Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-expected-to-begin-shipping-apple%E2%80%99s-lowest-end-m-processor-as-early-as-2027.24104/page-2
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2030770
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Intel expected to begin shipping Apple’s lowest-end M processor as early as 2027

siliconbruh999 said:
It would require TSMC to have issues as well TSMC only passed Intel as a tech leader due to Intel fumbling the ball for like 3-4 years and stagnating they can have tech leadership back imo but not domination like TSMC.
Click to expand...
Fab process development and chip manufacturing aren't my in fields of expertise, but I'm having trouble believing that TSMC has to stumble for Intel to meet or exceed them. I also don't believe that the only reason TSMC passed Intel in process development because Intel stumbled. Would Intel have been the best foundry for the iPhone even if 10nm was on time and met objectives? I doubt it.
siliconbruh999 said:
This is most possible option
Click to expand...
I think this is the least possible option, because I can't see Intel giving up the x86 ISA, and I think it will take a leap beyond x86 to achieve this objective.
siliconbruh999 said:
This is the least possible out of 3
Click to expand...
I think it's tied with the CPU leadership option for least likely to succeed.
 
lilo777 said:
Well, at least Intel did not sue WJL when he left Intel for TSMC. Also, I believe Intel has (or, at least, had) a policy that those, who left the company but decided to come back within 3 months, get fully restored in their seniority and related benefits.
Click to expand...
So what ?

I was asking for actual evidence of this supposed TSMC excessive restriction on labour mobility. Where is it ? How is TSMC worse than anyone else ? Not liking TSMC isn't evidence.
 
But here's a problem: every generation of the M series in the past has been single-process. Unless the future M series shifts to chiplet. If this is true as stated, Intel handles the low-end M, TSM handles Pro, Max, and Ultra. This means Intel could theoretically also make high-end ones if yields permit. Because it's agnostic, just like Intel's current CPU core tiles.

Or Apple switching to chiplet?
 
tooLongInEDA said:
So what ?

I was asking for actual evidence of this supposed TSMC excessive restriction on labour mobility. Where is it ? How is TSMC worse than anyone else ? Not liking TSMC isn't evidence.
Click to expand...
WJL moving from Intel to TSMC - no lawsuit
WJL moving from TSMC to Intel - lawsuit
It is sort of evidence. Obviously, the are some nuances but still...
Intel has never sued any of its executives who left for another company. TSMC did it and not once either.
 
XYang2023 said:
I guess that’s a good excuse for not breaking even, as making IFS viable could be beneficial to the valuation. I remember DZ saying on multiple occasions that a properly run fab company should be valued at 1–2× its book value.

Should we focus on future cash flows instead of break-even timing?
Click to expand...
Most the finances (Margins, Cash flow, NPV) for IFS are bad until they get >1 Fab worth of external customers paying full market price. 2029 timeframe.

Until then, IF IFS is sold, someone will be paid to take it (unless everything is written down like the DRAM companies did 10+ years ago). And IFS will have lost >60B in cash and net income since 2021.
 
lilo777 said:
WJL moving from Intel to TSMC - no lawsuit
WJL moving from TSMC to Intel - lawsuit
It is sort of evidence. Obviously, the are some nuances but still...
Intel has never sued any of its executives who left for another company. TSMC did it and not once either.
Click to expand...
After a few discussions, It looks like the issue is all about TSMC Taiwan and Wei Jen. They think he took files and downloads (lots of people leave companies and do not take files.). They are legally warning Intel about this (this is a pretty common next step by lawyers). LBT is saying they will not use IP (I dont think they will).

All of this was avoidable by Intel ... very strange. And now LBT has doubled down on supported Wei Jen.
 
MKWVentures said:
Most the finances (Margins, Cash flow, NPV) for IFS are bad until they get >1 Fab worth of external customers paying full market price. 2029 timeframe.

Until then, IF IFS is sold, someone will be paid to take it (unless everything is written down like the DRAM companies did 10+ years ago). And IFS will have lost >60B in cash and net income since 2021.
Click to expand...
2029 is not too far away. We are nearly 26. Capital market can be patient with that wait.
 
MKWVentures said:
After a few discussions, It looks like the issue is all about TSMC Taiwan and Wei Jen. They think he took files and downloads (lots of people leave companies and do not take files.). They are legally warning Intel about this (this is a pretty common next step by lawyers). LBT is saying they will not use IP (I dont think they will).

All of this was avoidable by Intel ... very strange. And now LBT has doubled down on supported Wei Jen.
Click to expand...
According to Daniel's article, all Wei Jen took was his personal notes:
"The legal issues stem from Lo's alleged deception regarding his retirement announcement and the handling of his personal notes from TSMC."
So, at this point it is not clear if there was anything for Intel to avoid. It could be just TSMC abusing their influence/control over Taiwanese government.
 
Last edited:
blueone said:
Cadence was a far easier problem space. It looks to me like Intel has only three remotely potential vectors to reach a $1T market cap:

1. Become a foundry that is a peer-level competitor to TSMC. (The not-TSMC opportunity doesn't look like enough.)
2. Become the client and server CPU of choice, displacing AMD, Qualcomm, and cloud computing internal chips.
3. Develop leadership AI chip and system-level product lines which displace a portion of Nvidia's marketshare, and that of cloud computing internal chips.

All three are long shots. Intel is unlikely IMO to succeed in any of these options to get to $1T by 2030, especially option 1, which is my favorite.
Click to expand...
I think the turn around efforts so far have been managed well. The streamlining effort is quite decisive in comparison to what PG did in the past.
 
blueone said:
Fab process development and chip manufacturing aren't my in fields of expertise, but I'm having trouble believing that TSMC has to stumble for Intel to meet or exceed them. I also don't believe that the only reason TSMC passed Intel in process development because Intel stumbled. Would Intel have been the best foundry for the iPhone even if 10nm was on time and met objectives? I doubt it.
Click to expand...
Intel delayed by 4 years that is enough for anyone to catch-up while Apple might not have switched they might not have loosed the Mac business if they delivered on time.
blueone said:
I think this is the least possible option, because I can't see Intel giving up the x86 ISA, and I think it will take a leap beyond x86 to achieve this objective.
Click to expand...
I don't think ISA is the fault it's more they are stuck at design philosophy of high clocking CPU designs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top