Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/t-j-rodgers-says-chip-act-wil-do-more-damage-than-good-cnbc-now.16465/
        )

    [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
)

T J Rodgers says Chip Act wil do more damage than good, CNBC now

Arthur Hanson

Well-known member
On CNBC now, TJ says the Chips Act will screw AMD and benefit Intel. He says this punishing the good and rewarding failure in the last Chips Act did far more damage than good by only allowing the favored companies access to the top equipment and extra money. He said Intel having a business person as leader instead of a technical person ruined Intel and hurt the US chip industry more than it helped. He sees this happening again. He is one I listen to carefully. Backing failure is never a good move. Better to give the money to AMD and Nvidia is his view.
 
He just does not understand what CHIPS act is about. AMD can get as much funds from it as Intel if they build the same number of new FABs in US as Intel. Sounds quite fair to me.
Or they can take money and use it to port their products to a process technology that will be produced at those US fabs.
 
Or they can take money and use it to port their products to a process technology that will be produced at those US fabs.
Maybe this will be in CHIPS 2. Those US FABs should be built first. Besides, nobody is going to port their designs anyways. What for?
 
On CNBC now, TJ says the Chips Act will screw AMD and benefit Intel. He says this punishing the good and rewarding failure in the last Chips Act did far more damage than good by only allowing the favored companies access to the top equipment and extra money. He said Intel having a business person as leader instead of a technical person ruined Intel and hurt the US chip industry more than it helped. He sees this happening again. He is one I listen to carefully. Backing failure is never a good move. Better to give the money to AMD and Nvidia is his view.

It is corporate welfare. CHIPS Act money should go to Micron to better compete in memory. Only 2 percent of global memory supply is manufactured in the US, and all of that is produced by Micron. Without memory there is no logic.

GF and Skywater are lost causes. Intel, Samsung, and TSMC do not need it. The chip shortage is over and for those of you who think building fabs in the US will solve our geopolitical semiconductor problems you are wrong. It takes the whole world to build chips.

Let the corporate begging begin:

“The bold, historic votes taken in the Senate and House by Senator Young and Representatives Baird, Mrvan, Carson and Hollingsworth will be remembered for reigniting the private investments and public-private partnerships to solidify America’s leadership in research and development while reversing the trend of our shrinking, domestic manufacturing production,” said Thomas Sonderman, president & CEO of SkyWater Technology. “Great nations build things and these members of Congress representing Indiana joined colleagues from around the U.S. in recognizing that America needs to do more to compete in a global economy to bolster our national security and advance the foundational technologies upon which American innovators rely.”

“With the votes taken today in the House of Representatives and yesterday in the U.S. Senate, Congress has expressed broad, bipartisan and national support for leveling the playing field for competitive semiconductor manufacturing in the U.S.,” said Dr. Thomas Caulfield, president and CEO of GF. “This week, Congress took action to protect U.S. economic, supply chain and national security by accelerating semiconductor manufacturing on American soil.”

“The investment being made will pay dividends through creation of high-paying jobs, community vitality, research and development, and innovation in the U.S.,” Caulfield added. “For GlobalFoundries, joint GF-customer-government partnership is a great example of how our nation’s greatest challenges can be solved by embracing new strategies and partnering together.”

“We are grateful to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Paul Tonko, Congressman Peter Welch, CHIPS Act sponsors Congressman Michael McCaul and Congresswoman Doris Matsui, and the many steadfast leaders in the House, Senate, White House and Department of Commerce who helped us overcome obstacles and remained focused on increasing the U.S. share of global semiconductor manufacturing in America,” said Caulfield. “The leadership, persistence and spirit of collaboration and compromise on both sides of the aisle and across different branches of government are the reason we’ve reached this critical moment.”

“We applaud Congressional passage of the CHIPS Act in support of the U.S. semiconductor industry. As I testified earlier this year before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee, the CHIPS Act is beneficial for the semiconductor ecosystem and the US innovation economy at large. While the equipment sector may not be the primary focus of this bill, the inclusion of financial assistance for fab-related investments and research and development will bolster our key customers’ activities to grow US domestic chip production, of which Lam is a critical enabler. We look forward to the implementation of this important legislation.” – Tim Archer, Lam Research President and CEO
 
He just does not understand what CHIPS act is about. AMD can get as much funds from it as Intel if they build the same number of new FABs in US as Intel. Sounds quite fair to me.
TJ is a very smart guy. I'd say he knows exactly what the CHIPS Act is about ... . He never had any time for corporate welfare.
 
Will we see the consortium like SEMATECH be re-established after CHIPS Act passed and get the funding to revive technology leadership in US? SEMATECH used to lead the advanced semiconductor technology development and now imec in Europe takes the role.
 
Given how divided, dysfunctional and petty Washington is these days, I wouldn't hold my breath on a CHIPS Act 2 or CHIPS Act 3 anytime soon...much to Pat's chagrin. I mean the Senate just recently blocked the PACT Act and it previously enjoyed wide-spread bipartisan support. :rolleyes:
 
Will we see the consortium like SEMATECH be re-established after CHIPS Act passed and get the funding to revive technology leadership in US? SEMATECH used to lead the advanced semiconductor technology development and now imec in Europe takes the role.
I always thought Sematech's reputation was one of ineffectiveness and lack of results, even with Robert Noyce leading it. Having participated in industry standards groups, I can only imagine the politics and inefficiencies of a consortium like Sematech.
 
On CNBC now, TJ says the Chips Act will screw AMD and benefit Intel. He says this punishing the good and rewarding failure in the last Chips Act did far more damage than good by only allowing the favored companies access to the top equipment and extra money. He said Intel having a business person as leader instead of a technical person ruined Intel and hurt the US chip industry more than it helped. He sees this happening again. He is one I listen to carefully. Backing failure is never a good move. Better to give the money to AMD and Nvidia is his view.

This is the TJ Rodgers interview video at CNBC:

 
This is the TJ Rodgers interview video at CNBC:

Wow. What a clueless set of remarks. Chip design and chip manufacturing are interdependent, but two different industries with dramatically different skill sets required. Intel has wrestled with that conflict internally for decades, no matter how the company tries to paint the picture of deep synergy. (Just try to find a CEO qualified to be the leader and decision-maker in both fields.) Yes, processes can be tuned for specific design requirements, but the information required for driving that can be had by an independent foundry working closely with chip design customers just as much as it can by two internal corporate teams working together. What AMD does now and the perceived national problem of lack of chip manufacturing capability are orthogonal.

Nonetheless, as I'm reading more of this Chips Act Plus, the more I dislike it. Fabs are the most visible part of the chip manufacturing process, and certainly most expensive, but as Daniel said so well, "It takes the whole world to build chips." And fabs are relatively labor-cost insensitive compared to other lower-margin production steps. And I really despise industry consortiums. This Act does not impress me much.

I think the biggest problem with the entire so-called on-shoring movement is that at the CEO and BoD level it's all about financial success and profitability. If a company's competitors increase their profit margins by putting production in lower-cost geographic areas then in the long run the company will have no choice but to follow suit or get subsidized to compete. The only alternative is to own a technology which makes you a monopoly, and the price is whatever you say it is. I suppose TSMC's process lead is currently a monopoly at the smallest geometries, but as Intel and IBM have proven, that sort of lead can be fleeting. Subsidizing anything long-term creates a poorly managed and expensive distortion in the economy and likely innovation.
 
Last edited:
My view is that the CHIPS Act is driven by geopolitical concerns, not economics. The US needs secure, on-shore semiconductor manufacturing and is willing to subsidize it to make it happen - for security/political reasons, not to get cheaper chips.
Dan called out the real Achilles' heel of this approach: the semi manufacturing supply chain is very complex and very globalized. On-shore fabs deliver only part of the desired solution.
 
My view is that the CHIPS Act is driven by geopolitical concerns, not economics. The US needs secure, on-shore semiconductor manufacturing and is willing to subsidize it to make it happen - for security/political reasons, not to get cheaper chips.
Dan called out the real Achilles' heel of this approach: the semi manufacturing supply chain is very complex and very globalized. On-shore fabs deliver only part of the desired solution.
I also think it is exactly this. This is just to support national defense strategy, but is a separate line item sold with the usual trappings to garner support.

Ironically, this subsidy improves TSMCs security since a strong US economy and defense is one of the best deterrants to Chinese aggression vs. Taiwan.
 
Back
Top