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 don't know why Pat resigned. I don't know if his strategy was bad or if he didn't execute it well...Compared with AI, he seemed to focus more on becoming a foundry. Of course now it seems that (Gelsinger) should have focused on AI," Chang said.
"They currently have neither a new strategy nor a new CEO. Finding both is very difficult," he added."
Intel urgently needs competitive and superior products that market wants to buy. Intel Foundry shouldn't be a distraction on this critical mission but it did.
Pretty much what I have been saying on this forum. I'd say it was mostly bad strategy, but not great execution either. But I don't know if it's even possible to execute well on a bad strategy.
Dont think it would work considering intel's disastrous gpu launch two years ago. GPU architect was fired because of this. But the software leader was luck to stay. Intel simply does not have the technology and experience in GPU based AI product.
Just look at the market, even AMD can not compete with long history of GPU product experience and ambitious plan. AMD stock just got downgraded because of weak AI position and PC sales.
People talk about AI as a fashion but only Jensen knows how to make a great product
Now, solely trying to catch up in AI is a sure lose bet. There are two strong competitors already, and hyperscalers can do AI hardware themselves, too -- GOOG and AMZN already have had several iterations of their own AI hardware/software, META and MSFT are not too much behind either.
Of course TSMC wants to see INTC exit foundry, I see chang's words as a compliment to IFS progress so far.
I hate to disagree with Morris but Intel needs to fill fabs. AI is certainly one way to do it but the AI chip competition is fierce. AI is like a gold rush. Certainly a handful of companies will strike it rich but many many more will fail. The companies selling the pick axes will also get rich. Intel can play both sides of this equation. In fact, Intel is the only one who can play both sides.
I hate to disagree with Morris but Intel needs to fill fabs. AI is certainly one way to do it but the AI chip competition is fierce. AI is like a gold rush. Certainly a handful of companies will strike it rich but many many more will fail. The companies selling the pick axes will also get rich. Intel can play both sides of this equation. In fact, Intel is the only one who can play both sides.
Intel needs to show that they can get close to breakeven on manufacturing. The they need to show that they can get above 2% market share in AI processors. how long should we wait to see success here? Neither have gotten better in the last 2 years based on data.
If we want a government funded foundry (AMFAB) and government funded AI company (AMvidia) just because we have to have a US company, fine. Lets just do that.
Intel is market leader in CPUs for DC and PC by a good distance. Perhaps they should focus on what they are good at. perhaps "they are who we thought they were" is the best answer. Just a thought.
Intel needs to show that they can get close to breakeven on manufacturing. The they need to show that they can get above 2% market share in AI processors. how long should we wait to see success here? Neither have gotten better in the last 2 years based on data.
If we want a government funded foundry (AMFAB) and government funded AI company (AMvidia) just because we have to have a US company, fine. Lets just do that.
Intel is market leader in CPUs for DC and PC by a good distance. Perhaps they should focus on what they are good at. perhaps "they are who we thought they were" is the best answer. Just a thought.
I have to disagree with you on the last sentence. Intel is only the market leader in CPU for PC by volume. They are behind in CPU design and efficiency by a large margin even in PC. They are way behind in data center CPUs in almost every aspect. I once was in AWS events asking AMD and Intel on their plans with AWS. AMD is very confident to show all kinds of data. Intel barely showed me anything. AMD kicks intel's ass in hyperscaler CPU business now. Intel may have some advantage in enterprise business simply because of strong business connection.
I would consider intel's design/product group is even worse than its foundry group in term of competitiveness. Just think about the precious DC head was people office and current PC head is market person. Are they able to do any good engineering decisions? Ann Kelleher should be more capable than them in this regard, I guess.
It would be more obvious if we look at the head to head comparison of intel granite rapids vs amd epyc 9005 series and intel arrow lake vs amd zen5. Intel has the process advantages on both but loses in both performance and efficiency.
I hate to disagree with Morris but Intel needs to fill fabs. AI is certainly one way to do it but the AI chip competition is fierce. AI is like a gold rush. Certainly a handful of companies will strike it rich but many many more will fail. The companies selling the pick axes will also get rich. Intel can play both sides of this equation. In fact, Intel is the only one who can play both sides.
Spending billions of dollars to build multiple new fabs without knowing who the customers will be to fill the capacity - is it naive or reckless?
Can Intel focus on a smaller number of fabs and locations?
"The companies selling the pick axes will also get rich. Intel can play both sides of this equation. In fact, Intel is the only one who can play both sides."
Most of Intel's potential leading-edge node customers are also its competitors. Does it make sense for Intel to bet everything on offering cheaper and better foundry services to them? This could enable Intel's product competitors to undermine its product division - the division that generates the majority of Intel revenue and profit (if any). Does this strategy make sense?
Hmm. I’m not too sure if his suggestion is a completely impartial assessment. If Intel choose to only focus on design, naturally it would follows that TSMC would have 1 less competitor and 1 more customer( or at least a more committed one). It seems like a “ kill 2 birds with 1 stone” situation for TSMC
Hmm. I’m not too sure if his suggestion is a completely impartial assessment. If Intel choose to only focus on design, naturally it would follows that TSMC would have 1 less competitor and 1 more customer( or at least a more committed one). It seems like a “ kill 2 birds with 1 stone” situation for TSMC
Maybe he is a bit afraid of the former Intel image of leading in Technology and don't want it back cause it us the only thing capable of challenging TSMC
Maybe he is a bit afraid of the former Intel image of leading in Technology and don't want it back cause it us the only thing capable of challenging TSMC
Quantum Computing seems to be the next big thing. How is Intel doing on Quantum? TSMC has not mentioned it yet but I know they are working with Google and others on it. Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has already been.
I agree that TSMC doesn't have to worry about Intel stealing a large amount of their volume. But I do think that Intel poses a potential threat.
Intel has decades of proof points that they can be a technology leader. If they stay on track with 18A and 14A they may be the tech leader again. Intel seems to believe this currently.
Even with tech leadership I don't see Intel putting a large dent in TSMCs business (and they don't need to). What I do see as a possibility is Intel taking the tech lead and giving TSMC's customers a large bargaining chip that impacts TSMC's current de facto monopoly position. Losing the tech lead would limit TSMC's ability to freely set prices wherever they want them. Even if the customers don't move, TSMC couldn't ignore the fact they don't have tech leadership and would have to set price accordingly.
Quantum Computing seems to be the next big thing. How is Intel doing on Quantum? TSMC has not mentioned it yet but I know they are working with Google and others on it. Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has already been.
We can speculate the true motive behind Morris Chang's comment. But is his assessment on Intel wrong?
Without competitive and superior products that market wants to buy, Intel will be doomed. To begin with, we won't have so much discussion here if Intel doesn't have the poor "product" problems for so many years.
Quantum Computing seems to be the next big thing. How is Intel doing on Quantum? TSMC has not mentioned it yet but I know they are working with Google and others on it. Skate to where the puck is going, not to where it has already been.
I agree that TSMC doesn't have to worry about Intel stealing a large amount of their volume. But I do think that Intel poses a potential threat.
Intel has decades of proof points that they can be a technology leader. If they stay on track with 18A and 14A they may be the tech leader again. Intel seems to believe this currently.
Even with tech leadership I don't see Intel putting a large dent in TSMCs business (and they don't need to). What I do see as a possibility is Intel taking the tech lead and giving TSMC's customers a large bargaining chip that impacts TSMC's current de facto monopoly position. Losing the tech lead would limit TSMC's ability to freely set prices wherever they want them. Even if the customers don't move, TSMC couldn't ignore the fact they don't have tech leadership and would have to set price accordingly.
Hold on - this doesn't seem self-consistent. If Intel competition forces TSMC to cut its prices, then that surely is a large dent in TSMC's business.
But that would require Intel having tech leadership AND cost leadership AND the appetite to initiate a price war against TSMC. If the first two were met, why wouldn't Intel price above TSMC (why price a superior product lower) ? After all, Intel has many of the same fixed costs to recover off far smaller volumes than TSMC.
I agree that TSMC doesn't have to worry about Intel stealing a large amount of their volume. But I do think that Intel poses a potential threat.
Intel has decades of proof points that they can be a technology leader. If they stay on track with 18A and 14A they may be the tech leader again. Intel seems to believe this currently.
Even with tech leadership I don't see Intel putting a large dent in TSMCs business (and they don't need to). What I do see as a possibility is Intel taking the tech lead and giving TSMC's customers a large bargaining chip that impacts TSMC's current de facto monopoly position. Losing the tech lead would limit TSMC's ability to freely set prices wherever they want them. Even if the customers don't move, TSMC couldn't ignore the fact they don't have tech leadership and would have to set price accordingly.
By now I hope people, especially Intel's new CEO and board of directors, can realize that to place TSMC as a threat to Intel's existence and try to compete against TSMC is a costly (and deadly) wrong move.
Intel's survival depends on three things: products, products, and products.
By now I hope people, especially Intel's new CEO and board of directors, can realize that to place TSMC as a threat to Intel's existence and try to compete against TSMC is a costly (and deadly) wrong move.
Intel's survival depends on three things: products, products, and products.
www.intel.ie
