7 ms·

Already being planned by Intel. They're building a new leading edge fab in Magdeburg, Germany [1]. This is backed by the new European Chips Act [2]. Wheels have

Already being planned by Intel. They're building a new leading edge fab in Magdeburg, Germany [1]. This is backed by the new European Chips Act [2]. Wheels have started turning very quickly with regards to home-grown semiconductors in 2022. [1] https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/newsroom/news/eu-news-2022-release.html https://www.intel.co.uk/content/www/uk/en/newsroom/news/eu-n... [2] https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_729 https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_22_...

xiphias2 4y ago
If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good for EU? It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what would be in its interest.
- totalZero 4y ago
  Intel is making the right capex moves to position itself for a future situation where Taiwanese production could get interrupted. Intel is right alongside TSMC and Samsung at the leading edge and it would be an exaggeration to suggest otherwise. Marginal differences in road map and quality over the short term don't tell us the full picture in a business where course-corrections take years and years to bear fruit. 20B in Ohio: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-announces-next-us-site-landmark-investment-ohio.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-... 20B in Arizona: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-breaks-ground-two-new-leading-edge-chip-factories-arizona.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...
- sofixa 4y ago
  > If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good for EU? Who said they're not good enough? They're slightly worse than TSMC, but still put out competitive chips for desktops, laptops and servers. Slightly more expensive, slightly higher power consumption but still, perfectly acceptable and still the market leader in some areas. > It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what would be in its interest. No, it's not clear. Why would the EU do that? They did the best they could given the very limited choice present.
- AdamN 4y ago
  Intel has lots of leading edge fabs in the US and continues to build them. They made some business mistakes around not opening up their chip design the way ARM enabled ... but the tech capacity is all there. Now they are doing contract production for chips that they did not design so I expect them to catch up in a few years.
  - huijzer 4y ago
    Meanwhile Chris Miller in Chip War argues that Intel will fail again since nobody wants to give their secrets to Intel. If you’re Apple, for example, then handing over chip designs to Intel isn’t ideal in terms of competition.
    - mrtweetyhack 4y ago
- BirAdam 4y ago
  Intel is still holds the market on laptops and desktops at about 3/4. They simply push more volume. TSMC makes desktop chips for Apple, but Apple isn’t the majority. The rest of TSMC’s production is almost exclusively GPUs and phones, and this could change. If Intel executes well on their next nodes, and should TSMC slip at all, Intel could pull ahead. Never count Intel out. People thought Intel would die after the z80 ate their lunch, after the Athlon 64 ate their lunch, and now they say it again… I think it’s all just noise.
  - justahuman74 4y ago
    The market isn't laptops/desktops and phones, everything has ICs in it these days. Laptops/desktops and phones are just the high-margin items. The blast-radius for non-intel chip fabricators is much wider and impactful for the economy
    - BirAdam 4y ago
      Sure, but most of the rest isn’t leading edge and more manufacturers are in that space, including TSMC and Intel.
ChuckNorris89 4y ago
How leading edge will Intel's Germany fab be when it's finished? 10nm++? While TSMC will be on what, 1nm by then? Intel's PR link doesn't go into details on this.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  Intel's "10nm+" (non-EUV) processors compete rather fiercely with AMD's "5nm" (EUV) processors. The latter are weirdly not 2x better, not even close, on any metric. Hm.
  - _zoltan_ 4y ago
    competes???? in what universe? have looked at perf per W?
  - huijzer 4y ago
    Anecdotal evidence, but I do know that my 12th gen Intel can burn through 10% of battery in 10 minutes. That is to say that Intel is doing really poorly in power consumption.
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      > power consumption It really depends on the model. I see, for example, Kaby Lake Y models with a TDP of 4.5W . Though, in general, yes, many report that Intel is not taking power consumption as a priority (which does not mean that they do not offer niche "ultra/extremely-low power" products).
      - mdp2021 4y ago
        Will the renegade snipers make their point explicit.
        girvo 4y ago
        I can't explain the downvotes, but for what it's worth both Apple and AMD offer far more power for the same TDP when talking about low-wattage parts, do they not? Thats the whole benefit of TSMC's process advantage (and also why Nvidia also moved to them from Samsung this generation). In practice of course, to get the performance uplift consumers expect, AMD and Intel and Nvidia are all pushing TDPs to the limit where they can, but for products that want performance-per-watt, the TSMC-based ones are king, from what I've seen. That said, it's all a moving target, and anyone who thinks Intel isn't producing good parts today is wrong -- they are.
phpisthebest 4y ago
I always find it odd that companies always want to be build things outside of their home state TSMC -> US Intel -> EU Toyota -> US Honda -> US Ford -> MX / Canada GM -> MX / Canada
- huijzer 4y ago
  The most common reason is typically cheaper labour. That’s why Nike produced in Japan and then moved to even cheaper countries. Related might be that some countries have a lot of knowledge workers in their 40-50s who can then manage factories in other countries. Japanse companies producing cars in Europe is an example of that. For the current trend to move to the US. That has to be government funding. Luckily, fabs require large investments at the start which might break-even more expensive labor. Also, maybe some more automation in the fabs could also help in making the fabs cost competitive.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>typically cheaper labour. While a factor, labor costs alone are the primary reason. In reality is more about the wider regulatory burden on a company, including environmental controls That said it does not explain why a Japan Company can make cars profitably in the US but a US Manufacturer can not. If it was only labor why would Toyota not have a factory right next to GM's in Mexico and import cars from Mexico to the US?
    - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
      I guess its that the Japanese Company can make cars profitably anywhere but making cars for the US market in the US means there's no/less import taxes, also because the factories are huge they often get local tax breaks, and the cars may also eligible for EV/hybrid tax credits (I think Toyota have sold over 200K so there cars can no longer get this). I think making cars in Mexico for the US became less worthwhile when Trump pulled the US out of NAFTA.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago

xiphias2 4y ago

If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good for EU? It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what would be in its interest.

totalZero 4y ago
Intel is making the right capex moves to position itself for a future situation where Taiwanese production could get interrupted. Intel is right alongside TSMC and Samsung at the leading edge and it would be an exaggeration to suggest otherwise. Marginal differences in road map and quality over the short term don't tell us the full picture in a business where course-corrections take years and years to bear fruit. 20B in Ohio: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-announces-next-us-site-landmark-investment-ohio.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-... 20B in Arizona: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-breaks-ground-two-new-leading-edge-chip-factories-arizona.html https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-...
sofixa 4y ago
> If Intel is not good enough for US, why would it be good for EU? Who said they're not good enough? They're slightly worse than TSMC, but still put out competitive chips for desktops, laptops and servers. Slightly more expensive, slightly higher power consumption but still, perfectly acceptable and still the market leader in some areas. > It's clear that EU did what US wanted instead of what would be in its interest. No, it's not clear. Why would the EU do that? They did the best they could given the very limited choice present.
AdamN 4y ago
Intel has lots of leading edge fabs in the US and continues to build them. They made some business mistakes around not opening up their chip design the way ARM enabled ... but the tech capacity is all there. Now they are doing contract production for chips that they did not design so I expect them to catch up in a few years.
- huijzer 4y ago
  Meanwhile Chris Miller in Chip War argues that Intel will fail again since nobody wants to give their secrets to Intel. If you’re Apple, for example, then handing over chip designs to Intel isn’t ideal in terms of competition.
  - mrtweetyhack 4y ago
BirAdam 4y ago
Intel is still holds the market on laptops and desktops at about 3/4. They simply push more volume. TSMC makes desktop chips for Apple, but Apple isn’t the majority. The rest of TSMC’s production is almost exclusively GPUs and phones, and this could change. If Intel executes well on their next nodes, and should TSMC slip at all, Intel could pull ahead. Never count Intel out. People thought Intel would die after the z80 ate their lunch, after the Athlon 64 ate their lunch, and now they say it again… I think it’s all just noise.
- justahuman74 4y ago
  The market isn't laptops/desktops and phones, everything has ICs in it these days. Laptops/desktops and phones are just the high-margin items. The blast-radius for non-intel chip fabricators is much wider and impactful for the economy
  - BirAdam 4y ago
    Sure, but most of the rest isn’t leading edge and more manufacturers are in that space, including TSMC and Intel.

ChuckNorris89 4y ago

How leading edge will Intel's Germany fab be when it's finished? 10nm++? While TSMC will be on what, 1nm by then? Intel's PR link doesn't go into details on this.

formerly_proven 4y ago
Intel's "10nm+" (non-EUV) processors compete rather fiercely with AMD's "5nm" (EUV) processors. The latter are weirdly not 2x better, not even close, on any metric. Hm.
- _zoltan_ 4y ago
  competes???? in what universe? have looked at perf per W?
- huijzer 4y ago
  Anecdotal evidence, but I do know that my 12th gen Intel can burn through 10% of battery in 10 minutes. That is to say that Intel is doing really poorly in power consumption.
  - mdp2021 4y ago
    > power consumption It really depends on the model. I see, for example, Kaby Lake Y models with a TDP of 4.5W . Though, in general, yes, many report that Intel is not taking power consumption as a priority (which does not mean that they do not offer niche "ultra/extremely-low power" products).
    - mdp2021 4y ago
      Will the renegade snipers make their point explicit.
      - girvo 4y ago
        I can't explain the downvotes, but for what it's worth both Apple and AMD offer far more power for the same TDP when talking about low-wattage parts, do they not? Thats the whole benefit of TSMC's process advantage (and also why Nvidia also moved to them from Samsung this generation). In practice of course, to get the performance uplift consumers expect, AMD and Intel and Nvidia are all pushing TDPs to the limit where they can, but for products that want performance-per-watt, the TSMC-based ones are king, from what I've seen. That said, it's all a moving target, and anyone who thinks Intel isn't producing good parts today is wrong -- they are.

phpisthebest 4y ago

I always find it odd that companies always want to be build things outside of their home state TSMC -> US Intel -> EU Toyota -> US Honda -> US Ford -> MX / Canada GM -> MX / Canada

huijzer 4y ago
The most common reason is typically cheaper labour. That’s why Nike produced in Japan and then moved to even cheaper countries. Related might be that some countries have a lot of knowledge workers in their 40-50s who can then manage factories in other countries. Japanse companies producing cars in Europe is an example of that. For the current trend to move to the US. That has to be government funding. Luckily, fabs require large investments at the start which might break-even more expensive labor. Also, maybe some more automation in the fabs could also help in making the fabs cost competitive.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>typically cheaper labour. While a factor, labor costs alone are the primary reason. In reality is more about the wider regulatory burden on a company, including environmental controls That said it does not explain why a Japan Company can make cars profitably in the US but a US Manufacturer can not. If it was only labor why would Toyota not have a factory right next to GM's in Mexico and import cars from Mexico to the US?
  - helsinkiandrew 4y ago
    I guess its that the Japanese Company can make cars profitably anywhere but making cars for the US market in the US means there's no/less import taxes, also because the factories are huge they often get local tax breaks, and the cars may also eligible for EV/hybrid tax credits (I think Toyota have sold over 200K so there cars can no longer get this). I think making cars in Mexico for the US became less worthwhile when Trump pulled the US out of NAFTA.
    - phpisthebest 4y ago