4 ms·
I'm not sure if I buy the thesis entirely (that thesis most aptly being: "Gelsinger does have one fatal flaw: he still believes in Intel, and I no longer do.")
by 015a 2y ago
I'm not sure if I buy the thesis entirely (that thesis most aptly being: "Gelsinger does have one fatal flaw: he still believes in Intel, and I no longer do.")
The biggest reason is geopolitics: If escalated confrontation happens with China, Intel becomes one of the most valuable companies on the planet, period. TSMC will finish western fabs eventually, but the delta-t on when they become competitive (tech, capacity & cost, remember) with even Intel's western fabs is... decades, plural? Maybe never? The CHIPS act helped, but TSMC is dragging their feet for very, very (existentially) good reason. Also, remember that TSMC is built entirely on the back of ASML; conflict with China doesn't just block the west's access to the east's fab capacity, it blocks the east's access to the west's tooling to build more and better fabs. TSMC craters in this scenario. Samsung also exists. That's the list of near-SotA fab capacity, globally.
Capacity is another good reason: TSMC is not a bottomless bucket, and every year for the past at least two years Apple has purchased 100% of their SotA fab capacity. No one is competing with Apple's margins (except Nvidia, but that's a bubble market; numbered days). His argument is that there's no market reason for Intel's fabs to exist; we don't have the data to say for certain, but I'd guess that if Intel went to TSMC and said "you're already making lunar lake, make our xeon chips too" TSMC would say "we can't" (especially on SotA nodes, but maybe even near-SotA). They're tapped out, they grow, they're instantly tapped out again, everyone wants what they're selling. Intel fabs Lunar Lake and Arc with TSMC; both very-low volume.
Also worth keeping in mind: Intel was at one time the global leader in chip fabrication; but they lost that crown. People view TSMC as this unassailable beast, but they're just as fallible; and when I hear people say "Well, Intel 18A is probably three years out and by that time we'll have TSMC N2P with backside power delivery so who will even care about Intel 18A" are just extrapolating history. That's a dangerous game when all these rankings and valuations are based on asymptotically approaching the limits of the laws of physics. And while it is unlikely that Intel will take the lead again, TSMC showing any sign of faltering will raise the relative value of the #2 companies.
Intel is not in a good spot, but they're still an interesting business, they're still designing some of the best chips on the planet, and with the right decisions could grow to be even better than interesting. IMO, this article is missing a lot of the hard analysis and data that Stratechery is usually known for; I don't feel you can have a researched discussion on Intel without talking about fabrication volume or their concerning levels of debt, but he didn't mention either of those things. Heck, more than one passing mention of China feels kinda important to the topic.
- B1FF_PSUVM 2y ago> remember that TSMC is built entirely on the back of ASML; Probably a few people east of the Netherlands have noticed and are doing something about it.
- astrange 2y agoThat's not the only thing you have to replace. ASML has layers of sole suppliers themselves, like Zeiss who make their lenses. EUV itself was developed by US government labs; ASML is a sole supplier of it because we licensed it to them and refused to give it to Nikon/Canon for no good reason.
- pphysch 2y ago> The biggest reason is geopolitics: If escalated confrontation happens with China If escalated confrontation happens with China, and that is massive IF that is dependent on insanely belligerent action from the West like giving nukes to Taiwan, then new semiconductor manufacturing will be the least of our worries. A Chinese blockade on Chinese and East Asian exports to US would result in total economic collapse in USA over a relatively short period. $100,000,000,000s in real demand for goods no longer being met over the span of weeks. The possibility of direct conflict with China is the domain of armchair strategists that consume too many Reddit headlines, Peter Zeihan, Economist, etc., and individuals directly downstream of the defense budget, where Threat Inflation is good business. It's really not something that serious, intelligent people are anticipating on the horizon (again, outside of the wildcard of an insane new administration in Washington). Even the insane combo of Matt Pottinger, Mike Pompeo, John Bolton didn't get close to manifesting it (allegedly, some of their attempts were undermined by backchannel diplomacy from Gen. Milley and the JSOC). So what's the real risk?
- 015a 2y agoThere are a thousand different ways that "escalated confrontation" with China can fall short of "direct conflict" while still negatively impacting TSMC's ability to allocate production to the west. That's why I said "escalated confrontation". If the only ways you can think of it happening is what Zeihan says, then that's simply a failure of your own creativity. One moderately realistic one: Taiwan experiences something similar to what happened in Hong Kong, during a time when US leadership is not motivated to aid in its defense. This isn't a situation where China and the US are at war; we're still trading with China; and broadly speaking the economies of both countries are fine. But, Taiwan isn't, and whether it surfaces as key TSMC talent/tech leaving the country, military action, or just PRC subtly shifting TSMC's allocation priorities toward the homeland: western chip manufacturers could benefit. This isn't seemingly likely to happen in the next four years given the stated priorities of both sides of the political isle; but the right is shifting more-and-more isolationist every year, and no one arguing in good faith would speak with such certainty as you have on what happens 2028 and onward.