Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-looking-to-develop-closer-relationship-with-tsmc.15094/
        )

    [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] => 2021171
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Intel looking to develop closer relationship with TSMC?!?!?!

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member



Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger on Wednesday told the Fortune Brainstorm Tech summit in California that the US government should support a sustainable semiconductor supply chain in the US, in part because “Taiwan is not a stable place.” With China sending 27 military warplanes into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone on Sunday, Gelsinger asked: Does that “make you more comfortable or less if you’re now dependent on Taiwan as the singular source of technology for the most critical aspect of our human existence and our national security and economy for the future?

Such nonsense. Pat is not only insulting TSMC but also the Taiwanese people. And how does the rest of the world feel about this? This is Déjà vu of when Intel entered the foundry business last time:

“Being an integrated device manufacturer really helps us solve the problems dealing with devices this small and complex,” (Mark) Bohr said “the foundries and fabless companies won’t be able to follow where Intel is going.” “Bohr claims TSMC’s recent announcement it will serve just one flavor of 20 nm process technology is an admission of failure. The Taiwan fab giant apparently cannot make at its next major node the kind of 3-D transistors (FinFETs) needed mitigate leakage current, Bohr said.”

This was a big motivator for the fabless ecosystem to dominate Intel and the latest comments will do the same. Only this time Intel is not attacking the TSMC business model, Intel is attacking an entire country, my opinion.
 

Xebec

Active member
Pat should have chosen his words more carefully, however .. what is the timeframe Pat was referencing? Taiwan is relatively stable today, but that may not be the case in 10, 20 years. Xi has made a lot of comments about Taiwan lately though I don’t know if that’s more than usual.

Also, a few weeks ago this appeared in an article on CNN:

Taiwan's President says the threat from China is increasing 'every day' and confirms presence of US military trainers on the island​

 

tooLongInEDA

Moderator



Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger on Wednesday told the Fortune Brainstorm Tech summit in California that the US government should support a sustainable semiconductor supply chain in the US, in part because “Taiwan is not a stable place.” With China sending 27 military warplanes into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone on Sunday, Gelsinger asked: Does that “make you more comfortable or less if you’re now dependent on Taiwan as the singular source of technology for the most critical aspect of our human existence and our national security and economy for the future?

Such nonsense. Pat is not only insulting TSMC but also the Taiwanese people. And how does the rest of the world feel about this? This is Déjà vu of when Intel entered the foundry business last time:

“Being an integrated device manufacturer really helps us solve the problems dealing with devices this small and complex,” (Mark) Bohr said “the foundries and fabless companies won’t be able to follow where Intel is going.” “Bohr claims TSMC’s recent announcement it will serve just one flavor of 20 nm process technology is an admission of failure. The Taiwan fab giant apparently cannot make at its next major node the kind of 3-D transistors (FinFETs) needed mitigate leakage current, Bohr said.”

This was a big motivator for the fabless ecosystem to dominate Intel and the latest comments will do the same. Only this time Intel is not attacking the TSMC business model, Intel is attacking an entire country, my opinion.
When the opposition soccer team's manager starts trash talking your side before the match, the manager often pins the article to the dressing room wall. The pre-match motivational speech can then be skipped.
 
P

Portland

Guest
When the opposition soccer team's manager starts trash talking your side before the match, the manager often pins the article to the dressing room wall. The pre-match motivational speech can then be skipped.

Is pat gelsinger really running things?
 

lilo777

Active member
Geopolitical factors are real. That's why US government had to come up with CHIPS idea in a first place. I don’t think PG needs to convince anyone about it. Obviously he is angling to get a bigger slice of it for Intel, nothing wrong with this either. I also do not think TSMC will overreact to his comments for his comments are essentially about China and the state of silicon manufacthring in US. TSMC case is essentially orthogonal to his comments. They may be part of CHIPS too (but they would need to build FABs in US)
 

tooLongInEDA

Moderator
Daniel, do you also think there might be a cultural clash between Intel and TSMC here ? In my limited experience in Asia (India possible excepted), Westerners are [somewhat] expected to defer and adjust to the local culture and customs and ignoring this doesn't go down well. They might never actually say anything directly to indicate they've been offended, but they may be.
 

count

Well-known member
Daniel, do you also think there might be a cultural clash between Intel and TSMC here ? In my limited experience in Asia (India possible excepted), Westerners are [somewhat] expected to defer and adjust to the local culture and customs and ignoring this doesn't go down well. They might never actually say anything directly to indicate they've been offended, but they may be.
There is definitely a culture clash. In eastern cultures trash talking publicly while trying to make deals privately is not a thing that that goes down well.
 

hist78

Well-known member
Daniel, do you also think there might be a cultural clash between Intel and TSMC here ? In my limited experience in Asia (India possible excepted), Westerners are [somewhat] expected to defer and adjust to the local culture and customs and ignoring this doesn't go down well. They might never actually say anything directly to indicate they've been offended, but they may be.

@tooLongInEDA,

It's nothing to do with any culture difference between US and Taiwan. It's more to do with the quality and fitness of the leader. In this case, TSMC didn't do anything or say anything negatively about Intel while Pat Galsinger keeps trashing and looking down at TSMC. Sadly, Pat's misleading or inappropriate talking points are gradually moving to the level that no one inside of Intel dares or is willing to correct him.

It makes me think Mr. Galsinger still lives in the fantasy of the old mighty Intel. He doesn't treat TSMC as an important partner and supplier. TSMC, in Pat Galsinger's mind, is more or less like a handyman or a Pizza shop.

I don't see any CEO of a major American corporation behaves like Pat is doing: to attack your own partners while your partner said nothing bad about you.

TSMC was a critical supplier/partner of Intel and will be even more critical to Intel's roadmap for the next several years. I don't think any logical and capable American CEO will behave the way Pat does.

It's nothing to do with the culture.

The partnership between Intel and TSMC that started by both companies' founders has been damaged by Pat and his own fantasy.
 
Last edited:

hist78

Well-known member



Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger on Wednesday told the Fortune Brainstorm Tech summit in California that the US government should support a sustainable semiconductor supply chain in the US, in part because “Taiwan is not a stable place.” With China sending 27 military warplanes into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone on Sunday, Gelsinger asked: Does that “make you more comfortable or less if you’re now dependent on Taiwan as the singular source of technology for the most critical aspect of our human existence and our national security and economy for the future?

Such nonsense. Pat is not only insulting TSMC but also the Taiwanese people. And how does the rest of the world feel about this? This is Déjà vu of when Intel entered the foundry business last time:

“Being an integrated device manufacturer really helps us solve the problems dealing with devices this small and complex,” (Mark) Bohr said “the foundries and fabless companies won’t be able to follow where Intel is going.” “Bohr claims TSMC’s recent announcement it will serve just one flavor of 20 nm process technology is an admission of failure. The Taiwan fab giant apparently cannot make at its next major node the kind of 3-D transistors (FinFETs) needed mitigate leakage current, Bohr said.”

This was a big motivator for the fabless ecosystem to dominate Intel and the latest comments will do the same. Only this time Intel is not attacking the TSMC business model, Intel is attacking an entire country, my opinion.
The recording of this Fortune Magazine interview with Pat Gelsinger can be viewed by the link below:


I'm surprised Mr. Pat Gelsinger made several factual errors in the interview. You can call it misleading or a straight lying.

1. PRC's airplanes did not venture into Taiwan's "airspace" as Pat stated. PRC airplanes did fly into Taiwan's Air defense identification zone (ADIZ). Yes, PRC is trying to intimate Taiwan but Pat should not casually call ADIZ as "airspace". A violation of country's airspace by a large group of warplanes can easily lead to real missile and gun fightings. Are these ADIZ incursions happening a lot? Yes, It's happening all over the world. By Pat's logic, Alaska, Japan, South Korea and certain NATO countries are dangerous places too due to constant Russian and PRC ADIZ incursions.

If Pat likes to comment on this type of topics, I'd suggest him to do a Google search on "russia prc adiz".

2. During the Fortune magazine interview, Pat accused TSMC received 30% to 40% subsidies from Taiwanese government to build a new fab in Taiwan. Pat manufactured this accusation to justify why Intel should get more US taxpayers' money. So far neither Intel nor Pat Gelsinger has ever provided any evidence about what subsidies TSMC received from Taiwan government.

Under the Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (so-called Super 301), Taiwan is very careful not to get into the trouble due to the subsidies.

Contradict to some people's (like Mr. Pat Galsinger's) assumption, Taiwan government is not rich enough and is unwilling to subside TSMC or UMC or Mediatek. Throughout the history, many Taiwanese semiconductor companies failed without government stepping in to save them. In the long run this kind of policy actually makes those surviving Taiwan's semiconductor companies stronger and be more competitive in Taiwan and beyond.
 

soAsian

Active member
this is a bad translation but i don't see any English version of this article.


what Morris Chang is saying that Pat wouldn't bring Intel back to its glory day in 5 years.

Chang also talk about how impress he is with Pat when he visit Taiwan and tell him about what VmWare is. However, Chang dislike Pat talking bad about TSMC.

I'm not really sure what Pat is trying to achieve here talking bad about his partner who Intel going to work close with and talking bad about its customer(Apple) when Intel try to bring Apple back to use Intel cpu.

my guess is Pat is trying to get more money from the US govrt to invest in Intel.
 

tooLongInEDA

Moderator
this is a bad translation but i don't see any English version of this article.


what Morris Chang is saying that Pat wouldn't bring Intel back to its glory day in 5 years.

Chang also talk about how impress he is with Pat when he visit Taiwan and tell him about what VmWare is. However, Chang dislike Pat talking bad about TSMC.

I'm not really sure what Pat is trying to achieve here talking bad about his partner who Intel going to work close with and talking bad about its customer(Apple) when Intel try to bring Apple back to use Intel cpu.

my guess is Pat is trying to get more money from the US govrt to invest in Intel.
It rather feels like Pat is mixing up tactics with strategy. He seems to be trying to do both at the same time. Surely he should stick to the strategy and get someone beneath him to do the trash talking if this is needed (which we assume to be merely a tactic to squeeze out more funding from governments). Classic good cop/bad cop. Why to do it all yourself. Can he delegate ?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VCT

VCT

Active member
Intel is currently hiring hundreds of people in Taiwan to work with TSMC. The scale is a lot bigger than I thought.
 

herbs88

Member
2. During the Fortune magazine interview, Pat accused TSMC received 30% to 40% subsidies from Taiwanese government to build a new fab in Taiwan.

Contradict to some people's (like Mr. Pat Galsinger's) assumption, Taiwan government is not rich enough and is unwilling to subside TSMC or UMC or Mediatek.
I was interested in this, so I looked up the Taiwanese government’s expenditure and it seems like they only spend about 70 billion usd a year. That’s like twice the capex for TSM this year. Is this Pat dude even trying to make sense? I feel like TSM can sue him for defamation, but the clown’d probably be happy about more exposure.
 

lilo777

Active member
The recording of this Fortune Magazine interview with Pat Gelsinger can be viewed by the link below:


I'm surprised Mr. Pat Gelsinger made several factual errors in the interview. You can call it misleading or a straight lying.

1. PRC's airplanes did not venture into Taiwan's "airspace" as Pat stated. PRC airplanes did fly into Taiwan's Air defense identification zone (ADIZ). Yes, PRC is trying to intimate Taiwan but Pat should not casually call ADIZ as "airspace". A violation of country's airspace by a large group of warplanes can easily lead to real missile and gun fightings. Are these ADIZ incursions happening a lot? Yes, It's happening all over the world. By Pat's logic, Alaska, Japan, South Korea and certain NATO countries are dangerous places too due to constant Russian and PRC ADIZ incursions.

If Pat likes to comment on this type of topics, I'd suggest him to do a Google search on "russia prc adiz".

2. During the Fortune magazine interview, Pat accused TSMC received 30% to 40% subsidies from Taiwanese government to build a new fab in Taiwan. Pat manufactured this accusation to justify why Intel should get more US taxpayers' money. So far neither Intel nor Pat Gelsinger has ever provided any evidence about what subsidies TSMC received from Taiwan government.

Under the Section 301 of the U.S. Trade Act of 1974 (so-called Super 301), Taiwan is very careful not to get into the trouble due to the subsidies.

Contradict to some people's (like Mr. Pat Galsinger's) assumption, Taiwan government is not rich enough and is unwilling to subside TSMC or UMC or Mediatek. Throughout the history, many Taiwanese semiconductor companies failed without government stepping in to save them. In the long run this kind of policy actually makes those surviving Taiwan's semiconductor companies stronger and be more competitive in Taiwan and beyond.
PG did not claim that "TSMC received 30% to 40% subsidies from Taiwanese government to build a new fab in Taiwan". Here is what he said:

Gelsinger argued that the Taiwan and Korean governments are providing massive subsidies to support local chipmakers.
"How do you compete with a 30 to 40% subsidy? Because that means we're not competing with TSMC or Samsung, we're competing with Taiwan and Korea," he said. "The subsidies in China are even more significant."


He did mention 30...40% but it's not clear what specifically he referred to. The numbers are probably wrong either way but one should not to compare FAB costs to Taiwan government budget just based on this statement.
 

tooLongInEDA

Moderator
PG did not claim that "TSMC received 30% to 40% subsidies from Taiwanese government to build a new fab in Taiwan". Here is what he said:

Gelsinger argued that the Taiwan and Korean governments are providing massive subsidies to support local chipmakers.
"How do you compete with a 30 to 40% subsidy? Because that means we're not competing with TSMC or Samsung, we're competing with Taiwan and Korea," he said. "The subsidies in China are even more significant."


He did mention 30...40% but it's not clear what specifically he referred to. The numbers are probably wrong either way but one should not to compare FAB costs to Taiwan government budget just based on this statement.
You're splitting hairs. He knows exactly what he's saying and we all know what he means.

And he says this while taking huge subsidies from the Israeli and Irish governments for building fabs there.

Pot, kettle, black.
 

count

Well-known member
You're splitting hairs. He knows exactly what he's saying and we all know what he means.

And he says this while taking huge subsidies from the Israeli and Irish governments for building fabs there.

Pot, kettle, black.
Gelsinger just tipped his hand. If you read between the lines, what he just said was that TSMC's costs are 30-40% lower than Intel's.
 

hist78

Well-known member
and Intel is constantly talking bad about TSMC and Apple. lol.

I can't think about any CEOs who behaved like Pat Galsinger: constantly attacking the very same company he wants to build long lasting relationship with.

Does Apple really need Intel in order to be prosperous? I don't think so.

Does TSMC must have Intel as a customer in order to grow business and to innovate? I don't think that is necessary.

I'm wondering if Intel's board of directors really know what Pat Gelsinger is thinking.
 
Top