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!
Jensen said exactly that. Remember, TSMC will not package other foundry die, right now it is TSMC only due to the tight packaging constraints, which I understand completely. Intel packaging has always been open which is an advantage for Intel Foundry, for now.
Do you know if Samsung offers this as well? Anything interesting you've heard from Samsung regarding advanced packaging? It seems like they are not even a contender, despite touting some interesting technologies on their website.
Not sure if location makes a big difference since TSMC probably chose Phoenix for the same reasons Intel chose it in the 90s - cheap and consistent power, and cheap land. Intel packages its dies in Vietnam anyways, the cost of shipping is very lower relative to other factors.
Plus, Intel's headquarters in Santa Clara is actually just across Highway 101 from AMD's headquarters! They can actually wave to each other from across the freeway. Nvidia's is just a few minutes down San Tomas Expressway. They call it Silicon Valley for a reason.
it's not close to Phoenix... (or maybe it's far away?)but intel is also planning to build a Advanced Packaging factory in the United States in New Mexico.
But it doesn't mean the jointly developed products will completely do away with TSMC, especially if they are based on TSMC's technologies and ecosystem. Looking ahead, in some cases Intel products may prefer to use TSMC in order to remain competitive when Intel Foundry lacks the capacity, capabilities, or capital expenditure to handle them. Glass substrate based advanced packaging may be one such case. As Lip-Bu Tan said, the best product wins.
There is still much we don't know about glass substrates.
Recent news has said that Intel has not discontinued glass substrates at all.
In fact, regarding the previous discussion about outsourcing glass substrates, I don't think a glass substrate supplier was specified at that time.
Of course, I don't think it was TSMC.
I wouldn't want to be working in Xe/GPU product department at intel today. Must be a lot of people working on updating their resumes or learning NVlink and CUDA. Any bets on how long before they announce Falcon Crest is cancelled? Although Lip-Bu closed the deal, maybe something else Pat deserves some credit for, since work started nearly a year ago.
I suspect this will be positive for intel client sales but negative for margins due to higher cost of nvidia iGPU chiplet. Huge opportunity for intel to grow their CPU/IPU product footprint in AI datacenter and potentially grow the relationship to position foundry to win some of nvidia's business in the future, if they can execute 18A/14A as planned.
Personally, I think Intel should and will continue Xe development including their rack scale, enterprise, and client solutions. If they pull the plug, it will be their “mobile 2.0” moment.
There is certainly talk inside the semiconductor ecosystem about Intel Foundry customers. From what I have heard several customers are lining up but I do not want get on Lip-Bu's naughty list. I'm sure I will hear more next week at the TSMC event here in Silicon Valley.
