Comment by rubyn00bie

Comment by rubyn00bie 2 days ago

13 replies

Yeah, I remember hearing NVidia did the same thing via Moore’s Law is Dead podcast. At this point it seems incredibly unlikely Intel will unseat TSMC anytime soon. TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and quality required by the likes of Apple, NVidia, and AMD. It also has substantially deeper pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.

I think if Intel is to stand a chance it’ll be via gaining momentum and market via “good enough” nodes and not cutting edge, essentially taking a page out of TSMCs playbook from the late 2000s and early 2010s. It needs more capital than it can raise, and time, both of which are hard to come by.

stinkbeetle 2 days ago

> TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and quality [...]. It also has substantially deeper pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.

Before about 2016, you could have said the same about Intel. They were generally considered process technology leaders. They were > a year ahead in shipping products with their latest 14nm node. Similarly their previous 22nm node. There had been several occasions over the previous decades where manufacturers stumbled, not as spectacularly as Intel's decade of malaise, but definitely nodes scrapped level.

So, things can change quite quickly. Intel's 18A node is likely to be "better" than TSMC's current N3x nodes (it is denser and better performing on paper) and will ship before N2, putting Intel momentarily in the lead for process technology again for a quarter or so, and it was first with some technologies like BSPD (TSMC won't do that until A16). Yields are a question, and N2 will be coming out which probably re-takes the lead... but this is quite a turnaround from late 2010s situation, right?

The big thing Intel needs is a working foundry pipeline, because there is so much money in high performance silicon that's not x86 these days. It has always been thought their CPU design teams were very close to fabrication which was thought to be something of an advantage for them. It's likely that has also made their process more difficult for outsiders. They've tried and failed several times to get this going and get external design wins, and just never done well even when their manufacturing was doing really well. Including this latest effort (https://overclock3d.net/news/misc/intel-may-cancel-its-18a-l...). Still, it's not impossible, and I'm sure TSMC considers this one of its biggest risks if Intel can boot a self-sustaining foundry business.

  • CharlieDigital 2 days ago

        > Before about 2016, you could have said the same about Intel.
    
    I'm going to guess that part of the problem is American business culture and ceding high level strategic decisions not to engineers but to MBA types. It's hard to see anyone falling the same way Intel fell looking at companies like Nvidia and AMD whom are both still (outside looking in) very much engineering driven.
    • jdlshore 2 days ago

      Do you have any facts backing up that opinion? Because while I’ll agree that MBAs who ignore engineering nuance can be a problem, engineers are perfectly capable of running an org into the ground all on their own.

      In this case, Intel looks like a variant of the Innovators’ Dilemma. Their internal processes, systems, and culture revolve around designing and manufacturing their own chips. Moving to a customer-centric approach is a big switch in culture and I’m not surprised it’s a challenge.

    • nateglims 2 days ago

      What decisions were MBA instead of engineering decisions? It seems like intel has just made a lot of bad bets or failed to put their mass behind good ones.

      The heights nvidia has achieved seem incidental and have depended heavily on the transformer/LLM market materializing.

      • wtallis 2 days ago

        Intel's biggest problem has been management remaining in denial about their serious engineering problems, and believing that they'll have things sorted out in another few quarters. They were years late to taking meaningful action to adjust their product roadmap to account for their ongoing 10nm failures. Putting all their eggs in the 10nm basket wasn't an engineering decision, and keeping them all there after years of being unable to ship a working chip wasn't an engineering decision.

        Intel's in a somewhat better place today because while they continue to insist that their new fab process is just around the corner and will put their foundry back on top, they've started shipping new chips again, using TSMC where necessary.

      • GeekyBear a day ago

        Stock buybacks and huge sums of capital wasted on mergers and acquisitions (that went nowhere) while not investing in the very expensive EUV fabrication equipment that TSMC had been using for years.

GeekyBear 2 days ago

To be fair, Intel is finally making the major manufacturing equipment investments needed to catch up.

They previously did stock buybacks and acquisitions of other companies that went nowhere instead of investing in the EUV manufacturing equipment TSMC used. Now they have the more advanced version of EUV in production.

> Intel has reported processing over 30,000 wafers in a single quarter using High-NA EUV exposure, achieving simplified manufacturing by reducing the required steps for a particular layer from 40 to fewer than 10,

https://www.techpowerup.com/342239/intels-advanced-packaging...

  • [removed] 2 days ago
    [deleted]
criddell 2 days ago

Apple likes to own the core components of the stuff they sell. How surprising would it be for Apple to buy Intel's factories and hire away some of TSMC's top scientists and engineers?

  • GeekyBear 2 days ago

    Apple doesn't buy its manufacturing partners.

    If you can make something with the quality Apple wants, they will buy you a manufacturing line in exchange for price, quality and production level guarantees.

    Since Intel needs large customers for its Fab and capital investments, it would be a good deal for them even if the profit margin is much lower than they would prefer.

  • Tuna-Fish 2 days ago

    Apple really doesn't like to own manufacturing. They want to be in a position of a favored key customer, but still have the ability to switch vendors at a moment's notice if they can get a better deal.

  • bigyabai 2 days ago

    Very surprising. It would be an unprecedented amount of responsibility for Apple to subsume when they could let the fed nationalize it and save a few billion dollars for a rainy day.

storus 2 days ago

Didn't that "good enough" strategy fail with Global Foundries? They "good enoughed" themselves to irrelevance.