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!
IMO the 5N4Y is just marketing in reality we got 3 Process or 4 if you count Intel 3/4 as different I7/I4/I18A 20A was canned so I wouldn't count it as a process.We can count 4+Power Via as a process it is quite a complex thing in it self it's vauge but they definitely covered Major ground vs competition.
They Will be 15% behind SRAM vs TSMC N2 (ISSCC 25) and around 10% behind Density vs N2 and 5% in PPW behind N2 PPA Estimation from Dan's comment of
N3X<18A<N2 which is very nice
Reference
How would TSMC react if Nvidia would make a bid to acquire Intel? I think that would disturb the computing market competition (laptops, HPC, supercomputers, etc.) and perhaps Nvidia would go into the CPU market too (similar to AMD). Intel is working in quantum computing and AI so it is perhaps a good deal.
I would be far more concerned about the hit to morale that Intel would take if Musk acquired them. From what I've seen at X he has not won the hearts and minds of the employees. Intel's employee morale has got to be at an all time low and another significant blow could cause the whole house of cards to collapse. Whoever they bring in as the new CEO is going to have to walk pretty carefully for the first couple of years to win employee trust and convince employees that the company has a future. Rather than another massive bloodletting I would thing a more cautious approach of only allowing hiring for limited roles over the next couple of years would produce better results.
I'm also not sure that the bloat is the problem so much as it is a symptom of the real problem. Intel has had several major head count reductions over the last couple of decades and each time the bloat comes back. This leads me to believe that the issue is the bureaucratic culture that resulting in excessive hiring of middle managers. Unless the cultural issues are addressed, then cutting more heads isn't going to solve anything in the long term. Intel will just rehire when they finally get the ship righted and will start the whole cycle again.
Musk is a dynamic engineering leader with expertise ranging from aerospace to software to the automotive sector. He’s more qualified than Intel CEOs like Bob Swan and BK IMO.
Would it be cheaper for Musk to simply serve as CEO? In this case, there would be no regulatory hurdles or financial transactions involved. MJ and DZ are already in place, so Musk would only need to focus on instilling cost discipline, fostering a competitive culture, and attracting customers to Intel's foundry services.
Musk is a dynamic engineering leader with expertise ranging from aerospace to software to the automotive sector. He’s more qualified than Intel CEOs like Bob Swan and BK IMO.
In short Products will succeed and Foundry will fail.
Intel's product and foundry are interlinked for foreseeable future imo the thing is improve Foundry efficiency by filling it with products as much as possible and than selling the rest of capacity for external customer on guaranteed basis meanwhile Products needs to get their act together
I just don’t see a purchase of Intel being approved by China, ever. The US has its cards to play in the tech war and China has its own. They would gladly see it die rather than be saved.
I don't understand why a US company buying another US company needs China's approval. I am sure US government can simply pass a law saying foreign government has no right to block M&A in US.
I don't understand why a US company buying another US company needs China's approval. I am sure US government can simply pass a law saying foreign government has no right to block M&A in US.
Intel has operations in China. If they want to legally do business and sell product there, they need to follow Chinese law. So, unless Intel wants to give up its second-largest market and lose its assembly test site in Chengdu. It is a no-go. If it were as easy as saying "you have no authority over us", Intel would have bought Tower.
I think the simplest approach for Elon would be to purchase shares on the open market, acquiring less than 5%. Then, he could request a seat on the board, stating that he aims to help turn Intel around by focusing on the following objectives:
* Instilling cost discipline
* Fostering a competitive culture
* Attracting customers to Intel's foundry services
According to Google's search result, Jensen owns only 3.79% of Nvidia's stocks, which demonstrates that it is not necessary to own the entire company to have significant influence.
Completely agree he was overly optimistic and that resulted in some of the problems we are seeing now. However, IIRC correctly he announced 5N4Y in the summer of 2021. That gives Intel until summer of 2025 to complete this. It is also my understanding that Panther Lake is going to be available by the end of this year which means 18A will need to be in production no later than the middle of this year. So I'm not sure how you can say this has failed yet? If Panther Lake launches this year, I think it is fair to say that Intel hit this goal. Though, realistically I don't think we will know until the end of this year, unless Intel pushes the Panther Lake launch date out before then.
I do not consider Intel 3 and 4 to be separate nodes, nor do I consider Intel 20 and 18A to be separate nodes. I also feel Intel 10 is not to be celebrated, it was a disaster. If you look back at the Intel Tick-Tock strategy it was a corporate strategy that we all respected. I have discussed the Intel 5N4Y strategy with many other semiconductor insiders and we all think it is a joke. These are the same people who would be Intel Foundry partners and customers.
I get that 5N4Y rallied the Intel troops and played well to Wall Street and the Intel BoD, but for those of use who know semiconductor history it was a joke. It set expectations too high and Pat G. got fired for it. Even Ann Kelleher was not on board with it. We asked her about 5N4Y at a press lunch way back when and she literally rolled her eyes. Maybe if Intel 10, 3, and 18A were industry leading nodes Pat could have gotten away with it but that was not the case.
But then again, would a 3N4Y strategy have gotten Pat the CEO job?
Musk actually did an investor takeover of sorts with Tesla and the founders were none to pleased. Would Tesla have been as successful without Musk? Probably not. But it was not a turn-around type of deal that Intel is. Could Musk be brokering a deal for Trump? Certainly possible.
The other problem I have is with GlobalFoundries being involved is that they are not a US owned company. Would that really fly? Giving Intel manufacturing to Abu Dhabi? They got AMD and IBM semiconductor manufacturing I guess but would they are just milking those cows. Is Intel manufacturing really going out to pasture?
Musk actually did an investor takeover of sorts with Tesla and the founders were none to pleased. Would Tesla have been as successful without Musk? Probably not. But it was not a turn-around type of deal that Intel is. Could Musk be brokering a deal for Trump? Certainly possible.
The other problem I have is with GlobalFoundries being involved is that they are not a US owned company. Would that really fly? Giving Intel manufacturing to Abu Dhabi? They got AMD and IBM semiconductor manufacturing I guess but would they are just milking those cows. Is Intel manufacturing really going out to pasture?
Again, it is more pragmatic for Elon to be an active investor rather than a suitor. This approach demonstrates confidence in U.S. manufacturing and would garner broader support.
In fact, Tesla and Intel are facing similar challenges. Tesla is competing with BYD, while Intel is competing with TSMC. Both companies require U.S. government policy interventions.
Intel (NASDAQ:INTC) shares surged nearly 9% on Friday as rumors of a potential takeover reignited investor excitement. The technology news site SemiAccurate sparked...
www.tipranks.com
I also don’t understand the involvement of GF. Based on what we’ve discussed here, it seems TSMC is leading in process technology, followed by Intel and then Samsung. GF is not typically mentioned in such discussions. Additionally, for Intel, the IDM model is crucial for its turnaround.
How would TSMC react if Nvidia would make a bid to acquire Intel? I think that would disturb the computing market competition (laptops, HPC, supercomputers, etc.) and perhaps Nvidia would go into the CPU market too (similar to AMD). Intel is working in quantum computing and AI so it is perhaps a good deal.
Small shareholders are still owners of the company. Just as others cannot purchase your house without your consent, the same principle should apply to small shareholders in a company to some extent. In the case of Intel, the majority owners are institutional investors with significantly higher cost bases. Therefore, I believe they would prefer to see a high valuation. I think this was one of the reasons why PG was pushed out, as his approach was severely straining Intel's cash flows and, in turn, depressing the share price.
For further details, including technical specifics, you can refer to resources like this one:
Learn about the different types of mergers and acquisitions including horizontal, vertical, and more categories of acquisition from the experts at CT Corporation.
