Sure, it's 8 posts above yours - http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ure-lakes-rapids-thread.2509080/post-41237650
Sure, it's 8 posts above yours - http://www.portvapes.co.uk/?id=Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps&exid=thread...ure-lakes-rapids-thread.2509080/post-41237650You tell me why a company that is supposed to compete as a foundry is still buying their silicon from their major competitor.
1) When they bought these wafers, Intel 4, Intel 3, and 20 A were all just a hope and dream. Intel was burned for years by refusing to use TSMC. Imagine what would happen if those nodes failed AND Intel wasn't using TSMC. Intel would have actually been doomed as you like to say. If that happened, then Intel would neither have a foundry or CPUs worth buying. This is and always was about risk reduction--avoid Intel's past mistakes.You tell me why a company that is supposed to compete as a foundry is still buying their silicon from their major competitor.
TSMC could always increase their production capacity by investing in more cutting edge fabs once they know that Intel is gonna come back for more (for the de-risking aspect). It may also have the side effect of AMD helping Samsung get their foundry act together.4) It drives up costs and drives down production for AMD as Intel takes TSMC's limited capacity away from AMD.
See Khato's response above. There is no ability for TSMC to ramp production as ASML is at capacity.TSMC could always increase their production capacity by investing in more cutting edge fabs once they know that Intel is gonna come back for more (for the de-risking aspect). It may also have the side effect of AMD helping Samsung get their foundry act together.
I get the disbelief that people had about this a year ago but since then they’ve launched Intel 4 / 3. The performance of Sierra Forest would suggest they’re at least in the same ballpark as TSMC’s latest nodes.You tell me why a company that is supposed to compete as a foundry is still buying their silicon from their major competitor.
CapacityYou tell me why a company that is supposed to compete as a foundry is still buying their silicon from their major competitor.
Plus with lion cove onwards intel p cores can be fabbed on different nodes with ease1) When they bought these wafers, Intel 4, Intel 3, and 20 A were all just a hope and dream. Intel was burned for years by refusing to use TSMC. Imagine what would happen if those nodes failed AND Intel wasn't using TSMC. Intel would have actually been doomed as you like to say. If that happened, then Intel would neither have a foundry or CPUs worth buying. This is and always was about risk reduction--avoid Intel's past mistakes.
2) Intel is now free to use whatever foundry is right for the right tile. Intel now buys the wafers from the best known node at the time the decisions are made. This means Intel can now use nodes that are the same or even better than AMD has access to (for cases when Intel's nodes beat TSMC in the future).
3) As a foundry, Intel's eggs are all in 18A. Using 3 nm class TSMC nodes has nothing to do with competing as these are not comparable nodes. Dozens of companies are signing up for 18A. That is when Intel starts competing with TSMC to be a foundry. This is like the Tesla is using a Ford van meme. Tesla is not competing with Ford in the van space. https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...kEHY3zBTcQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=1500&bih=839&dpr=2
4) It drives up costs and drives down production for AMD as Intel takes TSMC's limited capacity away from AMD.
5) This frees up Intel to sell foundry services to outside companies and actually become a foundry for others. Without out this, Intel would have to outbid other companies for Intel's limited wafers. This would harm Intel's goal to become a foundry when wafers aren't available AND drive up costs of Intel's CPUs.
1) When they bought these wafers, Intel 4, Intel 3, and 20 A were all just a hope and dream. Intel was burned for years by refusing to use TSMC. Imagine what would happen if those nodes failed AND Intel wasn't using TSMC. Intel would have actually been doomed as you like to say. If that happened, then Intel would neither have a foundry or CPUs worth buying. This is and always was about risk reduction--avoid Intel's past mistakes.
2) Intel is now free to use whatever foundry is right for the right tile. Intel now buys the wafers from the best known node at the time the decisions are made. This means Intel can now use nodes that are the same or even better than AMD has access to (for cases when Intel's nodes beat TSMC in the future).
3) As a foundry, Intel's eggs are all in 18A. Using 3 nm class TSMC nodes has nothing to do with competing as these are not comparable nodes. Dozens of companies are signing up for 18A. That is when Intel starts competing with TSMC to be a foundry. This is like the Tesla is using a Ford van meme. Tesla is not competing with Ford in the van space. https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...kEHY3zBTcQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=1500&bih=839&dpr=2
4) It drives up costs and drives down production for AMD as Intel takes TSMC's limited capacity away from AMD.
5) This frees up Intel to sell foundry services to outside companies and actually become a foundry for others. Without out this, Intel would have to outbid other companies for Intel's limited wafers. This would harm Intel's goal to become a foundry when wafers aren't available AND drive up costs of Intel's CPUs.
Just to be clear, I never said Intel was doomed as a company, financially. They will most likely survive, although there is a question about how solid their profits and product line will be. I said they were "doomed" to be behind in performance for the foreseeable future in the desktop if ARL is mediocre or worse.1) When they bought these wafers, Intel 4, Intel 3, and 20 A were all just a hope and dream. Intel was burned for years by refusing to use TSMC. Imagine what would happen if those nodes failed AND Intel wasn't using TSMC. Intel would have actually been doomed as you like to say. If that happened, then Intel would neither have a foundry or CPUs worth buying. This is and always was about risk reduction--avoid Intel's past mistakes.
2) Intel is now free to use whatever foundry is right for the right tile. Intel now buys the wafers from the best known node at the time the decisions are made. This means Intel can now use nodes that are the same or even better than AMD has access to (for cases when Intel's nodes beat TSMC in the future).
3) As a foundry, Intel's eggs are all in 18A. Using 3 nm class TSMC nodes has nothing to do with competing as these are not comparable nodes. Dozens of companies are signing up for 18A. That is when Intel starts competing with TSMC to be a foundry. This is like the Tesla is using a Ford van meme. Tesla is not competing with Ford in the van space. https://www.google.com/search?sca_e...kEHY3zBTcQtKgLegQIDRAB&biw=1500&bih=839&dpr=2
4) It drives up costs and drives down production for AMD as Intel takes TSMC's limited capacity away from AMD.
5) This frees up Intel to sell foundry services to outside companies and actually become a foundry for others. Without out this, Intel would have to outbid other companies for Intel's limited wafers. This would harm Intel's goal to become a foundry when wafers aren't available AND drive up costs of Intel's CPUs.
Pat has done a wonderful job! It's just that they are not there yet. I think one or two more years should fix everything.At one word, Pat reformed Intel as the modern chip company.
There are mainly two commitments.
1. intel products provides best design.
2. intel foundry provides best process.
It's easier said than done, however, Pat has been doing.
Ha ha... "doomed"? They're already at par. If they pull ahead any further, amd is "doomed". And thats a fact.Just to be clear, I never said Intel was doomed as a company, financially. They will most likely survive, although there is a question about how solid their profits and product line will be. I said they were "doomed" to be behind in performance for the foreseeable future in the desktop if ARL is mediocre or worse.
I said they were "doomed" to be behind in performance for the foreseeable future in the desktop if ARL is mediocre or worse.
They're already at par.
That's assuming AMD stumbles and isn't able to compete properly due to falling behind in either process or architecture.I think one or two more years should fix everything.
No. Intel still has to prove that ARL-S is a decent upgrade over 14900K, with higher performance and lesser power consumption and heat generation. Those are big IFs considering Intel's consumer CPU progress thus far.Ha ha... "doomed"? They're already at par. If they pull ahead any further, amd is "doomed". And thats a fact.
Nope. With tiles, they're ahead in technology already.... They are still behind in technology...
Is that more advanced than chiplets? My knowledge of implementation and process is abysmal.Nope. With tiles, they're ahead in technology already.
Intel's stacked tiles are light years ahead of amd's substrate based chiplets in terms of tech. If rumors are true, even amd is moving to tiles in Zen6.Is that more advanced than chiplets? My knowledge of implementation and process is abysmal.
Glue, super glue, and super super glue!Is that more advanced than chiplets? My knowledge of implementation and process is abysmal.
"still largely unproven"? On which planet is this still "largely unproven"? Intel has released lots of tile based cpus till now (including server cpus). Even the upcoming Lunar Lake & Arrow Lake are also tile based. This is exactly like saying AMD chiplets are "still largely unproven". Just not right.Glue, super glue, and super super glue!
It certainly is all a lot more ambitious than AMD's chiplets but still largely unproven. It also requires big investments in packaging - which I think Intel have done. Time will tell.
Millions of them?Intel has released lots of tile based cpus till now (including server cpus).
Obviously!Millions of them?
Interesting! But they're already ahead of competition. And the competition has a lot to prove too with their latest and greatest, otherwise they might get wiped out of existence.... low volume ... ...low volume... ...exotic... ...Emergency Edition furnaces... ...lot to prove...
I dont really care about the "technology". A cpu is a black box to me. All I care about is power usage and performance. You could have argued that RL was essentially equal, at least in performance, (except for gaming --7800x3D), but that is in flux now because of the stability issues, and what the performance will be with whatever fix is ultimately done. In performance per watt, AMD is clearly ahead. ARL will close that gap, but nobody knows if they will catch up. Personally, even on an arguably better node than AMD, I think ARL will still use more power. And of course, they will be late to the party vs AMD, and have nothing for the next two years to offer except ARL-R.Nope. With tiles, they're ahead in technology already.
Lunar Lake has shown otherwise.... In performance per watt, AMD is clearly ahead. ...
The same doomsday stuff was said about AMD. They lost their fab, decades of shame and low performance but at the end it turned out well. Intel is not even close to the same situation because they have the better tech and software.I dont really care about the "technology". A cpu is a black box to me. All I care about is power usage and performance. You could have argued that RL was essentially equal, at least in performance, (except for gaming --7800x3D), but that is in flux now because of the stability issues, and what the performance will be with whatever fix is ultimately done. In performance per watt, AMD is clearly ahead. ARL will close that gap, but nobody knows if they will catch up. Personally, even on an arguably better node than AMD, I think ARL will still use more power. And of course, they will be late to the party vs AMD, and have nothing for the next two years to offer except ARL-R.