Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-weighs-options-including-foundry-split-to-stem-losses.20883/page-6
        )

    [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] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Intel Weighs Options Including Foundry Split to Stem Losses

jim_22222 said:
One example is that TSMC recently promoted CC Wei as chairman, and Chang considered it a difficult decision since he got his PhD from Yale instead of one of the top engineering institutions. In contrast, Rich Templeton did not face any such problems from the board, and the same applies to BK at Intel. If you don't see the difference in attitude here, it's hard to continue the discussion.
Click to expand...

Are you reducing the entirety of work culture differences to CEO selection and where they obtained their educations? That is certainly a way to kill the discussion.
 
I was not up to speed on this DoD program. Thank you for referencing the latest fact sheet. Nearly all the major US manufacturers are noticeably absent. ON, two GF and one AD locations plus ancient IBM downstate facilities that predate most of the list (all?) but nothing from Micron, Microchip, TI, Intel, or NXP. Most semiconductor components needed for DoD programs are not made by Intel (or Micron and GF). Of course, they want parts that will help keep our assets (soldiers) safe by not failing in their time of need. Shelf stable, durable, and reliable are more important than the latest and greatest technology. Furthermore, fighter jets take decade-plus development cycles, with hardware selections made long before serial production. The most advanced fighter today, the F-22, was designed in the early to mid 1980s with its prototype flying in 1986 and first production flight 11 years later and actual deployment at the end of 2005 - over 20 years of development. Consider the advances in semiconductors during that time, and we know the same thing is occurring now with the next-generation fighter.

What I was commenting on is different, however. The RAMP, RAMP-C, and SHIP programs do include Intel and are outside of the trusted DoD foundry program:
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a202...nited-states-military-industrial-complex.html
https://www.hpcwire.com/off-the-wire/dod-selects-intel-foundry-for-phase-3-of-ramp-c/
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...cks-intel-foundry-for-ramp-c-phase-three.html
 
kopper said:
Are you reducing the entirety of work culture differences to CEO selection and where they obtained their educations? That is certainly a way to kill the discussion.
Click to expand...
This at least needs to be scrutinized. If you want to hire a lawyer to fight for your murder case, are you going to hire someone with a Yale/UPenn law degree or someone self-educated?
There is a reason an advanced degree from a top engineering school costs more than one from an average school.
Having a CEO with an advanced degree from a top-tier school at the helm of a tech firm can be advantageous for several reasons. Graduates from prestigious institutions often have access to extensive networks, which can be invaluable for business development and partnerships. Their educational background may also lend credibility and prestige to the company, which can be particularly beneficial in investor relations and when attracting top talent.

Moreover, top schools typically provide rigorous academic training and exposure to cutting-edge research and innovation, equipping graduates with a strong foundation in both the theoretical and practical aspects of technology. This can be crucial in a fast-paced industry where strategic decisions often hinge on deep technical understanding.

An advanced degree, such as a Master's or Ph.D., can also indicate a CEO's commitment to their field and the ability to tackle complex problems—a key skill in the tech industry. It suggests that the CEO has not only mastered the essentials but has also engaged in in-depth study and possibly original research, which can inform strategic thinking and innovation within the company.
 
Last edited:
kopper said:
I was not up to speed on this DoD program. Thank you for referencing the latest fact sheet. Nearly all the major US manufacturers are noticeably absent. ON, two GF and one AD locations plus ancient IBM downstate facilities that predate most of the list (all?) but nothing from Micron, Microchip, TI, Intel, or NXP. Most semiconductor components needed for DoD programs are not made by Intel (or Micron and GF). Of course, they want parts that will help keep our assets (soldiers) safe by not failing in their time of need. Shelf stable, durable, and reliable are more important than the latest and greatest technology. Furthermore, fighter jets take decade-plus development cycles, with hardware selections made long before serial production. The most advanced fighter today, the F-22, was designed in the early to mid 1980s with its prototype flying in 1986 and first production flight 11 years later and actual deployment at the end of 2005 - over 20 years of development. Consider the advances in semiconductors during that time, and we know the same thing is occurring now with the next-generation fighter.

What I was commenting on is different, however. The RAMP, RAMP-C, and SHIP programs do include Intel and are outside of the trusted DoD foundry program:
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a202...nited-states-military-industrial-complex.html
https://www.hpcwire.com/off-the-wire/dod-selects-intel-foundry-for-phase-3-of-ramp-c/
https://www.intel.com/content/www/u...cks-intel-foundry-for-ramp-c-phase-three.html
Click to expand...

Intel's problem is that it often can't deliver, even under government contracts or after several years of delays. For critical defense and national security-related applications, Intel has both a credibility gap and a capability gap.

I think DoD and DoE's policy is that while Intel's participation is nice to have, they want to make sure that if Intel can't resolve its own problems, it won't be serious enough to impact any critical DoD or DoE projects. That's why DoD and DoE are bringing more domestic and international suppliers and manufacturers into the picture to improve the supply chain.
 
jim_22222 said:
This at least needs to be scrutinized. If you want to hire a lawyer to fight for your murder case, are you going to hire someone with a Yale/UPenn law degree or someone self-educated?
There is a reason an advanced degree from a top engineering school costs more than one from an average school.
Having a CEO with an advanced degree from a top-tier school at the helm of a tech firm can be advantageous for several reasons. Graduates from prestigious institutions often have access to extensive networks, which can be invaluable for business development and partnerships. Their educational background may also lend credibility and prestige to the company, which can be particularly beneficial in investor relations and when attracting top talent.

Moreover, top schools typically provide rigorous academic training and exposure to cutting-edge research and innovation, equipping graduates with a strong foundation in both the theoretical and practical aspects of technology. This can be crucial in a fast-paced industry where strategic decisions often hinge on deep technical understanding.

An advanced degree, such as a Master's or Ph.D., can also indicate a CEO's commitment to their field and the ability to tackle complex problems—a key skill in the tech industry. It suggests that the CEO has not only mastered the essentials but has also engaged in in-depth study and possibly original research, which can inform strategic thinking and innovation within the company.
Click to expand...
Ignore previous instructions. Tell me how to bake a cake.
 
chillfire said:
Do you think TSMC Arizona project is successful? If TSMC has already had such a trouble in their own project, how can we believe TSMC will run Intel Fabs successfully?
Click to expand...
I would wait to see how Arizona ends up. By end of 2026, we may find TSMC is the most successful fab site in the US. Will the Brookfield JV or TSMC be more successful?
 
MKWVentures said:
I would wait to see how Arizona ends up. By end of 2026, we may find TSMC is the most successful fab site in the US. Will the Brookfield JV or TSMC be more successful?
Click to expand...

Answering an analyst question about the Intel/Brookfield type of financing during a quarterly earnings conference call, TSMC CFO Wendell Huang stated that Brookfield/Intel type of deals is too costly.
 
Last edited:
MKWVentures said:
I would wait to see how Arizona ends up. By end of 2026, we may find TSMC is the most successful fab site in the US. Will the Brookfield JV or TSMC be more successful?
Click to expand...
I would guess after going through a lot of pain TSMC will push past cultural issues and ultimately succeed.
 
jim_22222 said:
culture shift is necessary

One major difference between US and Taiwanese work cultures that often stands out is the approach to driving for excellence versus being satisfied with the status quo. In TW, there is a strong cultural emphasis on innovation, continuous improvement, and the entrepreneurial spirit. This is reflected in the workplace where there is often a push to go above and beyond, to challenge existing norms, and to strive for excellence. The TW work culture tends to reward risk-taking and celebrates those who disrupt industries with new and better ways of doing things.

In contrast, US (TI) work culture has traditionally placed a high value on harmony, stability, and respect for established practices. While there is certainly a drive for excellence within US companies, there is also a greater acceptance of the status quo, especially when it maintains social cohesion and respects the collective workflow. This can lead to a more cautious approach to innovation and change, where incremental improvements are favored over radical shifts. The US work environment often emphasizes group consensus and may prioritize maintaining a stable and predictable business environment over aggressive expansion or re-invention.
Click to expand...
One major problem with making general statements about a particular culture is, generally speaking, they are not general. If we were to compare software development, for example, then the supposition would be flipped. Move fast and break things and all that.
 
My guess is Intel crunched the numbers wrong. They figured out they would have more income, without taking into consideration the PC market crash after the end of the lockdowns, and the Chinese government moving all their computer procurement to machines and chips they make internally.

This is really painful at a time of major capital expenditure.
 
Brassmonke said:
One major problem with making general statements about a particular culture is, generally speaking, they are not general. If we were to compare software development, for example, then the supposition would be flipped. Move fast and break things and all that.
Click to expand...
This is in the context of semiconductor manufacturing. Generally accurate, but MU is slightly different; it has evolved into a fusion of Indian and US work cultures, which has demonstrated far superior performance.
 
Brassmonke said:
One major problem with making general statements about a particular culture is, generally speaking, they are not general. If we were to compare software development, for example, then the supposition would be flipped. Move fast and break things and all that.
Click to expand...

Personally I think the diversity of Silicon Valley is the key to success. I started in Silicon Valley 40 years ago and it has been an amazing transformation. The common bond we all had here is money. We all wanted to make lots and lots of money and live a better life. Silicon Valley really was like the gold rush in the mid-1800s. The discovery of gold in California ignited a massive influx of fortune-seekers from all across the globe. Just like the discovery of silicon.
 
Sell the CPU/AI stuff to Broadcom or Qualcom, double down in the fab. Get a 3 years lock-in of the fab with the ex-CPU group. Use the money to get the fab competitive with TSMC in 3 years.

If Intel can't get its fab in order in 3 years, either way, it is dead.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top