Intel To Produce 7nm Node At Fab 42, Announces $7 Billion Investment To Finish Construction

[Guest]

Intel's CEO Brian Krzanich announced at the White House that the company is investing $7 billion to complete its Fab 42 in Chandler, Arizona.

Intel To Produce 7nm Node At Fab 42, Announces $7 Billion Investment To Finish Construction : Read more

 

[heyhihowyadurrin]

INTEL IS THE BASTE

 

[CaedenV]

Your post has been moved to Forum Feedback. When posting please stay on topic.

- Joshua Simenhoff, Assistant Community Manager for Tom's Hardware

 

[bit_user]

The statement comes amidst Intel's disagreement with the current administration's immigration policies.

This could just be a negotiating position to get themselves more tax breaks, etc.

 

[jimmysmitty]

That's great news. If they need any road or construction work I am sure my company will get involved. Hell I live only a few minutes from their site as it is.

 

[robodan918]

Subtext to this news: Intel fears competition from AMD again: sets off to complete factory 4 years late and finally stop producing the same chip 5 years later.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Your post has been moved to Forum Feedback. When posting please stay on topic.

- Joshua Simenhoff, Assistant Community Manager for Tom's Hardware

 

[tsnor]

Your post has been moved to Forum Feedback. When posting please stay on topic.

- Joshua Simenhoff, Assistant Community Manager for Tom's Hardware

 

[gggplaya]

Subtext to this news: Intel fears competition from AMD again: sets off to complete factory 4 years late and finally stop producing the same chip 5 years later.

I don't think it's fair to say it's "late" because the only competition is AMD, and they're only not producing 14nM products that aren't even for sale yet. So intel is way ahead of AMD. In the end, this is good news for us, the consumer. AMD just lit a fire under intels butt.

 

[Brian_R170]

Your post has been moved to Forum Feedback. When posting please stay on topic.

- Joshua Simenhoff, Assistant Community Manager for Tom's Hardware

 

[Daekar3]

It amazes me that you managed to take a piece of news about Intel investing serious money in infrastructure in this country, and their supportive position of the new administration's policy, and spent half of it spewing out the distorted party line on Trump's temporary immigration security policy.

Seriously. I get you're under pressure from the top to smear conservatives wherever possible, but try a little harder to maintain the fiction of an unbiased perspective.

 

[PaulAlcorn]

Thanks for the feedback. I am the last person in the world that wants to get into political disputes, and I know that is a sensitive area for many readers. I believe this is a fact-based article that reports just that -- the facts. There is no personal opinion involved. The ongoing dispute between Intel and the new administration is news, and the joint announcement with Trump about the new fab is an interesting wrinkle. I'm receptive to your feedback on any items that you think are opinion-based or smear any particular group.

 

[none12345]

Woohoo for all these 'new jobs'....except they just layed off 12000 not so long ago.

I know its nothign new, lots of companies lay off a ton only to be lauded for creating new jobs right after.

 

[gggplaya]

Woohoo for all these 'new jobs'....except they just layed off 12000 not so long ago.

I know its nothign new, lots of companies lay off a ton only to be lauded for creating new jobs right after.

Unfortunately, those layoffs are due to a shrinking PC market with ARM tablets taking alot of market share. As well as windows getting to a point where you don't need to new processor to keep up with the OS. Now my 8 year old intel Core i7 920 still plenty more than enough speed. With modern games, i'm still not processor bottlenecked. And with normal windows tasks like web browsing and emails, a new processor won't be noticeably faster.

So people are waiting longer between upgrades, and buying more tablets.

 

[somebodyspecial]

Subtext to this news: Intel fears competition from AMD again: sets off to complete factory 4 years late and finally stop producing the same chip 5 years later.

This is why I say AMD has ONE chance to CHARGE an appropriate price for their ZEN cpus to make a mint while they can. INTEL will respond but it will take a few years to dominate again unless AMD plays this correctly. If ZEN is actually capable of beating a i7-6900 they had better charge it's price or slightly more! As long as they win 50% or MORE benchmarks DO NOT CHARGE BELOW INTEL! Until chips are stuck on the shelf DO NOT LOWER THE PRICE!

Fire management if they don't get how to charge what a product is WORTH. You are not in business to do anyone favors. You are in business to make MONEY. Don't blow the best product (maybe) you've had in a decade+ by pricing it where poor people are happy. They can all go back to training (in whatever) and get a better job! Screw people saying "it has to be priced low or I won't buy". Great, screw them, the only other way to go is INTEL and they aren't giving any discounts. Just ask NV/Intel how to price. If it's a great product PEOPLE WILL PAY. Of course it goes without saying, if it sucks, well you're mistake and it deserves to be priced to death and so does your company...LOL.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a great price too, but raise your hand if you want AMD bankrupt. They lost yet another 500mil last year (660mil the year before). How many times do you think they can keep doing this to give you great deals? Isn't losing 8B+ in 15-20yrs enough? LOL. Get a better job if you can't handle the price of keeping up with the joneses every year or two in Intel/NV/AMD. Your financial situation is YOUR fault, not theirs. Really if you can't handle $1000 every 2-3yrs on your PC you need to quit spending your money on stupid crap. It's easy to come up with this amount. For Instance:

Quit spending $70-100 a month on mobile phones when you could just buy Ting for $16 a month. Junk cable TV and cut the cords (roku+Netflix)! There, problem solved in 2-3yrs. Ting phones (galaxy s5 for example) pay for themselves in 3-4 months and the rest is just saving money all year. Sure buying the latest costs more, but even then they pay themselves off in 6-9 months and again save money for the next 12-15 months (and that's if you upgrade it every 2yrs). Learn to live within your means...I know, a totally foreign concept to most these days...ROFL. Junking cabletv+lowering mobile costs easily pay for a PC every few years.

Queue low price whiners...LOL. Nothing is free folks. EARN IT. AMD lost 1.15B in the last 2yrs, which is about what they have in cash on hand currently even after selling more notes and diluting their stock even more. Interest rates will be going up in the next few years so they need to make a profit finally for a year again and pay off their debt! Their current margins won't make money (32%). They need to get back to ~2006 margins of 58% (joining NV/Intel). If they have a great chip and don't charge appropriately (Intel prices!) anyone owning their stock will get killed with it up so much on hype now...LOL. They have diluted their shares (to raise cash) from 700mil 4yrs ago to 926mil today. Go back another few years and you get 600mil. That is terrible.

 

[TJ Hooker]

This is why I say AMD has ONE chance to CHARGE an appropriate price for their ZEN cpus to make a mint while they can. INTEL will respond but it will take a few years to dominate again unless AMD plays this correctly. If ZEN is actually capable of beating a i7-6900 they had better charge it's price or slightly more! As long as they win 50% or MORE benchmarks DO NOT CHARGE BELOW INTEL! Until chips are stuck on the shelf DO NOT LOWER THE PRICE!

Spoiler

Fire management if they don't get how to charge what a product is WORTH. You are not in business to do anyone favors. You are in business to make MONEY. Don't blow the best product (maybe) you've had in a decade+ by pricing it where poor people are happy. They can all go back to training (in whatever) and get a better job! Screw people saying "it has to be priced low or I won't buy". Great, screw them, the only other way to go is INTEL and they aren't giving any discounts. Just ask NV/Intel how to price. If it's a great product PEOPLE WILL PAY. Of course it goes without saying, if it sucks, well you're mistake and it deserves to be priced to death and so does your company...LOL.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like a great price too, but raise your hand if you want AMD bankrupt. They lost yet another 500mil last year (660mil the year before). How many times do you think they can keep doing this to give you great deals? Isn't losing 8B+ in 15-20yrs enough? LOL. Get a better job if you can't handle the price of keeping up with the joneses every year or two in Intel/NV/AMD. Your financial situation is YOUR fault, not theirs. Really if you can't handle $1000 every 2-3yrs on your PC you need to quit spending your money on stupid crap. It's easy to come up with this amount. For Instance:

Quit spending $70-100 a month on mobile phones when you could just buy Ting for $16 a month. Junk cable TV and cut the cords (roku+Netflix)! There, problem solved in 2-3yrs. Ting phones (galaxy s5 for example) pay for themselves in 3-4 months and the rest is just saving money all year. Sure buying the latest costs more, but even then they pay themselves off in 6-9 months and again save money for the next 12-15 months (and that's if you upgrade it every 2yrs). Learn to live within your means...I know, a totally foreign concept to most these days...ROFL. Junking cabletv+lowering mobile costs easily pay for a PC every few years.

Queue low price whiners...LOL. Nothing is free folks. EARN IT. AMD lost 1.15B in the last 2yrs, which is about what they have in cash on hand currently even after selling more notes and diluting their stock even more. Interest rates will be going up in the next few years so they need to make a profit finally for a year again and pay off their debt! Their current margins won't make money (32%). They need to get back to ~2006 margins of 58% (joining NV/Intel). If they have a great chip and don't charge appropriately (Intel prices!) anyone owning their stock will get killed with it up so much on hype now...LOL. They have diluted their shares (to raise cash) from 700mil 4yrs ago to 926mil today. Go back another few years and you get 600mil. That is terrible.

Idk, I think if AMD charges the same amount as Intel for roughly equivalent performance a lot of people will just stick with Intel because that's what been the standard for the last 5 (or however many) years while AMD was floundering. I think AMD will have to undercut Intel's prices at least a little bit if they want to convince people they're finally an attractive buy again (particularly at the high end), and regain market share.

 

[David_24]

Their pricing, their strategy, their company. Whining about how fast the competition undercuts one another won't change much.
Ofcourse they were at a loss. DO you know how much of their business is in rnd before a new product drops. Of course amd overspent, this is all in for them to beat intel or get pushed out of the market.

 

[aries1470]

dear somebodyspecial,
You seem to be forgetting one thing, INTEL is the DeFacto manufacturer and creator of the x86 architecture. Who will pay more than Intel pricing for a company that has been in the lime-light for over a decade in performance?
They will need to build trust again, this is NOT the 1990's, where you had the 486 compatibles from a myriad of sources or even the Pentium compatibles, of which by that point many companies just stopped making chips due to licencing issues etc. Heck, there are now only 2 (two) companies that make x86 compatible chips besides Intel, AMD is one of them and Via the other. Amd at least, is still relevant, and Via up to about 5 years ago for mainstream, and that is mostly due to marketing and not making anything new for the last 10 years, wiht their Nano series being their last hing, think in terms of Intel Atom! and a 40 nm architecture. IF AMD is abe to pull it off, and from reading various articles, they will come close, but no cigar to topple the best Intel processor, you seriously can not have them price it as such! Even if it did, they will still need to price it somewhat lower, maybe a couple of hundred, just to get support behind them again and build up the base and still will have to contend with Intels monopolistic practises of squarily aimed at HINDERING AMD establishing a foothold by refusing to supply their top tier OEM manufacturers if they dared to sell AMD Products!
You have a lot to learn of how the things were! Amd would have been in a way better condition if not for Intels practises.
Go and read and educate yourseld, pricing IS NOT EVERYTHING, especially if you are NOT GIVEN SHELF SPACE! or your manufacturers are not allowed to sell your BEST products or ANY OF YOUR PRODUCTS!

 

[somebodyspecial]

dear somebodyspecial,
You seem to be forgetting one thing, INTEL is the DeFacto manufacturer and creator of the x86 architecture. Who will pay more than Intel pricing for a company that has been in the lime-light for over a decade in performance?
They will need to build trust again, this is NOT the 1990's, where you had the 486 compatibles from a myriad of sources or even the Pentium compatibles, of which by that point many companies just stopped making chips due to licencing issues etc. Heck, there are now only 2 (two) companies that make x86 compatible chips besides Intel, AMD is one of them and Via the other. Amd at least, is still relevant, and Via up to about 5 years ago for mainstream, and that is mostly due to marketing and not making anything new for the last 10 years, wiht their Nano series being their last hing, think in terms of Intel Atom! and a 40 nm architecture. IF AMD is abe to pull it off, and from reading various articles, they will come close, but no cigar to topple the best Intel processor, you seriously can not have them price it as such! Even if it did, they will still need to price it somewhat lower, maybe a couple of hundred, just to get support behind them again and build up the base and still will have to contend with Intels monopolistic practises of squarily aimed at HINDERING AMD establishing a foothold by refusing to supply their top tier OEM manufacturers if they dared to sell AMD Products!
You have a lot to learn of how the things were! Amd would have been in a way better condition if not for Intels practises.
Go and read and educate yourseld, pricing IS NOT EVERYTHING, especially if you are NOT GIVEN SHELF SPACE! or your manufacturers are not allowed to sell your BEST products or ANY OF YOUR PRODUCTS!

And AMD made x86-64...LOL. So what. Uh, I remember how it was because I OWNED a PC business for 8yrs including for all the years AMD led the cpu contest. AMD charged what Intel did back then on the high end (when they had a better chip) and for quite a few quarters had ~58% margins. AMD made some stupid management decisions but they really couldn't have done much more back then as they were constrained to 20% by manufacturing no matter what they did. I was buying ASUS boards when they came in a WHITE box with no name on the boards due to that Intel fear you mentioned...LOL. It is AMD's problem they didn't keep going until they got a larger settlement (have they even been paid yet?).
https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt-paid-AMD-12-billion-USD-anti-trust-fine

I've been trading all of these stocks for decades. I don't need an education on either the business (I read all the Q reports etc), or how they work with OEM's/retailers now or back then. IF they hadn't paid 3x the price that ATI was worth we might be having a different conversation today and they'd probably still have fabs. Other bad decisions; chasing APU/console (both low margin) instead of CPU/GPU kings like Dirk Meyer called for in 2011 when they fired him, also massively damaged R&D that should have went to core CPU/GPU/DRIVERS. There is no need for AMD to build trust as everyone knows x86 works fine with either side. You're right, this isn't the 90's & we are not in the age of people getting fired for not buying Intel. 😉

like I said, IF AMD beats i7-6900 in more than half the benchmarks there is no reason to knock a few hundred bucks off (perhaps a few bucks, not a few hundred), and this goes for any level of perf as they should charge what their perf is worth across the board. Let the market decide if you need cheaper pricing by seeing if they leave the shelf or not at like pricing. People PAY for performance as shown by both Intel/Nvidia raising prices on top gear even in a PC downturn for years. Now with GPU maybe they need to price a bit better because you ARE taking a risk that they'll have enough money to keep up the drivers (their track record here is spotty), but that isn't the case with cpu. AMD was pretty much selling everything they could produce ages ago. Maybe they could have gotten better ASP's but not much more market share. If current pricing assumptions are true, and perf really is better than Intel, it seems they are shooting profits in the foot on the high-end. I could be wrong. Fans like me are chomping at the bit to buy AMD cpus...IF, they are worthy and far more buy just on PERF (whether it's performance, watts, heat etc). Again, if you build a great product people will pay.

 

[David_24]

dear somebodyspecial,
You seem to be forgetting one thing, INTEL is the DeFacto manufacturer and creator of the x86 architecture. Who will pay more than Intel pricing for a company that has been in the lime-light for over a decade in performance?
They will need to build trust again, this is NOT the 1990's, where you had the 486 compatibles from a myriad of sources or even the Pentium compatibles, of which by that point many companies just stopped making chips due to licencing issues etc. Heck, there are now only 2 (two) companies that make x86 compatible chips besides Intel, AMD is one of them and Via the other. Amd at least, is still relevant, and Via up to about 5 years ago for mainstream, and that is mostly due to marketing and not making anything new for the last 10 years, wiht their Nano series being their last hing, think in terms of Intel Atom! and a 40 nm architecture. IF AMD is abe to pull it off, and from reading various articles, they will come close, but no cigar to topple the best Intel processor, you seriously can not have them price it as such! Even if it did, they will still need to price it somewhat lower, maybe a couple of hundred, just to get support behind them again and build up the base and still will have to contend with Intels monopolistic practises of squarily aimed at HINDERING AMD establishing a foothold by refusing to supply their top tier OEM manufacturers if they dared to sell AMD Products!
You have a lot to learn of how the things were! Amd would have been in a way better condition if not for Intels practises.
Go and read and educate yourseld, pricing IS NOT EVERYTHING, especially if you are NOT GIVEN SHELF SPACE! or your manufacturers are not allowed to sell your BEST products or ANY OF YOUR PRODUCTS!

And AMD made x86-64...LOL. So what. Uh, I remember how it was because I OWNED a PC business for 8yrs including for all the years AMD led the cpu contest. AMD charged what Intel did back then on the high end (when they had a better chip) and for quite a few quarters had ~58% margins. AMD made some stupid management decisions but they really couldn't have done much more back then as they were constrained to 20% by manufacturing no matter what they did. I was buying ASUS boards when they came in a WHITE box with no name on the boards due to that Intel fear you mentioned...LOL. It is AMD's problem they didn't keep going until they got a larger settlement (have they even been paid yet?).
https://www.pcper.com/news/General-Tech/Intel-still-hasnt-paid-AMD-12-billion-USD-anti-trust-fine

I've been trading all of these stocks for decades. I don't need an education on either the business (I read all the Q reports etc), or how they work with OEM's/retailers now or back then. IF they hadn't paid 3x the price that ATI was worth we might be having a different conversation today and they'd probably still have fabs. Other bad decisions; chasing APU/console (both low margin) instead of CPU/GPU kings like Dirk Meyer called for in 2011 when they fired him, also massively damaged R&D that should have went to core CPU/GPU/DRIVERS. There is no need for AMD to build trust as everyone knows x86 works fine with either side. You're right, this isn't the 90's & we are not in the age of people getting fired for not buying Intel. 😉

like I said, IF AMD beats i7-6900 in more than half the benchmarks there is no reason to knock a few hundred bucks off (perhaps a few bucks, not a few hundred), and this goes for any level of perf as they should charge what their perf is worth across the board. Let the market decide if you need cheaper pricing by seeing if they leave the shelf or not at like pricing. People PAY for performance as shown by both Intel/Nvidia raising prices on top gear even in a PC downturn for years. Now with GPU maybe they need to price a bit better because you ARE taking a risk that they'll have enough money to keep up the drivers (their track record here is spotty), but that isn't the case with cpu. AMD was pretty much selling everything they could produce ages ago. Maybe they could have gotten better ASP's but not much more market share. If current pricing assumptions are true, and perf really is better than Intel, it seems they are shooting profits in the foot on the high-end. I could be wrong. Fans like me are chomping at the bit to buy AMD cpus...IF, they are worthy and far more buy just on PERF (whether it's performance, watts, heat etc). Again, if you build a great product people will pay.

Problem with that is amd taking over the consoles meant that all games are now designed for amd hardware then ported over to pc. That means as time goes forward with them more and more entrenched in the console market all games will run better on amd hardware. How is that not a yurika win for them?

Also you're making a call on how educated the market is and wether the box stores will recomend the new amd hardware if it isnt a cheaper option with better margines for the store.

At the very least shouldn't you at least be advicating cheaper prices for laptops and oem desktops so they can take over the market from the inside out. While keeping prices higher for custom builds.

Finally do you think people building higher end workstations will be more educated as to which is the real value for value product compared ot the gamers. seeing as how many cores there are going to be.