19 ms·

Intel plans to rival TSMC and Samsung as a chip supplier

255 points by retskrad 4y ago

TheDudeMan 4y ago
I also plan to do that.
- 6stringmerc 4y ago
  I told you, the notes in my journal in GREEN MARKER are the ones you can steal from me. I specifically wrote this one down in maroon. How dare you! /s
simonblack 4y ago
How can they make their chips commercially competitive? US input costs are a lot higher than both TSMC's and China's. There is a reason that US manufacturers have outsourced their production to Asia for the last three decades.
- 988747 4y ago
  Well, chip manufacturing is mostly automated, so labor costs are insignificant. Also, Intel is on path to regaining process lead, they can compete with TSMC and Samsung based on quality.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
    I'd say yes and no. TSMC has over 60000 employees. They're also probably the biggest siphon of fresh graduates in Taiwan. Like most Taiwanese companies people work like slaves(not Foxconn China level) and have fairly low salaries. Intel has twice as many employees, but then again they're also kind of all over the place. I can't really comment how important labor costs are, but I don't think that they're insignificant.
  - simonblack 4y ago
    so labor costs are insignificant. When chip technology took off in the 1970s, the US semiconductor manufacturers had probably over 80% of the manufacturing share. Why is that share so low today? Why is it that the US manufacturers would be lucky to reach double-digits in manufacturing share? How did they get to drop to so low in the first place? The running cost of fabs is not the only cost of new fabs.
- datalopers 4y ago
  The US government is pouring a lot of money into subsidizing the cost of spinning up fabs. Additionally, China will help western foundries achieve success because they want Taiwan.
  - SanjayMehta 4y ago
    > Additionally, China will help western foundries achieve success because they want Taiwan. Can you elaborate on this point?
    - jwond 4y ago
      I imagine the logic is that if the US has its own domestic chip production and isn’t so dependent on Taiwanese chips, then the US may not care as much if China invades Taiwan.
      - nonethewiser 4y ago
        Terrible reasoning, but yes I think that's what he means
      - chillwaves 4y ago
        Ignores the fact the island itself acts a buffer to China's SE expansion/projection of power. There is a lot of strategic value to the island, even without the chips.
      - SanjayMehta 4y ago
        That makes sense, and as someone else pointed out, Taiwan has strategic value by itself.
  - heavyset_go 4y ago
    This, the CHIPS act was recently signed. Hundreds of billions are being invested in building onshore fabs.
    - rjzzleep 4y ago
- _2d30 4y ago
  Marginal costs in semiconductors are very low.
- amelius 4y ago
  Robotics.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Um, you might want to let Intel know that the US is too expensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si... By my count, of the 7 fabs on the latest process, 5 are in the US.
  - simonblack 4y ago
    Intel has been acknowledged to be having problems in keeping up with TSMC's progress towards 1 nm. They are falling behind.
RC_ITR 4y ago
They’ve been trying to do this for years. The problem always is “Intel fabs are so deeply integrated with Intel circuit design that it’s hard for more general customers to use their process.” Intel foundry makes a bunch of ‘odd’ choices justified by the fact that most of their volume is so homogeneous in terms of circuit design. I’m sure they’ve gotten better since I was last aware, but Intel is a hard ship to steer very far. The other trouble is that Intel isn’t used to working from a place other than being the best and most advanced and expensive option.
- _2d30 4y ago
  This is brand new to Gelsinger's reign beginning in 2021, no?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - TjZkxkxeky 4y ago
    He may be able to get it done, but they've been trying waaay before that. I'm not sure where the history started, but they were trying in 2007. I hope they can make it happen.
    - nsteel 4y ago
      They need to try a lot harder. They presented to us some 10+ years ago when they had a go at this market previously. The meeting was a waste of time. Their IP was non-existent, we didn't even do the follow up to hear about packaging. They had no idea what was required.
      - lizknope 4y ago
        Exactly. The IP portfolios that TSMC has is huge. You can go to Cadence, Synopsys, or TSMC themselves and get PLLs, serdes PHYs for PCI Express, USB, HDMI, DDR 3/4/5, LPDDR, etc. Is Intel going to let a customer use their internal IP? Most of the third party IP for TSMC is based on around ARM and the AXI / AMBA bus specs to quickly integrate. I've heard that Intel's blocks use an Intel specific bus so you would need a bunch of translation shims. Do you remember when Intel ported the Atom CPU to TSMC 40nm around 2009? They had to pre approve every design and it couldn't be in devices with larger than a 7" screen and all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. I later read articles that they did not have a single customer license the Atom in TSMC's process. Then they decided to make Atom powered mobile phone chips and basically paid a couple of companies to design them. Then no one wanted them. On top of that there were Android apps that used native ARM code and not just Java. So Intel had to make an ARM to x86 emulator for that. Intel is great at making server / desktop / laptop chips and pushing the industry forward with new specs and standards like USB. But I don't trust them to understand or follow through on anything else
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
HHC-Hunter 4y ago
Ptchd 4y ago
They can't even compete with AMD anymore....
- newsclues 4y ago
  They can in the Fab sector. Global Foundries was the spin off in 2009 of AMDs fabs.
  - metaphor 4y ago
    > They can in the Fab sector. I'm bullish on Intel's IDM 2.0 vision in the later stages of a 10-year horizon, but as of today and for at least the next few years, this assertion is unsubstantiated bullshit. According to their latest Q3 10-Q filing[1], Intel Foundry Services segment accounts for $576M revenue and -$289M operating losses YTD. In contrast, Globalfoundries' last relevant 6-K filing[2] reported $3.933B revenue and $501M operating profit YTD...and oh by the way, GFS Q3 earnings call isn't until next week Tuesday, so these numbers reflect only 6 months of the current fiscal year. The reality these numbers support is that Intel's (bleeding) cash cow is in making and selling their own chips, not fabbing other companies' designs. Furthermore, the only named portfolio segment that's currently doing worse that Intel Foundry Services is Accelerated Computing Systems and Graphics, which has hemorrhaged -$1.275B in operating losses YTD. Even Mobileye segment generated 2.3x more revenue than Intel Foundry Services segment YTD, and is profitable despite being acquired only 5 years ago. To be fair, AMD intentionally divested their legacy foundry capabilities a decade ago; conflating GFS with AMD in the foundry space is logically indefensible, and there's meaningful underlying reasons why AMD pivoted to fabless. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086322000038/intc-20221001.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200... [2] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/000170904822000038/gfs-20220630_d2.htm#i2a7bb5776ed844ff953e2059f533ca84_106 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/0001...
    - newsclues 4y ago
      Long way to agree that a company that has divested their fab business doesn’t compete with Intel in the fab market.
newaccount2021 4y ago
warbler73 4y ago
Never will happen. Source: Their high level employees that I know.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Not with that attitude.
  - curious_cat_163 4y ago
    Exactly. This is such a strange attitude. If they are really ‘high-level’, they should either walk away or push the ship in the direction that their CEO is calling for. Why stay and say things like this?
    - ErikVandeWater 4y ago
      Hoping the CEO gets sacked and they get a promotion?
    - makeitdouble 4y ago
      Or this would be the CEO's job: convince the employees he's heading in the right direction or find other employees.
    - bawolff 4y ago
      That's not really how the world works. People often stay in jobs they dont like or dont believe in. Maybe the money is better than competitors, maybe they are just afraid of change. There could be plenty of reasons. Morale issues sink businesses. If everyone who was unhappy walked away, no companies would ever have morale issues.
    - lizknope 4y ago
      Golden handcuffs in the form of millions in unvested stock. I knew people at companies that were acquired and joked that they were in "rest and vest mode" They didn't care what the new company did as long as they got paid and their huge number of shares over the next 3 years vested
tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago
Sounds like Intel is interested in losing more money as an undifferentiated, indefensible, commodity business like the PC desktop market. They're circling the drain.
TruthWillHurt 4y ago
And I, Pumpernickle the Third, Plan to rival the King of Spain with my Golden Armada! Have at you!
dqpb 4y ago
The actual title is: "How Intel plans to rival TSMC and Samsung as a chip supplier".
PaulWaldman 4y ago
With all of the skepticism here, who would be better positioned than Intel to eventually rival TSMC?
- throwawaylinux 4y ago
  Samsung.
  - shash 4y ago
    Any reason why GF and UMC are not in the running?
    - guipsp 4y ago
      GF doesn't have the scale-at least not in the smaller nodes
    - throwawaylinux 4y ago
      They dropped out of the leading-edge logic race after getting to 14nm. Development and capex just got too expensive to pay off. I don't know much about the industry but it has been consolidating for 3-4 decades so it's probably just the same story, the up-front costs keep growing. I guess GF and UMC were approaching the limit of DUV where you start either having to do very complicated and expensive multi-patterning, or even more complicated and expensive EUV, so maybe that is what stopped them.
- xiphias2 4y ago
  The best shot for Intel taking over TSMC is getting the US to start a war with China at Taiwan. Of course it will be a tragedy, but in that case Intel is strategically important to the western world.
  - Valmar 4y ago
    Given some of Intel's shady history, I'm not sure I'd like them to become the ones who take over from TSMC if anything goes south. They would probably have a monopoly, and with that, too much control, and so, are liable to become lazy and greedy, which will harm everyone involved.
dreamcompiler 4y ago
And I plan to date supermodels. /s Okay I'll try to be constructive. TSMC is two things: The biggest contracting foundry in the world, and a leader in EUV application for tiny geometries. I think it's possible for Intel to become a contracting foundry; it goes against their DNA but Gelsinger very much wants to do it. So that's the first thing. Maybe it'll happen. The second thing is much more problematic. > Intel is still working on getting its 5-nm mass production going, and says it will begin manufacturing Intel 3 -- its answer to TSMC's 3-nm tech -- in the second half of 2023. This I'm much more skeptical about. Intel tried to make EUV work before and failed. Still they seem to be buying ASML equipment and installing it at Ronler Acres: https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/intel-euv-fab-chips https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/intel-euv-fab-chips But it still sounds like a long shot to get it working in 2023.
- curious_cat_163 4y ago
  Would you share some insight on why Intel failed at making EUV work? Gelsinger said on a podcast (Decoder) recently that in fact they fought it. Obviously, they are kind of big enough to do both — make a half hearted attempt and fight it all the same due to some internal politics. However, for something this existential, one would think that the smart people and the leadership would try to put some focus on the field. Was it that bad? Really, looking for some insight on what really went down.
  - chasil 4y ago
    Intel has mastered 10nm production. The race to the bottom of physics is not a long ride.
  - dreamcompiler 4y ago
    Intel (like every other chipmaker) has been chasing EUV for decades, but every time they thought they finally nailed it they turned out to be wrong. The key that ultimately made it possible was the light source, and ASML is the only company that sells these light sources. ASML didn't invent the light source entirely on its own; there were a lot of ideas for light sources floating around and the only one that turned out to work was laser-induced plasma from tin microdroplets, which sounds completely crazy but it works [0]. ASML perfected that process (with -- to be fair -- some investment from Intel). [0] https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/light-and-lasers https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/li... Intel did fight EUV with a technology called SAQP which ultimately turned out not to work as well as EUV, but they were researching EUV at the same time. Here are some more historical articles about Intel's work on EUV in the past. Note the dates. https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-achieves-major-milestones-in-euv-lithography-program/#gs.h80lu7 https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-achieves-majo... https://semiengineering.com/why-euv-is-so-difficult/ https://semiengineering.com/why-euv-is-so-difficult/ https://www.eetimes.com/intel-developing-euv-pellicle/ https://www.eetimes.com/intel-developing-euv-pellicle/ https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276376-intel-reportedly-wont-deploy-euv-lithography-until-2021 https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276376-intel-reportedl...
synergy20 4y ago
It has been talking the talk for quite a while, in fact for years, and I'm truly getting bored. I think Intel totally forgot what 'credibility' means.
reissbaker 4y ago
I think it's inevitable given the geopolitical situation in Taiwan that someone eats TSMC's lunch on America's dollar. China will almost certainly invade in the next decade, and getting large volumes of delicate electronics in and out of ports that are subject to a Chinese navy blockade will be very difficult (not to mention the difficulty in manufacturing them amid explosions). The CHIPS act is a big part of preparing for this. Intel is set up pretty well to pull it off when this happens. Samsung might be in a good position too.
- chaostheory 4y ago
  > China will almost certainly invade in the next decade Unfortunately, a decade is optimistic now. Given rising instability in China, it will probably be less than 5 years. I believe the DOD has updated their estimate
  - thelittleone 4y ago
    I disagree and I hope I'm right. Taiwan has been preparing for an invasion for decades. China will be observing Russia / Ukraine and although they may suffer less from corruption and military rot, they will be aware of the power of an enemy fighting for survival and freedom against a tyrannical invader.
    - 6stringmerc 4y ago
      Also there’s no doubt in my mind they are bitter because China wanted to be the country to get away with an illegal invasion in the eyes of the western world, and Putin already cashed that chip. Now to do so would basically let China and Russia give the world a reason to cut them off together. Yeesh.
    - rjtavares 4y ago
      I'm not optimistic. China learned that the West won't get troops involved directly, and Taiwan doesn't have a land border with a nearby friendly airport you can use to supply them with weapons (check https://twitter.com/GotfrydKarol/status/1588556253760225281 https://twitter.com/GotfrydKarol/status/1588556253760225281).
DeathArrow 4y ago
So what's the big plan? Fab its own CPUs at TSMC with a better process and use its own fabs for contract manufacturing? But Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Mediatek are the largest customers by volume and I don't think they would switch from TSMC to Intel soon. Maybe some Chinese CPU manufacturers would like to use Intel but there is a trade ban for China. Also, seeing how Intel likes to jack prices from time to time, I wouldn't want to depend on Intel for all of my manufacturing.
hooch 4y ago
FTA: "Intel also needs to build up a third-party intellectual property portfolio, design services, and a chip packaging and testing ecosystem with partners to make it easier for customers to use Intel's manufacturing process." ... "so far, there is no evidence to show any of these hurdles have been overcome," Shi said. Apparently it's in this domain that TSMC is king.
langsoul-com 4y ago
Intel needs to spend a hellva lot more than a few measly billion to rival even Samsung (sub 20 percent sharemarket). Tsmc is spending $36 billion [1] for 2022 for capital expenditure. Those numbers are fucking nuts, and they Already have several huge fabs [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-q3-profit-jumps-80-beats-market-expectations-2022-10-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-q3-profit-jumps-80-b...
SilverBirch 4y ago
Any one else remember the last time Intel did this, completely screwed up delivery of the process node, and ended up buying most of their customers. I heard a rumour that when Intel became the fab for Altera the contract barred Intel from fabbing for any other FPGA company which handed Altera a tonne of leverage on price for the acquisition - because even if Intel bought Xilinx instead they wouldn't be able to fab for them.
- mirker 4y ago
  There are other comments in this thread suggesting Altera shares were tanked due to manufacturing delays from Intel.
  - SilverBirch 4y ago
    Yeah, I think that's a bit of re-writing history. It's certainly true that the Intel partnership was a shitshow, but Altera shares traded at a pretty constant ratio to Xilinx and were bought at a big premium. Intel weren't exactly savvy in their acquisitions during BK's tenure.
agd 4y ago
Surprised by all the skepticism in this thread. The way I see it, Intel is the only real hedge against the China/Taiwan situation, and (at least according to their public statements) they're on track for the upcoming process nodes. If the strategy works out, the upside is huge.
- bob1029 4y ago
  Agreed regarding potential upside. The AMD vs Intel game is minuscule compared to the Intel vs TSMC vs Samsung game. Intel doesn't have a great track record in contract mfg, but there is absolutely no reason this story can't change. Especially, if more subsidies arise in the future...
  - ehvatum 4y ago
    The day Intel gets EUV 3nm fabrication running at 90% yield, all commitments to fabrication for other parties will be forgotten. Given the choice between producing a contract part for you to sell or super-fat margin Xeon Platinum Gentlemen’s Club Edition for them to sell, you can eat shit. The contract fab push exists to keep 401k funds from divesting in the near term.
lizknope 4y ago
I've been in the semiconductor industry for 25 years. Intel has tried to be a fab to external customers multiple times in the past. I can remember around 2002 and 2009. After a few years the effort dies out. I know a couple of companies that tried to get Intel to fab stuff and their orders get shoved aside when Intel needs the fab space for their own chips. The people who founded the company Open Silicon (physical design services) were kind of a spin off from Intel's design services group. They got frustrated when Intel wasn't serious about doing external chips. I know a couple of other 3rd party external IP companies that have designed IP for Intel in Intel's process. They all said the DRC rules were very restrictive. These blocks had a large amount of analog circuits where the layout is done by hand. In contrast I am in digital physical design where we use automated tools for most of it and follow DRC rules provided by the fab. When they went to check the DRC rules for their analog design they found techniques you could use at TSMC were not allowed by Intel. TSMC optimizes their process and rules so that 1,000 different companies can each make 1 million chips. If the yield is 80% then that's fine because in order to get the yield to 90% you would have to hire another 50 engineers and spend another 6 months of design time. Intel optimizes their process so that 1 company can make 5 chips 1 billion times each. They can throw another 100 engineers at it and get the yield to 90% because they are making so few different types of chips. EDIT: Regarding DRC rules: All fabs have DRC rules. These define things like metal layer 2 can't be thinner than X amount and if it is parallel to another segment of metal 2 for longer than 20 microns then the spacing needs to be increased. Vias on layer 13 are larger than on layer 12. The rule for minimum size and the spacing between a 4 x 3 grid of vias is different for via layer 13 vs 12. And so on TSMC has their mandatory DRC rules. They will not manufacture the chip for you if you don't meet all the rules or get waivers for special requests. Then they have their recommended rules. If you meet these the yield will be higher but many of them involve leaving even more space between wires. This increase your die area which increases cost. But the yield will be higher. So do you save money or lose money? We have people in our team to analyze this and decide that we will meet THESE recommended rules but not THOSE rules. TSMC also had suggested DRC rules. These would increase yield even more with the tradeoff of more design time spent to do it.
- bcrl 4y ago
  The other major challenge Intel has that contract manufacturers like TSMC don't is an addiction to inflated monopoly level margins on their chpis. The entire organization is bloated and unable to control costs meaningfully like TSMC because they simply haven't had to given the profit margins on CPUs. Contract manufacturers have to be nimble when responding to customers, and that just isn't the Intel we know. I will be really impressed if they can overcome this baggage.
funstuff007 4y ago
Nothing creates a glut like a shortage.
CarbonCycles 4y ago
Intel has an identity problem and greatly over-estimates its capabilities (or influence...or maybe they have jumped the narcissistic shark all together)?!? TSMC & SAMSUNG have large backing and incentives from their respective governments....no publicly backed corporate entity can match those pockets. Intel's designs (i.e., architectures), products and manufacturing capabilities are from the early 90s. They have failed to innovate partly because their manufacturing capabilities are pretty poor, which have a high impact on their architectures and product development. They need to decouple those two functions as AMD did when they split into GlobalFoundries and acquired ATI...which was probably the smartest thing AMD ever did. Also, Intel needs to get off their highly egotistical perspective that chips can only be processed using PhDs and Postdocs...their entire mentality is elitist driven by a highly academic white castle mentality.
undoware 4y ago
I plan to rival TSMC and Samsung myself. I have a garage and a UV flashlight

255 points by retskrad 4y ago

TheDudeMan 4y ago

I also plan to do that.

6stringmerc 4y ago
I told you, the notes in my journal in GREEN MARKER are the ones you can steal from me. I specifically wrote this one down in maroon. How dare you! /s

simonblack 4y ago

How can they make their chips commercially competitive? US input costs are a lot higher than both TSMC's and China's. There is a reason that US manufacturers have outsourced their production to Asia for the last three decades.

988747 4y ago
Well, chip manufacturing is mostly automated, so labor costs are insignificant. Also, Intel is on path to regaining process lead, they can compete with TSMC and Samsung based on quality.
- rjzzleep 4y ago
  I'd say yes and no. TSMC has over 60000 employees. They're also probably the biggest siphon of fresh graduates in Taiwan. Like most Taiwanese companies people work like slaves(not Foxconn China level) and have fairly low salaries. Intel has twice as many employees, but then again they're also kind of all over the place. I can't really comment how important labor costs are, but I don't think that they're insignificant.
- simonblack 4y ago
  so labor costs are insignificant. When chip technology took off in the 1970s, the US semiconductor manufacturers had probably over 80% of the manufacturing share. Why is that share so low today? Why is it that the US manufacturers would be lucky to reach double-digits in manufacturing share? How did they get to drop to so low in the first place? The running cost of fabs is not the only cost of new fabs.
datalopers 4y ago
The US government is pouring a lot of money into subsidizing the cost of spinning up fabs. Additionally, China will help western foundries achieve success because they want Taiwan.
- SanjayMehta 4y ago
  > Additionally, China will help western foundries achieve success because they want Taiwan. Can you elaborate on this point?
  - jwond 4y ago
    I imagine the logic is that if the US has its own domestic chip production and isn’t so dependent on Taiwanese chips, then the US may not care as much if China invades Taiwan.
    - nonethewiser 4y ago
      Terrible reasoning, but yes I think that's what he means
    - chillwaves 4y ago
      Ignores the fact the island itself acts a buffer to China's SE expansion/projection of power. There is a lot of strategic value to the island, even without the chips.
    - SanjayMehta 4y ago
      That makes sense, and as someone else pointed out, Taiwan has strategic value by itself.
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  This, the CHIPS act was recently signed. Hundreds of billions are being invested in building onshore fabs.
  - rjzzleep 4y ago
_2d30 4y ago
Marginal costs in semiconductors are very low.
amelius 4y ago
Robotics.
coredog64 4y ago
Um, you might want to let Intel know that the US is too expensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_si... By my count, of the 7 fabs on the latest process, 5 are in the US.
- simonblack 4y ago
  Intel has been acknowledged to be having problems in keeping up with TSMC's progress towards 1 nm. They are falling behind.

RC_ITR 4y ago

They’ve been trying to do this for years. The problem always is “Intel fabs are so deeply integrated with Intel circuit design that it’s hard for more general customers to use their process.” Intel foundry makes a bunch of ‘odd’ choices justified by the fact that most of their volume is so homogeneous in terms of circuit design. I’m sure they’ve gotten better since I was last aware, but Intel is a hard ship to steer very far. The other trouble is that Intel isn’t used to working from a place other than being the best and most advanced and expensive option.

_2d30 4y ago
This is brand new to Gelsinger's reign beginning in 2021, no?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- TjZkxkxeky 4y ago
  He may be able to get it done, but they've been trying waaay before that. I'm not sure where the history started, but they were trying in 2007. I hope they can make it happen.
  - nsteel 4y ago
    They need to try a lot harder. They presented to us some 10+ years ago when they had a go at this market previously. The meeting was a waste of time. Their IP was non-existent, we didn't even do the follow up to hear about packaging. They had no idea what was required.
    - lizknope 4y ago
      Exactly. The IP portfolios that TSMC has is huge. You can go to Cadence, Synopsys, or TSMC themselves and get PLLs, serdes PHYs for PCI Express, USB, HDMI, DDR 3/4/5, LPDDR, etc. Is Intel going to let a customer use their internal IP? Most of the third party IP for TSMC is based on around ARM and the AXI / AMBA bus specs to quickly integrate. I've heard that Intel's blocks use an Intel specific bus so you would need a bunch of translation shims. Do you remember when Intel ported the Atom CPU to TSMC 40nm around 2009? They had to pre approve every design and it couldn't be in devices with larger than a 7" screen and all kinds of ridiculous nonsense. I later read articles that they did not have a single customer license the Atom in TSMC's process. Then they decided to make Atom powered mobile phone chips and basically paid a couple of companies to design them. Then no one wanted them. On top of that there were Android apps that used native ARM code and not just Java. So Intel had to make an ARM to x86 emulator for that. Intel is great at making server / desktop / laptop chips and pushing the industry forward with new specs and standards like USB. But I don't trust them to understand or follow through on anything else

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

HHC-Hunter 4y ago

Ptchd 4y ago

They can't even compete with AMD anymore....

newsclues 4y ago
They can in the Fab sector. Global Foundries was the spin off in 2009 of AMDs fabs.
- metaphor 4y ago
  > They can in the Fab sector. I'm bullish on Intel's IDM 2.0 vision in the later stages of a 10-year horizon, but as of today and for at least the next few years, this assertion is unsubstantiated bullshit. According to their latest Q3 10-Q filing[1], Intel Foundry Services segment accounts for $576M revenue and -$289M operating losses YTD. In contrast, Globalfoundries' last relevant 6-K filing[2] reported $3.933B revenue and $501M operating profit YTD...and oh by the way, GFS Q3 earnings call isn't until next week Tuesday, so these numbers reflect only 6 months of the current fiscal year. The reality these numbers support is that Intel's (bleeding) cash cow is in making and selling their own chips, not fabbing other companies' designs. Furthermore, the only named portfolio segment that's currently doing worse that Intel Foundry Services is Accelerated Computing Systems and Graphics, which has hemorrhaged -$1.275B in operating losses YTD. Even Mobileye segment generated 2.3x more revenue than Intel Foundry Services segment YTD, and is profitable despite being acquired only 5 years ago. To be fair, AMD intentionally divested their legacy foundry capabilities a decade ago; conflating GFS with AMD in the foundry space is logically indefensible, and there's meaningful underlying reasons why AMD pivoted to fabless. [1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086322000038/intc-20221001.htm https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508632200... [2] https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/000170904822000038/gfs-20220630_d2.htm#i2a7bb5776ed844ff953e2059f533ca84_106 https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1709048/0001...
  - newsclues 4y ago
    Long way to agree that a company that has divested their fab business doesn’t compete with Intel in the fab market.

newaccount2021 4y ago

warbler73 4y ago

Never will happen. Source: Their high level employees that I know.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Not with that attitude.
- curious_cat_163 4y ago
  Exactly. This is such a strange attitude. If they are really ‘high-level’, they should either walk away or push the ship in the direction that their CEO is calling for. Why stay and say things like this?
  - ErikVandeWater 4y ago
    Hoping the CEO gets sacked and they get a promotion?
  - makeitdouble 4y ago
    Or this would be the CEO's job: convince the employees he's heading in the right direction or find other employees.
  - bawolff 4y ago
    That's not really how the world works. People often stay in jobs they dont like or dont believe in. Maybe the money is better than competitors, maybe they are just afraid of change. There could be plenty of reasons. Morale issues sink businesses. If everyone who was unhappy walked away, no companies would ever have morale issues.
  - lizknope 4y ago
    Golden handcuffs in the form of millions in unvested stock. I knew people at companies that were acquired and joked that they were in "rest and vest mode" They didn't care what the new company did as long as they got paid and their huge number of shares over the next 3 years vested

tinglymintyfrsh 4y ago

Sounds like Intel is interested in losing more money as an undifferentiated, indefensible, commodity business like the PC desktop market. They're circling the drain.

TruthWillHurt 4y ago

And I, Pumpernickle the Third, Plan to rival the King of Spain with my Golden Armada! Have at you!

dqpb 4y ago

The actual title is: "How Intel plans to rival TSMC and Samsung as a chip supplier".

PaulWaldman 4y ago

With all of the skepticism here, who would be better positioned than Intel to eventually rival TSMC?

throwawaylinux 4y ago
Samsung.
- shash 4y ago
  Any reason why GF and UMC are not in the running?
  - guipsp 4y ago
    GF doesn't have the scale-at least not in the smaller nodes
  - throwawaylinux 4y ago
    They dropped out of the leading-edge logic race after getting to 14nm. Development and capex just got too expensive to pay off. I don't know much about the industry but it has been consolidating for 3-4 decades so it's probably just the same story, the up-front costs keep growing. I guess GF and UMC were approaching the limit of DUV where you start either having to do very complicated and expensive multi-patterning, or even more complicated and expensive EUV, so maybe that is what stopped them.
xiphias2 4y ago
The best shot for Intel taking over TSMC is getting the US to start a war with China at Taiwan. Of course it will be a tragedy, but in that case Intel is strategically important to the western world.
- Valmar 4y ago
  Given some of Intel's shady history, I'm not sure I'd like them to become the ones who take over from TSMC if anything goes south. They would probably have a monopoly, and with that, too much control, and so, are liable to become lazy and greedy, which will harm everyone involved.

dreamcompiler 4y ago

And I plan to date supermodels. /s Okay I'll try to be constructive. TSMC is two things: The biggest contracting foundry in the world, and a leader in EUV application for tiny geometries. I think it's possible for Intel to become a contracting foundry; it goes against their DNA but Gelsinger very much wants to do it. So that's the first thing. Maybe it'll happen. The second thing is much more problematic. > Intel is still working on getting its 5-nm mass production going, and says it will begin manufacturing Intel 3 -- its answer to TSMC's 3-nm tech -- in the second half of 2023. This I'm much more skeptical about. Intel tried to make EUV work before and failed. Still they seem to be buying ASML equipment and installing it at Ronler Acres: https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/intel-euv-fab-chips https://www.protocol.com/enterprise/intel-euv-fab-chips But it still sounds like a long shot to get it working in 2023.

curious_cat_163 4y ago
Would you share some insight on why Intel failed at making EUV work? Gelsinger said on a podcast (Decoder) recently that in fact they fought it. Obviously, they are kind of big enough to do both — make a half hearted attempt and fight it all the same due to some internal politics. However, for something this existential, one would think that the smart people and the leadership would try to put some focus on the field. Was it that bad? Really, looking for some insight on what really went down.
- chasil 4y ago
  Intel has mastered 10nm production. The race to the bottom of physics is not a long ride.
- dreamcompiler 4y ago
  Intel (like every other chipmaker) has been chasing EUV for decades, but every time they thought they finally nailed it they turned out to be wrong. The key that ultimately made it possible was the light source, and ASML is the only company that sells these light sources. ASML didn't invent the light source entirely on its own; there were a lot of ideas for light sources floating around and the only one that turned out to work was laser-induced plasma from tin microdroplets, which sounds completely crazy but it works [0]. ASML perfected that process (with -- to be fair -- some investment from Intel). [0] https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/light-and-lasers https://www.asml.com/en/technology/lithography-principles/li... Intel did fight EUV with a technology called SAQP which ultimately turned out not to work as well as EUV, but they were researching EUV at the same time. Here are some more historical articles about Intel's work on EUV in the past. Note the dates. https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-achieves-major-milestones-in-euv-lithography-program/#gs.h80lu7 https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-achieves-majo... https://semiengineering.com/why-euv-is-so-difficult/ https://semiengineering.com/why-euv-is-so-difficult/ https://www.eetimes.com/intel-developing-euv-pellicle/ https://www.eetimes.com/intel-developing-euv-pellicle/ https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276376-intel-reportedly-wont-deploy-euv-lithography-until-2021 https://www.extremetech.com/computing/276376-intel-reportedl...

synergy20 4y ago

It has been talking the talk for quite a while, in fact for years, and I'm truly getting bored. I think Intel totally forgot what 'credibility' means.

reissbaker 4y ago

I think it's inevitable given the geopolitical situation in Taiwan that someone eats TSMC's lunch on America's dollar. China will almost certainly invade in the next decade, and getting large volumes of delicate electronics in and out of ports that are subject to a Chinese navy blockade will be very difficult (not to mention the difficulty in manufacturing them amid explosions). The CHIPS act is a big part of preparing for this. Intel is set up pretty well to pull it off when this happens. Samsung might be in a good position too.

chaostheory 4y ago
> China will almost certainly invade in the next decade Unfortunately, a decade is optimistic now. Given rising instability in China, it will probably be less than 5 years. I believe the DOD has updated their estimate
- thelittleone 4y ago
  I disagree and I hope I'm right. Taiwan has been preparing for an invasion for decades. China will be observing Russia / Ukraine and although they may suffer less from corruption and military rot, they will be aware of the power of an enemy fighting for survival and freedom against a tyrannical invader.
  - 6stringmerc 4y ago
    Also there’s no doubt in my mind they are bitter because China wanted to be the country to get away with an illegal invasion in the eyes of the western world, and Putin already cashed that chip. Now to do so would basically let China and Russia give the world a reason to cut them off together. Yeesh.
  - rjtavares 4y ago
    I'm not optimistic. China learned that the West won't get troops involved directly, and Taiwan doesn't have a land border with a nearby friendly airport you can use to supply them with weapons (check https://twitter.com/GotfrydKarol/status/1588556253760225281 https://twitter.com/GotfrydKarol/status/1588556253760225281).

DeathArrow 4y ago

So what's the big plan? Fab its own CPUs at TSMC with a better process and use its own fabs for contract manufacturing? But Apple, Nvidia, AMD, Qualcomm, Mediatek are the largest customers by volume and I don't think they would switch from TSMC to Intel soon. Maybe some Chinese CPU manufacturers would like to use Intel but there is a trade ban for China. Also, seeing how Intel likes to jack prices from time to time, I wouldn't want to depend on Intel for all of my manufacturing.

hooch 4y ago

FTA: "Intel also needs to build up a third-party intellectual property portfolio, design services, and a chip packaging and testing ecosystem with partners to make it easier for customers to use Intel's manufacturing process." ... "so far, there is no evidence to show any of these hurdles have been overcome," Shi said. Apparently it's in this domain that TSMC is king.

langsoul-com 4y ago

Intel needs to spend a hellva lot more than a few measly billion to rival even Samsung (sub 20 percent sharemarket). Tsmc is spending $36 billion [1] for 2022 for capital expenditure. Those numbers are fucking nuts, and they Already have several huge fabs [1] https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-q3-profit-jumps-80-beats-market-expectations-2022-10-13/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/tsmc-q3-profit-jumps-80-b...

SilverBirch 4y ago

Any one else remember the last time Intel did this, completely screwed up delivery of the process node, and ended up buying most of their customers. I heard a rumour that when Intel became the fab for Altera the contract barred Intel from fabbing for any other FPGA company which handed Altera a tonne of leverage on price for the acquisition - because even if Intel bought Xilinx instead they wouldn't be able to fab for them.

mirker 4y ago
There are other comments in this thread suggesting Altera shares were tanked due to manufacturing delays from Intel.
- SilverBirch 4y ago
  Yeah, I think that's a bit of re-writing history. It's certainly true that the Intel partnership was a shitshow, but Altera shares traded at a pretty constant ratio to Xilinx and were bought at a big premium. Intel weren't exactly savvy in their acquisitions during BK's tenure.

agd 4y ago

Surprised by all the skepticism in this thread. The way I see it, Intel is the only real hedge against the China/Taiwan situation, and (at least according to their public statements) they're on track for the upcoming process nodes. If the strategy works out, the upside is huge.

bob1029 4y ago
Agreed regarding potential upside. The AMD vs Intel game is minuscule compared to the Intel vs TSMC vs Samsung game. Intel doesn't have a great track record in contract mfg, but there is absolutely no reason this story can't change. Especially, if more subsidies arise in the future...
- ehvatum 4y ago
  The day Intel gets EUV 3nm fabrication running at 90% yield, all commitments to fabrication for other parties will be forgotten. Given the choice between producing a contract part for you to sell or super-fat margin Xeon Platinum Gentlemen’s Club Edition for them to sell, you can eat shit. The contract fab push exists to keep 401k funds from divesting in the near term.

lizknope 4y ago

I've been in the semiconductor industry for 25 years. Intel has tried to be a fab to external customers multiple times in the past. I can remember around 2002 and 2009. After a few years the effort dies out. I know a couple of companies that tried to get Intel to fab stuff and their orders get shoved aside when Intel needs the fab space for their own chips. The people who founded the company Open Silicon (physical design services) were kind of a spin off from Intel's design services group. They got frustrated when Intel wasn't serious about doing external chips. I know a couple of other 3rd party external IP companies that have designed IP for Intel in Intel's process. They all said the DRC rules were very restrictive. These blocks had a large amount of analog circuits where the layout is done by hand. In contrast I am in digital physical design where we use automated tools for most of it and follow DRC rules provided by the fab. When they went to check the DRC rules for their analog design they found techniques you could use at TSMC were not allowed by Intel. TSMC optimizes their process and rules so that 1,000 different companies can each make 1 million chips. If the yield is 80% then that's fine because in order to get the yield to 90% you would have to hire another 50 engineers and spend another 6 months of design time. Intel optimizes their process so that 1 company can make 5 chips 1 billion times each. They can throw another 100 engineers at it and get the yield to 90% because they are making so few different types of chips. EDIT: Regarding DRC rules: All fabs have DRC rules. These define things like metal layer 2 can't be thinner than X amount and if it is parallel to another segment of metal 2 for longer than 20 microns then the spacing needs to be increased. Vias on layer 13 are larger than on layer 12. The rule for minimum size and the spacing between a 4 x 3 grid of vias is different for via layer 13 vs 12. And so on TSMC has their mandatory DRC rules. They will not manufacture the chip for you if you don't meet all the rules or get waivers for special requests. Then they have their recommended rules. If you meet these the yield will be higher but many of them involve leaving even more space between wires. This increase your die area which increases cost. But the yield will be higher. So do you save money or lose money? We have people in our team to analyze this and decide that we will meet THESE recommended rules but not THOSE rules. TSMC also had suggested DRC rules. These would increase yield even more with the tradeoff of more design time spent to do it.

bcrl 4y ago
The other major challenge Intel has that contract manufacturers like TSMC don't is an addiction to inflated monopoly level margins on their chpis. The entire organization is bloated and unable to control costs meaningfully like TSMC because they simply haven't had to given the profit margins on CPUs. Contract manufacturers have to be nimble when responding to customers, and that just isn't the Intel we know. I will be really impressed if they can overcome this baggage.

funstuff007 4y ago

Nothing creates a glut like a shortage.

CarbonCycles 4y ago

Intel has an identity problem and greatly over-estimates its capabilities (or influence...or maybe they have jumped the narcissistic shark all together)?!? TSMC & SAMSUNG have large backing and incentives from their respective governments....no publicly backed corporate entity can match those pockets. Intel's designs (i.e., architectures), products and manufacturing capabilities are from the early 90s. They have failed to innovate partly because their manufacturing capabilities are pretty poor, which have a high impact on their architectures and product development. They need to decouple those two functions as AMD did when they split into GlobalFoundries and acquired ATI...which was probably the smartest thing AMD ever did. Also, Intel needs to get off their highly egotistical perspective that chips can only be processed using PhDs and Postdocs...their entire mentality is elitist driven by a highly academic white castle mentality.

undoware 4y ago

I plan to rival TSMC and Samsung myself. I have a garage and a UV flashlight