7 ms·

Do 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

Do 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 ago
I 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    Are the maroon notebooks gone yet?
  - genericone 5y ago
    Intel 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 ago
      Underpaying 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 ago
        A lot of Apple talent came from the PA Semi acquisition.
- nicoburns 5y ago
  I'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 ago
I saw headlines about 52 billion dollars for domestic semiconductor expansion going through Congress. Did that happen?
- markzzerella 5y ago
  Maybe 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 ago
  That $52B doesn't sound a lot considering that Samsung and TSMC are spending ~$27B and ~$25B in capex this year alone.
elzbardico 5y ago
In the great scheme of military spending things, 10 billions is small change.
totalZero 5y ago
It'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 ago
The us government budget is 4 trillion. If the political will is there 10 billion is nothing.
- fy20 5y ago
  Case 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 ago
This is a defense issue. That's a much larger reservoir to tap into.

lettergram 5y ago

I 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 ago
I 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 ago
  Are the maroon notebooks gone yet?
- genericone 5y ago
  Intel 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 ago
    Underpaying 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 ago
      A lot of Apple talent came from the PA Semi acquisition.
nicoburns 5y ago
I'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 ago

I saw headlines about 52 billion dollars for domestic semiconductor expansion going through Congress. Did that happen?

markzzerella 5y ago
Maybe 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 ago
That $52B doesn't sound a lot considering that Samsung and TSMC are spending ~$27B and ~$25B in capex this year alone.

elzbardico 5y ago

In the great scheme of military spending things, 10 billions is small change.

totalZero 5y ago

It'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 ago

The us government budget is 4 trillion. If the political will is there 10 billion is nothing.

fy20 5y ago
Case 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 ago

This is a defense issue. That's a much larger reservoir to tap into.