5 ms·

> That doesn't follow. Intel has been massively relevant to the semiconductor manufacturing market for 50 years. Well, sure: Intel pioneered FinFET, cobalt, ev

> That doesn't follow. Intel has been massively relevant to the semiconductor manufacturing market for 50 years. Well, sure: Intel pioneered FinFET, cobalt, even 300mm. TSMC and the rest of the foundry world basically followed their lead. But as any foundry customer, it didn't matter what Intel's state of the art was because you couldn't pay any amount of money to obtain anything other than a final Intel product. > I don't follow this either. What fundamentally changed? Limiting physics. It is very hard to continue to make devices smaller at historical rates. Nobody is keeping up with the historical 2-year node cadence any longer. And the "nodes" now are marketing smoke and mirrors, anyway; they don't actually mean that device density has doubled. > Intel has publicly stated their plans to build new fabs, invest in new nodes and close the gap with competitors in the next few years so that doesn't appear to be their focus or assessment of their prospects. They cannot publicly pull the plug for two major reasons: 1) They need to attract customers for their move into the foundry space (again, their fabs becoming stranded assets are a nightmare scenario) 2) They're hopeful of getting US government subsidies in order to continue competing on a basis other than pure cost/performance Moreover, "closing the gap" could make them competitive in the foundry space, but it would leave them in a different position than they occupied historically. It was their technology _leadership_ that provided a competitive advantage, and it's why they are still so famously paranoid about their intellectual property. > Moore's law wasn't okay then and suddenly just stopped in 2018 when Intel started falling behind Of course not. This has been a gradual process.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
> Well, sure: Intel pioneered FinFET, cobalt, even 300mm. TSMC and the rest of the foundry world basically followed their lead. But as any foundry customer, it didn't matter what Intel's state of the art was because you couldn't pay any amount of money to obtain anything other than a final Intel product. Well that's a walk back. You said they were irrelevant to the rest of the market. Now it's a foundry customer couldn't pay any amount of money. Of course. (Well not strictly true, Intel did try to get into the foundry business and did get a customer or two, they just didn't do well https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-intel-discontinues-the-custom-foundry-business/ https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...) > Limiting physics. It is very hard to continue to make devices smaller at historical rates. Nobody is keeping up with the historical 2-year node cadence any longer. And the "nodes" now are marketing smoke and mirrors, anyway; they don't actually mean that device density has doubled. I don't see how the argument has been made. Limiting physics was limiting in 2015 as well. Progress has still been made, and progress will almost certainly continue to be made for at least several more node, just at a slowing rate. There is no before/after I've seen that makes a rational case for them previously being able to compete and now not able to. "Moore's law slowed therefore Intel can't get ahead of TSMC" isn't really arguing anything. A crude approximation is money. Investment in R&D and fabs. So that's something you could argue, but when you look at Intel and TSMC, it's not obvious that TSMC has vastly more money to spend there. > They cannot publicly pull the plug for two major reasons: [...] This is going into conspiracy theory territory. You think they're lying to investors and customers and the US government to fraudulently get subsidies investment and customers? Look, you said they were going to not attempt to invest in regaining an advantage, and that they would focus on getting the most out of their trailing nodes. That's just not what's happening at the moment. And with the amount of money Intel is making still, I think they would be mad to give up now. I don't know what writing on the wall there is everybody thinks they can see here.
- nwiswell 5y ago
  > Well that's a walk back. You said they were irrelevant to the rest of the market. Now it's a foundry customer couldn't pay any amount of money. Of course. (Well not strictly true, Intel did try to get into the foundry business and did get a customer or two, they just didn't do well https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912- https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...) I was maybe not clear: Intel was irrelevant from the perspective of a foundry customer because their service was not for sale; it didn't matter what node they were at. Of course for foundries themselves, Intel was (and to some extent still is) relevant as a benchmark and as a technology leader. > I don't see how the argument has been made. Limiting physics was limiting in 2015 as well. Progress has still been made, and progress will almost certainly continue to be made for at least several more node, just at a slowing rate. I agree with this statement and it's compatible with what I said above. > This is going into conspiracy theory territory. Uh. Do you think Google is being completely transparent with the public about things that are being said about Google Cloud in board meetings? I didn't say they're going to just fall over dead. Obviously landing huge subsidies or government support would change the equation. But while Intel management is certainly aware of the state of things, they're not going to ensure a self-fulfilling prophecy by broadcasting pessimism. What they're not going to try to do is regain the process crown because it's a fool's errand. That's what I said. It might bear emphasis that that is different from competing at the leading edge.
  - throwawaylinux 5y ago
    > Do you think Google is being completely transparent with the public about things that are being said about Google Cloud in board meetings? That doesn't follow. There is a big, big difference between not being completely transparent and making false or misleading statements to investors. You said they've got no prospect of performance leadership and are going to focus on just getting the most out of their existing fabs. This is not a fact and not supported by their statements and actions so far. It's a wild guess and pretty unlikely to happen given their investment pipeline. Some time in the future, possibly. As a result of the circumstances right now when they are making money hand over fist with their leading edge nodes and building new fabs? No.
zozbot234 5y ago
> Limiting physics. It is very hard to continue to make devices smaller at historical rates. Nobody is keeping up with the historical 2-year node cadence any longer. And the "nodes" now are marketing smoke and mirrors, anyway; they don't actually mean that device density has doubled. There are plenty of process improvements to be made at the trailing edge of development, where the majority of manufactured chips actually are. The leading, most expensive device nodes which are most clearly bumping into physical constraints, will gradually be less and less representative of the industry as a whole.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  Transistors actually keep getting smaller. 7nm->5nm devices got smaller. The transistors actually got significantly faster too. A lot of the problems are in wiring and powering the things, leakage, etc. so that's where more innovation is needed. But the leading edge is far from standing still. I GAA and such pan out well that could be a very significant bump for the next few nodes. People act like everything stopped because "Moore's law is dead", but when you look at the rates of improvement in most other manufacturing sectors, semiconductors are still advancing at an enviable pace.
  - nwiswell 5y ago
    > People act like everything stopped because "Moore's law is dead" This is really not what I said anywhere. What I said is that the pace of advancement is slower now, and that process supremacy is no longer sufficient to guarantee performance supremacy. That's a problem for Intel, since it was a core assumption of their business model.
  - MayeulC 5y ago
    Dennard's scaling is long dead[1]. Density increases thanks to "3D" integration, but transistors do not shrink much. Thus more innovation needed in the areas you highlighted to make a "smaller" equivalent process node. FinFET and GAA do achieve slightly better electrostatic control which results in lower leakage and slightly faster switching speeds, but gate length doesn't decrease much anymore, which puts a ceiling on switching speed improvements (thus frequency - GHz), and gate capacitance (linked to power consumption). Increasing densities mean more avenues to explore specialized circuitry and dark silicon. Basically, more transistor to play with. This is running very contrary to the previous paradigm with Moore's Law, in which specialized circuitry and specialized accelerators were not too deeply investigated as software implementations would gain so much performance that they would easily surpass them, while not needing to be redesigned for a newer node. I'm now hoping for (and expecting) a revolution in maskless lithography at some point. That would democratize ASIC design (at 14nm, current multi-project wafers prototyping costs are around 10k€/mm², largely due to mask manufacturing), and make it much easier to explore the third dimension (thus making everyone more competitive with last gen). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_Dennard_scaling_around_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_D... (although that article is a bit terrible).

throwawaylinux 5y ago

> Well, sure: Intel pioneered FinFET, cobalt, even 300mm. TSMC and the rest of the foundry world basically followed their lead. But as any foundry customer, it didn't matter what Intel's state of the art was because you couldn't pay any amount of money to obtain anything other than a final Intel product. Well that's a walk back. You said they were irrelevant to the rest of the market. Now it's a foundry customer couldn't pay any amount of money. Of course. (Well not strictly true, Intel did try to get into the foundry business and did get a customer or two, they just didn't do well https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-intel-discontinues-the-custom-foundry-business/ https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...) > Limiting physics. It is very hard to continue to make devices smaller at historical rates. Nobody is keeping up with the historical 2-year node cadence any longer. And the "nodes" now are marketing smoke and mirrors, anyway; they don't actually mean that device density has doubled. I don't see how the argument has been made. Limiting physics was limiting in 2015 as well. Progress has still been made, and progress will almost certainly continue to be made for at least several more node, just at a slowing rate. There is no before/after I've seen that makes a rational case for them previously being able to compete and now not able to. "Moore's law slowed therefore Intel can't get ahead of TSMC" isn't really arguing anything. A crude approximation is money. Investment in R&D and fabs. So that's something you could argue, but when you look at Intel and TSMC, it's not obvious that TSMC has vastly more money to spend there. > They cannot publicly pull the plug for two major reasons: [...] This is going into conspiracy theory territory. You think they're lying to investors and customers and the US government to fraudulently get subsidies investment and customers? Look, you said they were going to not attempt to invest in regaining an advantage, and that they would focus on getting the most out of their trailing nodes. That's just not what's happening at the moment. And with the amount of money Intel is making still, I think they would be mad to give up now. I don't know what writing on the wall there is everybody thinks they can see here.

nwiswell 5y ago
> Well that's a walk back. You said they were irrelevant to the rest of the market. Now it's a foundry customer couldn't pay any amount of money. Of course. (Well not strictly true, Intel did try to get into the foundry business and did get a customer or two, they just didn't do well https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912- https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...) I was maybe not clear: Intel was irrelevant from the perspective of a foundry customer because their service was not for sale; it didn't matter what node they were at. Of course for foundries themselves, Intel was (and to some extent still is) relevant as a benchmark and as a technology leader. > I don't see how the argument has been made. Limiting physics was limiting in 2015 as well. Progress has still been made, and progress will almost certainly continue to be made for at least several more node, just at a slowing rate. I agree with this statement and it's compatible with what I said above. > This is going into conspiracy theory territory. Uh. Do you think Google is being completely transparent with the public about things that are being said about Google Cloud in board meetings? I didn't say they're going to just fall over dead. Obviously landing huge subsidies or government support would change the equation. But while Intel management is certainly aware of the state of things, they're not going to ensure a self-fulfilling prophecy by broadcasting pessimism. What they're not going to try to do is regain the process crown because it's a fool's errand. That's what I said. It might bear emphasis that that is different from competing at the leading edge.
- throwawaylinux 5y ago
  > Do you think Google is being completely transparent with the public about things that are being said about Google Cloud in board meetings? That doesn't follow. There is a big, big difference between not being completely transparent and making false or misleading statements to investors. You said they've got no prospect of performance leadership and are going to focus on just getting the most out of their existing fabs. This is not a fact and not supported by their statements and actions so far. It's a wild guess and pretty unlikely to happen given their investment pipeline. Some time in the future, possibly. As a result of the circumstances right now when they are making money hand over fist with their leading edge nodes and building new fabs? No.

zozbot234 5y ago

> Limiting physics. It is very hard to continue to make devices smaller at historical rates. Nobody is keeping up with the historical 2-year node cadence any longer. And the "nodes" now are marketing smoke and mirrors, anyway; they don't actually mean that device density has doubled. There are plenty of process improvements to be made at the trailing edge of development, where the majority of manufactured chips actually are. The leading, most expensive device nodes which are most clearly bumping into physical constraints, will gradually be less and less representative of the industry as a whole.

throwawaylinux 5y ago
Transistors actually keep getting smaller. 7nm->5nm devices got smaller. The transistors actually got significantly faster too. A lot of the problems are in wiring and powering the things, leakage, etc. so that's where more innovation is needed. But the leading edge is far from standing still. I GAA and such pan out well that could be a very significant bump for the next few nodes. People act like everything stopped because "Moore's law is dead", but when you look at the rates of improvement in most other manufacturing sectors, semiconductors are still advancing at an enviable pace.
- nwiswell 5y ago
  > People act like everything stopped because "Moore's law is dead" This is really not what I said anywhere. What I said is that the pace of advancement is slower now, and that process supremacy is no longer sufficient to guarantee performance supremacy. That's a problem for Intel, since it was a core assumption of their business model.
- MayeulC 5y ago
  Dennard's scaling is long dead[1]. Density increases thanks to "3D" integration, but transistors do not shrink much. Thus more innovation needed in the areas you highlighted to make a "smaller" equivalent process node. FinFET and GAA do achieve slightly better electrostatic control which results in lower leakage and slightly faster switching speeds, but gate length doesn't decrease much anymore, which puts a ceiling on switching speed improvements (thus frequency - GHz), and gate capacitance (linked to power consumption). Increasing densities mean more avenues to explore specialized circuitry and dark silicon. Basically, more transistor to play with. This is running very contrary to the previous paradigm with Moore's Law, in which specialized circuitry and specialized accelerators were not too deeply investigated as software implementations would gain so much performance that they would easily surpass them, while not needing to be redesigned for a newer node. I'm now hoping for (and expecting) a revolution in maskless lithography at some point. That would democratize ASIC design (at 14nm, current multi-project wafers prototyping costs are around 10k€/mm², largely due to mask manufacturing), and make it much easier to explore the third dimension (thus making everyone more competitive with last gen). [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_Dennard_scaling_around_2006 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennard_scaling#Breakdown_of_D... (although that article is a bit terrible).