Towing the company line, vying for that CEO spot, to be sure. If he has any aspiration to become Intel CEO, saying in public "its because the 18A bet failed", would be naive.Dr. Ian is also on Intel payroll.
If you caught his podcast on the subject, it was an embarrassment. He spent about 10 minutes talking about possible health problems or health of a relative - as 2 of 3 equally likely possibilities of Gelsinger departure. Brownnosing off the charts.
Maybe not on payroll but he wants to get future Intel interviews.Dr. Ian is also on Intel payroll.
lol I didnt think we were talking about Ian Cutress lol. I was off in the clouds thinking this was another Ian, a CEO prospect.Maybe not on payroll but he wants to get future Intel interviews.
Towing the company line, vying for that CEO spot, to be sure. If he has any aspiration to become Intel CEO, saying in public "its because the 18A bet failed", would be naive.
**EDIT : Didnt realize we were talking about Ian Cutress lol. Forgive me, Im retarded lol.
Intel and the government came to agree on terms & conditions. Likewise, a consortium of buyers and the government would have to come to agree on terms & conditions. Maybe this is going to take them about 2000 milliseconds, or maybe a few more... The more parties involved, the more complex it's going to be. Alternatively, the buyer(s) could drop the subsidies, but I have no idea whether one way or the other would make the buy more attractive.If a consortium with US based heavy hitters like Apple, Nvidia and Qualcomm wanted to buy a controlling interest in it I have no doubt the government would approve that in about two seconds.
Adapted to new owners perhaps, but not changed fundamentally, except retracted summarily (the subsidies, that is).That's a political decision which can be changed at will.
Indeed. The introduction of EUV was a good showcase of this. TSMC managing to make it work and work well in a commercially available node appears to have taken both Intel and Samsung by surprise.
At what point did Intel start mass manufacturing Intel 4 & 3, which is their first use of EUV? Only in the last year, right? That's four years behind TSMC, who did it with N7+ in fall 2019.
I guess the people being surprised could be different. The Intel team working on EUV likely was surprised to hear how far ahead TSMC actually is. The Intel management then likely was surprised to learn how far behind the Intel team actually is.I don't think TSMC making it work at commercial quantities took Intel & Samsung by surprise. Their failure to do the same is what took them by surprise, because obviously they expected to do so regardless of whether TSMC succeeded.
But will they?It's not just fire. Keller was there at the wrong time. Simple wisdom but still accurate. A message/lesson must not only be sent, but has to be received. Intel is in a far different/worse place than when Keller was there. I think they're finally ready to listen to hard truths.
Do you know the meaning to D0=0.4？We may finally have the answer why Pat was sacked:
Intel 18A node yields reportedly at a dismal 10%
A South Korean media outlet reports Intel's 18A yields are worse than that of Samsung Foundry's second-gen 3 nm node. Apparently, they're at 10%, effectively rendering the node not viable for mass production.www.notebookcheck.net
It's a lot worse than 0.08? Which is when TSMC usually declare something high volume ready?Do you know the meaning to D0=0.4？
Are you sure everything is definitely about TSMC ?It's a lot worse than 0.08? Which is when TSMC usually declare something high volume ready?
Wasn't there a previous defect rate milestone for 18A of 0.4 and some where projecting that is good at that earlier time as defect rates will always come down following some definite rules.
Might have been Intel's node after 18A but still: each 0.01 improvement (even just towards 0.1 after that it gets far harder still) probably is the result of 100s of engineers pouring 1,000s of hours in to get that improvement. Past performance being no predictor of future improvement IMO.
We may finally have the answer why Pat was sacked:
Intel 18A node yields reportedly at a dismal 10%
A South Korean media outlet reports Intel's 18A yields are worse than that of Samsung Foundry's second-gen 3 nm node. Apparently, they're at 10%, effectively rendering the node not viable for mass production.www.notebookcheck.net
Makes sense that the board may want to ditch the fabs ASAP. So much investment for such horrible progress. Pat's theatrics were something out of a circus from the start. Multiple nodes in 5 years?? Even just Intel 7 blew up in their faces with Raptor Lake's degradation issues.If that's true Intel is in real trouble. That's even worse than Samsung's yields.
Makes me think how much % SMIC has with their 7nm and 6nm... if it has better than Samsung AND Intel... OHH BOY! That is gonna suck for everyone.If that's true Intel is in real trouble. That's even worse than Samsung's yields.
Makes me think how much % SMIC has with their 7nm and 6nm... if it has better than Samsung AND Intel... OHH BOY! That is gonna suck for everyone.
They paid at least one guy good money so it was all good(or they stole enough information from TSMC about how they did it)
semi-inaccurate is nothing other than bullshits and fake news.Charlie has more thoughts:
Why Did Intel Fire CEO Pat Gelsinger?
Yesterday the Intel board did the idiotic and fired CEO Pat Gelsinger.www.semiaccurate.com
To mirror what is being said in another thread, that story from WCCFTech may not be true. It seems to report the same claim about Broadcom that was floated months ago. Not sure about the D0 figures but the rest of it . . .If that's true Intel is in real trouble. That's even worse than Samsung's yields.
The board wanted to break up the company, but Gelsinger refused. Interesting.