Why is Intel building new fabs when they should be investing more into their design teams? They are getting stomped all over by smaller fabless AMD. I have been building computers for almost 3 decades and I have never witnessed such a huge leap in performance since 2017. I do video production for a living, and my newest 7950x processor is 8-10x faster than my old 2600K from 11 years ago! Thanks to AMD we have gained a ton of processing power for consumers since 2017! Without that we'd be paying an arm and a leg for lowly HEDT processors from Intel. (But not gonna lie AMDs Threadripper 64 core CPUs do cost an arm and a leg, but at least they are available. Intel at most never offered more than 18 cores IIRC on HEDT)
People want local production and it de-risks in case there's war over Taiwan. That's probably part of the reason that a lot of military hardware is moving towards California recently, too.
Also the long-established Intel history there probably carries some momentum. And not sure if the occasional scuffles affect Intel's actual operations much.
Existing talent over years of operation and probably they satisfied with fab operation. Conflicts have not impacted the operations in any significant way.
AMD vs Intel is an interesting battle, but comparing your "newest" processor to your 11-year-old processor is ludicrous beyond belief. The processor in your watch is probably faster than your 11 year old 2600K.
You're probably right about that. What I was referring to was the stagnation that Intel did from Sandy Bridge All the way to Kaby Lake, only offering 4 cores max for many generations and tiny IPC improvements until AMD brough on 8 cores. Intel could have offered more than 4, but they chose not to and relegated that to their HEDT offerings charging $1000+ for more than 6 cores.
" Intel could have offered more than 4, but they chose not to "
i have seen some say the " reason " intel stuck the mainstream at quad core, and left 6+ cores to HEDT was because if intel, brought more then 4 cores to the main stream, it would of put amd out of business, so they were doing amd a " favor "
So... out of the goodness of their pure-gold hearts, eh? Pull the other one, it's got bells on 😂! Intel's scorched-earth tactics against AMD around the early 2000s are legendary...
yep, thats what i have seen people say. all while intel was threatening oems not to use amd, or suffer supppy issues and pricing, or giving them cash incentives to use intel.
some have called them out on that, and they make up more bs as to why intel stuck mainstream at quad cores.
Exactly this. Ryzen was revolutionary for the market. Intel had sat on its laurels for years, eking out incremental improvements.
They also need a lot more strategic thinking. Gelsinger's sharper than his predecessor—at least he's willing to cut losses early—but there's a long way to go before Intel is seriously competitive again. A new fab for them looks like a white elephant.
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
28 Comments
Back to Article
rUmX - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
Why is Intel building new fabs when they should be investing more into their design teams? They are getting stomped all over by smaller fabless AMD. I have been building computers for almost 3 decades and I have never witnessed such a huge leap in performance since 2017. I do video production for a living, and my newest 7950x processor is 8-10x faster than my old 2600K from 11 years ago! Thanks to AMD we have gained a ton of processing power for consumers since 2017! Without that we'd be paying an arm and a leg for lowly HEDT processors from Intel. (But not gonna lie AMDs Threadripper 64 core CPUs do cost an arm and a leg, but at least they are available. Intel at most never offered more than 18 cores IIRC on HEDT)GreenReaper - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
People want local production and it de-risks in case there's war over Taiwan. That's probably part of the reason that a lot of military hardware is moving towards California recently, too.dontlistentome - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
Exactly this. Intel are de-risking by fabbing elsewhere and fabbing for others.rUmX - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
Without going into politics, but why Israel when they're like in a endless war with Palestine?dontlistentome - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
A pool of very, very smart people. Good infrastructure. Willing government.sheh - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
Also the long-established Intel history there probably carries some momentum.And not sure if the occasional scuffles affect Intel's actual operations much.
Samus - Friday, June 23, 2023 - link
Talent. Israel and Germany have it, and contrary to what the media says, Israel is among the safest places in the world.easp - Friday, June 23, 2023 - link
The among the safest places in the world? But not if you are on the wrong side of their occupation and apartheid system.Eliadbu - Thursday, June 22, 2023 - link
Existing talent over years of operation and probably they satisfied with fab operation. Conflicts have not impacted the operations in any significant way.justxme - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
steady supply chain and quality control, that´s why large OEMs stay with INTEL.phr3dly - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
AMD vs Intel is an interesting battle, but comparing your "newest" processor to your 11-year-old processor is ludicrous beyond belief. The processor in your watch is probably faster than your 11 year old 2600K.rUmX - Wednesday, June 21, 2023 - link
You're probably right about that. What I was referring to was the stagnation that Intel did from Sandy Bridge All the way to Kaby Lake, only offering 4 cores max for many generations and tiny IPC improvements until AMD brough on 8 cores. Intel could have offered more than 4, but they chose not to and relegated that to their HEDT offerings charging $1000+ for more than 6 cores.Qasar - Thursday, June 22, 2023 - link
" Intel could have offered more than 4, but they chose not to "i have seen some say the " reason " intel stuck the mainstream at quad core, and left 6+ cores to HEDT was because if intel, brought more then 4 cores to the main stream, it would of put amd out of business, so they were doing amd a " favor "
Carmen00 - Thursday, June 22, 2023 - link
So... out of the goodness of their pure-gold hearts, eh? Pull the other one, it's got bells on 😂! Intel's scorched-earth tactics against AMD around the early 2000s are legendary...Qasar - Thursday, June 22, 2023 - link
yep, thats what i have seen people say. all while intel was threatening oems not to use amd, or suffer supppy issues and pricing, or giving them cash incentives to use intel.some have called them out on that, and they make up more bs as to why intel stuck mainstream at quad cores.
Carmen00 - Thursday, June 22, 2023 - link
Exactly this. Ryzen was revolutionary for the market. Intel had sat on its laurels for years, eking out incremental improvements.They also need a lot more strategic thinking. Gelsinger's sharper than his predecessor—at least he's willing to cut losses early—but there's a long way to go before Intel is seriously competitive again. A new fab for them looks like a white elephant.