Comment by stinkbeetle

Comment by stinkbeetle 2 days ago

5 replies

> 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.