You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I was originally told that Intel 4 would be internal then Intel 3 would be external. Same thing for Intel 20A and 18A. Apparently this has changed. When Intel first started the IDM 2.0 strategy the competitive landscape was quite different than today. The competition is much more fierce and Intel really is under a lot of pressure. I would guess that Intel products will get priority over foundry customers due to self preservation.
My opinion of IFS has not changed however. The semiconductor industry needs a reliable second source for leading edge foundry processes. Thus the semiconductor ecosystem will do whatever it takes to make sure IFS has the opportunity to be successful, absolutely.
I was originally told that Intel 4 would be internal then Intel 3 would be external. Same thing for Intel 20A and 18A. Apparently this has changed. When Intel first started the IDM 2.0 strategy the competitive landscape was quite different than today. The competition is much more fierce and Intel really is under a lot of pressure. I would guess that Intel products will get priority over foundry customers due to self preservation.
My opinion of IFS has not changed however. The semiconductor industry needs a reliable second source for leading edge foundry processes. Thus the semiconductor ecosystem will do whatever it takes to make sure IFS has the opportunity to be successful, absolutely.
Well, my point is that they are things that have to be put under consideration, maybe some customers can live with it, for others it could be a problem. 20% higher manufacturing costs isn't insignificant, neither is waiting for Intel prioritised products before they have access to the node.
Well, my point is that they are things that have to be put under consideration, maybe some customers can live with it, for others it could be a problem. 20% higher manufacturing costs isn't insignificant, neither is waiting for Intel prioritised products before they have access to the node.
Agreed. When Intel signs a customer wafer agreement it is legally binding. Delivery is just as important as pricing which is one reason why TSMC is the trusted foundry because they deliver.
Great info from Dan. Pat is a cheerleader (thats fine). Intel is not going to leapfrog TSMC. So the question is "why would someone choose Intel over TSMC" .
Even if Intel delivers all the technologies and new fabs.... to win: Intel needs to be lower in price (which will causes losses). More confident supply (If Taiwan is invaded we wont have servers or PCs so supply might not be an issue). better delivery and customer support. I think that will be hard to deliver or for a customer to commit to. by 2030, things might be different.
Reminder: much less than half of Intel current IFS revenue is wafer sales to other companies.
