- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,269
- 5,134
- 136
Starting at the 20A process in a few years. I wonder what parts they will build at Intel? If it's the laptop chips meant to compete with Intel, that's going to be weird.
That's weird. What kind of volume does Qualcomm expect out of what is probably the IBM 2nm node?
I'll say the modems.
You know what would be really interesting, if Samsung ends up licensing IBM's node too.
Starting at the 20A process in a few years.
That's weird. What kind of volume does Qualcomm expect out of what is probably the IBM 2nm node?
When are they producing for Amazon?
Is Intel 20A based on IBM 2nm? IBM 2nm had 3 stacks GAA, while Intel's version looks like 4 stacks.
And I still don't get how Intel could get away with this ...I mean, this is a marketing organization that paid OEMs to use Intel SoCs in mobile devices - not just a discount, they actually got the SoCs for free and got money on top of it. Doing something like this would be small potatoes, they might be offering Qualcomm free or discount wafers as well!
And I still don't get how Intel could get away with this ...
For anyone looking for a decent write-up of what went wrong, here's one postmortem worth the read:"Contra-revenue". It's well documented, look it up. Their mobile chip division was basically financial antimatter. They didn't just have running costs higher than their revenue, they had negative revenue.
Update (11/25/2020): The article below may have been written in 2016, but it still stands up as a postmortem of what went wrong with Intel’s mobile efforts — with one very important omission. Back in 2016, we didn’t know Qualcomm had been ruthlessly enforcing licensing and purchasing terms that made it effectively impossible for manufacturers to offer Intel-based mobile devices. I remember wondering why Intel couldn’t find a single US company to produce a phone around its hardware platform for love or money when the original Xolo X900 compared well enough against a then-current iPhone.
Intel still made a number of mistakes with Atom, as this article discusses, but the fact that Qualcomm had a stranglehold on the market behind the scenes obviously had an impact on what kind of success Intel was ever going to achieve.
I genuinely liked the Xolo X900 device I tested all those years ago, and the Bay Trail tablets I had circa 2013 were great devices. Atom’s mobile efforts will always remain an enticing might-have-been. The US 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has since thrown out the antitrust findings against Qualcomm. It should be noted that the FTC disagreed with that decision. Intel continues to manufacture 5G base stations, but the scope of its 5G business has shrunk significantly after selling its 5G modem to Apple.
Or.. Samsung has consistently fallen behind TSMC and the only reason qualcomm is sticking with them is to be in their Galaxy phones. and TSMC is sucking blood out of everyone. So QCOM wants a third viable player to stick it to others. Not everything has to be a conspiracy. Even JHH wants Intel to be a foundry option according to some reporting.This Qualcomm announcement smacks as a pay for play deal to help Intel market its foundry. They know their foundry service has a terrible reputation that has severely impacted some companies that stupidly believed their roadmap, so having a big name customer announce "we're going to Intel!" is just what the marketers to want see.
If I had to bet, I'd say Intel is getting that in exchange for funding Qualcomm's full cost of taping out one or more designs in Intel's process, and an option on a guaranteed wafer allocation.
That makes it a no-risk proposition for Qualcomm to say they're using Intel, while they continue with their former plans of designing for TSMC and/or Samsung. If Intel's promises come to fruition, great, if not no harm done to Qualcomm and Intel will have leveraged Qualcomm's blessing to secure othersuckerscustomers for their foundry.
I mean, this is a marketing organization that paid OEMs to use Intel SoCs in mobile devices - not just a discount, they actually got the SoCs for free and got money on top of it. Doing something like this would be small potatoes, they might be offering Qualcomm free or discount wafers as well!
Is Intel 20A based on IBM 2nm? IBM 2nm had 3 stacks GAA, while Intel's version looks like 4 stacks.
"Contra-revenue". It's well documented, look it up. Their mobile chip division was basically financial antimatter. They didn't just have running costs higher than their revenue, they had negative revenue.
For anyone looking for a decent write-up of what went wrong, here's one postmortem worth the read:
How Intel Lost the Mobile Market, Part 2: The Rise and Neglect of Atom
lol. pushed to 2017. Here we are mid 2021 and large part of the chips is still on 14nm. Just a reminder how far ahead intel was and how much they blundered.Intel’s 14nm problems delayed its next-generation tablet processors from 2014 to 2015. Its 10nm node, once expected to secure enormous economies of scale over TSMC, has been pushed to 2017 as well.
Yeah, there's plenty of these things around. Just yesterday I posted one from March 2020:lol. pushed to 2017. Here we are mid 2021 and large part of the chips is still on 14nm. Just a reminder how far ahead intel was and how much they blundered.
Three months later they announced that 7nm would be delayed.In the 7 nm production at the end of 2021, Intel wants to reach the level of parity with the competition and be significantly stronger than with 10 nm
This quote from the 2016 article is hilarious:
lol. pushed to 2017. Here we are mid 2021 and large part of the chips is still on 14nm. Just a reminder how far ahead intel was and how much they blundered.
EDIT: Albeit now with hindsight 20/20 and intel still having all fabs full on an outdated process their decision might unintentionally not have been that bad. Every smartphone and IoT device ultimately relies on a server. The more smartphones, the more servers are needed and hence more high margin server cpu sales for intel.
Intel did actually make a working 90 MTr/mm2 without EUV
They treated it like "marketing money" and so on, certain businesses inside of a big business are allowed to be loss leaders in order to forge OEM relationships with phone makers and so on. This is very similar to the 90s and 00s Intel with "rebates" (similar not quite same), and it is not just hardware makers, drug makers do similar type of thing with rebates with hospitals and doctors and so on.And I still don't get how Intel could get away with this ...
With quadruple patterning and all it's great downsides (poor yield). Right? That os what you are hinting at?
But then all their actual chips usually have half or less of that density...
And Intel 7nm which is being renamed to Intel 4 is Intel accepting they actually do need EUV. The reason why Intel thought they could not do EUV was ASML was not shipping EUV machines till 2017 and they wanted to push forward and it bit them in the "regrets." Intel did actually make a working 90 MTr/mm2 without EUV it took over 4+ years to do so, and during that time their competitors were behind them is now several years ahead. Regrets / Hubris it is all the same thing, just different place in the timeline.