News Intel: Our Goal Is to Become Second Largest Foundry by 2030

[Admin]

Intel aims to beat Samsung Foundry on the contract chipmaking market.

Intel: Our Goal Is to Become Second Largest Foundry by 2030 : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

But how can AMD and nVidia even use their foundries? Apple also has a bit of a beef with Intel xD

TSMC will still be reeking in the money anyway from the big ones in the industry of bleeding edge chips, at least for the foreseeable future (and if China doesn't attack, but let's not go there xD).

As for Samsung and other smaller foundries... What advantage has Intel over their geolocations? I mean, I'm not saying Intel may not have them in the future, but given how globalized everything is, even if the USA is one of the biggest markets, it's still comparable to EMEA and even China?

Well, at least I know Intel needs to enter the foundry business so they justify all that tax-payer money they took from US citizens xD

Regards.

 

[cyrusfox]

But how can AMD and nVidia even use their foundries? Apple also has a bit of a beef with Intel xD

TSMC will still be reeking in the money anyway from the big ones in the industry of bleeding edge chips, at least for the foreseeable future

Read any articles about TSMC jacking up prices? That is the key motivator. If intel can supply equivalent performance at equal to lesser price it makes sense to dual source or explore. If they are offering better(transistor density, speed), no question you explore. Also one thing Intel seems to do very well is volume. And with Intels advance packaging and other IP that may be offered as a carrot (custom x86 potential, network, IO, etc...) If you are one of these companies you can't afford not to at least explore the waters (If nothing else than to better negotiate rates with TSMC)? The other choices for Foundry besides TSMC is what, Samsung and GF? Its a small market, smaller if you need bleeding edge nodes.

Will be interesting to see how it all works out for Intel.

 

[USAFRet]

Please keep the military-political comments out of this.
Deal?

 

[cyrusfox]

Please keep the military-political comments out of this.
Deal?

Why can't the elephant be acknowledged? World is jumping towards self-destruction. Maybe I need to go back and read terms of service but I don't understand censoring and removing old comments, as I thought there was one earlier that I just read past because I didn't think it added much to this discussion [Intel vying for foundry revenue].

The chief reason Intel got the chips act through in the first place(Both in Europe and US) is due to said Elephant - Geo-political considerations are legitimate. Perhaps Toms Hardware might not be the place to discuss them, but what is the harm in letting them be expressed at a basic level? Will it devolve into rascist juvenile chatter seen on wccftech?

 

[TerryLaze]

But how can AMD and nVidia even use their foundries? Apple also has a bit of a beef with Intel xD

After the huge amount of issues sony and MS, less but still, had and still have in selling consoles how can they not?!
Sony will bully AMD into using intel foundries for the console APUs even if AMD doesn't have the common sense to or doesn't want to.
Nvidia already uses two different foundries, I think, so if nvidia wants to sell more they need more volume and they will figure out how to port the designs to intel, they are probably already pretty portable since they use two FABS anyway.

Apple can go play in their own sandbox, but having moved over to arm it is the easiest one for intel to produce in volume if apple needs more volume.

 

[USAFRet]

Why can't the elephant be acknowledged? World is jumping towards self-destruction. Maybe I need to go back and read terms of service but I don't understand censoring and removing old comments, as I thought there was one earlier that I just read past because I didn't think it added much to this discussion [Intel vying for foundry revenue].

The chief reason Intel got the chips act through in the first place(Both in Europe and US) is due to said Elephant - Geo-political considerations are legitimate. Perhaps Toms Hardware might not be the place to discuss them, but what is the harm in letting them be expressed at a basic level? Will it devolve into rascist juvenile chatter seen on wccftech?

You are correct, Toms Hardware is not the place to banter that about.
Left unchecked, every thread would descend into geopoliticalmilitary irrelevancy. Because some people just can't help themselves.

And it NEVER stays at a basic level.

"Will it devolve into rascist juvenile chatter seen on wccftech?"
Yes. One of the deleted posts has zero to do with foundries, chips, Intel, or Samsung.
It was strictly about the military capabilities of a country. Replies and counterpoints to that would have just gone farther afield.
"You suck!" 'No, you suck worse!!'

We have the rest of the internet to discuss/debate these things.
Let's at least try and keep this little corner on topic.

 

[-Fran-]

Read any articles about TSMC jacking up prices? That is the key motivator. If intel can supply equivalent performance at equal to lesser price it makes sense to dual source or explore. If they are offering better(transistor density, speed), no question you explore. Also one thing Intel seems to do very well is volume. And with Intels advance packaging and other IP that may be offered as a carrot (custom x86 potential, network, IO, etc...) If you are one of these companies you can't afford not to at least explore the waters (If nothing else than to better negotiate rates with TSMC)? The other choices for Foundry besides TSMC is what, Samsung and GF? Its a small market, smaller if you need bleeding edge nodes.

Will be interesting to see how it all works out for Intel.

There's more to using TSMC than its price. Look* at nVidia: they still went to TSMC even if they're charging a bazillion percent more than Samsung because in their business strat, it was needed. So no, the end price is not always a good indicator. There's also the issue with providing Intel fabs your design. Keep in mind this is "getting in bed" with Intel in order to manufacture something. You'll give them your IP in an unrestricted manner and that is risk. Companies do not like that sort of risk, specially when the other party is a juggernaut that can "out-legal" you (steal and pay the legal cost of it while reeking in an absurd amount of money).

So, in short, there's several nuances to this. The same would be for Qualcomm, Samsung and other big players in the microprocessor industry.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

There's also the issue with providing Intel fabs your design. Keep in mind this is "getting in bed" with Intel in order to manufacture something. You'll give them your IP in an unrestricted manner and that is risk. Companies do not like that sort of risk, specially when the other party is a juggernaut that can "out-legal" you (steal and pay the legal cost of it while reeking in an absurd amount of money).

Intellectual property is a title (or a right just like the copyright) that has nothing to do with your designs, as in the things you give out for others to look at, and are not needed for a FAB to make your stuff.
Intel will be getting a design for something and not the IP for it, and even the design will not become theirs, they will only be able to use it for production.
The only thing is that nvidia or amd will probably not want intel to have any idea of what their upcoming models will be like so they won't do that, but for older stuff that is already known to the market there won't be any reason to not use them.

Also if intel could out-legal anybody then amds 2005/6 lawsuit against them would have been going for a few years until amd just ran out of money and the problem went away, instead intel just gave them money to get it over with.

Or even plainer, if that were a concern then nobody would use any outside fab because intel or anybody else could just steal your IP from said fab.