[HN Gopher] Intel to build Qualcomm chips, aims to catch foundry...
___________________________________________________________________
Intel to build Qualcomm chips, aims to catch foundry rivals by 2025
Author : mepian
Score : 70 points
Date : 2021-07-26 21:33 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| mdasen wrote:
| I'd be more interested in hearing about the terms of the Qualcomm
| deal. Is Qualcomm putting its eggs in the Intel basket for 2025
| or has Intel reached an agreement with Qualcomm that Qualcomm
| will buy from them if it fits Qualcomm's needs and it's ready in
| time?
|
| If the agreement is "Qualcomm will send _some_ of its business
| Intel 's way," that isn't a huge vote of confidence. Heck, are we
| talking about Qualcomm's Snapdragon 8xx series or just some
| Qualcomm chips like the ones they put in WiFi routers? Or their
| low-end Snapdragon 4xx series?
|
| The article is kinda spinning it as "Intel will be making the
| Qualcomm chips going into everyone's phones," but it could be
| more "Qualcomm is going to have Intel manufacture its low-end
| stuff which is always behind tech-wise and Intel is giving them a
| big discount because Intel needs a win."
|
| > In the chip world where smaller is better, Intel previously
| used names that alluded to the size of features in "nanometers".
| But over time the names used by chipmakers became arbitrary
| marking terms... This, he said, gave the mistaken impression that
| Intel was less competitive.
|
| They are definitely less competitive at this point. Nanometers
| might not be the right measurement, but one can measure
| transistor density. Maybe that would make more sense?
|
| Even if "Intel 7" (10nm Enhanced SuperFin) is equivalent to
| TSMC's 7nm, we saw TSMC's 7nm back in 2018. I have a TSMC 5nm in
| my pocket. I guess if Intel can keep to its road map, it will
| catch up. If "Intel 4" comes out with products in early 2023, it
| won't be far behind TSMC's 3nm process (which will likely debut
| in the 2022 iPhone).
|
| Of course, we'll have to see how well these Intel chips perform.
| We should be able to benchmark Intel 7 processors with Alder Lake
| processors landing later this year. Will these stand up well
| against AMD's 7nm Zen 2/3? Will they stand up against AMD's
| upcoming 5nm Zen 4? I guess we'll be able to test Intel's chips
| against what AMD has been shipping and see how well Intel 7
| stands up against both 7nm and 5nm processes.
| stefan_ wrote:
| No one would make WiFi router chips or even low-end smartphone
| processors on these processes.
| klelatti wrote:
| Wasn't Qualcomm announced as a 20A customer?
| nightowl_games wrote:
| They'll do it too. They'll catch up, because it's in the US
| Government's interest for them to catch up. Buy Intel Stock.
| tim_sw wrote:
| How can you be sure that it's Intel and not other players or a
| consortium?
| wmf wrote:
| If you want a "truly American" company (not TSMC or Samsung),
| Intel is the only option. The question is whether that's
| important or not.
| dragontamer wrote:
| IBM is made at GloFo, which is both an American chip
| designer with an American fabricator.
|
| But GloFo is falling behind for sure. I don't think POWER10
| will be made at GloFo.
| RC_ITR wrote:
| Boy do I have news for you:
| https://www.mubadala.com/en/what-we-
| do/semiconductors/global....
| colinmhayes wrote:
| Intel is trying to buy gf
| nicoburns wrote:
| Personally, I really hope we keep all 3 of these companies
| (and maybe gain a 4th competitor in the form of SMIC) for
| as long as possible. Having a variety of companies
| producing chips is important both for competition and
| supply chain resilience reasons.
| btown wrote:
| I wouldn't go so far as to say "buy Intel stock" because
| institutional investors have likely already adjusted to the
| announcement and it's likely priced in.
|
| That said, I think government encouragement is a critical piece
| of the puzzle and should derisk this operation. The recent
| supply shocks to the computer industry, when component prices
| and lead times shot up _independent_ of any geopolitical
| conflicts (other than COVID), must have been a wake-up call to
| many that the US 's relative lack of foundry capabilities has
| real strategic implications.
| aj7 wrote:
| You first.
| xwdv wrote:
| Interests can change in a minute, and without warning.
| arcanus wrote:
| Do you believe the US government is willing to commit the
| resources necessary for Intel to catch up?
|
| Intel's R+D spending (13 billion U.S. dollars) is already
| larger than the entire annual NSF budget (10 billion).
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I saw headlines about 52 billion dollars for domestic
| semiconductor expansion going through Congress. Did that
| happen?
| totalZero wrote:
| It's an existential question. Right now the US economy is
| entirely dependent upon Taiwanese semiconductor fabrication.
| This isn't a glaring problem yet, because China is also
| dependent upon the same supply chain, giving rise to a mutual
| incentive not to rock the boat too hard. However, China has
| dedicated substantial resources to building its own fab
| infrastructure since well before the pandemic [0], with the
| goal of establishing a parallel ecosystem that circumvents
| the US-controlled supply chain [1]. If the US does not follow
| suit, its dependence upon Taiwan becomes a massive liability.
|
| How much did we spend on the Iraq War, despite our own
| country being a major producer of oil and gas? Our economic
| incentive to entangle ourselves in Taiwan is even greater,
| but the stakes of military confrontation with China would be
| more dangerous. How much would you pay to avert such a
| conflict -- or worse, to avert the consequences of
| acquiescing to China's expansionism?
|
| I think $200 billion is a cheap price tag for a path forward
| that involves neither warfare nor perpetual paranoia about
| every perturbation in the South China Sea. Taiwan established
| itself as a semiconductor powerhouse largely because its
| government backed TSMC. South Korea's government bends over
| backwards for Samsung, which makes up about a fifth of their
| GDP. The way forward for the US may be similar in mentality:
| throw the government behind the industry. US fabs need
| resilient and high-quality infrastructure for power, water,
| and logistics. We can use the collimated power and authority
| of the government to yield a vastly more effective long-term
| solution than piecemeal tax credits on lithography scanners.
|
| [0] https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/04/china-ramps-up-own-
| semicondu...
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU2rNB34yY4
| elzbardico wrote:
| In the great scheme of military spending things, 10 billions
| is small change.
| lettergram wrote:
| I believe the US military would easily be willing to plow
| $10B.
|
| Now, does that mean intel will actually be effective? I have
| my doubts, baring some sort of shotgun approach where
| multiple experimental fabs are done simultaneously.
| AtlasBarfed wrote:
| I have been ragging Intel for a long time since the
| NetBurst debacle, but it's still a massive company with the
| x86 cash cow for at least another half-decade until AMD
| closes a bit of a gap.
|
| They have the resources and history to recover. I have
| heard references to massive managerial layer problems and
| treating contractors like crap and the brain drain of the
| old guard, but those aren't intractable problems.
|
| Intel has responded in the past. AMD looked completely dead
| in the Hector Ruiz waning days, and look at them now.
| Empower some good engineers and watch what happens.
| aj7 wrote:
| Are the maroon notebooks gone yet?
| nicoburns wrote:
| I'm not sure how much difference that would make. Intel
| already has $20B in cash reserves and is still making large
| profits (in the billions of dollars). Their problems have
| nothing to do with lack money.
| klelatti wrote:
| Can anyone explain what evidence there is that Intel will be able
| to deliver all this?
|
| Not taking a view just interested in how to assess the
| credibility of the roadmap.
| zionic wrote:
| For the curious:
|
| https://www.tweaktown.com/news/50551/intel-confirms-10nm-pro...
| tablespoon wrote:
| Per the OP, it sounds like they're taking more
| conservative/incremental steps now, and their previous fault
| was that they were too ambitious and tried to do too much at
| once.
|
| My understanding is Intel's rivals also took a more incremental
| development process, which basically allowed them to capitalize
| on Intel's missteps.
| bstar77 wrote:
| "But David Kanter, an analyst with Real World Technologies,
| said Intel is being more cautious than in the past. The years
| of delays resulted in part from the "hubris" of tackling
| multiple technical problems in a single generation of
| technology."
|
| That's some serious spin there. The chatter has been that
| Intel has had poor focus, poor working conditions, poor
| investments, poor communication within the company and a
| plethora of hubris. They need a culture overhaul and that
| seems to be what's happening. The jury is out to where they
| take this. My bet would be on all of their competitors.
| klelatti wrote:
| Having watched the Webcast it didn't sound that conservative!
|
| 7,4,3,20A in 4 years.
| websg-x wrote:
| 7 is half node, 4 full node, 3 half, 20A full node again.
| Moore's law is doubling of transistors density every 2
| years, so the roadmap is indeed conservative.
| nicoburns wrote:
| The fact that they've replaced their CEO with a highly-
| respected (within the company) former engineer and they've been
| rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were
| involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a
| good sign.
|
| It's still a tall order, but my reading is that they seem to be
| doing all the right things. And they certainly aren't short of
| cash to invest with.
| arcanus wrote:
| > rehiring a lot of other veteran former employees who were
| involved in many of their historical successes is certainly a
| good sign
|
| They certainly are trying to get the band back together. I
| see little reason this means they can turn around a huge
| beast.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-07-26 23:00 UTC)