3 ms·

> 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

> 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.

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.