Industry faces “acute” CPU shortage with hope that Intel 18A yields improve

[MKWVentures]

Just my opinion .... and from the view of a potential customer:

1) Roadmap & timeline trust factor
2) Competitive IP concerns
3) Infancy of the use of industry standard tooling

I suspect that many people focus on the competitiveness in the metrics between Intel and TSMC (which is quite normal for a bunch of engineers ).

Once a pilot program is actually in progress, I suspect that other issues will arise that a customer didn't think as much about in the beginning. Issues like the issue process, corrective action process, contractual issues, support structure, etc are things that lots of people overlook in the beginning of a major program, but that hurt like crazy once you are in the middle of it all.

One thing to ask: Is the Intel Product group happy with IFS as a supplier right now? Are they happy with the supply and planning and delivery? How do they score IFS vs TSMC as a supplier?

 

[siliconbruh999]

One thing to ask: Is the Intel Product group happy with IFS as a supplier right now? Are they happy with the supply and planning and delivery? How do they score IFS vs TSMC as a supplier?

this is going to have internal politics involved tbh depending on who you ask and i think we should let products decide in the roadmap.

 

[OneEng]

One thing to ask: Is the Intel Product group happy with IFS as a supplier right now? Are they happy with the supply and planning and delivery? How do they score IFS vs TSMC as a supplier?

While I think that is a good metric to consider, I would have concerns about how the internal customer's opinion relates to an external customer's opinion.

It has been my experience that people that are used to having an internal supplier tend to be very critical of the internal supplier ..... until they deal with an external supplier. Also, the financial politics are strong with an internal supplier (who get's the lion's share of the profit?) vs. an external supplier.

I would be very interested to hear how Intel Product group rates IFS vs TSMC though.

 

[MKWVentures]

While I think that is a good metric to consider, I would have concerns about how the internal customer's opinion relates to an external customer's opinion.

It has been my experience that people that are used to having an internal supplier tend to be very critical of the internal supplier ..... until they deal with an external supplier. Also, the financial politics are strong with an internal supplier (who get's the lion's share of the profit?) vs. an external supplier.

I would be very interested to hear how Intel Product group rates IFS vs TSMC though.

Intel has been using TSMC for some time now. Billions in spending per year. multiple products, This is why you should always have multiple vendors and a internal vs Exterrnal discussion on each project.

I agree everyone is very critical of Internal supplier. Some external suppliers are better than Intel Internal, some are problematic,

in the Past MJ and even PG were clear that product group decides... no "take one for the team". That how the whole IDM2.0 got agreed upon

 

[OneEng]

Intel has been using TSMC for some time now. Billions in spending per year. multiple products, This is why you should always have multiple vendors and a internal vs Exterrnal discussion on each project.

I agree everyone is very critical of Internal supplier. Some external suppliers are better than Intel Internal, some are problematic,

in the Past MJ and even PG were clear that product group decides... no "take one for the team". That how the whole IDM2.0 got agreed upon

One could argue that Intel's "5 nodes in 4 years" was a bit of a tap dance ..... and that they didn't do anything like that.

"Intel 7" was just renaming 10nm superfin. Intel 4 and 3 were most certainly a node change as Intel finally got EUV working, BUT really Intel 3 was just a good library tweak (and a few other things) to Intel 4. Then Intel completely dropped 20A and the original roadmap had 18A being released in 2H 2024.

So realistically speaking, what Intel ACTUALLY got done was 3 nodes (Intel 4, Intel 3, 18A) from July 2021 to Jan 2026. So 3 nodes in 4.5 years. Still, not bad.

BUT, that same presentation stated that Intel would RETAKE foundry leadership from Intel at 18A. As of today, N2 is 31% more dense than 18A and is more power efficient (which is a big deal for DC processors).

I would argue that Intel DID make up ground and is at least in the ball park; however, the cost was substantial. 18A and 18A-P are most definitely a make or break moment in Intel history.

Despite my negative review of the situation, I really am pulling for Intel. I consider them critical to the USA from a geopolitical standpoint.

 

[user nl]

While I think that is a good metric to consider, I would have concerns about how the internal customer's opinion relates to an external customer's opinion.

It has been my experience that people that are used to having an internal supplier tend to be very critical of the internal supplier ..... until they deal with an external supplier. Also, the financial politics are strong with an internal supplier (who get's the lion's share of the profit?) vs. an external supplier.

I would be very interested to hear how Intel Product group rates IFS vs TSMC though.

Yes, the grass always seems greener at the other side.

However, the key issue with Intel is that even if Product has their silicon made at the other side, the profit that they make with this does not flow to Product, but to Foundry. That is the lack of positive energy/feedback from this joint operation of Product & IFS.

It is hard to beat the law of "necessity of running large numbers of wafers in Semi-Fab manufacturing". That law seems quite universal, independent of management and geography, valid in Taiwan, USA and Korea.....

Indeed, because IFS is a US National Security asset, Intel Product "has to accept" that their profit is not for themselves (bonus, shares, intellectual freedom and competition etc) but to keep IFS from sinking down a quicksand area.......

 

[Xebec]

BUT, that same presentation stated that Intel would RETAKE foundry leadership from Intel at 18A. As of today, N2 is 31% more dense than 18A and is more power efficient (which is a big deal for DC processors).

What are the source(s) for N2 being more power efficient than 18A?

IIRC 18A is generally cited as the highest performance of the two nodes, but efficiency is very dependent upon what clock speed you're going for, etc. the SRAM charts Intel and TSMC showed seem to favor 18A at mid to higher frequencies. (0.8V - ~ 3.3 GHz for TSMC N2, and ~ 4.2 GHz for 18A). (I understand SRAM is different than logic..)