8 ms·
Fabrication is where Intel is falling down. They have fresh new chip designs that would be perfectly adequate, but they are still hobbled by 14nm. They have n
by hapless 6y ago
Fabrication is where Intel is falling down.
They have fresh new chip designs that would be perfectly adequate, but they are still hobbled by 14nm. They have now released three? four? iterations of x86 design on the same 14 nm process, because 10nm is that troubled
If you spun off the fabrication, as AMD did, you would have a much smaller, but more-competitive fabless business, and the fabricator would implode. (Which is pretty much what happened to Global Foundries, AMD's former fabrication house)
In any case, much of the value for shareholders would be eradicated. Intel has historically done very well as a vertically integrated business. They would like to remain vertically integrated.
We may see Intel resort to outside fabrication -- executives have already mentioned it in the business press -- but I very much doubt we will see them discard their internal fabrication capabilities.
- systemvoltage 6y agoI am afraid, they're going to be using US gov as their wheelchair to survive a few more decades: https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-wins-us-government-advanced-packaging-project/ https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-wins-us-government-adv...
- raziel2701 6y agoSo it's gonna be another too big to fail thing again.
- Spivak 6y agoLess too big to fail, more a national security interest in ensuring the US can make chips during a hypothetical conflict. Great if you’re the company the gov’t blesses for this purpose (like Microsoft) but not so great for their competitors.
- emodendroket 6y agoI'd probably be nervous about TSMC opening a fab in AZ then
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- octoberfranklin 6y agoThat fab will never open. Just like Foxconn's plant in Wisconsin. It'll just keep getting pushed back, and pushed back. Its job is to keep the politicians happy (or at least not angry), and it doesn't need to be built in order to serve that purpose. That fab will never, ever, ever run a single wafer.
- johncalvinyoung 6y agoI suspect it very much will exist, but only once it's a node or two behind. It'll never be bleeding edge.
- emodendroket 6y agoI think in this case it's a little different because of the milsec angle and Taiwan's geopolitical role in "great power conflict" with China.
- dodobirdlord 6y agoIn this case it’s a legitimate national security subsidy. Even if it’s perpetually a few nodes behind, the US military needs a high-tech fab company headquartered in America, staffed mostly with Americans, that does at least some of its manufacturing in the geographic United States.
- vslira 6y agoThe Boeing of semiconductors
- PostOnce 6y agoWar must always be considered, if you want to keep existing as a nation. People have been repeating "Si vis pacem, para bellum" for thousands of years for a reason. Semiconductors and aerospace are important to war efforts, and having domestic manufacturing capability is a big deal if you have serious, wealthy, technically advanced adversaries. Reality is complicated and many-faceted, and there are a number of reasons to keep Intel alive as far as the govt goes: war, staving off brain-drain, keeping a lot of jobs, etc.
- vagrantJin 6y agoYour praise of war comes off quite naive. Perhaps you figure "war" or violence as viable solutions despite being a much more connected world where diplomacy and fairness can be judges more democratically. Such talk of war is neccesary is an utterance of someone born on the right side of the fence and quite clearly no clue as what they are talking about.
- macintux 6y agoAsk Ukraine about the practicality of disregarding defense as a necessary evil. It’s hardly naive to assume that, since there has always been conflict, that conflict will continue for the foreseeable future.
- deeviant 6y agoTake this from an extremely liberal and war-abhorring person: If your argument is that a country should not take steps to secure it's supply chains in the event of a war because <morals or something>, then you are the naive one.
- vagrantJin 6y agoThat's why diplomacy works for the vast majority of countries. War is expensive and the costs are always more than anyone ,regardless of how sophisticated they believe themselves, could possibly imagine. Take that from someone who lost a large chunk of his family currently in an African - shithole as the US president aptly put it- country. I'm on HN because this is the most peaceful time in recent memory. Do me the favour, at the very least, to put a handle on your dillusions grandeur. In our connected world diplomacy should be the only way to resolve national conflicts.
- hajile 6y agoThat shouldn't be surprising. The Military Industrial Complex is a huge beast. Almost all the big tech companies started before 1970 or so were funded by DoD research money. The only reason silicon valley is where it is lies in DoD radar research constraints. Computer tech started as stuff like solid state transistors to improve radio efficiency and size. Since the MIC is a good ol' boys club with the tax dollars to pick winners and losers, of course they'll help their friends first "for the good of the country". I'd also like to note my displeasure that my tax dollars pay must of the research bill, but the various companies walk away with the patents, copyrights, and profits. There's no reason for someone else to get rich off my investment. Want to solve the national debt? Require royalties for government investment.
- spronkey 6y agoOne of the questions I have is just how much of their relatively recently-gained process optimisation knowledge of e.g. 14+++ will be transferrable to future node shrinks, and, will this give them an IP edge over TSMC if they can get back on track with node shrinking?