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!
You're still missing the point -- it's nothing to do with efficiency/quality of individual doctors or practices/clinics either, other countries manage to deliver a much more effective and cheaper health service using them.
The problem with the US health care system is that is primarily designed...
Streamlining and automation are not the fix to the US healthcare problem, which means it spends more than any other country on poorer care. The problem is the system itself which is all about making the most money out of patients (and drugs) not providing effective cost-effective healthcare...
Looking at those Intel metal pitches above -- yes, in terms of MP and presumably CPP. Gate density is also a function of cell height/drive strength; Intel tend to focus on HP libraries (e.g. 3-fin) which are also lower density but suit their CPU products, TSMC focus more on HD libraries (e.g...
Pitches I'm comparing Intel 3 to are N3P, already relaxed in some cases compared to original Apple-only N3.
Minimum metal pitch is nothing to do with HP or HD libraries, these are different numbers of fins and metal tracks (cell height), and sometimes small differences in CPP (a few nm)...
Except for the additional power (and space and cost and complexity) needed to keep things cold, which in reality is likely to be bigger than the chip power saved by running cold especially for small systems/solutions...
(yes I read the paper you linked to, and it kind of ignores the realities...
I'd be surprised if AMD don't mix and match HD and HP cells in different blocks as needed -- why wouldn't they?
Bear in mind that the mixed-height FlexFin libraries also have tall multi-row cells for more complex cells like multi-bit flip-flops and complex multi-input gates. For example the 2-1...
The problem with moving money around like that -- even if it's legal and isn't challenged by shareholders -- is that is takes profit away from the product group which they need to use to invest in and develop new products, so why should the product group agree to this? Their best option *as a...
As I said, they need to find customers who are willing to pay a premium for things like US manufacture and security of supply -- and they'll presumably be able to get a chunk of funding from the government for this, which is justified given the current uncertainty about China's likely future...
That's true, but Samsung's leading-edge processes have been uncompetitive in recent years, including on cost/yield -- they're great at making exciting technology announcements (first to HNS!!!) but not so good at either getting competitive PPA out of them (their 3nm HNS is less dense and higher...
But future fab and process development has to be paid for by IF, not Intel Corp, because that's how the businesses are structured.
You can't keep on pretending that Intel is still an IDM -- when what you said might be true, as it is for Samsung -- when the separation specifically means that...
Small but positive margin is not enough -- to invest in and develop the next technology you need big gross margins (typically around 50%) but also big enough volume to fill and pay for the fabs.
I don't understand how anybody nowadays thinks that a (standalone) bleeding-edge fab can succeed on...
In reply to your last point, Intel as an IDM succeeded by having an effective stranglehold on the wildly successful x86 CU market by having the best products after AMD cocked it up -- for quite a few years they had both leading technology and products and were absolutely coining money. This is...
They could, but as a smaller volume foundry with lower profits than TSMC they'd then be unable to invest enough in developing the next-generation process.
I suspect they also wouldn't be able to sell much more cheaply to Intel than other IF customers now the two have been legally and...
Because that would be admitting that Intel Foundry was a failure, which wouldn't go down well either inside Intel or in the USA in general.
We went through exactly this same process when I worked for Fujitsu -- going from a traditional IDM to "IDMv2" (using both internal and external foundries)...
It's not realistic to say that IF can operate with low wafer margins to help the product group make more money on selling CPUs, because the foundry is now a separate business and has to make enough profit to be able in invest in new technologies and fabs to keep up with TSMC.
If Intel use IF to...
I agree that if Intel pull off their process they will have a technology -- and presumably products -- that are technically competitive (performance/power consumption) with AMD, for the first time in several years.
The problem is that if Intel foundry can't compete on price with TSMC -- which...
It doesn't hurt sales volume, assuming Intel have to sell at an ASP that is competitive with AMD to make customers buy them. What hurts sales is not having a competitive product, and that's why Intel server sales are dropping and AMD sales are rising.
It hurts margins/profits, since they make...
Given Intel Foundry size and costs (and yield?) compared to TSMC, I think there's zero doubt that a comparable chip -- server or laptop -- will cost more.
However gross margins on server products -- especially high-end ones -- are traditionally very high, at least 60% IIRC, so if that's reduced...
