7 ms·

I had always wondered why intel hadn't been actively fabbing chips for other customers - it's not like they destroy a fab completely when a new process comes on

I had always wondered why intel hadn't been actively fabbing chips for other customers - it's not like they destroy a fab completely when a new process comes on line (if you live in the Portland area, you can see the rapid and constant build outs of fab space), why not sell that process to others? there does happen to be a global chip shortage after all. nice to see someone addressing that. I welcome technical leadership back to intel.

MangoCoffee 6y ago
>why intel hadn't been actively fabbing chips for other customers Intel foundry have to be a pure play in order to win customers trust. Apple move away from Samsung and now a core customer of TSMC, trust is an issue.
- meepmorp 6y ago
  Is that for IntelFoundaries giving newer process node capacity preferentially to Intel, or corporate IP theft reasons? Or something else I hadn't considered.
  - ksec 6y ago
    >or corporate IP theft reasons This. It is the reason why Apple dont Fab their SoC with Samsung Foundry.
    - jerrysievert 6y ago
      not all things that need to be fabbed are cpu/gpu components though, there are plenty of other things that need fab space.
      - ksec 6y ago
        That was in the context of parents point of Apple / Samsung or Intel / Nvidia and AMD. If you have no direct competition with them then of course you can Fab with Samsung.
    - Marsymars 6y ago
      Has something changed since Apple fabbed the A9 with Samsung?
      - macintux 6y ago
        Did they? I see reports at the time claiming that would be the case, but more recent sources indicate it never happened, that TSMC has been Apple's sole supplier since 2015.
        rubatuga 6y ago
        No, there were two chips in the iPhones and one had significantly worse battery life
      - ksec 6y ago
        That was around the time when Apple has started to look at their SoC as a competitive advantage. Before then TSMC wasn't even a name Mainstream Media would report or use. But moving foundry takes a very long time and planning. You are talking about ~150M unit of leading edge node( excluding Intel ). TSMC also had to bet and build a new Fab just for Apple. And the rest is history. Samsung talked about Firewall between Samsung Electronics and Foundry, but knowing the Korean culture and Samsung, that wouldn't be much of a good idea. I would even bet Foxconn CEO Terry Gou had a few word of advance to his friend Tim Cook.
paulpan 6y ago
I think it was largely due to their historically bleeding edge fabrication tech/node and market share. Until the recent resurgence of AMD and rise of ARM, Intel was able to sell out their inventory and keep their fabs at 100% capacity. But given the combination of losing the node advantage to TSMC and performance advantage to AMD & ARM, I'm guessing Intel has accumulated inventory and this poses a business risk. Opening up their fabs in the future is a way to mitigate this risk; essentially becoming both a chip seller and external manufacturer. The other reason is probably textbook monopolistic behavior: vertical integration means if you want top tier chips, there was no other option but Intel. Often overlooked is how closely correlated fabrication node is to chip performance, e.g. if Apple's M1 is fabbed at TSMC 7nm instead of 5nm, the performance wouldn't be so widely lauded.
Nokinside 6y ago
There is huge demand for for 14nm, 22 nm and 45nm processes. When fab is 4-5 years old, they start to manufacture other products. Different CPU's, chipsets, SoCs, microcontrollers, NICs, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chipsets, vechicle SoC's for Intel and Intel customers.
- gumby 6y ago
  Lower margin parts. A good business, but when you have a high margin high volume product, Wall Street considers anything else is to be subtractive from earnings. This is the microeconomic equivalent of the "dutch disease"

MangoCoffee 6y ago

>why intel hadn't been actively fabbing chips for other customers Intel foundry have to be a pure play in order to win customers trust. Apple move away from Samsung and now a core customer of TSMC, trust is an issue.

meepmorp 6y ago
Is that for IntelFoundaries giving newer process node capacity preferentially to Intel, or corporate IP theft reasons? Or something else I hadn't considered.
- ksec 6y ago
  >or corporate IP theft reasons This. It is the reason why Apple dont Fab their SoC with Samsung Foundry.
  - jerrysievert 6y ago
    not all things that need to be fabbed are cpu/gpu components though, there are plenty of other things that need fab space.
    - ksec 6y ago
      That was in the context of parents point of Apple / Samsung or Intel / Nvidia and AMD. If you have no direct competition with them then of course you can Fab with Samsung.
  - Marsymars 6y ago
    Has something changed since Apple fabbed the A9 with Samsung?
    - macintux 6y ago
      Did they? I see reports at the time claiming that would be the case, but more recent sources indicate it never happened, that TSMC has been Apple's sole supplier since 2015.
      - rubatuga 6y ago
        No, there were two chips in the iPhones and one had significantly worse battery life
    - ksec 6y ago
      That was around the time when Apple has started to look at their SoC as a competitive advantage. Before then TSMC wasn't even a name Mainstream Media would report or use. But moving foundry takes a very long time and planning. You are talking about ~150M unit of leading edge node( excluding Intel ). TSMC also had to bet and build a new Fab just for Apple. And the rest is history. Samsung talked about Firewall between Samsung Electronics and Foundry, but knowing the Korean culture and Samsung, that wouldn't be much of a good idea. I would even bet Foxconn CEO Terry Gou had a few word of advance to his friend Tim Cook.

paulpan 6y ago

I think it was largely due to their historically bleeding edge fabrication tech/node and market share. Until the recent resurgence of AMD and rise of ARM, Intel was able to sell out their inventory and keep their fabs at 100% capacity. But given the combination of losing the node advantage to TSMC and performance advantage to AMD & ARM, I'm guessing Intel has accumulated inventory and this poses a business risk. Opening up their fabs in the future is a way to mitigate this risk; essentially becoming both a chip seller and external manufacturer. The other reason is probably textbook monopolistic behavior: vertical integration means if you want top tier chips, there was no other option but Intel. Often overlooked is how closely correlated fabrication node is to chip performance, e.g. if Apple's M1 is fabbed at TSMC 7nm instead of 5nm, the performance wouldn't be so widely lauded.

Nokinside 6y ago

There is huge demand for for 14nm, 22 nm and 45nm processes. When fab is 4-5 years old, they start to manufacture other products. Different CPU's, chipsets, SoCs, microcontrollers, NICs, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chipsets, vechicle SoC's for Intel and Intel customers.

gumby 6y ago
Lower margin parts. A good business, but when you have a high margin high volume product, Wall Street considers anything else is to be subtractive from earnings. This is the microeconomic equivalent of the "dutch disease"