Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/qualcomm-ceo-intel-is-not-an-option-today-we-would-like-intel-to-be-an-option.23557/page-4
        )

    [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] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Qualcomm CEO: Intel is not an option today. We would like Intel to be an option

Jure said:
But they did come, although they also left... The issue was, at least if we are to believe Zinsner, that 18A yields were simply rubbish and the process was not ready.
Click to expand...
There are two reasons that yields can be rubbish. First is that your process development was a failure and you never get it off the ground. I believe this is the issue with Samsung's recent processes. Second is that you are having too many issues getting your performance to hit the desired targets and you have to keep revising the process. Each process rev results in a yield hit with the result that your yields keep dropping and your process yields don't ramp up quickly. I believe this is Intel's issue.

When Intel was strictly operating as an IDM they could get away with ramping yield late because they could just jam the line full of product, live with the yield hit, and still get by. Intel could make this work by just starting lots to hit and maintain an inventory level. It doesn't matter which lot gets out of the fab, you just scrap a bad lot and expedite a good lot to fill the gap. As a foundry they are going to have to build to order rather than to maintain inventory levels. This means they can't afford to have lots being scrapped because they aren't going to necessarily have more lots in line for that product that they can expedite. So early yield is more important as a foundry than it was under the IDM model.

Not sure if I've explained that well. If not I'm happy to try and clarify.
 
Jure said:
yields on PTL are still not good enough and this is a small die.
Click to expand...
That not what he said he said the yield were not in a good position few months back now it's fine cause they were adjusting the performance of PTL.
Artificer60 said:
Completely agree, Intel missed the PDK window for 18A. By the time they were where they needed to be the TSMC ship had sailed. If Intel foundry is going to work 14A PDK 0.5 must be out by end of Q4 or early Q1'26.
Click to expand...
The PDK 0.5 is out I think DZ said on a call.
 
Artificer60 said:
Thought he said PDK 0.3, but I could be mistaken on that. If 0.5 is out then that bodes well for Intel 14A.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/x/status/1964697518580924794
nice chart for reference
1757738790394.jpeg
 
siliconbruh999 said:
That not what he said he said the yield were not in a good position few months back now it's fine cause they were adjusting the performance of PTL.
Click to expand...
I don't know which transcript you were looking at, but all I could find were statements that performance is good and they are making yield progress. At no place it clearly states that yields are good. If they were, they would be ramping it right now, to get the thing to market as soon as possible.
Deutsche Bank's 2025 conference DZ interview transcript: https://seekingalpha.com/article/48...e-banks-2025-technology-conference-transcript
Another one from citi's conference:
https://www.investing.com/news/tran...e-strategic-initiatives-unveiled-93CH-4225197
 
Jure said:
I don't know which transcript you were looking at, but all I could find were statements that performance is good and they are making yield progress. At no place it clearly states that yields are good. If they were, they would be ramping it right now, to get the thing to market as soon as possible.
Deutsche Bank's 2025 conference DZ interview transcript: https://seekingalpha.com/article/48...e-banks-2025-technology-conference-transcript
Another one from citi's conference:
https://www.investing.com/news/tran...e-strategic-initiatives-unveiled-93CH-4225197
Click to expand...
Seems you are right
No. I mean we're taking all the learnings of how -- obviously, this was elongated in terms of our improvement on 18A. We would have liked to have gotten yield stabilized sooner. But as we were adjusting performance, yield tends to be what gets impacted.

We're in a good -- really good place on the performance, and now we're making kind of steady incremental improvement on yields on 18A. And we'll take those learnings to help us on 14A. But there are differences. I mean with 18A, it was a process that we've intersected -- or intercepted early to make it a Foundry node. Whereas 14A from the ground up was always built to be a Foundry node.
Click to expand...
Found it looks like misremembered something 😅.
 
hist78 said:
I’ve always felt that Intel’s IDM business model is too complicated to manage. There are many serious internal and external conflicts of interest that make Intel difficult to manage, let alone win over customers who are also competing with Intel.
Click to expand...
It's better than Samsung, which does a lot of stuff.
At least Intel is focused on the semiconductor field.
 
MKWVentures said:
excellent point.

Both Intel and Samsung were dominant leaders, very aggressive and very scary. Both are struggling now in this new world. Is it a coincidence?
Click to expand...
In other words, the new world will not need any other semiconductor manufacturing companies other than TSMC.
 
MKWVentures said:
18A was announced in 2021 as undisputed leader for foundry. Pat thought every customer would sign up and be happy to use Intel. Everyone ran a test chip. No one has taped out. Qualcomm seems completely disinterested in what Intel does.

Intel needs to get some back up sourcing and 2nd waver sourcing commits ASAP.

Note: Internal is not the same as foundry..... what made Intel great on IDM (Manufacturing, TD, Design, marketing working together ... no IP arguments) is the opposite of what they need for foundry (deliver a stable product and low cost for multiple customers). LBT has already reset the "dont share info with customers, customers are potential enemies" culture... so that is good
Click to expand...
Ditch the Foundry
Let me go bankrupt...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top