3 ms·

This seems like a terrible idea, unless Intel really thinks it can become some kind of defense contractor. Intel has no good history of producing chips, unless

This seems like a terrible idea, unless Intel really thinks it can become some kind of defense contractor. Intel has no good history of producing chips, unless those chips are 1) x86 CPUs or 2) support chips for x86 CPUs. The kinds of chips used in most embedded applications are not x86 CPUs; these days, they're all ARM chips. Intel played around a bit with those 20 years ago with their "StrongARM" line, which they sold off to Marvell. Everything Intel has done to try to diversify away from x86 has been a complete failure. Finally, being a defense contractor isn't easy; it's not something just any company can do, because of all the security requirements and the difficulty of dealing with the whole contracting process. There's a reason that such companies specialize in that kind of work, and don't usually work in the civilian sector. Boeing is the main exception that comes to mind.

7speter 3y ago
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-confirms-arm-investment-arm-and-risc-v-is-where-the-volumes-are https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-confirms-arm-investm... From the article: >"This morning, we announced that we are an investor in Arm," said Stuart Pann, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel Foundry Services, at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia & Technology Conference. >Arm's instruction set architecture is used in a wide variety of applications. Historically, Arm's ISA was used for microcontrollers, simplistic processors, and system-on-chip for smartphones. Today Arm-based SoCs power desktops, laptops, and servers. Arm is a major rival for Intel's own CPUs featuring its x86 architecture. But because Arm's ISA is so ubiquitous, Intel cannot simply ignore if it wants to be a serious foundry player. Intel may be dedicated to x86 for it's own in house silicon (for now), but it certainly seems that they want to be able to make chips based on arm and RISC V (though I don't know what they're doing with RISC V). Yes, there's a licensing fee to use ARM, but would the fabricator have to pay for it, or would the client coming to the fabricator with the chip design?
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  Sure, Intel can say these things, but that doesn't mean they can execute. Their history with every non-x86 venture has not been good. They've tried many times and always failed. Of course, with the DOD pouring money on them, they won't have the commercial pressures they had before, but as I said before, being a defense contractor is not a trivial task.

7speter 3y ago

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-confirms-arm-investment-arm-and-risc-v-is-where-the-volumes-are https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-confirms-arm-investm... From the article: >"This morning, we announced that we are an investor in Arm," said Stuart Pann, Senior Vice President and General Manager of Intel Foundry Services, at the Goldman Sachs Communacopia & Technology Conference. >Arm's instruction set architecture is used in a wide variety of applications. Historically, Arm's ISA was used for microcontrollers, simplistic processors, and system-on-chip for smartphones. Today Arm-based SoCs power desktops, laptops, and servers. Arm is a major rival for Intel's own CPUs featuring its x86 architecture. But because Arm's ISA is so ubiquitous, Intel cannot simply ignore if it wants to be a serious foundry player. Intel may be dedicated to x86 for it's own in house silicon (for now), but it certainly seems that they want to be able to make chips based on arm and RISC V (though I don't know what they're doing with RISC V). Yes, there's a licensing fee to use ARM, but would the fabricator have to pay for it, or would the client coming to the fabricator with the chip design?

shiroiuma 3y ago
Sure, Intel can say these things, but that doesn't mean they can execute. Their history with every non-x86 venture has not been good. They've tried many times and always failed. Of course, with the DOD pouring money on them, they won't have the commercial pressures they had before, but as I said before, being a defense contractor is not a trivial task.