3 ms·

I think Pat should moderate his comments. He failed and in spectacular fashion. Moreover he was extremely influential in the US government, the CHIPs act is r

I think Pat should moderate his comments. He failed and in spectacular fashion. Moreover he was extremely influential in the US government, the CHIPs act is really an Intel bailout. Intel should have been allowed to fail, its fabs spun off and many of its unprofitable ancillary products shut down or sold (Networking anyone?). Despite that he’s not entirely wrong but he’s also not saying anything that’s of practical use. True semiconductor R&D won’t return to the US without investment in educating people in semiconductor technologies in US graduate schools. Funding for this type of research has mostly gone into more esoteric materials and processes and hence many people who emerge from these programs are a poor fit for modern industrial semiconductor manufacturing tech. Countries like Singapore and Taiwan do a much better job giving their graduate students a more practical education that better prepares them for industry. In a sense US is too academic and not vocational enough (I see this across the board in HW). The fact is that advanced nodes being produced in the US is a gigantic step in the right direction. Decades of commodity HW and SW dominance have gutted the talent base for HW tech development in the US. It’s going to take a decade and smart US government policy (not the Chips act) at least to recover to where we can even begin to have this kind of R&D again in the US.

BeetleB 2y ago
> Intel should have been allowed to fail, its fabs spun off and many of its unprofitable ancillary products shut down or sold If Intel had failed, the fabs would have shut down, not been spun off. Intel's fabs are the primary reason Intel has poor financials - continually running on a loss. Intel's Product division makes a profit - always has - and can survive. The Bailout is all about propping the fabs, not the products. Letting Intel fail really does equate to losing semiconductor capability in the US. There's no other US company that comes even close to Intel's fabs. The market is harsh to Intel - it's essentially saying "There's no room for number 2"
- mmmBacon 2y ago
  Yeah, no. Firstly nobody can use Intel’s fabs because they can’t really provide a PDK the way TSMC can. So Intel’s fabs are fundamentally not competitive as it stands because they are almost impossible for anyone but Intel to use. Who cares what their equivalent process is if it can’t be commercialized? A break up would force them to get their act together as a commercial fab. The fabs are substantial capital and would have been spun out in the same way IBM spun out their fabs into Global Foundry. Someone with knowledge of how can turn these things profitable. The bailout props up a failing mismanaged entity and encourages its moribund status quo. Moreover the US taxpayer shouldn’t foot the bill for Intel’s mismanagement. The era of x86 dominating compute is clearly over and hence your last point is anachronistic.

BeetleB 2y ago

> Intel should have been allowed to fail, its fabs spun off and many of its unprofitable ancillary products shut down or sold If Intel had failed, the fabs would have shut down, not been spun off. Intel's fabs are the primary reason Intel has poor financials - continually running on a loss. Intel's Product division makes a profit - always has - and can survive. The Bailout is all about propping the fabs, not the products. Letting Intel fail really does equate to losing semiconductor capability in the US. There's no other US company that comes even close to Intel's fabs. The market is harsh to Intel - it's essentially saying "There's no room for number 2"

mmmBacon 2y ago
Yeah, no. Firstly nobody can use Intel’s fabs because they can’t really provide a PDK the way TSMC can. So Intel’s fabs are fundamentally not competitive as it stands because they are almost impossible for anyone but Intel to use. Who cares what their equivalent process is if it can’t be commercialized? A break up would force them to get their act together as a commercial fab. The fabs are substantial capital and would have been spun out in the same way IBM spun out their fabs into Global Foundry. Someone with knowledge of how can turn these things profitable. The bailout props up a failing mismanaged entity and encourages its moribund status quo. Moreover the US taxpayer shouldn’t foot the bill for Intel’s mismanagement. The era of x86 dominating compute is clearly over and hence your last point is anachronistic.