- Oct 22, 2004
- 793
- 1,326
- 136
As many of you will know, Jim Keller, the CPU architecture design guru, joined Intel in April this year, to lead the company's silicon engineering, in particular SoC development and integration (news release). What do you think his primary role and influence will be at Intel?
Recently, as part of my speculation about the current and future prospects of Intel's integrated design and manufacturing model, I was struck by commentary that pointed out how interwoven chip design and manufacturing process are at Intel, and how different this is to the foundry model, where automation, standard cells and design libraries abstract much of the manufacturing details, and hence creates a simpler, more efficient and more flexible design flow for the chip designer, albeit with the loss of some control and optimisation.
This made me think back 10 years to the days when ex-CEO Dirk Meyer at AMD dealt with a similar issue, grappling with going fabless, and the integration of AMD and ATI, and their different design cultures — ATI being used to the foundry model, while AMD was still ingrained with the integrated model. I seem to recall that there was discontent from some of the old-school chip designers, who disliked the disruption, and were reluctant to move to a foundry model with new design tools and methodologies.
With this in mind, it occurred to me that maybe Jim Keller's primary role will be to oversee a similar transition at Intel, adopting a nimbler chip design business model, more akin to the fabless and foundry models, and thus more in line with the industry common practice. These changes would make Intel's design and manufacture divisions more independent and flexible, allowing the design division to more easily purchase wafers externally if necessary, and allowing the manufacturing division to operate more like a common foundry, hence attracting external customers.
Recently, as part of my speculation about the current and future prospects of Intel's integrated design and manufacturing model, I was struck by commentary that pointed out how interwoven chip design and manufacturing process are at Intel, and how different this is to the foundry model, where automation, standard cells and design libraries abstract much of the manufacturing details, and hence creates a simpler, more efficient and more flexible design flow for the chip designer, albeit with the loss of some control and optimisation.
This made me think back 10 years to the days when ex-CEO Dirk Meyer at AMD dealt with a similar issue, grappling with going fabless, and the integration of AMD and ATI, and their different design cultures — ATI being used to the foundry model, while AMD was still ingrained with the integrated model. I seem to recall that there was discontent from some of the old-school chip designers, who disliked the disruption, and were reluctant to move to a foundry model with new design tools and methodologies.
With this in mind, it occurred to me that maybe Jim Keller's primary role will be to oversee a similar transition at Intel, adopting a nimbler chip design business model, more akin to the fabless and foundry models, and thus more in line with the industry common practice. These changes would make Intel's design and manufacture divisions more independent and flexible, allowing the design division to more easily purchase wafers externally if necessary, and allowing the manufacturing division to operate more like a common foundry, hence attracting external customers.
Last edited: