Yeah. Is there something different in the equipment required to build these chips? I mean, I would presume in that you're trying to build them small, that you want to use the smallest, I'm not sure what it's called, but nanometer gates or whatever.
And what size are you at? And are you looking, I would presume you are looking at the new founders being built and is your architecture something that could be produced at any foundry or is it a particularly, particular kind of foundry that you would need?
Great set of questions. I think one of the key things we decided to do early on was we recognized that our software-centric approach gave us a lot of opportunity to get better performance and power. We decided to scale back in what you referred to as process technology.
And so we created our Gen 1 silicon product at 16 nanometer, 1.6. And this is at least 10 to 12 year old technology. So we did not want to take very advanced process technologies and take a lot of risk.
There's also a cost equation and a development equation. And as you get more aggressive or more newer nodes, the cost, the mask set to reproduce the chip, but also the development cost both really go up quite a bit. So Gen 1, we said, hey, we're getting amazing performance and power compared to anybody else.
And in real applications, we're 10x of the very best companies. So we said, let's stay back in process technology in Gen 1. We did 16 nanometer.
And in Gen 2, which we have now gone public, we have announced that we'll be at 6 nanometer. So we'll be getting a 2x improvement over what we have done in Gen 1 on a performance per watt, right, which is a huge leap. Typically in our business, you get 10-15% improvement, Gen 1 to Gen 2.
For us to get a 100% leap is pretty phenomenal. And we now feel like we have the right opportunity to do it, and our customers will usually derive the benefits of it. And to answer your question, we are tracking very closely where we get our chips manufactured, and we have the luxury of getting them manufactured now in the US as well.
And at the appropriate time, we'll take full advantage of every opportunity that we have. And within TSMC, I think we definitely have the choice of being manufactured any place. And just one thing is, and I think we are, our business doesn't work in that you build a design and you could go to anybody.
And so, yes, at a design implementation level, I think you have that opportunity. But I think once you get into the chip development, you fundamentally locked into one entity. That's typically how our companies work, and we are too small to play with too many players.
And our volumes are too low to really play the game. And if you redo it, it's uneconomical or economically not viable. And so I think we really want to work with the best in class, and TSMC is as good as it gets.
And they have done a phenomenal job, and they truly understand that this is a services business. And even today, I'm very impressed that as a startup, we get the same attention, if not perhaps more than a public company. And so all of those really are huge positives.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2024-09-05 21:48 (UTC)And what size are you at? And are you looking, I would presume you are looking at the new founders being built and is your architecture something that could be produced at any foundry or is it a particularly, particular kind of foundry that you would need?
Great set of questions. I think one of the key things we decided to do early on was we recognized that our software-centric approach gave us a lot of opportunity to get better performance and power. We decided to scale back in what you referred to as process technology.
And so we created our Gen 1 silicon product at 16 nanometer, 1.6. And this is at least 10 to 12 year old technology. So we did not want to take very advanced process technologies and take a lot of risk.
There's also a cost equation and a development equation. And as you get more aggressive or more newer nodes, the cost, the mask set to reproduce the chip, but also the development cost both really go up quite a bit. So Gen 1, we said, hey, we're getting amazing performance and power compared to anybody else.
And in real applications, we're 10x of the very best companies. So we said, let's stay back in process technology in Gen 1. We did 16 nanometer.
And in Gen 2, which we have now gone public, we have announced that we'll be at 6 nanometer. So we'll be getting a 2x improvement over what we have done in Gen 1 on a performance per watt, right, which is a huge leap. Typically in our business, you get 10-15% improvement, Gen 1 to Gen 2.
For us to get a 100% leap is pretty phenomenal. And we now feel like we have the right opportunity to do it, and our customers will usually derive the benefits of it. And to answer your question, we are tracking very closely where we get our chips manufactured, and we have the luxury of getting them manufactured now in the US as well.
And at the appropriate time, we'll take full advantage of every opportunity that we have. And within TSMC, I think we definitely have the choice of being manufactured any place. And just one thing is, and I think we are, our business doesn't work in that you build a design and you could go to anybody.
And so, yes, at a design implementation level, I think you have that opportunity. But I think once you get into the chip development, you fundamentally locked into one entity. That's typically how our companies work, and we are too small to play with too many players.
And our volumes are too low to really play the game. And if you redo it, it's uneconomical or economically not viable. And so I think we really want to work with the best in class, and TSMC is as good as it gets.
And they have done a phenomenal job, and they truly understand that this is a services business. And even today, I'm very impressed that as a startup, we get the same attention, if not perhaps more than a public company. And so all of those really are huge positives.