11 ms·

I wonder when the rapid erosion of Intel's technical lead in fabrication technology be represented in decreasing evaluation of its market cap. It was rumored T

I wonder when the rapid erosion of Intel's technical lead in fabrication technology be represented in decreasing evaluation of its market cap. It was rumored TSMC's 7nm wouldn't be the same as Intel's 10nm. But if they reach ~5nm then they'll likely be knocking on Intel's 10nm door. Combined with the double whammy of 7nm Eypc servers from AMD it seems like Intel's technical offerings are rapidly getting commoditized by the rest of the market.

biktor_gj 8y ago
I always wondered why... I mean I understand the processes will be different for each vendor, but shouldn't 1nm the same for all vendors? They might use different technologies to achieve it but it should be a measuring unit... What is the actual difference between Intel and everybody else as to count 10 Intel nm < 7 TSMC nms? Maybe it's easy to find out in google but cant find the correct combination of keywords...
- gameswithgo 8y ago
  short answer is there are many parts with sizes in different dimensions x/y/z so what dimension do you measure or average to come up with a final "nm" rating for your cpu?
- severine 8y ago
  https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7nm-what-we-know-now.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17854700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17854700
garkin 8y ago
There realy should be some kind of ISO about node naming. I guarantee this "5nm" would be as much missleading as their "7nm". Only thing that matters is wafer price, yield, transistor count and TDP.
- valarauca1 8y ago
  So the node scaling was standardized (before ~28nm). It very literally meant MOSfet density (as 28 nm was 1 MOSfet + gap for the next MOSfet). The IEEE had a road map about what to expect out of X sized components, and when those components would be out base on historical data. But when we hit 20/18/16/14nm that went out the window and it became a marketing term, not so much a literal description. A lot of this was driven by moving to FINfet's which are really MOSfets, as they have lower leakage at smaller sizes, but they also aren't square which makes generalizing a singular node to density a bit wonky.
- DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
  > Only thing that matters is waffer price, yield, transistor count and TDP. Wouldn't 5 nm allow shorter wire traces, which would reduce another limiting factor in computational speed?
  - valarauca1 8y ago
    Not really. The fundamental limit of clock speed is power draw. As clocks increase the wattage ~ frequency relation goes from frequency = Constant * Power Draw It starts becoming frequency = Power Draw * Power Draw As you start getting >3GHz so while we can make processors that run >5GHz. There just aren't applications that benefit a lot from it.
    - Armisael16 8y ago
      I think you have that backwards, unless you mean to say the the power draw is proportionate to the square root of frequency at higher clocks.
    - ip26 8y ago
      Well, you can fight the power monster with dark silicon. Packing things in more tightly lets you spend less time in transit, which might let you squeeze more gates into a cycle, or do the same things a little faster.
- 6nf 8y ago
ChuckMcM 8y ago
At some level this situation was inevitable, as more and more companies offload their fab capability to TSMC, that gives more and more money for TSMC to invest in boosting their capability, and of course while their margins are a lot less than Intel's with enough money that advantage goes away as well. Intel's instruction set architecture dominance will keep it going for a long time but ultimately it would probably make sense for Intel to spin off its fabs into the US equivalent of TSMC and capture more margin revenue from their designs versus their process.
- deepnotderp 8y ago
  TSMC's gross margin is something like 50% iirc so it's not even that bad
  - ChuckMcM 8y ago
    50.9% on 32B$ for TSMC[1] vs 62.3% on 62.7B$ for Intel[2] That is closer than I expected it to be. In terms of actual cash (if you are wondering) Intel ended last year with $22B more of it than TSMC did. [1] http://www.tsmc.com/download/ir/annualReports/2017/english/pdf/e_all.pdf http://www.tsmc.com/download/ir/annualReports/2017/english/p... [2] https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/annual/Intel_Annual_Report_Final_corrected.pdf https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/an...
    - ksec 8y ago
      Would it not be better to compare Net Income? TSMC ~ $11B Intel ~ $9.5B TSMC has become more profitable than Intel since 2016.
      - ChuckMcM 8y ago
        [Disclaimer I own a small amount of Intel in my IRA account] If you have ever been in an investment club (basically friends who get together and exchange ideas on what stocks to invest in) you have probably had the 'revenue/income' discussion. Amazon is the poster child for 'net income doesn't matter' as it has reinvested most of its margin in itself over the years to grow. So it can go either way. TSMC does pay a dividend which Intel doesn't so from a financial trading/investing point of view you could argue that TSMC is a better stock to hold long as it will generate income. From the 'future of the business' point of view re-investing more would seem to be the wiser strategy. Time will tell.

biktor_gj 8y ago

I always wondered why... I mean I understand the processes will be different for each vendor, but shouldn't 1nm the same for all vendors? They might use different technologies to achieve it but it should be a measuring unit... What is the actual difference between Intel and everybody else as to count 10 Intel nm < 7 TSMC nms? Maybe it's easy to find out in google but cant find the correct combination of keywords...

gameswithgo 8y ago
short answer is there are many parts with sizes in different dimensions x/y/z so what dimension do you measure or average to come up with a final "nm" rating for your cpu?
severine 8y ago
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7nm-what-we-know-now.html https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17854700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17854700

garkin 8y ago

There realy should be some kind of ISO about node naming. I guarantee this "5nm" would be as much missleading as their "7nm". Only thing that matters is wafer price, yield, transistor count and TDP.

valarauca1 8y ago
So the node scaling was standardized (before ~28nm). It very literally meant MOSfet density (as 28 nm was 1 MOSfet + gap for the next MOSfet). The IEEE had a road map about what to expect out of X sized components, and when those components would be out base on historical data. But when we hit 20/18/16/14nm that went out the window and it became a marketing term, not so much a literal description. A lot of this was driven by moving to FINfet's which are really MOSfets, as they have lower leakage at smaller sizes, but they also aren't square which makes generalizing a singular node to density a bit wonky.
DoofusOfDeath 8y ago
> Only thing that matters is waffer price, yield, transistor count and TDP. Wouldn't 5 nm allow shorter wire traces, which would reduce another limiting factor in computational speed?
- valarauca1 8y ago
  Not really. The fundamental limit of clock speed is power draw. As clocks increase the wattage ~ frequency relation goes from frequency = Constant * Power Draw It starts becoming frequency = Power Draw * Power Draw As you start getting >3GHz so while we can make processors that run >5GHz. There just aren't applications that benefit a lot from it.
  - Armisael16 8y ago
    I think you have that backwards, unless you mean to say the the power draw is proportionate to the square root of frequency at higher clocks.
  - ip26 8y ago
    Well, you can fight the power monster with dark silicon. Packing things in more tightly lets you spend less time in transit, which might let you squeeze more gates into a cycle, or do the same things a little faster.
6nf 8y ago

ChuckMcM 8y ago

At some level this situation was inevitable, as more and more companies offload their fab capability to TSMC, that gives more and more money for TSMC to invest in boosting their capability, and of course while their margins are a lot less than Intel's with enough money that advantage goes away as well. Intel's instruction set architecture dominance will keep it going for a long time but ultimately it would probably make sense for Intel to spin off its fabs into the US equivalent of TSMC and capture more margin revenue from their designs versus their process.

deepnotderp 8y ago
TSMC's gross margin is something like 50% iirc so it's not even that bad
- ChuckMcM 8y ago
  50.9% on 32B$ for TSMC[1] vs 62.3% on 62.7B$ for Intel[2] That is closer than I expected it to be. In terms of actual cash (if you are wondering) Intel ended last year with $22B more of it than TSMC did. [1] http://www.tsmc.com/download/ir/annualReports/2017/english/pdf/e_all.pdf http://www.tsmc.com/download/ir/annualReports/2017/english/p... [2] https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/annual/Intel_Annual_Report_Final_corrected.pdf https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/an...
  - ksec 8y ago
    Would it not be better to compare Net Income? TSMC ~ $11B Intel ~ $9.5B TSMC has become more profitable than Intel since 2016.
    - ChuckMcM 8y ago
      [Disclaimer I own a small amount of Intel in my IRA account] If you have ever been in an investment club (basically friends who get together and exchange ideas on what stocks to invest in) you have probably had the 'revenue/income' discussion. Amazon is the poster child for 'net income doesn't matter' as it has reinvested most of its margin in itself over the years to grow. So it can go either way. TSMC does pay a dividend which Intel doesn't so from a financial trading/investing point of view you could argue that TSMC is a better stock to hold long as it will generate income. From the 'future of the business' point of view re-investing more would seem to be the wiser strategy. Time will tell.