6 ms·

Intel has been troubled for about 10 years now. The cracks started showing in 2013 when they delayed the 14nm process for about a year, then widened when they c

Intel has been troubled for about 10 years now. The cracks started showing in 2013 when they delayed the 14nm process for about a year, then widened when they couldn’t get 10nm into production for several years. At this point we are allowed to be a little skeptical when they tell us they are going to regain the crown.

ozarker 4y ago
I definitely agree with you. Though AMD's comeback with Ryzen really surprised me and I don't think other companies can't replicate comebacks like that. After the Bulldozer fiasco who would think AMD would be where they are today?
- nordsieck 4y ago
  > After the Bulldozer fiasco who would think AMD would be where they are today? I mean... for people who remember AMD's original breakthrough with the Athlon, it's not super surprising. Although it feels a bit like a problem with Intel as well. I think, too much time wearing the crown can be bad for a company. Although some companies don't seem to suffer from that problem - Nvidia and TSMC being 2 pretty good examples.
  - snovv_crash 4y ago
    TSMC hasn't been on top nearly as long as Intel was. NVidia indeed seems an outlier, although arguably the GPU division of AMD hasn't had the same overhaul that the CPU side had.
    - mepian 4y ago
      Yeah, the last significant stumble of Nvidia I can remember is the GeForce FX (aka GeForce 5) series being notably inferior to the ATI R300 series.
  - nerpderp82 4y ago
    I do, Bulldozer was a great lesson on how to run a great team to make a mediocre product because you don't have the right feedback in place. When you have silicon is not the time to find out you perform poorly.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    >I think, too much time wearing the crown can be bad for a company. Being #1 is bad for everyone and everything period. History has shown us time and time again that the #1 spot inevitably falls from grace, the only question being how disasterously. There is no exception. #2 and below are where you want to place if your primary interest is continued, ideally permanent, long-term prosperity.
- Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
  >I don't think other companies can't replicate comebacks like that. AMD didn't really do so much. It was TSMC that saved them.
  - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
    Couldn't be a more false statement. AMD's success was also due to their new Zen architecture and move to chiplets. TSMC alone wouln't have been enough to save them if their architecture would have sucked.
    - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
      Right. It was just a coincidence that they became competitive only after selling glofo and moving to TSMC.
      - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
        Please get your facts straight. Zen architecture and their move to chaplets were also big factors of their success. AMD still used Glo-Fo for the first gen Ryzens and still do for the I/O die in some chiplets because it's cost competitive. It they would have just ported their failed Bulldozer architecture to TSMC, that wouldn't have helped them at all. Your original claim that "AMD didn't do much" and it was "TSMC that saved them" is a blatantly false. You are grossly misinformed if you believe that.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - nl 4y ago
    This isn't really true. Zen was built for years at Global Foundries on 14nm and out performed Intel at the time. Moving to TSMC definitely helped later, but it was the original Zen architecture that put them back in the game. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation)
- silisili 4y ago
  A bit apples and oranges, isn't it? Intel has been having trouble fabbing. AMD was having trouble designing. Keller et al designed a hell of a chip with Ryzen, then threw it to TSMC to produce. Intel probably could have done the same, but for the sake of having a competitive home grown fab, I'm glad they didn't.
  - ac29 4y ago
    AMD also had trouble fabbing. They didnt spin out their fabs until 2009 and continued to use manufacturing from the spun out entity (Global Foundries) for many years after that despite their capabilities being behind Intel and TSMC. Ryzen manufacturing didnt move to TSMC until 2019 with Zen 2.
    - silisili 4y ago
      IIRC, AMD going with TSMC happened around the time GloFo said they're not going to do cutting edge anymore. Makes me wonder exactly what happened there. Did GloFo hit trouble and give up? Did AMD tell them they weren't going to use them anymore, leading to them giving up? Basically, who dumped who?
      - beebeepka 4y ago
        I think AMD dumped GF. The first two Zen line ups (1000/2000) clearly used an interior process.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
mbgerring 4y ago
People were skeptical of Apple for a long time after Steve Jobs came back, too.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Intels issue is that it’s competing on technology. Jobs never really tried to compete on technology. Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. Apple didn’t become competitive on a technological basis until 2012 with the iPhone 5s. What’s Intel’s “unfair advantage”.
  - ijidak 4y ago
    Wait, isn't Intel vertically integrated exactly like Apple? They own design and foundry. TSMC is mostly foundry. AMD is mostly design. Right now, vertical integration is a weakness for Intel -- just as it was for Apple during the Jobs interregnum and the beginning of his return. (e.g. the pre-Apple-on-Intel silicon years.) But the situation could quickly change and vertical integration could become an advantage again for Intel. Especially in a "challenging" geopolitical environment.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      And Apple is also a bit player in each of its markets. The iPhone only has 13% market share worldwide and the Mac has around 10%. It happens to have the most profitable niches and it can ignore markets it doesn’t want to serve. The PC market is not growing. The chance of Intel overtaking Nvidia for GPUs, ARM for low power chips and making “old” chips for cars, microwaves, etc. is slim
  - AnthonyMouse 4y ago
    > Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. The thing Apple does isn't really vertical integration. It's tying. The only thing stopping iPhone hardware from running Android is Apple. The only thing stopping iOS from running on Samsung hardware is Apple. It's not that they fundamentally require each other. Maybe some minor proportion of iOS features require some iPhone-specific hardware. If you offered iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone without those features, they would still sell. So why are they not offering combinations customers want? Because if they sold iOS for Samsung, they'd lose the margin on the hardware. If they sold iPhones with Android, they'd lose the margin on the OS/services. So if you want one you have to take both. That's not really a competitive advantage. It doesn't gain market share, it costs it, because some of the people who would buy iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone will go buy Android on Samsung. What it does is increase their margins at the expense of consumer choice. And it's a risk, because it means they have to execute well everywhere, or the thing that underperforms brings down the whole stack. Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Which means all they need for success is to get back their process advantage. They may or may not be able to do that, but it's all they need.
NovaDudely 4y ago
For about 20 years I had the mantra of "Don't bet against Intel". A good example of this was in the early 90's when all the hype from the Apple fans about PowerPC and the end of x86 by the year 2000. The hype was real but Intel was just quietly saying "we have a road map and we will go well beyond what people expect" and then Intel did it - while PPC slowly faded away (for various reasons). Everytime someone predicted the end of Intel - they just kept knocking out of the park when least expected. Thinking going from Pentuim 4 Prescott to Intel Core series for instance. Side note - At least the Prescott was vaguely ambitious! But the last decade has not been great for Intel. That engineering prowess has faded a little. Their new GPU stuff is neat and very forward thinking but it is still a wait and see on that. But when it comes to their other elements, it feels like they have just been doing the same thing with very minor tweaks for far too long now. --- Another aside, it is same theoretical greatness doesn't always translate to market greatness. If it worked like that we would probably all be using PowerPC machines in some degree. A wonderful ISA!
- amelius 4y ago
  I visited some scientific VLSI/EDA conferences some 20 years ago. Intel was everywhere, both in sponsoring as in real participation. Apple was literally nowhere. I wonder if this has changed.
  - ladberg 4y ago
    Idk about conferences but Apple sponsored some architecture courses when I was at Berkeley, and I ended up interning on an Apple hardware team due to connections made at a big hiring event they hosted on campus.
    - kridsdale1 4y ago
      What year?
- yrdmb 4y ago
  Think it had more to do with Intel partnering with Microsoft and Windows taking over the PC market in the 90s.
Stevvo 4y ago
People really overstate Intel's woes. They got stuck on 14nm for ages, but were for all that time still the market leader. AMD has never comprehensively challenged them; only one segment at time is an AMD product better.

ozarker 4y ago

I definitely agree with you. Though AMD's comeback with Ryzen really surprised me and I don't think other companies can't replicate comebacks like that. After the Bulldozer fiasco who would think AMD would be where they are today?

nordsieck 4y ago
> After the Bulldozer fiasco who would think AMD would be where they are today? I mean... for people who remember AMD's original breakthrough with the Athlon, it's not super surprising. Although it feels a bit like a problem with Intel as well. I think, too much time wearing the crown can be bad for a company. Although some companies don't seem to suffer from that problem - Nvidia and TSMC being 2 pretty good examples.
- snovv_crash 4y ago
  TSMC hasn't been on top nearly as long as Intel was. NVidia indeed seems an outlier, although arguably the GPU division of AMD hasn't had the same overhaul that the CPU side had.
  - mepian 4y ago
    Yeah, the last significant stumble of Nvidia I can remember is the GeForce FX (aka GeForce 5) series being notably inferior to the ATI R300 series.
- nerpderp82 4y ago
  I do, Bulldozer was a great lesson on how to run a great team to make a mediocre product because you don't have the right feedback in place. When you have silicon is not the time to find out you perform poorly.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  >I think, too much time wearing the crown can be bad for a company. Being #1 is bad for everyone and everything period. History has shown us time and time again that the #1 spot inevitably falls from grace, the only question being how disasterously. There is no exception. #2 and below are where you want to place if your primary interest is continued, ideally permanent, long-term prosperity.
Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
>I don't think other companies can't replicate comebacks like that. AMD didn't really do so much. It was TSMC that saved them.
- ChuckNorris89 4y ago
  Couldn't be a more false statement. AMD's success was also due to their new Zen architecture and move to chiplets. TSMC alone wouln't have been enough to save them if their architecture would have sucked.
  - Vt71fcAqt7 4y ago
    Right. It was just a coincidence that they became competitive only after selling glofo and moving to TSMC.
    - ChuckNorris89 4y ago
      Please get your facts straight. Zen architecture and their move to chaplets were also big factors of their success. AMD still used Glo-Fo for the first gen Ryzens and still do for the I/O die in some chiplets because it's cost competitive. It they would have just ported their failed Bulldozer architecture to TSMC, that wouldn't have helped them at all. Your original claim that "AMD didn't do much" and it was "TSMC that saved them" is a blatantly false. You are grossly misinformed if you believe that.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
- nl 4y ago
  This isn't really true. Zen was built for years at Global Foundries on 14nm and out performed Intel at the time. Moving to TSMC definitely helped later, but it was the original Zen architecture that put them back in the game. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_(first_generation)
silisili 4y ago
A bit apples and oranges, isn't it? Intel has been having trouble fabbing. AMD was having trouble designing. Keller et al designed a hell of a chip with Ryzen, then threw it to TSMC to produce. Intel probably could have done the same, but for the sake of having a competitive home grown fab, I'm glad they didn't.
- ac29 4y ago
  AMD also had trouble fabbing. They didnt spin out their fabs until 2009 and continued to use manufacturing from the spun out entity (Global Foundries) for many years after that despite their capabilities being behind Intel and TSMC. Ryzen manufacturing didnt move to TSMC until 2019 with Zen 2.
  - silisili 4y ago
    IIRC, AMD going with TSMC happened around the time GloFo said they're not going to do cutting edge anymore. Makes me wonder exactly what happened there. Did GloFo hit trouble and give up? Did AMD tell them they weren't going to use them anymore, leading to them giving up? Basically, who dumped who?
    - beebeepka 4y ago
      I think AMD dumped GF. The first two Zen line ups (1000/2000) clearly used an interior process.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

mbgerring 4y ago

People were skeptical of Apple for a long time after Steve Jobs came back, too.

scarface74 4y ago
Intels issue is that it’s competing on technology. Jobs never really tried to compete on technology. Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. Apple didn’t become competitive on a technological basis until 2012 with the iPhone 5s. What’s Intel’s “unfair advantage”.
- ijidak 4y ago
  Wait, isn't Intel vertically integrated exactly like Apple? They own design and foundry. TSMC is mostly foundry. AMD is mostly design. Right now, vertical integration is a weakness for Intel -- just as it was for Apple during the Jobs interregnum and the beginning of his return. (e.g. the pre-Apple-on-Intel silicon years.) But the situation could quickly change and vertical integration could become an advantage again for Intel. Especially in a "challenging" geopolitical environment.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    And Apple is also a bit player in each of its markets. The iPhone only has 13% market share worldwide and the Mac has around 10%. It happens to have the most profitable niches and it can ignore markets it doesn’t want to serve. The PC market is not growing. The chance of Intel overtaking Nvidia for GPUs, ARM for low power chips and making “old” chips for cars, microwaves, etc. is slim
- AnthonyMouse 4y ago
  > Apple competed on user experience and its “unfair advantage” was vertical integration. The thing Apple does isn't really vertical integration. It's tying. The only thing stopping iPhone hardware from running Android is Apple. The only thing stopping iOS from running on Samsung hardware is Apple. It's not that they fundamentally require each other. Maybe some minor proportion of iOS features require some iPhone-specific hardware. If you offered iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone without those features, they would still sell. So why are they not offering combinations customers want? Because if they sold iOS for Samsung, they'd lose the margin on the hardware. If they sold iPhones with Android, they'd lose the margin on the OS/services. So if you want one you have to take both. That's not really a competitive advantage. It doesn't gain market share, it costs it, because some of the people who would buy iOS on Samsung or Android on iPhone will go buy Android on Samsung. What it does is increase their margins at the expense of consumer choice. And it's a risk, because it means they have to execute well everywhere, or the thing that underperforms brings down the whole stack. Right before Mac switched to Intel, the uncompetitiveness of PowerPC processors was hurting them. Which is the same thing that happened to Intel when their process fell behind, because their designers were stuck with it. So Intel learned their lesson and now Arc is on TSMC and Intel is starting to fab for third parties. Which means all they need for success is to get back their process advantage. They may or may not be able to do that, but it's all they need.

NovaDudely 4y ago

For about 20 years I had the mantra of "Don't bet against Intel". A good example of this was in the early 90's when all the hype from the Apple fans about PowerPC and the end of x86 by the year 2000. The hype was real but Intel was just quietly saying "we have a road map and we will go well beyond what people expect" and then Intel did it - while PPC slowly faded away (for various reasons). Everytime someone predicted the end of Intel - they just kept knocking out of the park when least expected. Thinking going from Pentuim 4 Prescott to Intel Core series for instance. Side note - At least the Prescott was vaguely ambitious! But the last decade has not been great for Intel. That engineering prowess has faded a little. Their new GPU stuff is neat and very forward thinking but it is still a wait and see on that. But when it comes to their other elements, it feels like they have just been doing the same thing with very minor tweaks for far too long now. --- Another aside, it is same theoretical greatness doesn't always translate to market greatness. If it worked like that we would probably all be using PowerPC machines in some degree. A wonderful ISA!

amelius 4y ago
I visited some scientific VLSI/EDA conferences some 20 years ago. Intel was everywhere, both in sponsoring as in real participation. Apple was literally nowhere. I wonder if this has changed.
- ladberg 4y ago
  Idk about conferences but Apple sponsored some architecture courses when I was at Berkeley, and I ended up interning on an Apple hardware team due to connections made at a big hiring event they hosted on campus.
  - kridsdale1 4y ago
    What year?
yrdmb 4y ago
Think it had more to do with Intel partnering with Microsoft and Windows taking over the PC market in the 90s.

Stevvo 4y ago

People really overstate Intel's woes. They got stuck on 14nm for ages, but were for all that time still the market leader. AMD has never comprehensively challenged them; only one segment at time is an AMD product better.