel and Kauai shrunk too? Why does NNI/NI-40 have four members while NI-32 only have three? That one comes down to pricing. Even before the 32nm knifing, AMD ran the numbers, and realized that for a mid-range chip, the VLIW4 architecture, while completely doable on 32nm, would not be as cost effective as one made from selectively borrowing from NI-32, and backporting to 40. Cost per area equivalent bit TSMC, and cost them a lot of wafer starts.

Long before TSMC surprised the world about 32nm, or lack thereof, Cozumel and Kauai were killed and replaced by Barts, Turks and Caicos. In a nice bit of synergy, when 32nm was killed and the decision to backport Ibiza was made, a lot of the key pieces of the chip were already ported, or well into the process of being ported to 40nm. Give and ye shall receive."
Its actually an interesting read...