[HN Gopher] Intel outsources Core i3 to TSMC's 5nm process ___________________________________________________________________ Intel outsources Core i3 to TSMC's 5nm process Author : djoldman Score : 439 points Date : 2021-01-20 11:04 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.eenewseurope.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.eenewseurope.com) | dudeinjapan wrote: | Clayton Christensen is rolling in his grave. R.I.P. | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpkoCZ4vBSI | jarym wrote: | If you can't beat them... join them. Unfortunately, instead of | Intel beefing up their manufacturing business it looks like they | want to focus on design. | | In my opinion, Intel will not be able to lead on design alone. | Not with Apple, Nvidia, ARM, AMD all very competent on design | currently. | random5634 wrote: | How is intel getting all this capacity from the other players | (AMD / Apple?)? That is some fantastic negotiation! I thought | apple made capital commits to allow factory build outs on leading | nodes so they had first dibs on capacity. Amazing to hear that | Intel is getting to take over the 5nm and future production from | Apple / AMD. Not too long ago they were a fab competitor, now | TSMC rolls out the welcome mat! | EE84M3i wrote: | Realistically, how easy is it for Intel to switch like this? Is | there really some industry standard interchange format they can | use to ship their i3 design off to a different fab? I would have | expected them to use proprietary formats from top to bottom. | gchadwick wrote: | Whilst you can easily point your synthesis tool at a new cell | library (this is the tool that takes the hardware description | in a language like Verilog and produces a circuit that | implements it) there is significant back-end work in getting | the best out of any library. | | Intel will probably have to rework their layouts, deal with new | memory compilers that have produce memories with different | characteristics and adapt memory interfaces that what they | need. Their implementation engineers will take time to | understand all of the new design rules, quirks and best | optimisation strategies that come with an entirely new library | (given this is an entirely different fab there could be | significant differences). | | I suspect that's why they're going for Core i3 first, they can | get away without lots of detailed work and optimisation to | really push the process. A straight-forward (ish) port what | you've got and see how it goes will be good enough and will | give their implementation engineers experience with the new | library that they can then use to work on the higher end. | londons_explore wrote: | At a high level, Verilog, a widely used hardware description | language, is portable to almost any fab. | | There will be all kinds of layouts for specific subcomponents | which are harder to move between providers, but I would guess | that the move from 14nm Intel to 5nm TSMC will more than | outweigh all the layout based optimizations. | universal_sinc wrote: | It's not as bad as you think. From a high-level: Modern | Synthesis tools turn your RTL code (which is coded in an HDL or | Hardware Description Language) into gates, and then map them to | a library of "Standard Cells". These foundry-specific cells are | physical plans for an AND, OR, XOR, gates, flip-flops, etc. | Once the code is mapped to these cells they are run through a | Place&Route tool, which lays out all the mapped standard cells | onto a plane, and then wires them together in 3D following a | set of design rules from whatever foundry you are using. | Finally after verifying the physical properties of the output | design, you ship it to your foundry using a industry standard | format called "GDS2" which is basically a series of 2D layers | for turning into actual lithography masks. Doing this process | (commonly called "RTL to GDS2") is non-trivial, but could be | done to target a new foundry in <6 months. Now, Intel is known | to use some custom layout methods rather than this Synthesized | flow I've described, but that's pretty out of vogue and is a | vestige of their early days. | varispeed wrote: | I was looking into TSMC worth and found that they had a patent | war with Global Foundries, which resolved: "On 29 October 2019, | TSMC and GlobalFoundries announced a resolution to the dispute. | The companies agreed to a new life-of-patents cross-license for | all of their existing semiconductor patents as well as new | patents to be filed by the companies in the next ten years". | | Isn't this some form of a loophole to fix the market? | nolok wrote: | Global Foundries was born from AMD splitting it out, and AMD | learned through battle how to stop the giant and his patents | from crushing you (or worse, keeping you out) by having your | own critical patents important enough to force a cross | licensing deal. I guess this is just a remake of x86/amd64 for | them. | sct202 wrote: | Someone has to fund Global Foundries with billions of dollars | to plan and build out facilities, and that doesn't include the | risk that they run into difficulties like Intel with scaling | up. TSMC is reportedly spending $28b on capex this year, while | GF is planning on spending $1.4b. | baybal2 wrote: | Again, there is no official announcements, only a Trendforce | article. | totalZero wrote: | That is an important observation, but also it is worth noting | that Intel reports earnings tomorrow (ie, they're in a quiet | period) with the CEO role changing hands in less than four | weeks, so presumably they would announce this move with the | earnings report (or address it on the investor call) if true. | baybal2 wrote: | What some accounting paper has to do with that? | [deleted] | totalZero wrote: | Not sure I understand your question. Between the end of a | quarter and the announcement of that quarter's results, US | public companies don't generally make major announcements | outside of scheduled events (earnings call, press | conference, industry showcase, etc). Even more so if there | is uncertainty around the company's valuation -- ie, a | leadership change. | baybal2 wrote: | Why don't they? Tying business decision to how some | accounting is done doesn't make sense. | totalZero wrote: | Aside from the insider trading comment another user made, | with which I agree: | | Material information ought to be accessible by all | investors in a fair and orderly way. This is the same | reason that stocks get halted for impending news | intraday, and earnings reports are released outside of | regular trading hours (except perhaps for ADRs and other | multi-market securities). Scheduled injections of | information make it easier for market participants of | varying sizes and geographies to receive and digest | information at parity with one another. | bluGill wrote: | Legal concerns around insider trading. People in the know | of the company are reviewing the accountant reports. If | there is a surprise they can trade on that and make a lot | of money. It is easy to guess what will happen to stock | prices if you real results are off from what everyone | expects. | baybal2 wrote: | They don't need to be concerned about insider trading if | they don't do insider trading. | renewiltord wrote: | Intel has outsourced to TSMC for a while now. So not a big | surprise. | PedroBatista wrote: | This makes little sense if any at all. | | Why would Intel pay top dollar for 5nm and sell cheap Core i3 | CPUs? | | Is TSMC even receptive to "help" Intel on those terms? | agloeregrets wrote: | I think this makes sense in the format that Intel may make 5nm | i3 CPUs branded as something else, the timeline for these chips | is way far off though, 2022 at least. The M1X ravaging will | have already happened to the high-spec SKU industry. Intel | needs a response framed as 'we are there at that level'. That | should be an i3-like (in design, not name) ultra low power but | clocked to the moon CPU. Possibly breaking 5Ghz by a LOT. | totalZero wrote: | If this deal is real, It makes a ton of sense. | | TSMC gets another bidder for its 5nm fab, which affects their | pricing power versus bigger 5nm clients. In other words, TSMC | makes more money both through increased fab utilization and | through price elasticity of demand, while Intel gets to squeeze | the gross margins of AMD and Apple. | cnst wrote: | It makes even less sense when you consider that all these | i3/i5/i7/whatever designations are just marketing ploys that | don't actually mean anything. | | I have a number of computers with Intel processors of varying | generations. I know by heart how many cores and threads each | one has. I couldn't care less whether any given one is an | i3/i5/i7 -- only people who have little clue about processors | care about those brand name designations intended to command a | higher price for about the same performance. | kesor wrote: | Instead of being the ones who other vendors outsource their fabs | to ... intel disappears into oblivion. Will there be an intel in | a couple of years? Maybe not. | ianai wrote: | Didn't Apple recently book all of TSMC's production for their AS | processors? How does this not conflict? | | Edit-ref: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24530328 | NonEUCitizen wrote: | For 2021, Apple booked 80% of 5nm, per: | | https://digital-overload.com/2020/12/22/apple-buys-80-of-5nm... | | TSMC is also continually building new fabs. And this whole | TrendForce report is unconfirmed. | m00dy wrote: | TSMC is becoming more strategic every single day. | lcnmrn wrote: | Tech world needs a TSMC competitor. | dingaling wrote: | Seems like a great opportunity for a post-Brexit UK. Invest a | few dozen billions in establishing a nationalised fab. They | have the money, skillset and reputation to be a contender. | mhh__ wrote: | Maybe, but it's a huge amount of money. If it would work as | a jobs program then it might have legs | astrange wrote: | Does the UK have good electronics companies right now? | (Well, there's Dialog.) | | They're mostly known for building cars that catch fire and | having some of the worse and siller audiophile companies | that sell you special gold-plated power cables to make your | MP3s sound warmer. | Lio wrote: | That's an unfair characterisation. When it comes to cars | UK is known for:- | | Running Europe's most productive car plant[1]. | | Building the world's fastest cars since 1983[2]. | | Being the base for most of the Formula 1 constructors[3]. | | When it comes to electronics innovation even ignoring | companies like ARM and Imagination the UK has a large | military electronics manufacturing base. | | I don't think that current government is likely to do | anything to challenge TSMC but to reduce all that to | "gold-plated power cables" suggests that you're not | really paying attention. | | 1. https://uk.nissannews.com/en- | GB/releases/release-11576-what-... | | 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_speed_record | | 3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Formula_One_cons | tructo... | philjohn wrote: | Invented the jet engine, ARM, low-cost computer | (ZX-80/81) | | And some of the Formula 1 teams have other arms (McLaren | being one). | NonEUCitizen wrote: | UK has neither the skillset nor reputation for | manufacturing. If anything, it may have the reputation of | being even more skilled at financial engineering than | Americans are. | CryptoPunk wrote: | 1. Nationalized means poorly run. Effective companies | emerge through competition amongst many companies, and are | guided by profit-motivated shareholders, not barely | invested and highly distracted politicians. | | 2. A semiconductor manufacturer needs to be based in a | region with a substantial semiconductor supply chain to be | successful, and for the UK to develop such a supply chain, | it needs a broad-based shift that makes it less-social- | democratic/more-capital-friendly, i.e. a more performance | oriented economy. | astrange wrote: | > Nationalized means poorly run. | | This is only true if you do it wrong. Read "How Asia | Works" to find out how SK and Japan built good nearly- | state-owned companies through export discipline. | CryptoPunk wrote: | Here's a counter-argument to the mythologized account of | MITI's role in the expansion of the Japanese economy | specifically: | | https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/JapanandtheMythofMIT | I.h... | | The article notes much more foundational properties of | the booming Japanese economy, like a smaller portion of | private sector output being taxed to support the public | sector, as more likely causes of its growth. | sanxiyn wrote: | Note that Singapore government created Chartered | Semiconductor, which once was the third largest foundry | in the world. | burgerquizz wrote: | not that easy. The barrier to entry is really high, many have | tried and failed: https://erickhun.com/posts/world- | innovation-taiwan-semicondu... | jakobov wrote: | Also ASML | vimy wrote: | And by proxy it makes Taiwan more strategic. Control Taiwan, | control the worlds chip supply. | sq_ wrote: | Doubt Taiwan is unhappy about that. The more TSMC provides | the world with compute, the more incentive the US and other | countries have to keep the island out of China's hands. | pkulak wrote: | Would it be internationally allowed for the US government to step | in with billions in loans to Intel to get their act together? | Slowly losing the last fab company left in NA is so incredibly | depressing. | dhnajsjdnd wrote: | Is money really the problem for Intel? The world is awash with | capital. Intel's bonds are yielding 3-4%, so they can easily | raise more. | kijiki wrote: | The govt did it back when it was Japanese DRAM manufactures | that were outcompeting the US: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEMATECH | echelon wrote: | Isn't this what our defense budget is for? | | We should absolutely pour money into Intel. | neltnerb wrote: | Or a non-profit foundry that serves every semiconductor | company in the US. Intel is welcome to help... | wffurr wrote: | On the condition that Intel spin off their foundry business | ala GlobalFoundries. | cl0ckt0wer wrote: | They have plenty of money. They don't have good management. | noncoml wrote: | So when it fits our interests we support globalization, free | trade, etc.., and when not, we go back to protectionism and | government sponsorship? | jonplackett wrote: | Weird they wouldn't put their high performance chips on 5nm | first. Surely those have the most to gain? No-one's looking that | carefully at Core i3 performance right? | | And if it does make a big difference, couldn't they and up with | i3s being faster than their own i5s? Which would be a bit | embarrassing. | trhway wrote: | my thinking that this "i3 on 5nm at TSMC" is just to show that | nothing good comes out of it. Basically faction fight inside | Intel - fabless vs. owning fabs. The owning fabs faction is | much more politically stronger inside Intel and they ultimately | are forced to let that experiment, and they will make sure that | it will have all the obstacles. Basically it like GM's EV1 or | like Sun in the 200x when Linux/x86 was basically a guerilla | effort oppressed by Sparc/Solaris, and the Sparc/Solaris | faction allowed Linux/x86 only into a low end Sun's market. | rtuulik wrote: | Core i3 is fanless. Moving to 5nm should help to give them a | decent boost. | codercotton wrote: | Perhaps they're going for efficiency. | skohan wrote: | Could it be partially motivated by competition? Maybe they are | less concerned with performance, and just want to eat up TSMC | capacity which would be used by competitors | [deleted] | cheph wrote: | As far as I understand, the 5nm process will yield lower power | consumption[1]. As the i3 is on the lower end of power | consumption this may be enough to make it viable for | applications that it would not be viable for otherwise. While | their powerful CPUs are fast enough (if you look at | competitors) and the power requirements there is already so | high that the reduced power consumption from the 5nm process | won't make them that much more attractive. | | Not sure though, just guessing. | | [1]: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process#Commercialization | | EDIT: | | Actually there are i9 chips with same TDP as i3 [2]. I would | think that the i3 still sells more units and is lower cost, so | maybe a lower power i3 will be more attractive to OEMs than a | lower power i7 or i9. | | [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Lake_(microprocessor) | cactus2093 wrote: | Well the Apple m1 machines are fast and have incredibly low | power consumption so maybe they're trying to make their i3 | compete with that? | | Going to be interesting though, the higher tier Apple silicon | machines will probably be shipping before any of these i3 chips | so intel will likely be playing catch-up for years at least. | mtsr wrote: | Except Apple purposefully chooses to stay within a niche (of | expensive laptops). So the vast majority of laptops will | still ship with intel. | LarvaFX wrote: | For now. Apple will transition all processors over to | M-Series in the coming 2 years; probably finished earlier. | mempko wrote: | Yeah, but Apple is a small player in the PC space and | have no server business. In other words, maybe intel has | time to catch up? | mhh__ wrote: | The cheapest M1 laptop is still almost PS1000 with a | definitely not future-proof amount of RAM and Storage. | | I'm guessing M1 ain't cheap | agloeregrets wrote: | Eh, the cheapest M1 Mac is the Mac Mini at $699, $100 | less than the outgoing model and offering better | perfromance at some tasks than the iMac Pro. Keep in mind | that there is the whole 'profit margin' factor. At $699, | the mac mini offers much better perfromance than the | outgoing model while costing $100 less. Why chop even | more money off it? | | Apple's cost in manufacturing has always been rooted in | quality components and Software Engineering. They just | don't build low end models and likely never will. The | fact that you can buy a $300 iPad is actually kinda weird | for Apple. | ex3ndr wrote: | Isn't latest generation is $100 cheaper and apple usually | cheaper than windows-based. | vel0city wrote: | At least in the US market (I don't have experience in | other markets), Apple is definitely not the cheaper | laptop company. The average laptop sold in 2019 sold for | ~$700.[0] The cheapest laptop Apple currently sells is | $1,000. Apple only sells high-end luxury laptops. Most | laptops sold are cheaper than even the cheapest Mac. | | When you compare similarly spec'd machines from other | manufacturers then yeah they're usually in the same | ballpark numbers. I don't know I'd say Apple is _always_ | more expensive or _always_ cheaper when looking at only | the high-end price range. | | [0] https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/dont-be-so- | cheap-fiv... | deelowe wrote: | They are probably binning a lot of product right now. | They'll eventually need to do something with all those | chips that didn't make the cut. This is apple we're | talking about. There's surely a 5+ year plan to develop | this ecosystem fully. I'd be more surprised if we didn't | see a complete line of custom chips across all apple | products within the decade. | thekyle wrote: | Doesn't Apple already use their own chips for everything? | AFAIK the Mac was the last product not to use Apple | Silicon and it has switched. | duskwuff wrote: | The Mac line hasn't fully switched over to Apple Silicon | yet. Notably, the iMac, iMac Pro, Mac Pro, and some | Macbook Pro models are still Intel. | AmVess wrote: | i3's aren't in the same galaxy in terms of performance as the | M1. | | My guess is they are taking a relatively simple product to | learn how to properly port their more complex products to | TSMC's processes. | thekyle wrote: | The MacBook Air used to have an i3 in the $999 model which | now has an M1. So in that sense the M1 is comparable to an | i3. They both serve the same market. | | There are also some high-end Windows laptops using i3s like | the $999 Dell XPS 13. | agloeregrets wrote: | Issue is that Intel will have an obvious problem on their | hands: Apple used the i3 in the Air because it was low | cost and low power for good battery life. The M1 fits | those needs but then blows the perfromance well beyond | what we could call an i7 in this segment. (All in the | comparable wattage i7 had 30% max less single-core | perfromance and 1/3rd the multicore perfromance) | | Intel sells chips like this on a sliding scale from i3 to | i9. | | If Intel made an i3 that compares favorably to the M1, it | would be faster and cooler than any other CPU Intel | makes, ruining i7 and i9 sales. It would pretty rapidly | piss-off their vendors who seek to upsell expensive skus. | | I could see a TSMC i3 core in a different name possibly, | like Intel Evo Next or something like that and then them | selling it as a premium chip for a high profit. | [deleted] | wongarsu wrote: | I guess they want to gather experience with TSMC's processes | with a product nobody cares about, and then use that experience | for the product that actually matter. | andromeduck wrote: | But their GPUs and SSDs ate already TSMC fabbed. | DudeInBasement wrote: | CPUs are insanely complex. GPUs are simplier CPUs just more | of them. SSD is anyone who has a fab can make them. | waynecochran wrote: | It may be the other way around... | | An Intel Core i7-6700K has almost two billion transistors | while a GTX 1080 has 7.2 billion transistors. | | Of course you may be referring to Intel's integrated | GPU's, but they are still very complex. They are not | merely number CPU's -- their design is very different. | kllrnohj wrote: | Transistor count != complexity. A GPU is hundreds of | simple ALUs stacked together. Minimal branch handling, no | real speculative execution, no reordering buffers, etc... | Very simple, very slow "cores", and just a whole shitload | of them "copy/pasted" together. Some moderately complex | management blocks then distribute work to all those ALUs, | sure, but still nothing close to the complexity of a | modern CPU core. | | Which is also why GPUs can be built so large. It's much | easier for them to handle defects than for CPUs. The loss | of a single core cluster on a GPU isn't nearly as | significant to the product's overall performance as the | loss of a single core on a CPU, and the amount of | transistors you need to turn off to handle that defect is | much less. | stunt wrote: | TSMC has to scale up and that's a good news for the ASML. | farseer wrote: | Well I guess, now would be a good time for the CCP to mobilize | for a sea invasion. Easily defused by letting SMIC breathe some | fresh ASML.. I meant air. | MangoCoffee wrote: | 50 yrs of Intel leadership is a tell on how we got here. Intel | went from engineer lead company to... | | https://www.chiphistory.org/intel-ceo-history | | hopefully with a new engineer CEO, he can turn intel around like | what Lisa Su did. | api wrote: | Microcosm of America... | mensetmanusman wrote: | I wonder if it was the 'wasp-saviour' concept. | | "I'm rich and went to an Ivy, I know that engineers are just | as effective when we put the building machines in Asia and we | save on tax money! I get a bonus to send my kids to private | school too, this is great!" | api wrote: | Someone I knew who went to Harvard Business School had a | cynical take like this: the whole system is basically set | up to ensure high-paying jobs for the children of the rich | and political elite... regardless of whether they are truly | qualified. | | I don't know if the elite university name brand bias had | anything to do with Intel's story but it is a major anti- | pattern in American institutions. Don't get me wrong... | these are very good schools. It just doesn't follow that | all people who went to Harvard are better than all people | who went to some state school. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | When I was in college it became very apparent what the | fraternity and sorority system was- a way for the elite | and upper class to ensure that their children met other | rich children and kept their money and power incestuously | consolidated. Kids and hearts don't care about class, the | only way they can ensure a union is make it where pretty | much the only people the kids meet are other elites and | 1%. | ericd wrote: | Interesting idea. In this mental model, are the kids | being coerced into joining one of these houses by the | parents who want to ensure this? | | Because from where I was sitting, the kids were plenty | self-motivated by the parties, and the parents had | basically no say. | totalZero wrote: | I wouldn't travel on a ship steered only by shipwrights, | and I wouldn't travel on a ship built by sailors alone. | | An engineering company needs engineers at the top levels, | but we all know at least one brilliant engineer who is | puzzlingly naive in other aspects of life. The business | of engineering is more than "make good devices and sell | them at for a profit." A good engineering business needs | shrewd businesspeople to keep it running. You need solid | management and solid engineering throughout the entire | hierarchy of the business. | | > It just doesn't follow that all people who went to | Harvard are better than all people who went to some state | school. | | I totally agree. The capability of a student transcends | the imprimatur of the institution where s/he learned. | | However, business school is also about connections, and | learning in an enlightened group often gives rise to a | sort of intellectual critical mass that begets even | greater learning through discussion and the interchange | of ideas. If given a choice, I'd rather study engineering | at Cal Tech than some middle-tier school, and I'd rather | study business at Harvard than some less reputable | school. | selimthegrim wrote: | Depends if you want to a) actually practice engineering | and b) fork out 70k a year (which if you're shrewd you | can make back by more lucrative SWE opportunities). HBS I | totally get | NonEUCitizen wrote: | In this case, the problem is that Intel did not use Asian | (specifically, Taiwanese) fabs for its most advanced chips. | agloeregrets wrote: | The long lead time between plan and production means he will be | looking 5+ years out. Basically, he is going to need to science | the shit out of this situation he will be in in ~5-7 years | where AMD, Apple, QC, and Samsung won and everyone else in | their client list is jumping ship to ARM Fabs (QC, Samsung) | with more quantity small-node Fabs. You're looking at Good Arm | Chromebooks, a Surface Pro X that doesn't suck, ETC. | andy_ppp wrote: | My guess would be this is just a test to start ramping up on the | high end... My guess is takes a lot of work to move manufacturing | processes and get good yields. | | There is zero point in moving a midrange part like the Core i3 to | 5nm when you want the performance improvements at the highest | end. | Grimm1 wrote: | Considering the doubts already at the top of this thread and that | I have a distinct memory, though I'll be damned if I can remember | where I read it, that TSMC would generally not work with Intel | because they prefer long term partners not ones who are using | them strategically in the short term and since they have their | pick of partners they didn't feel any pressure to work with Intel | either. I'm not sure I trust this report yet. | buryat wrote: | does TSMC have enough 5nm capacity? | uncledave wrote: | Based on the fact there is contention between Apple, Nvidia and | AMD already, this will be interesting. | the8472 wrote: | Soon they will need to rebrand to The Semiconductor | Manufacturing Company. | uncledave wrote: | Yep. If you look at the global semiconductor industry it | has been consolidating rapidly into very few organisations | from day one. And that's not even fabrication. | | https://fortune.com/2017/12/20/chip-mergers-broadcom- | qualcom... | arnaudsm wrote: | Apple booked 80% of TSMC's 5nm process for 2021, so I suppose | Intel's volumes won't be astronomical. | | https://wccftech.com/apple-secured-80-tsmc-5nm-production-ca... | [deleted] | websg-x wrote: | https://www.trendforce.com.tw/research/download/RP210112CQ The | report is all speculation, not some credible source leak. | | And the original report was released on 01/12 before Intel | appoints Pat Gelsinger as new CEO. So even if the report | speculated correctly, which is unlikely, the circumstance already | changed. | ksec wrote: | The is why you keep bumping into people who has all the wrong | assumption about everything with Intel, Fab, TSMC topics. | | News Sources keep bumping out crap. And they never go back to | _correct_ their original reporting. And most people simply | believe what they read. | | General Reminder, any News Source coming from Taiwan on TSMC | has an interest of pumping up Stock Price. | cbozeman wrote: | The only problem with this, is that its fairly well-known by | industry insiders that Apple has TSMC's entire 5nm production | locked up for a significant portion of this year, maybe even | the entire year. M1 is just the beginning. New Axx chips are | going 5nm too. | | I would trust Charlie over at SemiAccurate before I trust | TrendForce. | | I'm not saying this isn't true or accurate, I'm saying that | Apple's manufacturing demands are enormous just for iPhone / | iPad chips, and now M1 has invigorated demand for desktop / | laptop Mac products, at least amongst nerdier types like us, | but wherever we go, the mainstream inevitably follows. Once | "normal" people start using MacBook Pros and realize they now | have 2-4 day battery life (or even longer for light users), | then its only a matter of time until demand rises. I think | Apple has anticipated this to some degree. | | Not to mention, 2021 is supposed to be the Year of the Mx iMac | / Mac Pro. | | Ultimately, this is just a terrible time to be Intel. They're | at least 2-3 years away from any worthwhile new product on | their _own_ nodes. 10nm is still a shitshow and 7nm isn 't | faring much better. | gogopuppygogo wrote: | Good time to buy Intel stock if you think it's bottoming out. | samstave wrote: | INTC was at $120 when I joined, and my option was $76 - | 1997 | | It is at $58 today | tedunangst wrote: | Splits. | conro1108 wrote: | Not a good time if you don't think they'll ever recover. | cbozeman wrote: | They will recover, but we're not at the bottom yet. | | I think the stock will hit rock bottom in early-to-mid | 2022. It'll start to climb around Q2 2023 when new | products on working Intel nodes are announced. Once those | products are reviewed and performance is at parity or | better than AMD / Apple products, it'll rebound. | | And they will have to recover, one way or another. Intel | is now a strategic asset. TSMC is too close to mainland | China to risk losing access to, the Arizona fab won't be | online for at least 3-5 years, and its capacity is tiny | compared to the main fab in Taiwan. Samsung can't afford | to share capacity because whatever portion of their fabs | aren't used for Samsung products, the rest is locked up | by NVIDIA, which literally every researcher needs because | GPU-based compute is now dominant. | | Intel has to succeed, and if they can't do that on their | own, the United States government has to step in, in some | way. They did it for a bunch of shitty bankers in 2008, | they can definitely do it for an industry that produces | an actual, tangible product. | nec4b wrote: | If it has come so far that the government has to steps in | than they are probably done. Once government starts to | bankroll them, they'll have no incentive to be | competitive and all the smart creative people will leave | for better pastures. | setpatchaddress wrote: | Available evidence suggests otherwise. | | Tesla and SpaceX probably wouldn't exist if not for | government bootstrapping. | https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-musk- | subsidies-201... | | Further back, modern computing / internetworking wouldn't | exist without military and DARPA cash from the | government. Read any book on the history of these. | r00fus wrote: | So a bet on INTC would be for government bailout? I'd say | it has a long time to fall still then. | nec4b wrote: | I don't know whether Intel will ever need government | bailout. If however it does need it, it will probably be | game over for them to ever become a leader again. There | will simply be no incentive for them to innovate. | oivey wrote: | They're not even close to the bottom. Their current product | line up isn't the best and the future is bleak, but the | market needs their fab capacity. The bottom will occur as | competitor production capacity relative to demand improves. | Part of this is pandemic related, too, as COVID has reduced | production and caused a spike in demand. | worker767424 wrote: | Meanwhile, there's a shortage of foundry capacity. | Automakers are pausing assembly lines because they can't | get chips. So yeah, Intel isn't making the best chips, | but they're still making ok chips, there's a chip | shortage, and things could look different in 5 years. | | Not saying I'd bet on them. I'd probably not bet either | way. I just think the "future is bleak" narrative is | overplayed. | johnvanommen wrote: | AMD took nearly twenty years to recover from it's original | heights. | | Things move sloooooowly in the world of manufacturing. | ipsum2 wrote: | > that its fairly well-known by industry insiders that Apple | has TSMC's entire 5nm production locked up for a significant | portion of this year, maybe even the entire year. | | This is clearly incorrect. Qualcomm's Snapdragon 888 chip is | made on 5nm, and they'll be in every Android flagship phone. | monocasa wrote: | Is that going to be TSMC or Samsung 5nm? | ipsum2 wrote: | Ah, you're right | AmVess wrote: | Everyone I know wants an M1 laptop, has bought one, or is | waiting for a larger laptop with it in it. None of these | people are nerdy types, but the buzz surrounding the M1 is | loud. | ipsum2 wrote: | Your bubble's walls are strong. The average person | (American I assume) does not know what "M1" means, nor uses | Macbooks. | vittore wrote: | Isn't AMD even bigger client of TSMC 5nm facilities than | Apple? | jjoonathan wrote: | I don't know about volume, but Apple sure has more margin. | | Outsourcing fabrication doesn't guarantee that you can | choose the best fab, it just guarantees that you get to | compete with Apple (and NVidia and, now, Intel) in a | contest of "who can pay the most per chip." | zamadatix wrote: | Apple booked 80% of TSMC 5nm for 2021. AMD hasn't even | started making 5nm CPUs this year while Apple has been | shipping them to consumers since September of last year. | Symmetry wrote: | Currently AMD is only buying 7nm. It should have 5nm | products this year but I'd be very surprised if it could | match Apple's volume. | SkyMarshal wrote: | _> The only problem with this, is that its fairly well-known | by industry insiders that Apple has TSMC's entire 5nm | production locked up for a significant portion of this year, | maybe even the entire year. M1 is just the beginning. New Axx | chips are going 5nm too._ | | Maybe I'm not following you, but if this is true, doesn't | that just confirm parent's comment that Intel is likely not | outsourcing to TSMC's 5nm process? Because TSMC has no 5nm | process availability to outsource to? | josalhor wrote: | I made the same mistake just a few days ago. I believed the | TrendForce article was reporting confirmed news. | | Your link redirects me to a Chinese webpage. I think this | article may be more approachable: | http://www.trendforce.com/presscenter/news/20210113-10651.ht... | dmix wrote: | So the OP's articles source is a blog post which cites its | own 'research' and little else. | | I guess it comes down to how much we can trust Trendforce... | otherwise it's pretty much still speculation at this point. | ucm_edge wrote: | The more credible speculation I've seen (although arguably once | you're arguing with speculation is more credible, you've | already lost) is that Intel is doing a multiyear deal to have | TSMC crank out its discrete Xe graphics/compute cards. Which | frankly makes a lot more sense, they need a leading process to | compete with NVidia who currently has access to Samsung's 7nm | and AMD who has TSMC's 7nm and will probably move on to TSMC | 5nm sometime next year as Apple moves on to TSMC 3nm. | | So supposedly Intel is guaranteeing enough Xe business to get | TSMC to convert part of its Baoshan complex over to making Xe. | Intel will keep trying to fix its own fabs for its CPUs and | probably intends to bring Xe cards back in house at a later | date, but they also want to go challenge AMD and nVidia for | datacenter GPUs now and that means getting access to a better | process. | | Outsourcing the commodity i3 whose main goal in life is run MS | Office on a Dell Optiplex is definitely a strange rumor. Out of | all the things Intel has, that's the area that has the least | need of a process upgrade. | skylanh wrote: | Can or should the headline of this HN post be updated to | include (rumour) or (speculation) or (unconfirmed)? | zheng_qm wrote: | Just finished reading Ben Thompson's Intel Problems, and I see | this -\\_(tsu)_/- | jcstryker wrote: | Feels like we are quickly centralizing consumer chip fabrication | into a single company. I guess the barrier for entry is so high | and TSMC is just so far ahead. | moomin wrote: | In the 90s, it was Intel that were so far ahead. And the | barrier of entry was sky-high then. From that perspective this | story is amazing. | Symmetry wrote: | In the 90s there were dozens of leading edge fabs. But while | the barriers were high back then the capital investment | needed to get into the next node has gone up exponentially, | about 15% each node, since then doubling every 5 years. It | took less than $1 billion to get in the game back then but | over $20 billion now. | qeternity wrote: | It's not clear whether this is cause or effect. The | insatiable demand for silicon fabbing has arguably made a | $20B plant today more economical than a $1B plant 25 years | ago. | segfaultbuserr wrote: | Rock's law, the inverse of Moore's Law. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_second_law | whalesalad wrote: | Makes you wonder what the hell they've been actually doing | this whole time. Just pumping out more of the same and | becoming obsolete. | ianai wrote: | On another side - has the software side done much to | incentivize Intel to innovate over the interim? i.e. | Windows has accrued a lot of cruft. It feels pretty | outdated at times. It feels almost unprofessional at times | coming from a unix-like OS user space and has since the | 90s. But then unix-like OSes have been a thing this whole | time. | | Yeah, I think Intel is our latest, greatest example of the | follies of not regulating markets properly. Properly | regulated, Intel would have been smacked around or | incentivized against dominating the chip market 'back | when'. Given the factors required, this may have had to | require state-led/funded chip research and fab production. | i.e. Effectively making a government do what TSMC did years | ago - and privatize the actual results of the efforts at | key points/areas. Just enough public investment to push the | market toward efficiency then back out. Proper regulation | would have kept pressures in place to keep key technologies | and manufacturing processes/abilities from entirely leaving | the local market, too. | Avalaxy wrote: | Well, then same happened then with Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64. | whalesalad wrote: | I had an Athlon 64 machine. The good old days of socket | 754/939 | aaronharder wrote: | Via HN yesterday, some good thoughts on that question: | https://stratechery.com/2021/intel-problems/ | mensetmanusman wrote: | Not likely, | | What's tricky to understand is that once TSMC said, 'we | will build everything and design nothing', everyone looked | to them when there wasn't another competitor willing to do | the same. | | The massive order volume they received (with low margin) | let them experiment on process development 10x that of | Intel. | | Remember when Wall St. said America can outsource | manufacturing because 'other people' aren't smart enough to | innovate? Looks like they were wrong :) | | The American middle class is going to be further decimated | over the next decade. Wups | brennanpeterson wrote: | Tsmcs r&d spend has been equivalent to Intel's for the | last decade. TSMC did a great job, most particularly on | EUV introduction. | | I don't think wall street cares about outsourcing, except | as a potential savings. The hollowing out is real, but it | is fixable. | | It will take a really different approach, though. | mensetmanusman wrote: | Actually trying to fulfill an order might not be bucketed | under 'r&d' spend for finance/business. Every order is an | experiment for yield improvement. | goldcd wrote: | Handing out dividends like clockwork. Makes me think of | Boeing.. Big engineering company taken over by the | accountants. | | (Now I don't mean that as a slight to accountants - just | you need balance). | bob1029 wrote: | 99% of the barrier is feature size. Producing the feature size | starts with photolithography. | | If you want to talk about centralizing concerns, look into the | number of companies who can produce an EUV light source capable | of supplying a photo tool with powerful & precise output | 24/7/365. | exhilaration wrote: | Is there more than one? ASML in the Netherlands is the only | company I ever hear mentioned when it comes to | photolithography. | ryneandal wrote: | I'd love to see this answered as well. Do KLA or Lam | produce any of this manufacturing equipment? | __alexs wrote: | There is only ASML. | rusticpenn wrote: | The main problem is that there is no profit in chip | manufacturing ( relative to software development). Apparently | it takes 5-6 years for a node to make any profit. | lostmsu wrote: | This can quickly change if demand stays high. TSMC have | already increased prices. | https://www.techspot.com/news/88006-tmsc-ending-discounts- | in... | worker767424 wrote: | I'd say it's weird because hardware like this is so much | harder, but the benefit's also a lot more marginal. There was | a time when you had to buy a new computer every 4 years or it | would be cripplingly slow. These days, pretty good hardware | that's 8 years old is good enough today if you have an SSD, | 8GB of ram, and don't play AAA games. | heimatau wrote: | > The main problem is that there is no profit in chip | manufacturing | | This isn't true. Check out the margins of TSMC, it tends to | be 40% or so. | | But to maintain this lead in the industry, they need to | massively reinvest for the next smaller process. With that | said, profits are great but they don't endure (software | development is somewhat more 'sticky' especially since | everyone is doing SaaS which provides more incentives for | competition and many companies are growing even with covid19 | changing the market landscape). | pantulis wrote: | While I understand the concept of "technology node" as a | manufacturing process, where does the usage of the word | "node" come from? From litography? Is it related to the | "nodes" in the electric circuits? | tomjen3 wrote: | A single company in a small country 70 miles of mainland China, | who considers themselves an international rival. | kllrnohj wrote: | TSMC only just pulled out in front. Rewind the clock a mere 5 | years and Intel was in front, with Samsung and GlobalFoundries | basically tied for 2nd, and TSMC in dead last (they had the | weakest 16nm/12nm of that generation - the only one who | couldn't hit 30MTr/mm2 of the bunch) | | GloFlo then backed out entirely of the race and Intel slammed | into a wall. | | Since then Samsung and TSMC were on "equal" ground at "10nm" | (both ~52MTr/mm2, both released 2017) and again at "7nm" (both | ~96MTr/mm2). It's not until 5nm that TSMC was actually clearly | in-front of everyone else, with their 5nm being 173MTr/mm2 | while Samsung's is only 127MTr/mm2. | | In terms of "TSMC is just so far ahead." Samsung's 3nm is | supposed to use GAAFET while TSMC's 3nm will still be FinFET. | So.. potentially Samsung re-claims the "crown" so to speak at | 3nm. And Samsung does contract out their fabs - see Nvidia's | RTX 3000 series. There's also no particular reason to believe | that Intel is down for the count for good. They are a huge | company with a huge amount of capital, they can fund a rough | generation or two. | mdasen wrote: | I remember the huge controversy around the iPhone 6S which | had a processor that was either a 14nm Samsung or 16nm TSMC | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A9). Apple had used | Samsung for the iPhone 4 through iPhone 5S. The iPhone 6 was | TSMC and the 6S was dual-sourced (20015/2016, 5 years ago). | | I'd guess that some of TSMC's rise to prominence was partly | driven by Apple not wanting to help Samsung. Apple was really | pissed about Samsung copying the iPhone - not just by | shipping an Android phone, but by copying icons to make their | phones seem as similar as possible. | | You can definitely look back at MacRumors articles from 2014 | and see that there's a bunch of Samsung/GlobalFoundries/TSMC | "who will be able to make it happen" talk. | | In fact, re-reading through these articles, it seems that | people thought that Samsung and its alliance with | GlobalFoundries would be the winner of the iPhone 6S | generation, but it's possible that Apple saw better yields | from TSMC and saw the potential there. When you're as big as | Apple, you're going to be really deep with your suppliers and | you're going to have a lot of expertise to judge suppliers | and their future potential. Maybe it was a combination of | seeing TSMC over the iPhone 6/6S generation that gave Apple | the confidence to move away from Samsung. Back in 2015, | analysts were still expecting Samsung to be getting future | business from Apple like the A10X processor. | | Given that Apple is a buyer that can move mountains, how much | of TSMC's ascendency is potentially Apple committing to a | lucrative multi-year deal allowing TSMC to invest a lot of | money knowing they had guaranteed orders? One of the hard | things in business is knowing what to spend your time on - | what do customers really want. Google, for example, has spent | plenty of time on things that weren't good investments | whether that's Wave or AppEngine or Google+. If you know | "doing X will definitely make me a lot of money" it makes it | easier to invest heavily in an area - basically, you kinda | get the benefit of hindsight ahead of time with a long-term | deal. | | I hope Intel and Samsung continue to do well (or get back | into the race as Intel's position might be) since more | competition means lower-cost processors over the long-run. | But I think it's definitely important that you point out that | only a few years ago TSMC wasn't the powerhouse it is today. | While I believe TSMC is going to continue to invest and | improve, Samsung is producing Qualcomm's Snapdragon 888 on | its 5nm process and if you're right about Samsung's 3nm | process, that should provide a lot of orders there too - | especially if Intel is willing to outsource manufacturing. | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/03/05/a8-chip-underway-tsmc/ | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/07/10/tsmc-apple/ | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/08/25/tsmc-16nm-a9/ | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/04/samsung-tsmc-still- | comp... | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/11/17/samsung-apple- | processor... | | https://www.macrumors.com/2014/12/30/tsmc-chip-production- | yi... | | https://www.macrumors.com/2015/01/14/apple-diversifies- | arm-c... | Teknoman117 wrote: | You also had IBM sell their fabs to Global Foundries in 2014. | mi_lk wrote: | > Samsung's 3nm is supposed to use GAAFET while TSMC's 3nm | will still be FinFET. So.. potentially Samsung re-claims the | "crown" so to speak at 3nm. | | Can you elaborate for us uninitiated? Why GAAFET might help | Samsung win at 3nm? | abfan1127 wrote: | I assume its more density since its more vertical, but I | only know whats in this quick article. | | https://eepower.com/market-insights/could-gaafets-replace- | fi... | jjoonathan wrote: | The job of a gate is to "hold open" / "pinch closed" a | channel with an electric field. The closer to the gate, the | better the hold/pinch. In ye olde days, you'd slap a gate | on the top of a channel and call it a day. Every part of | the channel was close enough to the gate get a good pinch. | | Then everything shrunk and smaller channels wound up | needing stronger pinches to completely shut them off. | Instead of slapping a gate on top and calling it a day, | they raised the channel into a fin and drizzled the gate | over 3 sides so that it could pinch from the left and | right, not just the top. Those are FinFETs. | | The next step is to have the gate on the bottom, too, so | that it can pinch from all four sides. The channel | literally goes through the gate, which surrounds it on all | sides. Those are Gate-All-Around FETs, or GAAFETs. | MrStonedOne wrote: | Consumer high end cpu fabrication* | | intel's fabs still work for printing just about anything | besides high end current gen shit. | Jonnax wrote: | "The Core i3 move to a 5nm process is set to be followed by mid- | range and high-end CPUs being produced for Intel by TSMC on a 3nm | process in 2H22." | | So Intel becoming Fabless is a matter of time? | xbmcuser wrote: | No this is a move to protect market share and buy time their | processors with the current Intel node are not competitive this | way they are able to compete with AMD as well as restrict AMD | supply. They will be able to hold market share with this till | their own next generation fab is fully functional. | dkjaudyeqooe wrote: | That's not how it works. | | If you want volume from TSMC you make a big order, you sign a | contract, and then put down a billion dollars or two and TSMC | will build you a nice new fab for your needs. | | That's more or less how it works. TSMC doesn't allow itself | to be in a position to have to screw one customer for another | customer. It would destroy the trust that customers need to | put the survival of their business in TSMC's hands. | monopoledance wrote: | > as well as restrict AMD supply | | Clearly evidence of the "free market" working on human | prosperity. Oh, wait, no it's the opposite. Innovation killed | over a monopoly's power. Cool, cool, cool. | | This sort of anti-competitive behavior should be illegal. How | is it okay to just clog your competitors supply line, when | they got the better tech you just can't up? | jjoonathan wrote: | When it comes to fab, AMD didn't beat intel, they gave up | and went with TSMC. Now they have to compete with TSMC's | other customers, including Intel, for access to the | kingmaking process. That's not foul play, it's the bed they | made, and now they get/have to lie in it. | xattt wrote: | I thought AMD spun off their own fabs into Global | Foundries. | jjoonathan wrote: | ...which they dropped like a used tissue, yes. That was | the entire point of the exercise. | lizknope wrote: | The current high end AMD parts are multi chip modules. | The CPU dies are made at TSMC in 7nm but the IO dies that | glue multiple CPU dies together is made in the Global | Foundries 14nm process. | | GF has basically given up on 10nm and smaller nodes. | mook wrote: | Didn't AMD have contractual obligations to use Global | Foundries for their high end chips from when they split, | or something along those lines? I guess that turned out | really well for them, though, since that might have led | to the necessity of chiplet designs. | CameronNemo wrote: | GF has given up on research and pioneering smaller nodes. | Their current process is based on tech they licensed from | Samsung. I would not be surprised if they licensed | another process from TSMC or Samsung in the future. | monopoledance wrote: | > That's not foul play | | Maybe not legally, but if their (partial) intention is to | retard AMD's design success, it's at least what is | considered "a dick move". | | Intel is strong-arming AMD on many fronts AFAIK, I | sincerely hope they vanish into insignificance for their | dick-locomotion nature. And I also hope the EU succeeds | at spinning up their own fabs. And that ancaps one day | see the light of regulation. | | I want fancy tech and scifi and wealth for everyone, and | the free-market doesn't deliver. It's all monopolies and | patent wars... | jjoonathan wrote: | Intel (and NVidia for that matter) don't owe AMD | uncontested access to TSMC's kingmaking process, no | matter how much AMD fanboys wish it were so. | | > AMD's design success | | The market is showing us that the value center isn't | design, it's fab. Which AMD gave up on. The lack of | competition that's squeezing them is the very pile of | dung they created by dropping their foundries. | monopoledance wrote: | Yes, I am not arguing the market logic. I am arguing | against the market logic. | einpoklum wrote: | > This sort of anti-competitive behavior should be illegal. | | You're assuming the legal system is intended to foster | competition and prevent the formation of monopolies. That | is not the case. The examples of this occurring are | exceptions to the rule. And as evidence, you can examine | the concentration of wealth, and investment capital in the | USA (or other developed capitalist countries). | unavoidable wrote: | Sounds like you have all this backwards. If the rumours are | true, it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not | Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder | because they have the best tech is the free market at work. | It's the opposite of anti-competitive. Intel is the one | going to pay up (to TSMC) for their mistakes. Incidentally, | AMD outsourcing its fab came with inherent risks, one of | which is this. | monopoledance wrote: | > it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not | Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder | | That's Intel's legacy at work. They got the cash (but | nothing else) to do this. So Intel _is playing its market | position. | | Of course TSMC is the real winner, but in AMD vs Intel, | they are just another resource. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | They'd have to also compete with Apple, NVDA and AMD for | those wafers. TSM is looking like a great investing | opportunity. | culopatin wrote: | It's been going up since March. It was around 55 now at | 136. Really nice returns. | bluGill wrote: | Buy the rumor, sell the news. TSM was a great opportunity, | is it still? | | I don't know the answer, but it is an important warning to | keep in mind when making decisions. | andrewmcwatters wrote: | A resounding "no." The last time TSM was near fair value | was mid-2020. | PartiallyTyped wrote: | Why so? They have practically a monopoly as there is | nobody that can actually compete, Samsung just isn't | there, same for INTC's fabs, obviously. | | In addition, more and more AI/ML accelerator startups | show up with even more need for wafers and ASML has 2 | year old orders on the backlog (half of their EUV's | machines last year went just to TSMC). | bluGill wrote: | We never know when intel or Samsung will catch up, or | even get ahead. They have a monopoly today, but a little | bit of luck on either part and that is gone... | usrusr wrote: | Sure, assuming that their in-house manufacturing is more | expensive than buying externally (quite likely, considering | that it was grown for decades more on USPs than on pricing). | I wonder how much the "cooperate to learn" effect has been | part of the decision. You surely won't get outright trade | secrets this way or technological details, but valuable | insights in how they think, how they "do things on a high | level" | blackrock wrote: | Is TSMC about to hit a physics barrier? | | How much smaller than 3nm, can transistor sizes go? 2 nm? 1 nm? | O.5 nm? | ACAVJW4H wrote: | It would be very surprising if TSMC would heavily invest in | capacity to help Intel | ChrisLTD wrote: | Money is money. Samsung also makes a bunch of stuff for | Apple, and they don't seem to think twice about it. | bluGill wrote: | I'm not clear what Samsung makes for Apple (someone might | know, but not me), but it makes sense to share the more | complex parts. One team does all the expensive design work, | and then both benefit because the design cost is over more | devices, plus more hardware means better scale factors in | manufacturing. | | The above is on a case by case basis. So they may share | some complex part, and some other (possibly more complex) | they decide isn't worth sharing. | cbozeman wrote: | Intel will never become fabless. They made the wrong bet on the | type of technology to reduce transistor size and they | overestimated what their engineers would be capable of creating | and doing, but that won't last forever. | | There's a _lot_ of working going on with 10nm and 7nm to fix | the production problems (because a lot of work is still | required). It won 't happen overnight, in fact, I predicted | about a year or two ago that it would be around 2023, +/- 6 | months, that Intel would have its node production problems | mostly ironed out. | | Sadly by then, TSMC should be at 3nm, and while Intel's 10nm is | easily a match for TSMC's 7nm, it won't be enough to be | competitive against TSMC 5nm and 3nm. I hope that Intel has | their shit together for the 7nm node, or can at least break | even on it. If they can break even (cost of wafer is equal to | or less than what they can sell the chips for) on 7nm, they'll | be able to hang in there until they get the 5nm / 3nm nodes up | and running. | | If Intel drops the ball though... and they aren't able to get | 10nm yields over 90% by 2023 and if they can't get 7nm yields | at a reasonable point... well that's a whole different ball | game for Intel. It might not be out of the question for Intel | to approach the US government about either subsidies, tax | breaks, custom manufacturing for military applications, etc., | in order to 1) keep Intel viable until the engineering | challenges are resolved and 2) prevent the offshoring of all | semiconductor fabs. | | Put simply, Intel staying competitive is a matter of national | security for the United States. | wegs wrote: | It seems a dollar of government investment now is likely | worth $5 of investment down the line, once we've fallen | further behind. The US ought to be investing on multiple | fronts to regain/maintain the lead here. | | Best company I worked at -- small startup -- would always do | 2-3 R&D initiatives in parallel. One would be conservative | (guaranteed results). One would be super-high-risk (huge | payoff if it works). Sometimes there would be one or two | more. It was all a big hedge. Some panned out, some didn't, | and when we hit the market, our technology was like science | fiction. Competition didn't know what hit them. | | That would run a fair bit of coin, but fairly little on the | national scale. | | (Footnote: Not a software company) | andre_ramos wrote: | Can you share the company's name? | specialist wrote: | Basket of NPV style hedges are The Correct Answer(tm). | Meaning, try a bunch of stuff, with some reasonable | resources and constraints, see what works. | | I like the explanation and rationale given in Design Rules | https://www.amazon.com/Design-Rules-Vol-Power- | Modularity/dp/..., though there's plenty of others. | | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_present_value | mhh__ wrote: | That move seems like a good way of going from having the | potential to win to guaranteeing being average at best in the | long run. | bayindirh wrote: | I don't think so. They have a lot of things to produce in their | fabs. Optane, Chipsets, NAND (if they still produce it), | sensors, FPGAs, Ethernet Controllers, etc. | | They're considering it as an interim solution IMHO. To buy time | for their own processes. | ryneandal wrote: | Well they've nuked consumer Optane | (https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-kills-off-all- | optane...) and sold their NAND business | (https://blocksandfiles.com/2020/10/26/intel-sk-hynix-nand- | sa...) so that should free up some of their own capacity, | right? | wtallis wrote: | Intel's selling off the NAND fabs and never owned a 3D | XPoint fab; Optane products are built with 3D XPoint memory | fabbed by Micron, with whom they co-developed 3D XPoint. | | And it's not cheap or quick to refit a memory fab to | produce processors. | ryneandal wrote: | Ah, I didn't look too deeply into the NAND sale. In that | case, yeah I totally see why they are choosing to | outsource to TSMC. | cma wrote: | Isn't it a bigger step than that, as they have to firewall | the design team with access to confidential TSMC info now? If | they got another process online in 2 years they'd have to | have a different team on it or wait another two years or so. | QuesnayJr wrote: | I find it surprising that TSMC is going along with it, just | because I would think it's hard to be sure some | confidential information wouldn't leak. Unless this kind of | institutional firewall works better than I think. | avs733 wrote: | If I were to speculate, I would say that tsmc has a | diversified enough customer base AND doesn't see intel as | a contract fab competitor. I would imagine if roles were | reversed there would be a whole lot more concern. | mkr-hn wrote: | TSMC could hand Intel everything they know and it wouldn't | do them a bit of good before it's no longer relevant. Raw | knowledge won't buy machines, train people to maintain | them, build factories, tune the manufacturing processes, or | make relationships with design partners. By the time Intel | gets something running with something they pick up and | starts thinking about making deals, TSMC will be off | profiting from another breakthrough. | cma wrote: | I've just heard that TSMC requires strict isolation for a | period of years for any team that gets the detailed | design specs that can lead to process knowledge, and that | this now prevents several fabless companies from second | sourcing without a second design team. I would think it | would be even stricter with a non fabless client | competitor like Intel. | bicolao wrote: | It's confusing though because it's to be followed up with mid | to high range CPUs as well. So this is a quite long interim | period. If they just need a bit more time, outsourcing high | end CPUs makes more sense. | bicolao wrote: | At this point, what stops TSMC from jacking up the price on | future contracts? Can Samsung do it? | ghettoimp wrote: | It does seem like TSMC has strong leverage since it would take | Apple a lot of time and work to move to a competitor. | | On the other hand, the incentives seem pretty well aligned. | TSMC presumably makes a lot of money when Apple is successful | and sells a lot of chips. Having a customer that is demanding | and willing to pay for huge volumes of bleeding edge parts | helps TSMC build on their lead. Having early access to the best | process helps Apple differentiate, and their business model | gives them the margins to afford all of this. | | Anyway, I don't see why either side would want to really change | this setup. | amelius wrote: | Yes, they should charge Apple 30% of their revenue. | | Also, they should insist to change "Made in China, designed in | California" into "Made in China, High-tech from Taiwan, rest of | the design from California". | | If they don't comply, Apple should be thrown out of the | FabStore. | wicket wrote: | >Also, they should insist to change "Made in China, designed | in California" into "Made in China, High-tech from Taiwan, | rest of the design from California". | | Cambridge, England (Arm) should also be in this mix. | mhh__ wrote: | The cores are in-house apple, so that's a bit strenuous | wicket wrote: | Strenuous? Not in the slightest. The ISA and the original | chip design is from Arm and is licensed to Apple. There | would be no M1 without Cambridge. | vardump wrote: | Usually I don't care much about humor on HN, but you owe me a | new keyboard. | duxup wrote: | Why? | Mindwipe wrote: | Wooooosh. | duxup wrote: | Well I am asking so yes I don't understand. | saagarjha wrote: | It's a reference to the App Store rules. | duxup wrote: | Thank you. | mejutoco wrote: | Coffee spilled on the keyboard because of sudden laughter | would be my guess. | imtringued wrote: | Deplatforming is in fashion. | JohnJamesRambo wrote: | I want this so much. | killtimeatwork wrote: | > "Made in China, High-tech from Taiwan, rest of the design | from California" | | Aren't the CPU-making machines actually coming from The | Netherlands and TSMC is "just" using them to produce the | chips? | amelius wrote: | I bet Intel would use them for their 5nm process if they | knew how. | amluto wrote: | The EUV sources are just light sources. Calling them chip | making machines is like calling a very expensive stove a | Michelin-starred restaurant. | detaro wrote: | ASML is making more than "just light sources". (indeed | the "light source" part of their photolitography machines | is something they bought a company from the US for - the | entire industry has supply chains spanning the world, so | attributing it to countries makes not that much sense | IMHO) | amluto wrote: | Interesting, I stand corrected. | totalZero wrote: | I think of them as Si printers with _incredibly_ precise | optics. There is certainly something missing in your | analogy. | ahartmetz wrote: | Yeah, it's like inkjet printer vs a little hose that | squirts ink, only more so. | imtringued wrote: | That's like calling boeing a propeller company. ASML | builds chip making machines. EUV isn't about light | sources. It's about the entire process. | | https://www.deingenieur.nl/artikel/first-commercial-asml- | euv... | | This article references Cymer as the manufacturer of the | actual light source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cymer | akmarinov wrote: | They can do it for a time. Apple can then use some of the | hundreds of billions they have on hand to prop up one of TSMC's | competitors, as they did with the RAM suppliers. | andromeduck wrote: | I would love to see Intel buy Intel's fabs, glofo or | something. | totalZero wrote: | Who, Samsung? Somehow I don't see Apple doing that. It's not | a particularly populous industry; no other foundry (ignoring | the blacklisted Chinese companies) but Samsung, TSMC, and | Intel is involved in sub-10nm lithography, to my knowledge. | akmarinov wrote: | True, but hundreds of billions can get you a lot, when your | main business is affected. | cma wrote: | ASML potentially has an even bigger hold on things as they | supply TSMC, Samsung, and Intel with the EUV mirror optics. | the8472 wrote: | Zeiss is making the optics, ASML is making the integrated EUV | machine. | raverbashing wrote: | And just to be clear the optics are not at all trivial when | you're talking about EUV and the precisions required | | I'm not sure if the lenses are even transparent in the | visible range but I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't. | totalZero wrote: | Weirdly enough, ASML has more than 80% market share even | though Canon and Nikon also make DUV equipment. | the8472 wrote: | Lenses aren't available for EUV, they can only use quite | lossy mirrors. | cma wrote: | Ah, I though ASML are the mirrors. So they make essentially | the light source? | the8472 wrote: | ASML sells the complete EUV lithography machine. Zeiss is | one of their partners that supplies the optics. Trumpf | makes the pulsed lasers which turn tin droplets into | plasma which then produces the EUV light. They say they | have many more research and supply partners, but those | are the ones that I've found mentioned by name in press | releases. | cma wrote: | Do they design the actual tin droplet plasma chamber | thing, or are they essentially a systems integrator from | a bunch of suppliers putting it all together into their | overall design to their specs? | the8472 wrote: | This question doesn't make sense, both options involve | designing the thing. | | Anyway, it's not even about designing it. The technology | had to be invented first. It would be crazy to use | exploding metal drops in a vacuum chamber where you want | to manufacture microchips if there were any other options | but there were zero options before. There are few | applications of EUV in general, and currently only one at | those luminosity levels. So R&D is a big component here, | not just manufacturing. And even if we only look at the | manufacturing part, this isn't some "simple" vacuum | chamber gadget either, only ~30 machines were built last | year and they cost more than 100M$ each. For comparison, | four of these cost as much as one Wendelstein-7X. This is | more of a big, barely productized science project shipped | out as soon as it works just good enough for the chip | manufacturers. | baybal2 wrote: | Cymer makes the light source. Now it is owned by ASML. | | Japanese are quite behind in the race, with only <100W | source being demonstrated. | bicolao wrote: | Do these guys also need to invest a lot on research for new | node processes, or is that just on fabs like TSMC, | Intel...? | totalZero wrote: | Yes. You can see this just from the size of the machines, | which get much larger with every die shrink. | tannhaeuser wrote: | Is there a connection to the global shortage of semiconductors | having already caused car manufacturing plants to shut down, in | the sense that Intel re-purposes their existing fabs to make | money in these demand-driven markets? Read an interview with GF's | CEO just this week where he says their older (22nm, 45nm) | processes see full capacity right now. | baybal2 wrote: | No, there aren't any on supply side. It's just overwhelming | demand for every kind of ICs across the industry. From 200mm | fabs to mid-tier to cutting edge. | | Electronics, and semiconductor industries just had the best | year on record. | | It seems just everything electronic related saw huge sales. | rvba wrote: | Lots of (cheap) computers bought by those staying at home. | totalZero wrote: | Even the cheapest retail computers aren't running on | processors with 22nm microarchitecture. | | The legacy semiconductor demand isn't coming from CPU/GPU | for PC, servers, or mobile. It's coming from other | applications and industries (automakers especially). | [deleted] | f00zz wrote: | For real this time? A few months ago there were news of Intel | outsourcing to TSMC that turned out to be fake. | nikbackm wrote: | Seems like bad news for AMD. | superjan wrote: | Can anyone explain why they'd start with the low end i3? | drinkcocacola wrote: | Risk. Outsourcing all the manufacturing process has several a | lot of uncertainty that they need to start figuring out. By the | time they decide to manufacture their flagship chips, all the | uncertainty will be already in the past lowering a lot the | risk. It is better to screw it up with low-end, cheaper chips, | than with the ones that represents the brand (high-end) | Narishma wrote: | I think i3 is mid-range. Low-end would be Pentium and Celeron. | eyesee wrote: | Also vanity. It's a bad look if Intel's top-end chips aren't | made by Intel. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2021-01-20 23:00 UTC)