15 ms·
Intel to build Qualcomm chips, aims to catch foundry rivals by 2025
- nightowl_games 5y agoThey'll do it too. They'll catch up, because it's in the US Government's interest for them to catch up. Buy Intel Stock.
- arcanus 5y agoDo you believe the US government is willing to commit the resources necessary for Intel to catch up? Intel's R+D spending (13 billion U.S. dollars) is already larger than the entire annual NSF budget (10 billion).
- lettergram 5y agoI believe the US military would easily be willing to plow $10B. Now, does that mean intel will actually be effective? I have my doubts, baring some sort of shotgun approach where multiple experimental fabs are done simultaneously.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoI have been ragging Intel for a long time since the NetBurst debacle, but it's still a massive company with the x86 cash cow for at least another half-decade until AMD closes a bit of a gap. They have the resources and history to recover. I have heard references to massive managerial layer problems and treating contractors like crap and the brain drain of the old guard, but those aren't intractable problems. Intel has responded in the past. AMD looked completely dead in the Hector Ruiz waning days, and look at them now. Empower some good engineers and watch what happens.
- aj7 5y agoAre the maroon notebooks gone yet?
- genericone 5y agoIntel needs to start swinging the money around then because their reputation is that they underpay by paying 'market rate' ie as little as they can get away with, and not by trying to be market leaders. Their managerial layers have destroyed their reputation and its going to take a lot to steer that into being something people say 'I want to work at intel' when given a choice of nvidia.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoUnderpaying engineering in an engineering company. Almost guarantee what that is: management building a huge pyramid reporting structure and then enriching themselves. To avoid reducing profits (which would threaten the bigwig C-level strike price options), they simply steal from the "proles", in this case the engineers that made the company. Good news is: it's easy to clean house on shitty managers. Just drop half the layers or more, and then hire or acquire some good. The other thing Intel had going for it back in the day: there were at least a couple teams working on x86 execution, so when Netburst crapped out they at least had the Israeli team working on the mobile architecture to switch to. Intel's big enough that if you need two microarchitecture approaches, or even need to start an ARM project, well, they have the revenue if they want the talent. I mean, look at what Apple did, they practically built the top-end chip in mobile within, what, four or five years? I guess I don't know exactly when they started working on an in-house A-series processors vs when they took leadership. But it didn't take long it seems, certainly relative to the four-year wishywashy timeframe being suggested now.
- gpderetta 5y agoA lot of Apple talent came from the PA Semi acquisition.
- nicoburns 5y agoI'm not sure how much difference that would make. Intel already has $20B in cash reserves and is still making large profits (in the billions of dollars). Their problems have nothing to do with lack money.
- AtlasBarfed 5y agoI saw headlines about 52 billion dollars for domestic semiconductor expansion going through Congress. Did that happen?
- markzzerella 5y agoMaybe not $52bbn but they got at least something from the CHIPS act https://www.sinema.senate.gov/fueled-sinemas-chips-act-intel-announces-expansion-bringing-thousands-jobs-arizona https://www.sinema.senate.gov/fueled-sinemas-chips-act-intel...
- tooltalk 5y agoThat $52B doesn't sound a lot considering that Samsung and TSMC are spending ~$27B and ~$25B in capex this year alone.
- elzbardico 5y agoIn the great scheme of military spending things, 10 billions is small change.
- totalZero 5y agoIt's an existential question. Right now the US economy is entirely dependent upon Taiwanese semiconductor fabrication. This isn't a glaring problem yet, because China is also dependent upon the same supply chain, giving rise to a mutual incentive not to rock the boat too hard. However, China has dedicated substantial resources to building its own fab infrastructure since well before the pandemic [0], with the goal of establishing a parallel ecosystem that circumvents the US-controlled supply chain [1]. If the US does not follow suit, its dependence upon Taiwan becomes a massive liability. How much did we spend on the Iraq War, despite our own country being a major producer of oil and gas? Our economic incentive to entangle ourselves in Taiwan is even greater, but the stakes of military confrontation with China would be more dangerous. How much would you pay to avert such a conflict -- or worse, to avert the consequences of acquiescing to China's expansionism? Ironically, dependency on Taiwanese semiconductor fabrication reduces our ability to defend the island. Until the time that a fab interruption there would not halt our economy, Taiwan remains a US pressure point and China will continue to press it. I think $200 billion is a cheap price tag for a path forward that involves neither warfare nor perpetual paranoia about every perturbation in the South China Sea. Taiwan established itself as a semiconductor powerhouse largely because its government backed TSMC. South Korea's government bends over backwards for Samsung, which makes up about a fifth of their GDP. The way forward for the US may be similar in mentality: throw the government behind the industry. US fabs need resilient and high-quality infrastructure for power, water, and logistics. We can use the collimated power and authority of the government to yield a vastly more effective long-term solution than piecemeal tax credits on lithography scanners. [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/china-ramps-up-own-semiconductor-industry-amid-the-trade-war.html https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/china-ramps-up-own-semicondu... [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU2rNB34yY4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU2rNB34yY4
- ac29 5y ago> Right now the US economy is entirely dependent upon Taiwanese semiconductor fabrication. I'd be curious to see this quantified in some way. TSMC has a lead at the moment for bleeding edge fabrication, but Intel isnt that far behind and is massive in scale (revenue is nearly double TSMC, though its not an apples to apples comparison). A lot of the most impactful shortages this past year were in non-sexy parts like microcontrollers and other lower end chips that can be built in many different countries, since they are fairly simple (28nm, 40nm and even larger processes are commonly used). The world is intertangled enough that losing Taiwan for some reason would be pretty bad, but I cant think of another country better equipped to handle semiconductor production than the US (Korea and Japan do well also, but at smaller scale than the US).
- samfisher83 5y agoThe us government budget is 4 trillion. If the political will is there 10 billion is nothing.
- fy20 5y agoCase in point, the previous administration had already allocated $15 billion to a wall by the time they left office. A smaller amount that I'm sure both parties would agree is good for both national security and the economy should have no issues getting funded.
- crocodiletears 5y agoThis is a defense issue. That's a much larger reservoir to tap into.
- tim_sw 5y agoHow can you be sure that it’s Intel and not other players or a consortium?
- wmf 5y agoIf you want a "truly American" company (not TSMC or Samsung), Intel is the only option. The question is whether that's important or not.
- dragontamer 5y agoIBM is made at GloFo, which is both an American chip designer with an American fabricator. But GloFo is falling behind for sure. I don't think POWER10 will be made at GloFo.
- RC_ITR 5y agoBoy do I have news for you: https://www.mubadala.com/en/what-we-do/semiconductors/globalfoundries#:~:text=GlobalFoundries-,GlobalFoundries,%2C%20100%25%20owned%20by%20Mubadala.&text=GlobalFoundries%20delivers%20differentiated%20feature%2Drich,for%20high%2Dgrowth%20market%20segments https://www.mubadala.com/en/what-we-do/semiconductors/global....
- dragontamer 5y ago> It operates five manufacturing sites in Burlington, Vermont, East Fishkill, New York, Malta, New York, as well as in Dresden, Germany and Singapore, allowing the company to serve a growing portfolio of more than 250 global customers, including many of the world’s largest semiconductor companies. That's a lot of USA-locations. I'm not sure what your point is exactly?
- BeetleB 5y agoTSMC will have US locations, too - no one will count it as American. This isn't about jobs, but control. GloFo can pull out/dismantle/sell any time.
- btown 5y agoI wouldn't go so far as to say "buy Intel stock" because institutional investors have likely already adjusted to the announcement and it's likely priced in. That said, I think government encouragement is a critical piece of the puzzle and should derisk this operation. The recent supply shocks to the computer industry, when component prices and lead times shot up independent of any geopolitical conflicts (other than COVID), must have been a wake-up call to many that the US's relative lack of foundry capabilities has real strategic implications.
- lumost 5y agoAdding more money to a crappy organization tends to make it crappier. I don't see evidence that money availability is Intel's problem, but it does appear that motivation/near-term thinking is a substantial problem. Oddly, this is a pretty similar pattern to what we've seen with other companies before they divest/outsource manufacturing. Their internal efforts stumble due to lack of drive/funding, followed by a lucrative buyout or sale of their manufacturing operations to an oversees buyer. I don't understand why executives of American companies don't see the manufacturing/production side of their companies as anything more than a cost center.
- repsilat 5y ago> I don't understand why executives of American companies don't see the manufacturing/production side of their companies as anything more than a cost center. This is interesting to me, because I think of it as the stereotypical (if not always accurate) description of American business. The common criticism of American companies is that they outsource productive capacity, go "asset-lean", lever up on their intellectual property, over-financialise etc etc. I've generally thought of the preference for investing in "manufacturing/production" to be a populist sentiment, and out of favour in the boardroom. There are certainly plenty of examples of both types, but in the semiconductor space the trend is clear -- manufacturing has been outsourced from the US, and the old big chip brands mostly stopped making their own chips. And until recently I've been mostly sympathetic to (what I think is) your view, which I've also ascribed to the stereotype of "corporate America" -- that companies should put their capital to its most productive work, and that mostly that means "intellectual property and innovation" or some similar vague notion. Ricardian comparative advantage and all that. One thing that's given me pause has been arguments like this: https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/ https://berthub.eu/articles/posts/how-tech-loses-out/. Very roughly, that production involves a necessary kind of innovation, and that intellectual property advantages can be less durable than process advantages.
- aj7 5y agoYou first.
- xwdv 5y agoInterests can change in a minute, and without warning.
- notJim 5y agoAhh yes, and the US Government is so famously responsive to the many problems facing our society.
- tooltalk 5y agoit's very often the case that US companies sacrifice national interests to save their insane profit margin -- Apple being one most notable example (or Nike who recently declared "the brand was of China and for China." (duck) I'm pretty sure Intel will eventually triumph and reclaim their crown, but I wonder if what more the gov't can do to speed up their way to the top? I don't think the company was held back by red tapes or lack of R&D, capital funding (or tax incentive).
- freemint 5y agoNike was never American to begin with.
- georgeburdell 5y agoJust because the U.S. government gives Intel money doesn't mean it's a good deal for shareholders. I can think of two different ways this can go poorly: 1. It causes Intel to optimize for government money, similar to the many aerospace contractors 2. The government could acquire a stake in Intel, as it did with many companies under TARP during the 2008 Financial Crisis
- klelatti 5y agoCan anyone explain what evidence there is that Intel will be able to deliver all this? Not taking a view just interested in how to assess the credibility of the roadmap.
- zionic 5y agoFor the curious: https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-process-track-arrive-2017/index.html https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-pro...
- tablespoon 5y agoPer the OP, it sounds like they're taking more conservative/incremental steps now, and their previous fault was that they were too ambitious and tried to do too much at once. My understanding is Intel's rivals also took a more incremental development process, which basically allowed them to capitalize on Intel's missteps.
- klelatti 5y agoHaving watched the Webcast it didn't sound that conservative! 7,4,3,20A in 4 years.
- websg-x 5y ago7 is half node, 4 full node, 3 half, 20A full node again. Moore's law is doubling of transistors density every 2 years. So the roadmap is indeed conservative, just following the Moore's law.
- mdasen 5y agoI'd be more interested in hearing about the terms of the Qualcomm deal. Is Qualcomm putting its eggs in the Intel basket for 2025 or has Intel reached an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm will buy from them if it fits Qualcomm's needs and it's ready in time? If the agreement is "Qualcomm will send some of its business Intel's way," that isn't a huge vote of confidence. Heck, are we talking about Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8xx series or just some Qualcomm chips like the ones they put in WiFi routers? Or their low-end Snapdragon 4xx series? The article is kinda spinning it as "Intel will be making the Qualcomm chips going into everyone's phones," but it could be more "Qualcomm is going to have Intel manufacture its low-end stuff which is always behind tech-wise and Intel is giving them a big discount because Intel needs a win." > In the chip world where smaller is better, Intel previously used names that alluded to the size of features in "nanometers". But over time the names used by chipmakers became arbitrary marking terms... This, he said, gave the mistaken impression that Intel was less competitive. They are definitely less competitive at this point. Nanometers might not be the right measurement, but one can measure transistor density. Maybe that would make more sense? Even if "Intel 7" (10nm Enhanced SuperFin) is equivalent to TSMC's 7nm, we saw TSMC's 7nm back in 2018. I have a TSMC 5nm in my pocket. I guess if Intel can keep to its road map, it will catch up. If "Intel 4" comes out with products in early 2023, it won't be far behind TSMC's 3nm process (which will likely debut in the 2022 iPhone). Of course, we'll have to see how well these Intel chips perform. We should be able to benchmark Intel 7 processors with Alder Lake processors landing later this year. Will these stand up well against AMD's 7nm Zen 2/3? Will they stand up against AMD's upcoming 5nm Zen 4? I guess we'll be able to test Intel's chips against what AMD has been shipping and see how well Intel 7 stands up against both 7nm and 5nm processes.
- klelatti 5y agoWasn't Qualcomm announced as a 20A customer?
- discordance 5y agoFor those who don’t know, that’s 20 angstroms (1 Å = 0.1 nm, or 10⁻¹⁰ m)
- qbasic_forever 5y agoHow long until Intel buys Qualcomm (or comedy vice-versa option)...
- subroutine 5y agoBroadcom tried 3x in 2018. If Intel did approach Qualcomm they'd likely have to make the largest M&A bid ever.
- Woodi 5y agoYep, it's a trap, 99%. Intel will be happy to waste lots of money (and investments) to kill wanna-be server CPUs manufacturer. Why earn a bit when you can future proof your possition ? And morphing into fab ? Numbers renaming is not the same as finally not failing to deliver lower nodes.
- Kalanos 5y agoSo they will be irrelevant soon. They are just spreading themselves thin as an 'also ran' instead of betting big and reinventing themselves.
- ewag 5y agoI wouldn't invest anytime soon. Intel is so focused on making every single foundry workflow identical that they lose the flexibility that is more and more sought after these days. It is kind of crazy how Intel's strength has turned into such a weakness. Qualcomm will eventually figure out that Intel is way too inflexible execute on their business. Stick to mass production Intel, it's what you are OK at.
- h2odragon 5y agoYet another Intel revolution, where they rotate the business strategy 360 degrees and turn the bullshit screw one more notch on the way to utter irrelevance. But, hey, how about that flash business? oh.
- stevespang 5y ago:)
- thoughtstheseus 5y agoThe value is really owning some percentage of the foundry market. Only a few can be cutting edge, expensive and time consuming. Better to compete now on volume and cost.
- ineedasername 5y agoMakes sense, they have fabs on different process nodes, and if they aren't keeping them running at capacity with their own chips they should be running someone else's design through them. I know, it's not as simple as all of that, but a pivot to serving fables designers as well as their own needs seems like a necessary step as they continue to work out their < 10nm processes.
- fomine3 5y agoPersonally it's sad that we (may) miss Qualcomm's SoCs built with TSMC's latest 5nm and further process. Possible MediaTek's SoC become best perf-watt high-end SoC for Android?
- pixel_tracing 5y agoI misread the title as “Quantum Chips” and almost fell out of my chair… then left disappointed
- tomcam 5y agoFeels like Intel might be on the road to acquiring Qualcomm?
- blackoil 5y agoEvery country's anti-monopoly team will block it.
- viktorcode 5y agoI can't see the news as positive. By opening their factories to external designs they admit they can no longer survive on their own chips manufacturing. It is a new branch of business, but it is a lower margin one, comparing to vertically integrated manufacturing. There's a reason the world has more fabless silicon giants than fabs. By renaming their technologies they show that the conclusion is that the issue is marketing. Maybe there's an issue with Intel's marketing, but the bigger one is Intel for a while now is not a technology leader. No amount of marketing will compensate that. The slide showing undisputed tech leadership by 2025 is just silly.
- swalsh 5y agoIntel tries and fails to get into so many markets that aren't high end server and desktop CPU's, and they are rarely successful. Now they have a chance to still get a piece of the action.
- xyzzy21 5y agoNot without buying GF they won't. And it will be GF doing the fabbing.