News Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger: I hope to build chips for Lisa Su and AMD

[Admin]

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger told us he is willing to build chips for anyone, including Lisa Su of AMD.

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger: I hope to build chips for Lisa Su and AMD : Read more

 

[JamesJones44]

In business I never rule anything out completely, but unless Intel gets out of the business of designing chips for itself this seems more like a fairy tail wish than a real chance of actually happening.

 

[toffty]

In business I never rule anything out completely, but unless Intel gets out of the business of designing chips for itself this seems more like a fairy tail wish than a real chance of actually happening.

Yes, I cannot see AMD saying, "Intel, here are all of our trade secrets. Thanks!"

 

[rluker5]

I'm pretty sure Intel can buy an AMD CPU online, grind, polish, etch and scan it to see its structure.
And the chance they will pull an AMD and just reverse engineer whole chips is small since AMD can do the same to their chips and cry foul if they find out.

Intel would have additional advanced knowledge of performance targets to hit, but it seems like the large players in the industry already do have the basics.

It seems Intel just wants to make and sell as many chips as they can. And it seems like they are getting lots of interest for making them. There also seems to be a big push for very large companies to make some of their own custom CPUs, GPUs, etc. I bet Intel is trying to upsell those markets some IP as well in the form of letting customers add an Intel e-core or video processing block or memory controller, etc to their chips if they get a fee per unit made.

 

[elforeign]

I'm pretty sure Intel can buy an AMD CPU online, grind, polish, etch and scan it to see its structure.
And the chance they will pull an AMD and just reverse engineer whole chips is small since AMD can do the same to their chips and cry foul if they find out.

Intel would have additional advanced knowledge of performance targets to hit, but it seems like the large players in the industry already do have the basics.

It seems Intel just wants to make and sell as many chips as they can. And it seems like they are getting lots of interest for making them. There also seems to be a big push for very large companies to make some of their own custom CPUs, GPUs, etc. I bet Intel is trying to upsell those markets some IP as well in the form of letting customers add an Intel e-core or video processing block or memory controller, etc to their chips if they get a fee per unit made.

He stated Intel Foundry will be a separate legal entity. So, I don't see how contracts can't be formed in such a way where state of the art technologies can be fabbed at Intel foundry without Intel getting sensitive IP commingled with their chip design teams.

 

[vern72]

I'm wondering how much would it cost to contract out to Intel for making, say, 100,000 chips? Not as complex as a CPU but maybe a chipset using close to modern technology.

 

[btmedic04]

Intel would have additional advanced knowledge of performance targets to hit

I doubt intel would do that. If they did, the moment it became known that they were siphoning performance targets from IFS is the moment that IFS loses all trust and credibility. That would be absolutely devastating to intel

 

[LabRat 891]

Wouldn't it be ironic, if after several years, Intel pulls a Global Foundries and spins-off/out Intel Foundry?

 

[Amdlova]

Intel can build cpus better than amd any time. But for what? There are two major dogs on x86 market. P4 era amd Wins people still buying intel
Ryzen era first and second gen people still buying intel.
Ryzen 3000 amd better than intel people still buying intel...
When people stop to build with intel they will make better producs. For now profit max you can.

 

[rluker5]

He stated Intel Foundry will be a separate legal entity. So, I don't see how contracts can't be formed in such a way where state of the art technologies can be fabbed at Intel foundry without Intel getting sensitive IP commingled with their chip design teams.

Contracts can be between more than 2 parties.

I have an Intel Atom phone - Leagoo T5C with a chip made by Spreadtrum that used Airmont cores. That sounds similar to what I proposed may be an option.

Edit: More info https://www.anandtech.com/show/1119...rmontbased-soc-with-cat-7-lte-for-smartphones

 

[lordfakie]

Yes, I cannot see AMD saying, "Intel, here are all of our trade secrets. Thanks!"

AMD and Intel have a crosslicense, meaning one can use the other's tech. There hasn't been a real competition for years amongst them. The same with Lisa Lu "CEO" implant to appease the Chinese to buy American tech.

 

[JamesJones44]

Wouldn't it be ironic, if after several years, Intel pulls a Global Foundries and spins-off/out Intel Foundry?

I actually think this a likely outcome if things go well. Though I think the spin could be the other way (spin off Intel chip design).

 

[bigdragon]

I think this is a smart move by Gelsinger. He appears to be positioning Intel's business units to increasingly compete with TSMC. Intel would emerge as a huge winner if there is a military conflict between China, Taiwan, and other nations. The idea of IFS producing AMD chips wouldn't be so much hell freezing over as it would be a business necessity if the world becomes more dangerous.

 

[Alvar "Miles" Udell]

If the price is right I'm sure they will, and I'm sure there's a host of chips, like ones for consoles and the embedded market, that AMD would love to have made somewhere other than TSMC to free up order space for other chips.

 

[hotaru251]

I doubt it. AMD is one of TSMC's largest customers.

 

[systemBuilder_49]

Intel's so-called "visionary" leader is more likely "delusional".

After all the anti-trust anti-competitive things Intel has done to AMD, PAYING laptop makers NOT TO incorporate AMD chips into their laptops (and this includes Dell and Compaq) during the time of Athlon chips, now Gelsinger thinks his company deserves consideration as a supplier to AMD? After Intel just ran the highly misleading yellow-journalism Ad campaign about AMD snake oil just because AMD is now naming itcs CPUs after the year (hint : 8xxx = 2024) Really? Like Donald Trump might cater snacks to Joe Biden? The latter is more likely to happen ...

The only way to really make this happen is to put Intel Foundry in a separate division, set fire to the boat, and push it out to sea (like AMD with with the Global Foundries spinoff / diversification). Intel has tried for 20 years to enter markets big enough to enable their next foundries. Every attempt has been half-baked and has failed, including GPUs (Intel's GPUs are HUGE the A770 is the size of the 3070 but the performance of a 3060 and was 2 years late v.s. 3070 and costs The SAME as a 3060 12GB vs A770 16GB, so in total Intel is 4 years behind NVidia and is breaking even at best on GPUs ...)

 

[endocine]

"Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger: I hope to build chips for Lisa Su and AMD"

Because Intel can't build its own

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Until Intel is fully seperating IFS from the Intel chip design side and goes full TSMC, I highly doubt this will ever happen.

 

[svengollie]

The media is funny. This Intel win at Microsoft is a loss hidden. Intel had the azure blade cpu, it was many generations including most recently VR13HC and then VR14HC. Maybe if Intel didn't screw surface team over with Icelake delays they would have the design win as VR15HC instead of being a subcontracted manufacting facility. The market cap for EMS foundry is far smaller than CPU design as IDM. They lost but boxed out TSMC for now. Its not a win. Its like Intel trying to win XBox.....they had it and screwed it up.....

 

[TechieTwo]

I'm pretty sure that AMD has not forgotten Intel's criminal acts to try and eliminate AMD from the X86 landscape, for which Intel ended up paying AMD a billion dollars.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yes, I cannot see AMD saying, "Intel, here are all of our trade secrets. Thanks!"

That would be the major reason for AMD to DO use intel, have you seen the track record for these kinds of lawsuits?! AMD would use intel just for the off chance that they could sue intel for a few bilions.

AMD and Intel have a crosslicense, meaning one can use the other's tech. There hasn't been a real competition for years amongst them. The same with Lisa Lu "CEO" implant to appease the Chinese to buy American tech.

It's not an all covering cross-licence, it's for very specific things only.

I doubt it. AMD is one of TSMC's largest customers.

So which is the part you are doubting?!
If AMD wants to grow they will have to be making more units than they do now, if TSMC can't provide more units then why not make more units at a different FAB? The only alternative is stagnation, or even worse start charging more money for the same thing.

 

[bit_user]

Cats and dogs, living together!

Credit to @PaulAlcorn for (maybe?) quoting Bill Murray from Ghostbusters (1984).

Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... MASS HYSTERIA!
​

Given that, I can overlook a slightly imperfect analogy....
: )

Intel Foundry head Stu Pann called long-time rival Arm the company's most important customer, and then invited Arm CEO Rene Haas to the stage for a joint presentation. We certainly couldn't have seen that coming five years ago.

Well, Intel did announce intentions to start making ARM-powered phone SoCs, around that time. They had announced plans to open up their fabs to external customers even further back, though I'm not sure if much came of that iteration.

With the goal of five nodes in four years nearly completed, the new Intel certainly doesn't look much like the old Intel that floundered for several years through its missteps on the 10nm node, ultimately losing its crown to TSMC.

Has anyone looked at whether Intel 7 provides more density than their 10 nm SF node, whether Intel 3 provides better density over Intel 4, or whether Intel 18A provides better density over Intel 20A?

I have a suspicion that Intel 7 is really just Intel 10+++, Intel 3 would've previously been called Intel 4+, and that the Intel of old would've just said Intel 18A was Intel 20A+.

Regardless of what they call them, it's good to see Intel's process nodes improving. I just think what they accomplished is probably a little less miraculous than it sounds. Especially, considering how underwhelming Meteor Lake has been, performance-wise.

 

[bit_user]

I'm pretty sure Intel can buy an AMD CPU online, grind, polish, etch and scan it to see its structure.
And the chance they will pull an AMD and just reverse engineer whole chips

I think this only works for very small-scale and large-scale structures. It's certainly no substitute for someone handing you the netlist for their chip.

That said, I rather doubt Intel would exploit IFS in the form of actually peeking at fab customers' IP. Rather, concerns probably center more around learning about the size, production volumes, schedules, and packaging technologies being used in competitors' products. This high-level information is probably more difficult to safeguard.

I bet Intel is trying to upsell those markets some IP as well in the form of letting customers add an Intel e-core or video processing block or memory controller, etc to their chips if they get a fee per unit made.

+1

He stated Intel Foundry will be a separate legal entity. So, I don't see how contracts can't be formed in such a way where state of the art technologies can be fabbed at Intel foundry without Intel getting sensitive IP commingled with their chip design teams.

Agreed, but people in the fabs know people in Intel Corporate and in the design teams. Regarding the sorts of high-level information I mentioned above, I think there are legit concerns about what sorts of commercially-relevant details could spread by word of mouth or through various leaky systems like fab schedules or availability windows of certain production lines, etc.

Basically, I think we can't blame AMD for being cautious, here. Not only that, but imagine if AMD had somehow contracted IFS to build its CPUs before the 10 nm debacle! What held back Intel and gave AMD a chance to gain a toehold in the market would've instead held them back, as well! There could be some continued advantages for AMD to stay decoupled from Intel, although it could also go the other way if Intel 18A really manages to outperform TSMC N2.

 

[bit_user]

If the price is right I'm sure they will, and I'm sure there's a host of chips, like ones for consoles and the embedded market, that AMD would love to have made somewhere other than TSMC to free up order space for other chips.

A chip layout is subject to the design rules of a particular process node. That means AMD can't just take a Zen 4 CPU, ship Samsung the design, and start cranking out chips on their fabs the next day.

It's time & resource-intensive to port a chip to a different node, not only because you have to redo the layout, but then there are photomasks that have to be computed and produced. I'm sure there are numerous other pragmatic details, involving packaging and validation, that you have to sort out with a new manufacturer.

As far as mitigating their dependence on TSMC, what AMD appears to be doing on that front is establishing a relationship with Samsung.

 

[usertests]

That would be the major reason for AMD to DO use intel, have you seen the track record for these kinds of lawsuits?! AMD would use intel just for the off chance that they could sue intel for a few bilions.

I like that. AMD would certainly employ people to monitor the AMD/IFS relationship full time, just itching to start those legal proceedings.

As far as mitigating their dependence on TSMC, what AMD appears to be doing on that front is establishing a relationship with Samsung.

Has there been any movement on this?

Oh, I probably did see this report but forgot about it:
https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/samsung-lands-orders-for-amds-4nm-cpus-report

Providing lower-grade Zen 5C chiplets to stick into Epycs seems like a good call, even better than my idea of producing a low-end APU die at Samsung.

AMD will end up at Intel Foundry if things go south, but Samsung should be used ASAP if they are desperate to sell wafers. What's the point of chiplets if you can't tap multiple suppliers (that is rhetorical, do not answer)?