Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/what-is-really-going-on-with-intel%E2%80%99s-18a-process.20944/page-5
        )

    [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
)

What is really going on with Intel’s 18a process?

Daniel Nenni said:
I was talking about I/O support for a complex SoC type of chip not a chiplet but I could certainly be miss informed. Did Intel actually make a full chip at 4 or 20A? Or is it just theoretically possible that they could?

At a minimum PG was disingenuous about 5N4Y. Intel 7 took years to make it into HVM, nothing to brag about at all. Intel 3/4 is one node and Intel 20/18A is another node. If you talk about development time it took Intel 8 years to do 3 nodes? If you are talking about just releasing nodes Intel released 3 nodes in 4 years and only one of those is in HVM at the full chip level, right?

TSMC made no such claim, they know better than that, so why even mention it? My criteria here is honesty and PG failed on this one.

The problem with PR BS like this is that it sets expectations incorrectly, which is what PG is paying for now. PG and whoever else owns Intel stock. Other CEOs have been fired for less, including the two previous Intel CEOs.
Click to expand...
Well the previous CEO destroyed the company so I can't say they are fired for less than pat🤣
 
hist78 said:
When it comes to chips for national security and weapon system-related applications, many non-Intel U.S. manufacturers have been providing solutions for a long time. In fact, in several areas, Intel doesn’t have a viable product at all. Intel is trying to make people believe that Intel is the most important, if not the sole, supplier of chips for these critical applications. But this is far from the truth.
Click to expand...
What I meant is that in case there is a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, there would be a backup supply. Intel and TSMC could collaborate to build a backup supply instead of building two separate ones.
 
kevin01 said:
Fundamentally, there is a difference in seeing where the majority of Intel's value is. Pat G probably thinks it is in the foundry business, and today, a large part (if not the majority) of the investor community seem to think that it is in the products.

I am with Pat G on this matter. TSMC's valuation is $800B+, while AMD is worth $245B today. Note that TSMC is meaningfully discounted because it is a Taiwanese company (in other words, if TSMC were a US company, it would be valued a lot higher), while AMD is probably over valued somewhat.

Now, imagine Intel just close its fab business, and becomes a pure product company. What will happen? Is intel suddenly going to make a lot of money in AI accelerators? No, it will still be a No.3 player at best in AI for quite some time. The market does not place high value with No.3 or even No.2 when the No.1 makes more than 10 times of money than you (just look at Google search v.s bing). X86 business can at best hold its market share when hyperscalers such as AWS and GCP are all developing their own ARM based chips. Also note that, in previous decades, Intel's dominance in CPU business was most likely because it had the best manufacturing technology, and much less because its product design was so much better than competition. Today's Lunar lake success is also most likely due to a superior process node (N3B) v.s. competition.

On the other hand, over the many years in its dominant position, Intel probably has accumulated a lot of R&D potentially crucial in future foundry business (one example is at https://semiengineering.com/the-race-to-glass-substrates/), why just throw them away when returning to technology leadership seems near?
Click to expand...

In the foundry business, the second-largest and other smaller players often struggle to make significant profits and frequently find it difficult to maintain revenue growth.

On the other hand, multiple companies in the fabless industry—such as Nvidia, Qualcomm, TI, MediaTek, and Broadcom—are very profitable.

Intel also makes majority of profits from its products, not from the foundry services. This has always been the case and will likely remain so in the coming years, at least until a split.
 
XYang2023 said:
What I meant is that in case there is a conflict in the Taiwan Strait, there would be a backup supply. Intel and TSMC could collaborate to build a backup supply instead of building two separate ones.
Click to expand...

Intel has a poor track record of delivering products to customers on time and within budget. Apple walked away from Intel partially due to this issue, and the U.S. government has had similarly painful experiences.

For U.S. policymakers, TSMC's Arizona fabs serve as a Plan B for the risk of a Pacific conflict. It's a simpler and familiar approach that the U.S. government frequently uses.
 
hist78 said:
Intel has a poor track record of delivering products to customers on time and within budget. Apple walked away from Intel partially due to this issue, and the U.S. government has had similarly painful experiences.

For U.S. policymakers, TSMC's Arizona fabs serve as a Plan B for the risk of a Pacific conflict. It's a simpler and familiar approach that the U.S. government frequently uses.
Click to expand...
That is not enough.

www.insurancejournal.com

If China Invades Taiwan, It Would Cost World Economy $10 Trillion

War over Taiwan would have a cost in blood and treasure so vast that even those unhappiest with the status quo have reason not to risk it. Bloomberg
www.insurancejournal.com www.insurancejournal.com
 
Last edited:
hist78 said:
In the foundry business, the second-largest and other smaller players often struggle to make significant profits and frequently find it difficult to maintain revenue growth.
Click to expand...
The two largest foundries have been TSMC and Intel (counting Intel's own products as customers) for quite a long time. Both of them made good money until Intel stumbled in keeping its technology leadership in late 2010s.

A duopoly situation is much healthier for the whole industry.
 
XYang2023 said:
That is not enough.
Click to expand...

If you're referring to semiconductor needs related to national security or weapon systems, the recipients of the CHIPS Act will be likely sufficient.

However, if you're talking about meeting all the demand from the commercial and civilian applications, that's beyond the scope and goal of the CHIPS Act. U.S. policymakers are not aiming for that either.
 
Last edited:
kevin01 said:
The two largest foundries have been TSMC and Intel (counting Intel's own products as customers) for quite a long time. Both of them made good money until Intel stumbled in keeping its technology leadership in late 2010s.

A duopoly situation is much healthier for the whole industry.
Click to expand...

It's Intel product division making a lot of money, not the Intel's manufacturing division (now call Intel Foundry). Actually I don't think the Intel Foundry was a profit center or cared too much about its profit margin at all in the past. IDM business model makes them working under one roof with only one company goal.
 
XYang2023 said:
Click to expand...

I followed that event and shared my comments on Semiwiki a while back. I was actually in the audience at the Berkshire Hathaway annual shareholders meeting when Mr. Buffett answered a question related to it. In my opinion, the answer he gave wasn’t really an answer at all.

Mr. Buffett does have a reason for selling TSMC shares, though it's not entirely logical. In fact, some of his other investments contradict the reasoning behind his decision to sell TSMC.

If necessary, we can discuss this in another thread. Otherwise, this one might drag us to too many directions for the current thread.
 
kevin01 said:
I suspect LNL and ARL primarily in N3 was a decision made much earlier than Jun 2023. It was claimed by various sources that Bob Swan pre-purhcased TSMC capacity.

They did intend to build low sku of ARL in 20A, but changed their mind to save money. They even stopped free employee coffee to save money, which honestly did not save much money, so I can totoally understand why they stopped 20A here, even though it wad a bad look.

I don't think there is any credibility issue here, as 20A was never communicated for external uses.
Click to expand...
Lunar Lake was always outsource. ARL was planned internal. there were parallel backup plans. Pat announced 20A Arrow lake repeatedly.
 
XYang2023 said:
That is not enough.

www.insurancejournal.com

If China Invades Taiwan, It Would Cost World Economy $10 Trillion

War over Taiwan would have a cost in blood and treasure so vast that even those unhappiest with the status quo have reason not to risk it. Bloomberg
www.insurancejournal.com www.insurancejournal.com
Click to expand...

The Silicon Shield is the national security plan:

thediplomat.com

Silicon Shield 2.0: A Taiwan Perspective

Does Taiwan’s leading position in the semiconductor industry, often referred to as the “Silicon Shield,” actually protect it, or does it increase the risks Taiwan faces?
thediplomat.com
 
dkr1986 said:
Intel to Produce Custom AI Fabric Chip on Intel 18A and Custom Xeon 6 Chip on Intel 3 for AWS; Multi-Year, Multi-Billion-Dollar Collaboration Accelerates Development of Chip Manufacturing in Ohio

Click to expand...
www.intel.com

Intel, AWS Expand Strategic Collaboration, Helping Advance U.S.-Based...

Intel to Produce Custom AI Fabric Chip on Intel 18A and Custom Xeon 6 Chip on Intel 3 for AWS; Multi-Year, Multi-Billion-Dollar Collaboration Accelerates Development of Chip Manufacturing in Ohio.
www.intel.com www.intel.com

I wonder what an AI fabric chip is?
 
MKWVentures said:
Lunar Lake was always outsource. ARL was planned internal. there were parallel backup plans. Pat announced 20A Arrow lake repeatedly.
Click to expand...
According to MLID Arrow lake was initially planned as all TSMC. Only later 20A was pulled in and they decided to do some SKUs on 20A
 
lefty said:
According to MLID Arrow lake was initially planned as all TSMC. Only later 20A was pulled in and they decided to do some SKUs on 20A
Click to expand...
OK if we want to be accurate:
All Intel Client products from 2024 on were supposed to be TSMC before Pat arrived. This was the plan
Pat came in and changed all that. Pat set the goal of 20A leadership (18A wasnt announced yet). Pat targetted the main client CPU to be on that process. Internal and external roadmaps show this.
Intel had parallel design efforts on many products over the past 3 years. Internal and external.
The finances didnt make sense for ramping 20A, so they didnt. I have no idea how well the process does or does not work.

I am not sure why we think 20A was pulled in? the 2021 presentations seem pretty clear.
 
Seems to me Intel and Pat have pulled a rabbit out of their hat and everyone just wants to criticize. As recent as early 2021, Intel was way behind TSMC in processing technology mainly due to their failure to embrace EUV when TSMC did. Pat laid out his ambititous 5N4Y plan in 2021and it is all but done, despite many critics at the time saying it was impossible. Yes, people can argue over which nodes are really nodes and which are half nodes, but that's not the point. The point is Intel, a company that had years of delays and years of issues, is actually doing something amazing and doing it on time (even ahead of schedule by some measures). Intel in general is doing significantly better on launching things on time under Pat, not just in fab development, but for products. As for the stock price and financial media, I'm convinced that Wall St "analysts" have no clue. Did they really think Intel Foundry was going to be rolling in money just a few months after 18A becomes viable? Do they not know the time scales involved in this industry? It should have been no surprise that IFS will take until '27 to get rolling. It should also be no surprise how much money ramping fabs takes.. But Wall St seemed to react violently and surprised when IFS split their books and showed a $7B loss...come on...really? Again, Intel is doing amazing things and it will take another 1-2 years for Intel to gain back the trust they once had, and for a while for some of the big potential customers to warm up to IFS. Luckily, the hyperscaler software companies are designing chips and IFS has already scored 18A customer wins for MSFT and Amazon custom AI chips. That will certainly help win credibility.
 
jabo said:
Seems to me Intel and Pat have pulled a rabbit out of their hat and everyone just wants to criticize. As recent as early 2021, Intel was way behind TSMC in processing technology mainly due to their failure to embrace EUV when TSMC did. Pat laid out his ambititous 5N4Y plan in 2021and it is all but done, despite many critics at the time saying it was impossible. Yes, people can argue over which nodes are really nodes and which are half nodes, but that's not the point. The point is Intel, a company that had years of delays and years of issues, is actually doing something amazing and doing it on time (even ahead of schedule by some measures). Intel in general is doing significantly better on launching things on time under Pat, not just in fab development, but for products. As for the stock price and financial media, I'm convinced that Wall St "analysts" have no clue. Did they really think Intel Foundry was going to be rolling in money just a few months after 18A becomes viable? Do they not know the time scales involved in this industry? It should have been no surprise that IFS will take until '27 to get rolling. It should also be no surprise how much money ramping fabs takes.. But Wall St seemed to react violently and surprised when IFS split their books and showed a $7B loss...come on...really? Again, Intel is doing amazing things and it will take another 1-2 years for Intel to gain back the trust they once had, and for a while for some of the big potential customers to warm up to IFS. Luckily, the hyperscaler software companies are designing chips and IFS has already scored 18A customer wins for MSFT and Amazon custom AI chips. That will certainly help win credibility.
Click to expand...

Rabbit out of their hat? Perhaps, but I would not call their work complete until products on 18A have come out. Intel 10nm came out late in 2019, Intel 7nm (now Intel 4 and 3) barely launched (late again) at the end of 2023/Q1 2024, and Intel 5nm (20A and 18A) is due to launch 1H 2025, and will be the first node (in over a decade at Intel) that is actually on schedule.

Understandably, companies are waiting to see the success of 14A (previously called 3nm) in old roadmaps. Pat's indicator of Intel going back to a "normalized" cadence of node development does not necessarily bode well for me - Intel tried accelerating to catch up and it seems like they did - but if they slow down a bit how do we not know they are going to go back to old habits and encounter numerous delays?
 
TICin852 said:
Rabbit out of their hat? Perhaps, but I would not call their work complete until products on 18A have come out. Intel 10nm came out late in 2019, Intel 7nm (now Intel 4 and 3) barely launched (late again) at the end of 2023/Q1 2024, and Intel 5nm (20A and 18A) is due to launch 1H 2025, and will be the first node (in over a decade at Intel) that is actually on schedule.
Click to expand...
Intel 3 launched on time it is the only node that is not delayed along with Sierra forest today they are launching Granite Rappids on Intel 3 like their schedule
TICin852 said:
Understandably, companies are waiting to see the success of 14A (previously called 3nm) in old roadmaps. Pat's indicator of Intel going back to a "normalized" cadence of node development does not necessarily bode well for me - Intel tried accelerating to catch up and it seems like they did - but if they slow down a bit how do we not know they are going to go back to old habits and encounter numerous delays?
Click to expand...
Companies want to see 18A which will decide fate of 14A
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top