I think it's likely that 4 -> 3 and 20A -> 18A, are relatively minor improvements in performance per watt, not much over the 10% threshold, but 18A -> 14A is most likely more since it will come out 2 years after 18A.
Yes a few years ago 20A>18A would simply have been 20A>20A+ Now "+'s" count as "new nodes." I believe the "real" nodes are Intel 7, Intel 3, and 18A, which are in effect the final iteration of each process. So at best we're looking at 3 nodes in 5 years.
Yeah, both Intel 4 and 20A are in-between nodes, 20A for examples isn't gonna be library complete which is why it will only make up a portion of Arrow Lake's compute tiles, and the entire Lunar Lake line-up will be outsourced to TSMC.
To be fair to Intel they hardly invented process nomenclature bullshitting and if they do deliver on the promise of 5N4Y which was to be back at process leadership at the end of the 4 years, then they fulfilled the most important part of the plan.
You think too much MLID, MLID is just an AMD fanboy with little or no direct contact within Intel.
If MLID is for real have tons of contact within Intel, why there are still Arc Battlemage.
Wait, wait until the launch, but the logic is that Ireland should be shifting to granite rapids and sierra forest if not already completed.
Talking about business risk and corporate governance, I think it is right that Pat focus on Laptop and then Server, although a bit of miss on the Sapphire Rapids, so that is the segment bleeding money on Intel at this moment, based on this thinking, to get Intel Ireland taking over Intel 3 and making sure that granite rapids and sierra forest out the door is become the most important bit in Q1 2024 (which by now I think Intel internally have very good idea how this plan out), then in Q2 intel should focus on Arrow Lake as this is a high volume part, because Lunar Lake is going to be so close to Arrow Lake Launch, why then Arrow Lake (20A i9/i7) Lunar Lake (20A/TSMC N3E i5/i3), when I see people trusting MLID and think I “know everything” as the bible I am laughing so hard. I.E. THEY THIINK SWITCH NODE A TO NODE B IS A WALK IN THE PARK. OMG, ask Qualcomm ask Apple they can’t even switch from N3B to N3E ha ha ha, intel will invest that much to do Arrow Lake compute tile across 20A and N3E and Lunar Lake Compute tile across 20A and N3E. By the way this Intel after Bob Swam exhausted all financial trick he can get, so Intel financial is not looking as great as it should be already. Cost vs Benefit I still needed to have 4 nodes for 2 products is just insane, is not only research, yield and design is directly related (optimisation do cost money as well), no matter what initially plan, to go to High Volume it is not possible to optimise the design for both Intel 20A and TSMC N3E for both Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake, for now all indication is that arrow lake is desktop, high performance part make by 20A, i.e. unlike meteor lake having a clock issues, why intel needed to make a low end part on N3E ??? just let high end Lunar Lake fill in that job that to the low end i.e. handheld, mini PC … let Lunar Lake fill that gap (N3E if that is really what is happening). That also make sense that Intel had give up all the 3nm class production in 2023/2024Q1 (source indicate that Apple is 90% of that node from TSMC)
We know from previous press releases, I4 and I3 are based on what they used to call "7nm" and I20A they used to call "5nm". We have assumed that I18A is a tweak of I20A (so call it 5nm+) and with the reports that it won't use High N/A EUV this seems more likely. With the new announcement that 14A will use High N/A, we can make an educated guess that 14A is an all-new node and not much related to 20A/18A
Also, note that Intel's 20A (with ribbon fet and backside pwr) is coming out THIS YEAR with Arrow Lake, which is a VERY high volume part that is both mobile and desktop (we don't know which versions use 20A though). If this plays out, Intel has effectively caught up to TSMC in a very short amount of time since Gelsinger went back to Intel. You can even say Intel has surpassed TSMC since they have said their initial 2nm node will not have backside power.
*No-one* who matters is going is going to be "shocked" because process lead is not one-dimensional, and is not a well-defined concept. Is process lead - fastest transistors? - densest transistors? - GAA and/or BSPD? - highest yield? - lowest prices? etc etc etc
I think a lot of people is shock that when a person i.e. CC wei @ TSMC talking about pure marketing thing, so many people will fall for it.
To be short this topic is only based upon 3 things not …. as you over complicate things. 1 Material Science (e.g. high K material … Cobalt …) 2 Design (e.g. GAA, FET, CFET, BSPD …) 3 Manufacturing Engineering (e.g. High NA, Packaging) implementation aspect (e.g. how to sand down the backend for power, line up the multi-patterning, …)
As semiconductor manufacturing is always working on the Bleeding edge of Science and Engineering, the fact that BSPD (yes / no) is like Toyota Vs RR, will a Toyota be faster than RR (Jet Engine one not BMW), sorry I don’t think so.
Except the line you mentioned BSPD, all those line you mentioned impacted by BSPD and is so simple that TSMC is very far away. Faster Transistor (as power is direct to the transistor from the back resistance reduced i.e. higher clock faster Transistor) Densest Transistor (as the front side cable now untangle, space is free up i.e. Denser) High Yield (as the layout of front side become simpler, the yield naturally improved) Low Price (as layout of the front side become simpler, no needed to do double patterning i.e. price lower) … If TSMC want to stay to use Toyota, don’t expect that will beat a RR.
I think you are throwing around a lot of different things and keywords that not all posters will understand. E. g. CFETs won't come to market for several years, for example, and are not relevant to the discussion.
Your analogy of TSMC = Toyota vs. Intel = RR jet engine is quite flawed: you are assuming Intel has brought those technologies to market in a way that is financially viable for them. Intel is more akin to Boeing: it has earned a bad reputation by not delivering, in part due to bad business decisions. Now it has announced an ambitious project, and customers don't know whether they can pull it off. In comparison, TSMC is Airbus, they have executed much better than Boeing and its customers can rely much more on their public announcements.
Intel's 10 nm node was a financial and technological disaster. I am rooting for them as I root for TSMC, because I really like progress and proper competition that lights a fire under each others' rear ends usually accelerates progress. But this is as much a technological problem as it is a business problem even if Intel can deliver backside power on a smaller node that has better characteristics than TSMC's latest node, it won't help if it isn't profitable or, equivalently, significantly more expensive. Or volumes are too small for customers like Apple.
This year 20A is for sure EOY or even a paper launch EOY... And having this amount of nodes in short time is just not cost effective. On top there is no information how much of that CPU is really supplied from IF and how much from TSMC. Info is shared that HT is gone (all to optimize there cores (smaller) and being able to single core boost higher) is also not a comfortable pitch to say that there is much room in there core design AND node design. They push the e-cores everywhere because they lack the P core scalability.
You mentioned backside power and ribbon, TSMC has made very clear that they did not want to combine both and split the roadmap, so yet again intel is taking a risk here and knowing how far behind they are in power optimization vs TSMC they would need it just to get on par. Lets first see real products before believing marketing blabla. Sierra will be the first sign to see how well there I3 really is and how it fares vs Bergamo which is already available since mid 2023....
All Gelsinger did was reduce products and technology, (and the good weather show on and on) something that will backfire in the future knowing that x86 dominance is shrinking like crazy. There GPU and AI platforms are nowhere (almost given for free to use) and are supplied by TSMC. IF is loosing money like crazy. DC is bleeding money like crazy. All is left is some long relationship with OEM to push client side products and blind consumers buying marketing and sponsered products.
Well, 20A cut some corners which is also why there'll only be compute tiles manufactured on it and even then a lot of Arrow Lake will not have any 20A in it.
But if 18A is the mature, feature complete 2nm-tier node it's thought to be and ships even slightly ahead of TSMC's N2, that's a massive win for Intel. And now announcing risk production targets for 1.4nm which are more than competitive with TSMC's or Samsung... Intel Foundry's gonna be one to keep an eye on.
"Intel's 20A (with ribbon fet and backside pwr) is coming out THIS YEAR "
Tough to believe anything until its actually in volume production, that is the key. Intel has massively struggled with volume production the past decade, getting stuck on 14nm for 6+ years and now on 10nm (renamed Intel 7) for 3 years. We are supposed to believe they will suddenly start firing on all pistons again? Not impossible, but I wont believe it until things are actually released. Check the roadmaps from 10 years ago. Intel planned on 14nm in 2014, 10nm in 2016-17, 7nm in 2019 and that still hasnt happened.
I only see Apple using Intel if doing so is the only way to be consistently first out of the gate with high volume of the best node on earth. If all Intel does is match TSMC, then Apple will most likely stick with TSMC. But if Intel were to return to the glory days of always being 6 to 18 months ahead of everyone else, then Apple will definitely move to Intel.
I dunno, it depends on wafer prices and if Apple is willing to tape-out designs on two different fabs. The M-series (Mac/iPad) lags behind the A-series (iPhone) but is still based on the A-series design. Apple could, for example, release a A18 in Sep from TSMC, then follow up with the M4 in the spring from Intel - if the Intel node is really close/maybe even better than the latest node from TSMC. That would allow diversification and better pricing overall for Apple. (FYI - I obviously know it is too soon for A18/M4 to do this, but I hope you see what I mean by the timing and whatnot)
Yeah, there were rumors (given that TSMC doesn't publicly disclose wafer supply deal details) that TSMC is rather generous with Apple and covers defective wafers. Usually, defective wafers are charged as regular wafers, so a vendor simply has to pay for whatever wafers they get. With Apple ordering so many wafers, and being the absolute largest client by volume, TSMC seems to be cutting Apple deals to remain its largest client. Usually, Apple would want to dual-source silicon to get the best deal, but now that Apple/TSMC are so entwined in each other's operations (i.e. they need one another), Intel Foundry has a ways to go in pulling Apple from TSMC.
AMD can also fab IO dies at Intel or even have TSMC produced CCDs shipped to Intel Foundry to package. This is primarily to reduce reliance on SE Asia in case of future conflict. However, I think there's still some negativity between Intel and AMD due to past business arrangements from Intel that nearly bankrupted AMD. But, if this Intel Foundry entity truly is separate, they may be able to draw other fabless vendors as clients, including AMD. I think many are taking a wait-and-see approach, as it's not cheap to design chips (and many TSMC clients are well into design phase on future products). Porting over a mature design (with known power consumption and behaviors on TSMC silicon) might be a way to test the Intel silicon's viability, however, that is also expensive. Samsung Foundry also needs to improve its yields and silicon quality, but ironically, it needs clients to produce chips there to do so.
What's really telling is that Intel Foundry is making these moves with the assumption it will get subsidies from the US-based CHIPS Act. If these subsidies are held up by red tape for years, Intel Foundry is in real trouble financially. They need to draw some of Apple's orders, Nvidia, AMD, and Qualcomm to really get moving. The fabs need to be at 100% utilization all year long.
That isn't the case for any of the AM5 IO dies or EPYC's SP5. These are all TSMC N6, which is generally affordable and offers much greater efficiency than GF's 12nm.
GF only supplies 12nm IO dies for Zen 2 and Zen 3 products on AM4, plus EPYC Rome (Zen 2) and Milan (Zen 3). AMD's wafer supply agreement with GF expires in 2025 and I don't see it being renewed.
If Intel returned to the glory days of undisputed leadership, Apple would switch everything to Intel, just like they switched everything from Samsung to TSMC.
Yesterday I hypothesized on data, Nvidia having every Intel and AMD x86 in simulation just run the tape, is shopping around an x86 CPU+graphics mobile design similar to an AMD APU. I think this is highly likely.
I also ponder weather Centaur, the Texas independent center for x86 design, there are a lot of x86 experienced designers in Texas, might have something similar on Glenn Henry's constant quest to fund his processor design school.
There's also AMD with Hawk Point 8H_ mobile on TSMC 4 dribbling into the channel with Phoenix on TSMC 5 available up + 25% since the beginning of the year however volume limited.
Intel Meteor Lake as all are aware missed its q3 2023 market entry to hit the channel week ending 12.31.23. Only three of 11 SKUs are available in the channel today. On a net basis Intel produced 42,606,172 units of something mobile back in q4. For those following along on a gross basis Intel q4 2023 mobile is 24,967,529 units but I score 'net' covering all costs.
Ivy Bridge mobile on Intel supply signal cipher at q1 risk production is 9,564,191 units however may have been < 30% during q1 production on manufacturability hurdles followed by 20,803,580 units beginning q2 ramp.
Today, at the 12th supply week Meteor Lake channel volume is relation another slow to ramp product is 85% of Broadwell quad desktop in the 12th week and 2.7% of Broadwell quad mobile but double the 5 months earlier Broadwell dual mobile U in its 12th week of supply. Broadwell U did not begin to ramp until its 20th week of supply.
My primary Meteor question concerns risk production margin not necessarily manufacturability. How much margin is Intel actually making at OEM $220 on a $1K AP?
I raise the question on Intel Foundry availability to the Renegade x86 designs that are not necessarily AMD designs. The question is obvious and the business development potential apparent there have to be multiple conversations?
So how many times have they relaunched IFS for want of customers so far?
When is the Intel board going to admit that the only way that the foundry will work as a going concern is if it gets spun off?
I mean, look at their process/fab disclosure? Notice anything missing? It's "the good" fabs in Oregon - so even now, Intel is withholding the "good stuff" for themselves. Why would you pay this company to fab your chips when TSMC can do it without stealing your IP and customers?
And that aside, as a taxpayer - I am really only interested in continuing the subsidies for Intel's fabs in the CHIPS act if the fabs are spun off. The idea of buying Intel 5 new fabs isn't very appealing; the idea of buying an independent pure-play foundry 5 fabs is.
Intel is dead indeed. Poor microarchitect enhancement after " Golden Cove ". Lack of SMT ( Hyperthreading ) since Arrow Lake 1851 is pretty joke. Rentable Unit need Windows 12 Kernel and sub system to take care.
The most hell for investor and fanboy was new node every breath from Pat himself. New node cost investor and US Gov many trillion dollars support him and his plan.
From here it will behave like " ITANIC " on ITANIUM Era finally.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
29 Comments
Back to Article
name99 - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
"As an aside, if a new node offers a better than 10% perf-per-watt improvement, then Intel says we should expect it to be a new node entirely."Corollary: don't expect A14 to be much better than 10% perf-per-watt over A18...
Yojimbo - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
I think it's likely that 4 -> 3 and 20A -> 18A, are relatively minor improvements in performance per watt, not much over the 10% threshold, but 18A -> 14A is most likely more since it will come out 2 years after 18A.Hulk - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
Yes a few years ago 20A>18A would simply have been 20A>20A+Now "+'s" count as "new nodes."
I believe the "real" nodes are Intel 7, Intel 3, and 18A, which are in effect the final iteration of each process. So at best we're looking at 3 nodes in 5 years.
elmagio - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
Yeah, both Intel 4 and 20A are in-between nodes, 20A for examples isn't gonna be library complete which is why it will only make up a portion of Arrow Lake's compute tiles, and the entire Lunar Lake line-up will be outsourced to TSMC.To be fair to Intel they hardly invented process nomenclature bullshitting and if they do deliver on the promise of 5N4Y which was to be back at process leadership at the end of the 4 years, then they fulfilled the most important part of the plan.
my_wing - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
You think too much MLID, MLID is just an AMD fanboy with little or no direct contact within Intel.If MLID is for real have tons of contact within Intel, why there are still Arc Battlemage.
Wait, wait until the launch, but the logic is that Ireland should be shifting to granite rapids and sierra forest if not already completed.
Talking about business risk and corporate governance, I think it is right that Pat focus on Laptop and then Server, although a bit of miss on the Sapphire Rapids, so that is the segment bleeding money on Intel at this moment, based on this thinking, to get Intel Ireland taking over Intel 3 and making sure that granite rapids and sierra forest out the door is become the most important bit in Q1 2024 (which by now I think Intel internally have very good idea how this plan out), then in Q2 intel should focus on Arrow Lake as this is a high volume part, because Lunar Lake is going to be so close to Arrow Lake Launch, why then Arrow Lake (20A i9/i7) Lunar Lake (20A/TSMC N3E i5/i3), when I see people trusting MLID and think I “know everything” as the bible I am laughing so hard. I.E. THEY THIINK SWITCH NODE A TO NODE B IS A WALK IN THE PARK. OMG, ask Qualcomm ask Apple they can’t even switch from N3B to N3E ha ha ha, intel will invest that much to do Arrow Lake compute tile across 20A and N3E and Lunar Lake Compute tile across 20A and N3E. By the way this Intel after Bob Swam exhausted all financial trick he can get, so Intel financial is not looking as great as it should be already. Cost vs Benefit I still needed to have 4 nodes for 2 products is just insane, is not only research, yield and design is directly related (optimisation do cost money as well), no matter what initially plan, to go to High Volume it is not possible to optimise the design for both Intel 20A and TSMC N3E for both Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake, for now all indication is that arrow lake is desktop, high performance part make by 20A, i.e. unlike meteor lake having a clock issues, why intel needed to make a low end part on N3E ??? just let high end Lunar Lake fill in that job that to the low end i.e. handheld, mini PC … let Lunar Lake fill that gap (N3E if that is really what is happening). That also make sense that Intel had give up all the 3nm class production in 2023/2024Q1 (source indicate that Apple is 90% of that node from TSMC)
do_not_arrest - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
We know from previous press releases, I4 and I3 are based on what they used to call "7nm" and I20A they used to call "5nm". We have assumed that I18A is a tweak of I20A (so call it 5nm+) and with the reports that it won't use High N/A EUV this seems more likely. With the new announcement that 14A will use High N/A, we can make an educated guess that 14A is an all-new node and not much related to 20A/18AAlso, note that Intel's 20A (with ribbon fet and backside pwr) is coming out THIS YEAR with Arrow Lake, which is a VERY high volume part that is both mobile and desktop (we don't know which versions use 20A though). If this plays out, Intel has effectively caught up to TSMC in a very short amount of time since Gelsinger went back to Intel. You can even say Intel has surpassed TSMC since they have said their initial 2nm node will not have backside power.
m53 - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
This. I think a lot of people are to be shocked when Intel takes the lead in a year from now even though all the indications are pointing towards it.Threska - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
Money makes the world go around especially when one throws enough at it.name99 - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
"I think a lot of people are to be shocked"*No-one* who matters is going is going to be "shocked" because process lead is not one-dimensional, and is not a well-defined concept. Is process lead
- fastest transistors?
- densest transistors?
- GAA and/or BSPD?
- highest yield?
- lowest prices?
etc etc etc
my_wing - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
I think a lot of people is shock that when a person i.e. CC wei @ TSMC talking about pure marketing thing, so many people will fall for it.To be short this topic is only based upon 3 things not …. as you over complicate things.
1 Material Science (e.g. high K material … Cobalt …)
2 Design (e.g. GAA, FET, CFET, BSPD …)
3 Manufacturing Engineering (e.g. High NA, Packaging) implementation aspect (e.g. how to sand down the backend for power, line up the multi-patterning, …)
As semiconductor manufacturing is always working on the Bleeding edge of Science and Engineering, the fact that BSPD (yes / no) is like Toyota Vs RR, will a Toyota be faster than RR (Jet Engine one not BMW), sorry I don’t think so.
Except the line you mentioned BSPD, all those line you mentioned impacted by BSPD and is so simple that TSMC is very far away.
Faster Transistor (as power is direct to the transistor from the back resistance reduced i.e. higher clock faster Transistor)
Densest Transistor (as the front side cable now untangle, space is free up i.e. Denser)
High Yield (as the layout of front side become simpler, the yield naturally improved)
Low Price (as layout of the front side become simpler, no needed to do double patterning i.e. price lower)
…
If TSMC want to stay to use Toyota, don’t expect that will beat a RR.
OreoCookie - Thursday, February 29, 2024 - link
I think you are throwing around a lot of different things and keywords that not all posters will understand. E. g. CFETs won't come to market for several years, for example, and are not relevant to the discussion.Your analogy of TSMC = Toyota vs. Intel = RR jet engine is quite flawed: you are assuming Intel has brought those technologies to market in a way that is financially viable for them. Intel is more akin to Boeing: it has earned a bad reputation by not delivering, in part due to bad business decisions. Now it has announced an ambitious project, and customers don't know whether they can pull it off. In comparison, TSMC is Airbus, they have executed much better than Boeing and its customers can rely much more on their public announcements.
Intel's 10 nm node was a financial and technological disaster. I am rooting for them as I root for TSMC, because I really like progress and proper competition that lights a fire under each others' rear ends usually accelerates progress. But this is as much a technological problem as it is a business problem even if Intel can deliver backside power on a smaller node that has better characteristics than TSMC's latest node, it won't help if it isn't profitable or, equivalently, significantly more expensive. Or volumes are too small for customers like Apple.
duploxxx - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
This year 20A is for sure EOY or even a paper launch EOY... And having this amount of nodes in short time is just not cost effective. On top there is no information how much of that CPU is really supplied from IF and how much from TSMC. Info is shared that HT is gone (all to optimize there cores (smaller) and being able to single core boost higher) is also not a comfortable pitch to say that there is much room in there core design AND node design. They push the e-cores everywhere because they lack the P core scalability.You mentioned backside power and ribbon, TSMC has made very clear that they did not want to combine both and split the roadmap, so yet again intel is taking a risk here and knowing how far behind they are in power optimization vs TSMC they would need it just to get on par. Lets first see real products before believing marketing blabla. Sierra will be the first sign to see how well there I3 really is and how it fares vs Bergamo which is already available since mid 2023....
All Gelsinger did was reduce products and technology, (and the good weather show on and on) something that will backfire in the future knowing that x86 dominance is shrinking like crazy. There GPU and AI platforms are nowhere (almost given for free to use) and are supplied by TSMC. IF is loosing money like crazy. DC is bleeding money like crazy. All is left is some long relationship with OEM to push client side products and blind consumers buying marketing and sponsered products.
elmagio - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
Well, 20A cut some corners which is also why there'll only be compute tiles manufactured on it and even then a lot of Arrow Lake will not have any 20A in it.But if 18A is the mature, feature complete 2nm-tier node it's thought to be and ships even slightly ahead of TSMC's N2, that's a massive win for Intel. And now announcing risk production targets for 1.4nm which are more than competitive with TSMC's or Samsung... Intel Foundry's gonna be one to keep an eye on.
goatfajitas - Friday, February 23, 2024 - link
"Intel's 20A (with ribbon fet and backside pwr) is coming out THIS YEAR "Tough to believe anything until its actually in volume production, that is the key. Intel has massively struggled with volume production the past decade, getting stuck on 14nm for 6+ years and now on 10nm (renamed Intel 7) for 3 years. We are supposed to believe they will suddenly start firing on all pistons again? Not impossible, but I wont believe it until things are actually released. Check the roadmaps from 10 years ago. Intel planned on 14nm in 2014, 10nm in 2016-17, 7nm in 2019 and that still hasnt happened.
SydneyBlue120d - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
I wonder if well'ever see Qualcomm or Apple chips made by Intel?Blastdoor - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
I only see Apple using Intel if doing so is the only way to be consistently first out of the gate with high volume of the best node on earth. If all Intel does is match TSMC, then Apple will most likely stick with TSMC. But if Intel were to return to the glory days of always being 6 to 18 months ahead of everyone else, then Apple will definitely move to Intel.NextGen_Gamer - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
I dunno, it depends on wafer prices and if Apple is willing to tape-out designs on two different fabs. The M-series (Mac/iPad) lags behind the A-series (iPhone) but is still based on the A-series design. Apple could, for example, release a A18 in Sep from TSMC, then follow up with the M4 in the spring from Intel - if the Intel node is really close/maybe even better than the latest node from TSMC. That would allow diversification and better pricing overall for Apple. (FYI - I obviously know it is too soon for A18/M4 to do this, but I hope you see what I mean by the timing and whatnot)JasonMZW20 - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
Yeah, there were rumors (given that TSMC doesn't publicly disclose wafer supply deal details) that TSMC is rather generous with Apple and covers defective wafers. Usually, defective wafers are charged as regular wafers, so a vendor simply has to pay for whatever wafers they get. With Apple ordering so many wafers, and being the absolute largest client by volume, TSMC seems to be cutting Apple deals to remain its largest client. Usually, Apple would want to dual-source silicon to get the best deal, but now that Apple/TSMC are so entwined in each other's operations (i.e. they need one another), Intel Foundry has a ways to go in pulling Apple from TSMC.AMD can also fab IO dies at Intel or even have TSMC produced CCDs shipped to Intel Foundry to package. This is primarily to reduce reliance on SE Asia in case of future conflict. However, I think there's still some negativity between Intel and AMD due to past business arrangements from Intel that nearly bankrupted AMD. But, if this Intel Foundry entity truly is separate, they may be able to draw other fabless vendors as clients, including AMD. I think many are taking a wait-and-see approach, as it's not cheap to design chips (and many TSMC clients are well into design phase on future products). Porting over a mature design (with known power consumption and behaviors on TSMC silicon) might be a way to test the Intel silicon's viability, however, that is also expensive. Samsung Foundry also needs to improve its yields and silicon quality, but ironically, it needs clients to produce chips there to do so.
What's really telling is that Intel Foundry is making these moves with the assumption it will get subsidies from the US-based CHIPS Act. If these subsidies are held up by red tape for years, Intel Foundry is in real trouble financially. They need to draw some of Apple's orders, Nvidia, AMD, and Qualcomm to really get moving. The fabs need to be at 100% utilization all year long.
Threska - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
GF was doing some of the AMD IO chiplets. No need for Intel.JasonMZW20 - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
That isn't the case for any of the AM5 IO dies or EPYC's SP5. These are all TSMC N6, which is generally affordable and offers much greater efficiency than GF's 12nm.GF only supplies 12nm IO dies for Zen 2 and Zen 3 products on AM4, plus EPYC Rome (Zen 2) and Milan (Zen 3). AMD's wafer supply agreement with GF expires in 2025 and I don't see it being renewed.
Blastdoor - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
If Intel returned to the glory days of undisputed leadership, Apple would switch everything to Intel, just like they switched everything from Samsung to TSMC.Blastdoor - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
I'd love to see Intel merge with GF. I bet US and EU regulators could be persuaded to go along. China wouldn't, but F 'em.minde - Wednesday, February 21, 2024 - link
intel now can beat samsung and tsmc. nice move us and eushabby - Thursday, February 22, 2024 - link
"5 nodes in 4 years. This is what Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger promised Intel’s customers."How much jail time do you get for lying to investors?
GeoffreyA - Friday, February 23, 2024 - link
No jail time for lying. Only for telling the truth.Bruzzone - Wednesday, February 28, 2024 - link
Yesterday I hypothesized on data, Nvidia having every Intel and AMD x86 in simulation just run the tape, is shopping around an x86 CPU+graphics mobile design similar to an AMD APU. I think this is highly likely.I also ponder weather Centaur, the Texas independent center for x86 design, there are a lot of x86 experienced designers in Texas, might have something similar on Glenn Henry's constant quest to fund his processor design school.
There's also AMD with Hawk Point 8H_ mobile on TSMC 4 dribbling into the channel with Phoenix on TSMC 5 available up + 25% since the beginning of the year however volume limited.
Intel Meteor Lake as all are aware missed its q3 2023 market entry to hit the channel week ending 12.31.23. Only three of 11 SKUs are available in the channel today. On a net basis Intel produced 42,606,172 units of something mobile back in q4. For those following along on a gross basis Intel q4 2023 mobile is 24,967,529 units but I score 'net' covering all costs.
Ivy Bridge mobile on Intel supply signal cipher at q1 risk production is 9,564,191 units however may have been < 30% during q1 production on manufacturability hurdles followed by 20,803,580 units beginning q2 ramp.
Today, at the 12th supply week Meteor Lake channel volume is relation another slow to ramp product is 85% of Broadwell quad desktop in the 12th week and 2.7% of Broadwell quad mobile but double the 5 months earlier Broadwell dual mobile U in its 12th week of supply. Broadwell U did not begin to ramp until its 20th week of supply.
My primary Meteor question concerns risk production margin not necessarily manufacturability. How much margin is Intel actually making at OEM $220 on a $1K AP?
I raise the question on Intel Foundry availability to the Renegade x86 designs that are not necessarily AMD designs. The question is obvious and the business development potential apparent there have to be multiple conversations?
Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing,
Sahrin - Sunday, March 3, 2024 - link
So how many times have they relaunched IFS for want of customers so far?When is the Intel board going to admit that the only way that the foundry will work as a going concern is if it gets spun off?
I mean, look at their process/fab disclosure? Notice anything missing? It's "the good" fabs in Oregon - so even now, Intel is withholding the "good stuff" for themselves. Why would you pay this company to fab your chips when TSMC can do it without stealing your IP and customers?
And that aside, as a taxpayer - I am really only interested in continuing the subsidies for Intel's fabs in the CHIPS act if the fabs are spun off. The idea of buying Intel 5 new fabs isn't very appealing; the idea of buying an independent pure-play foundry 5 fabs is.
Uncle Raja - Wednesday, March 6, 2024 - link
Intel is dead indeed. Poor microarchitect enhancement after " Golden Cove ".Lack of SMT ( Hyperthreading ) since Arrow Lake 1851 is pretty joke.
Rentable Unit need Windows 12 Kernel and sub system to take care.
The most hell for investor and fanboy was new node every breath from Pat himself.
New node cost investor and US Gov many trillion dollars support him and his plan.
From here it will behave like " ITANIC " on ITANIUM Era finally.