6 ms·

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

by 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
      - mastax 4y ago
        Yes, Intel is letting customers use their IP. Up to and including their CPU cores.
        nsteel 4y ago
        I wonder if they'll invest in developing IP they themselves don't need. I'm thinking high-speed serdes (not the slower stuff for pcie etc)
- User23 4y ago
  Mr’ Gelsinger is rightly investing in the core business of the company he was hired to run, yes.
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  New in the sense they gave up in 2018. https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-intel-discontinues-the-custom-foundry-business/ https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...
  - _2d30 4y ago
    Good to know! Thanks
  - lizknope 4y ago
    I wrote another comment in the thread that they have tried being a customer foundry and given up multiple times in the past. Around 2002 and 2009.
arroz 4y ago
>>> 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.” Why would this be a problem ?
- RC_ITR 4y ago
  There are things called “design rules” that the circuit designers (basically software developers who make the map for how the circuits should be laid out) need to follow for a process (basically “the software will allow you to do X, but the way we make chips, it won’t work”) TSMC focuses on making rules that are easy to follow (and documenting their rules for a broad audience). Intel has been “allowed” to make design rules that are bad for the circuit designers, as long as they improve performance, since the designers are a captive audience. That doesn’t work as a 3P vendor.
  - bob1029 4y ago
    I think we would have to wait and see how far they're willing to go. If intel releases a high quality process design kit, or even develops their own handholding consulting experience, I don't see why it couldn't work.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
Before they absorbed Altera, they were Altera's contract fab for the 10 series. That was delayed by a lot because it turns out Intel's processes are so weird. Eventually, Altera switched its mid-range Arria products to TSMC and got a chip out the door, and we waited another 2 years (at least) for the high-end Stratix 10 to come out. Intel bought Altera during that fiasco. The last time they tried, it looked like it was a blatant move to try to prepare for an acquisition. They essentially screwed Altera into doing the work to port their chips to an Intel process while also tanking the value of Altera Inc. due to the delays. Do SoC companies want to risk chaining themselves to the Intel process? Do more of them want to be acquisition targets? Do competing CPU vendors want to give up their IP to Intel in exchange for fabrication? Until Intel spins out its fabs, which it probably should have done a long time ago, Intel will be facing an uphill battle to acquire customers for its fabs.

by RC_ITR 4y ago

_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
    - mastax 4y ago
      Yes, Intel is letting customers use their IP. Up to and including their CPU cores.
      - nsteel 4y ago
        I wonder if they'll invest in developing IP they themselves don't need. I'm thinking high-speed serdes (not the slower stuff for pcie etc)
User23 4y ago
Mr’ Gelsinger is rightly investing in the core business of the company he was hired to run, yes.
RC_ITR 4y ago
New in the sense they gave up in 2018. https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-intel-discontinues-the-custom-foundry-business/ https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-manufacturers/intel/7912-...
- _2d30 4y ago
  Good to know! Thanks
- lizknope 4y ago
  I wrote another comment in the thread that they have tried being a customer foundry and given up multiple times in the past. Around 2002 and 2009.

arroz 4y ago

>>> 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.” Why would this be a problem ?

RC_ITR 4y ago
There are things called “design rules” that the circuit designers (basically software developers who make the map for how the circuits should be laid out) need to follow for a process (basically “the software will allow you to do X, but the way we make chips, it won’t work”) TSMC focuses on making rules that are easy to follow (and documenting their rules for a broad audience). Intel has been “allowed” to make design rules that are bad for the circuit designers, as long as they improve performance, since the designers are a captive audience. That doesn’t work as a 3P vendor.
- bob1029 4y ago
  I think we would have to wait and see how far they're willing to go. If intel releases a high quality process design kit, or even develops their own handholding consulting experience, I don't see why it couldn't work.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

Before they absorbed Altera, they were Altera's contract fab for the 10 series. That was delayed by a lot because it turns out Intel's processes are so weird. Eventually, Altera switched its mid-range Arria products to TSMC and got a chip out the door, and we waited another 2 years (at least) for the high-end Stratix 10 to come out. Intel bought Altera during that fiasco. The last time they tried, it looked like it was a blatant move to try to prepare for an acquisition. They essentially screwed Altera into doing the work to port their chips to an Intel process while also tanking the value of Altera Inc. due to the delays. Do SoC companies want to risk chaining themselves to the Intel process? Do more of them want to be acquisition targets? Do competing CPU vendors want to give up their IP to Intel in exchange for fabrication? Until Intel spins out its fabs, which it probably should have done a long time ago, Intel will be facing an uphill battle to acquire customers for its fabs.