Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-is-in-talks-to-buy-globalfoundries.14433/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] => 2020770
            [XFI] => 1050170
        )

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

Intel is in Talks to Buy GlobalFoundries

prime007

Active member
It’s a good point on the ip.
I was actually wondering what would now happen to the cross licensing of patents with TSMC (from their lawsuit settlement). I would imagine a good lawyer (from TSMC) would have thought this scenario (GlobalFoundries takeover/merger/buyout out).
 

Portland

Active member
It looks like a videogame move to me. In the real world you need to work with people. Intel is already stretched thin and doesn't function in some areas now Intel wants to stretch themselves even more significantly just to save the idm 2.0 narrative and their CEO?

I think the best thing is for Intel to refocus on their core boring but extremely profitable business and for globalfoundries to hire and let people go until they work it out, it worked for amd.
 
I seriously doubt Intel would look back at failed GF process technologies.

I think the key point here is that acquiring GF will save the Intel failed IDM 2.0 foundry effort. In my opinion Pat Gelsinger took a close look at potential foundry customers and realized that Intel cannot compete in a service oriented business as they are today. Acquiring GF would accelerate the Intel foundry push dramatically. Much easier than spinning out Intel fabs into a foundry group like Samsung did. And did that really work for Samsung? I'm surprised Samsung didn't buy GF after the pivot. It would have been much cheaper!
The big assumption behind all this is that running a sub-TSMC foundry business is going to produce the profits and margins Intel investors are accustomed to. This remains - in my view today - quite unproven and rather improbable. What is the point of increasing your revenues if you crater your margins ? This is not Intel's core strength and there's also an assumption here that Intel can run GF better than GF ran itself. A lot of big assumptions.

I can understand Intel fixing their internal process. I can understand Intel using TSMC. I really struggle to understand IDM2.0. Has anyone ever succeeded in semis by chasing government handouts ?
 
It looks like a videogame move to me. In the real world you need to work with people. Intel is already stretched thin and doesn't function in some areas now Intel wants to stretch themselves even more significantly just to save the idm 2.0 narrative and their CEO?

I think the best thing is for Intel to refocus on their core boring but extremely profitable business and for globalfoundries to hire and let people go until they work it out, it worked for amd.
Quite. They still have a Rolls-Royce core business (in spite of the past few years). Dominant market share in the biggest, highest margin segment of the chip market. And they want to do this ?
 

mgoldsmith1979

New member
I was actually wondering what would now happen to the cross licensing of patents with TSMC (from their lawsuit settlement). I would imagine a good lawyer (from TSMC) would have thought this scenario (GlobalFoundries takeover/merger/buyout out).
... or the fact GF licensed their 14nm from Samsung. Modified it a lot for AMD's needs, but the foundation is from Samsung, not the 14SOI work from IBM. How would that work, or is it irrelevant since AMD has already migrated off that node to TSMC and IBM is moving to SF? The Planar / SOI / RF technologies from GF would be complimentary to what Intel has in-house, but another FinFET architecture would not (unless it was more like SMIC's clone of N16).
 

james juang

New member
In the foundry business, size matters even in mature nodes. A GF acquisition is a good move. If possible, try to buy UMC as well. GF+UMC+Intel’s in-house capacity will be the largest mature node foundry in the world. It sounds like a good plan to me.
 

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
In the foundry business, size matters even in mature nodes. A GF acquisition is a good move. If possible, try to buy UMC as well. GF+UMC+Intel’s in-house capacity will be the largest mature node foundry in the world. It sounds like a good plan to me.

I highly doubt China or Taiwan would allow Intel to buy UMC. China is a big UMC customer as is Taiwan.
 

james juang

New member
I highly doubt China or Taiwan would allow Intel to buy UMC. China is a big UMC customer as is Taiwan.
Got to give it a try if IDM 2.0 has anything meaningful. Size is the decisive factor in the mature-node foundry business.

For Taiwan, all it takes is a phone call from the US government. I don't see why Intel cannot make such an arrangement.

For CCP, it is about give-and-take. This one is not much more difficult than Nvidia-Arm, AMD-Xilinx, or Intel-SK Hynix.
 

benb

Active member
This seems politically astute, it’s an infrastructure play, its in the US, and it’s not a stock share buyback. Intel knows infrastructure. They acquired the Hudson site under similar circumstances, DEC was going to shut down and jobs were going to be lost. Intel stepped in and saved the day.

The government money is going to be important, and saving jobs in Malta is going to be important. This is what industrial policy looks like, handouts with a purpose (to avoid WARN acts, and offshoring).
 

kh812000

New member
I dont understand all the hate on GF. Its not the same GF as before and everyone here is looking in the rear view mirror which was certainly a mess. Today 100% focused on SOI/SiGe specialty processes and a clear value add to Intel or stand alone esp coupled with hybrid packaging.

At least this guy has it right!
 

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member

triceratops24

New member
The 3 countries with biggest fabless customers are the US, Taiwan and China. Would US fabless use IFS-GF? Yes, although they could lose some customers that INTC competes with. Would Taiwan fabless use IFS-GF? No because they already have the ecosystem in Taiwan. Would China fabless use IFS-GS? No. Too much geopolitical risk. GF could potentially lose their current Chinese fabless customers. So IFS-GF would primarily be servicing US and European customers.
 
Top