3 ms·
If we assume that intel gets successful with 18A with their x86 processors, would they even have the money to finance the node after that? And the node after th
by threatripper 1y ago
If we assume that intel gets successful with 18A with their x86 processors, would they even have the money to finance the node after that? And the node after that which gets exponentially more expensive?
In the past x86 raked in enough money to burn a lot of it on new fab tech but non-x86 has grown immensely and floods TSMC with money. The problem for intel is that their fab tech was fitted to their processor architecture and vice versa. It made sense in the past but in the future it might not. For the processor business it may be better to use TSMC for production. For the fab it may be necessary to manufacture for many customers and take a premium for being based in a country in need. So, a split-up may be inevitable and this fabbing a competitive ARM chip surely helps in attracting more customers. Customers who may pay a premium for political and security reasons.
- blackoil 1y agoApple, Nvidia and US govt can provide the required funds if they have confidence in its ability to deliver. These companies will benefit from breaking current monopoly of TSMC.
- cromka 1y agoAmazon and Google probably as well?
- zimpenfish 1y ago> Apple, Nvidia and US govt can provide the required funds if they have confidence in its ability to deliver. Given Apple's history with Intel's ability to deliver, I'm guessing the confidence there isn't high.
- walterbell 1y agoAre you referring to 5G radio modems or another chip?
- indemnity 1y agoProbably Intel’s fumble when Apple asked them for better performance per watt for the laptop CPUs and whether they wanted the iPhone CPU business back in 2006.
- toxic72 1y agoProbably the Intel CPUs in Macbooks before Apple made the push for the M1 - circa the Intel quad core era where their laptop chips had major heat issues... ~2012 IIRC?
- dannyw 1y agoI’m not defending Intel here, but those Intel MacBooks never had appropriate thermal design or headroom for the processor’s operating specs.
- toasterlovin 1y agoI think the theory is that they had an appropriate thermal design for cpus which were supposed to ship but never did.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- mallets 1y agoSamsung is already in a much better position for this. They have external customers and experience facilitating them. Unlike Intel's track record which doesn't inspire confidence at all.
- close04 1y agoIntel has something Samsung doesn't. It's a US company operating mostly on US soil so the US government has a vested interest to keep this strategic asset going for as long as possible.
- epolanski 1y agoTech hardware is a cutthroat business, tech companies are gonna order at Intel if it has something that others don't on a business point of view: more performing, cheaper, faster delivery. The US government can wish and encourage all they want, as long as Samsung, TSMC and any other produces better chips for less, the money will flow there.
- close04 1y agoIf a government finds a sector or company to have strategic importance they will not let it die. The rest is free-market absolutism that never comes to be. I believe today more than ever the US considers Intel to be of strategic importance. > the money will flow there Which money? The CHIPS act [0] isn't only for the ones who produce "better chips for less". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CHIPS_and_Science_Act
- epolanski 1y agoThe fact that US taxpayers will subsidize Intel does not mean that Nvidia, Google, AMD, etc are gonna other their chips there.
- threatripper 1y ago
- roboror 1y agoYep, that's exactly what they did with TSMC. Foundries don't just build massive production lines and hope someone will use them, even TSMC.
- toasterlovin 1y agoYeah, everyone is focused on TSMC as the company with the secret sauce, but really it’s Apple. Whichever foundry Apple goes with gets the majority of leading edge transistor volume.
- LarMachinarum 1y agoI wouldn't count on either to save Intel as it still is (i.e with the fab business still attached to the CPU/GPU business). While it's true that having Intel fabs as a second source would be nice for them to alleviate the dependency on TSMC, they are also competing with Intel on the CPU/GPU side. My guess is, they're gonna let Intel rot a little further while doing their best to pressure for Intel to split off their fab biz (as AMD had done back then), and then invest just in the fab.
- Frieren 1y ago> Apple, Nvidia and US govt can provide the required funds When the first tough about investing is to go to big corporations and the goverment instead of going to investors is a telling about how nowadays the economy works. I love that the Orange guy has opened the door to the nationalization of big tech. I hope that the next president is bolder on this regard. If all these companies depend on monopolies to exists, they should be state owned/controlled.