[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)