If we are talking domestic semiconductor foundries Intel was exactly the right one. The only other option would’ve been global foundries and they aren’t doing sub 3 nm processes.
If we are talking domestic semiconductor foundries Intel was exactly the right one. The only other option would’ve been global foundries and they aren’t doing sub 3 nm processes.No one. The whole idea of the CHIPS act was "we need domestic silicon production", which was an allergic reaction to various chip shortages during covid etc. Which was hilarious since it arrived late and since Intel was probably not the best domestic semiconductor company to handle that problem. So in the spirit of just handing money to Intel under the assumption that hey, give money to our last best foundry, just . . . give them the money and call it a day. CHIPS was never a good idea in the first place, and sticking a few hundred post-docs up their butts isn't going to make it any less of a boondoggle.
Oh yeah let's give money to the company that systematically eliminated the entire American semiconductor industry. Nah, hard pass, but they didn't ask me. Meanwhile GF has active contracts with the DoD, an actual foundry business, low-power/voltage nodes suitable for things like automotive, etc.If we are talking domestic semiconductor foundries Intel was exactly the right one. The only other option would’ve been global foundries and they aren’t doing sub 3 nm processes.
Aren’t they at like 12nm? They’re nowhere near cutting edge. Now maybe for F35s that’s okay, but for the products that we all follow news on, it isn’t.Oh yeah let's give money to the company that systematically eliminated the entire American semiconductor industry. Nah, hard pass, but they didn't ask me. Meanwhile GF has active contracts with the DoD, an actual foundry business, low-power/voltage nodes suitable for things like automotive, etc.
Aren’t they at like 12nm? They’re nowhere near cutting edge.
Indeed it wasn’t. But you seem to be advocating for no funding for Intel whereas everyone else gets some. Seems pretty harsh.Yes, and CHIPS wasn't originally just about cutting edge. It was initially brought about to address the need for automotive chips since that's where the shortages were felt the most by domestic manufacturers.
Indeed it wasn’t.
But you seem to be advocating for no funding for Intel whereas everyone else gets some. Seems pretty harsh.
No one. The whole idea of the CHIPS act was "we need domestic silicon production", which was an allergic reaction to various chip shortages during covid etc. Which was hilarious since it arrived late and since Intel was probably not the best domestic semiconductor company to handle that problem. So in the spirit of just handing money to Intel under the assumption that hey, give money to our last best foundry, just . . . give them the money and call it a day. CHIPS was never a good idea in the first place, and sticking a few hundred post-docs up their butts isn't going to make it any less of a boondoggle.
Aside from the delusional folk that believe that WW3 will somehow be a net positive for Intel, it was always more logical to give the contracts to the company that is already doing as they say they are.After this press conference, Intel is left with zero leverage. Trump does not seem to even consider Intel to be a player in the market, by saying TSMC is a monopoly.
If the plan proceeds, TSMC will, in a couple of years, surpass Intel in manufacturing in the US.
If the plan proceeds, TSMC will, in a couple of years, surpass Intel in manufacturing in the US.
I could agree about not spending that money all, instead of regulation how that money is spend, but "just give them the money", that's something else.
Well, let's just agree to disagree on that one
There's ways for Intel to fight back, but that means swallowing their pride and collaborating with other domestic also-ran foundries. Which honestly they needed to start yesterday.
Or they could've ruined them completely. Intel has messed up their acquisitions far worse than they have messed themselves up. At least Intel stands, for now. Where are the companies they acquired? Softmachines VISC? Buried most likely because Intel considered them a threat (or most likely IDC because they had the potential to surpass the P-core designs in single threaded performance). Bought out VIA's x86 team too and then buried their processor designs. Even the Skymont team would've been disbanded had Intel not needed them really badly. Politics reign supreme inside Intel. The dirtiest kind.Intel made a mistake in not buying Global Foundries a few years ago, before their IPO.
Or they could've ruined them completely. Intel has messed up their acquisitions far worse than they have messed themselves up.
Most likely TSMC will just find a reason not to spend that money at some point. Its just to placate Trump for now.
They must know something about Intel that we don't. Like how long they have till they are broken apart piece by piece.And while TSMC was very lukewarm about Arizona at first, it seems like they are now more enthusiastic about it.
Things have really taken a serious turn after Pat's firing. Even those not worried before are pretty concerned now. When you have current Intel employees publicly posting, hey, don't break Intel up! It means, they are almost sure that they will lose their jobs so why not try one last ditch effort to save their company?You know, it was just about a year ago or so, all I could hear is "Intel is too big to fail".
Both E core and the Via's team were located in Austin. Even before acquisitions the E core team likely was influenced by them. From what I know lots of the team members are from them.Bought out VIA's x86 team too and then buried their processor designs. Even the Skymont team would've been disbanded had Intel not needed them really badly. Politics reign supreme inside Intel. The dirtiest kind.
They must know something about Intel that we don't. Like how long they have till they are broken apart piece by piece.
Crap! If Dell goes then what's left for Intel??? Asian markets???
Intel would still have volume on their side for certain products. They can ink deals with other OEMs. The terms won't be as favorable.Crap! If Dell goes then what's left for Intel??? Asian markets???
Some interesting highlights:
- 30% of wafers outsourced to TSMC currently, "probably a high water mark for [Intel]"
- Panther Lake/18a have better yields than Meteor Lake at same stage in development cycle, "I want to be very clear. Panther Lake is on track to launch in the second half of this year. That launch date has not changed."
- Goal is to be "second largest external foundry by 2030," need roughly 15 billion in external foundry revenue to achieve that, aiming for 10% of the external foundry market.
- Intel 18a competes with both N2 and N3
- First external tapeout on 18a in first half of 2025.
- Panther Lake launching second half of 2025, "real volume" in 2026, won't help substantially with margins until then.
- Hybrid bonding / advanced packaging issues with Clearwater Forest are "fixed," 18a "looks good," delay "not a wafer issue."
- ASP per wafer will go up "three times faster than cost per wafer" on the road to Intel Foundry breaking even.
- CapEx guidance down to $20 billion from $20-23 billion for the year, "we've got north of $50 billion in what we call construction in progress or assets under construction."
- Intel Products is "a little bit of a first among equals because we know we have to get that right."
- Intel Datacenter strategy is to "optimize for share over margin" and to be "a little bit more price aggressive where we think we need to be in order to do that because we think it’s important to defend the share."
- E-core server market (i.e. Sierra Forest) is "probably a little bit smaller than we originally thought," server market share is "really going to be dependent upon how we execute on the P core more than the [E core]."
- Making progress on Altera stake sale/IPO
- Mobileye "not core to the business," leadership will "be pragmatic about balancing capital needs."
- 18a looks more interesting to high performance compute foundry customers compared to mobile customers.
> E-core server market (i.e. Sierra Forest) is "probably a little bit smaller than we originally thought," server market share is "really going to be dependent upon how we execute on the P core more than the [E core]."
This is very telling. ARM has taken over the small core server market. Where x86 is still in demand is very high performance server needs where AMD leads.