Is this possible? Just to catch up with AMD. How long can their internal process struggle before they take action?
First mover clients (like e.g. Apple) essentially pay for the capacity TSMC builds up each gen to be sufficient for their purpose. If Intel were to use TSMC they'd definitely try to be a first mover. Thus the capacity issue is a completely non-issue in that context.TSMC has fantastic capacity but it still doesn't really compete with Intel, not in a way that would allow TSMC swallow up demand of Intel on top of other clients.
Is this possible? Just to catch up with AMD. How long can their internal process struggle before they take action?
Is this possible? Just to catch up with AMD. How long can their internal process struggle before they take action?
You may want to look up what the T in TSMC stands for.Reason number two is that CPUs blueprints are huge trade secrets and there's no way Intel will share them with anyone, especially the Chinese.
Is the current Intel a proof of this? 🤔Reason number three, you can develop a new node a lot more effectively if you can experiment on your own factory. Imagine how much time will be wasted each time a new specification is sent overseas, then shipped back, then tested (that's actually how NVIDIA/AMD/ARM operate) - we are talking about months for each new design/validation.
Yeah but you are talking about a demand that might not be enough with their manufacturing capability. Then you are basically pushing out your entire customer base for a single contract. Then thirdendarily you have the Intel issue. Fab development and CPU development basically going hand in hand. TSMC would basically have to hit the brakes on process development and implementation because Intel would need to be ready for it, because as their only real customer no use in starting 3nm testing and high risk limited production if they weren't ready to accept the die losses. Least with the current status quo you have AMD/Apple/Qualcomm/Nvidia to sell the new process to, if one or two decide they can or want to move forward with it they can start production and utilize their new Fabs asap.First mover clients (like e.g. Apple) essentially pay for the capacity TSMC builds up each gen to be sufficient for their purpose. If Intel were to use TSMC they'd definitely try to be a first mover. Thus the capacity issue is a completely non-issue in that context.
Other than that I agree, Intel as of its internal structure right now would simply not be prepared for such a step even if they wanted to.
You may want to look up what the T in TSMC stands for.
TSMC doesn't convert existing fabs to newer nodes the way Intel does. TSMC mostly builds new fabs and expands existing ones for all their new nodes, increasing overall capacity all the time. So the "pushing out your entire customer base" is not what would happen if Intel were to approach TSMC. Instead an insane amount of new fabs would be built, mostly paid by Intel as a first mover. And all the other customers would get access to those fabs as well whenever Intel then doesn't happen to manage to fill those fabs on its own.Yeah but you are talking about a demand that might not be enough with their manufacturing capability. Then you are basically pushing out your entire customer base for a single contract. Then thirdendarily you have the Intel issue. Fab development and CPU development basically going hand in hand. TSMC would basically have to hit the brakes on process development and implementation because Intel would need to be ready for it, because as their only real customer no use in starting 3nm testing and high risk limited production if they weren't ready to accept the die losses. Least with the current status quo you have AMD/Apple/Qualcomm/Nvidia to sell the new process to, if one or two decide they can or want to move forward with it they can start production and utilize their new Fabs asap.
Wow, TSMC is an international company that happens to have a Chinese subsidiary. Still doesn't make them Chinese. Or maybe you meant to say they are also American since they have a subsidiary in Washington State as well?You may want to educate yourself first: "Apart from its main base of operations in Hsinchu in Northern Taiwan, where several of its fab facilities are located, it also has leading-edge fabs in Southern Taiwan and Central Taiwan, with other fabs located at its subsidiaries TSMC China in Shanghai, China, WaferTech in Washington State, USA, and SSMC in Singapore,[42] and it has offices in China, Europe, India, Japan, North America, and South Korea.[43]"
Wow, TSMC is an international company that happens to have a Chinese subsidiary. Still doesn't make them Chinese. Or maybe you meant to say they are also American since they have a subsidiary in Washington State as well?
I get what you are saying there. But they are already 3 major nodes deeper then Intel with the Fab either built (5nm) or being built (3nm). If Intel did go to TMSC and they took them on it would be at the cost of their current clients. The Scenario where Intel gives up will not give them time to wait the 3-5 years for TSMC to expand capacity to keep Intel/Apple/AMD and eventually Nvidia on the same node.TSMC doesn't convert existing fabs to newer nodes the way Intel does. TSMC mostly builds new fabs and expands existing ones for all their new nodes, increasing overall capacity all the time. So the "pushing out your entire customer base" is not what would happen if Intel were to approach TSMC. Instead an insane amount of new fabs would be built, mostly paid by Intel as a first mover. And all the other customers would get access to those fabs as well whenever Intel then doesn't happen to manage to fill those fabs on its own.
Thinking that falls in line with by the time they make the move it would take to long. It might not be from scratch, but most of the other fabs have offshoots of IBM processes from one point or another. So a cross license from one to another might not involve to much investment. Not sure that applies to Intel their setup is much much different from TSMC.Would it not be more likely Intel would just license the node from TSMC? (Or Samsung)
Then they can go and build their CPUs in their own fabs.
We are talking pure fantasy hypotheticals anyway. Sure TSMC would need time to build the capacity, though Intel would need to prepare for TSMC's nodes as well so I feel like it's a toss up who will take longer on their job.I get what you are saying there. But they are already 3 major nodes deeper then Intel with the Fab either built (5nm) or being built (3nm). If Intel did go to TMSC and they took them on it would be at the cost of their current clients. The Scenario where Intel gives up will not give them time to wait the 3-5 years for TSMC to expand capacity to keep Intel/Apple/AMD and eventually Nvidia on the same node.
I get what you are saying there. But they are already 3 major nodes deeper then Intel with the Fab either built (5nm) or being built (3nm). If Intel did go to TMSC and they took them on it would be at the cost of their current clients. The Scenario where Intel gives up will not give them time to wait the 3-5 years for TSMC to expand capacity to keep Intel/Apple/AMD and eventually Nvidia on the same node.
I think the last node that was actually on time from them was 32nm. Or was it 45? Like all marketing slides, it can be amusing for discussion but not to be taken seriously. It only counts when parts are out the door, on shelves and in reviewers hands. (For any company, not just Intel)We are talking pure fantasy hypotheticals anyway. Sure TSMC would need time to build the capacity, though Intel would need to prepare for TSMC's nodes as well so I feel like it's a toss up who will take longer on their job.
But it seems Intel found its magic fairy solutions to everything already, they are again talking about going back to creating a new node every two years. *shrugs*
(source)
Year wise even 22nm was on time.I think the last node that was actually on time from them was 32nm. Or was it 45? Like all marketing slides, it can be amusing for discussion but not to be taken seriously. It only counts when parts are out the door, on shelves and in reviewers hands. (For any company, not just Intel)
First mover clients (like e.g. Apple) essentially pay for the capacity TSMC builds up each gen to be sufficient for their purpose. If Intel were to use TSMC they'd definitely try to be a first mover. Thus the capacity issue is a completely non-issue in that context.
My roadmap shows I'll become a trillionaire by age 30We are talking pure fantasy hypotheticals anyway. Sure TSMC would need time to build the capacity, though Intel would need to prepare for TSMC's nodes as well so I feel like it's a toss up who will take longer on their job.
But it seems Intel found its magic fairy solutions to everything already, they are again talking about going back to creating a new node every two years. *shrugs*
(source)
Wasn't Brazos (for AMD) a synthesized design, that was produced on external fabs at the time? I seem to recall those chips being dual-sourced?Intel is unlikely to try to have their processors made at TSMC. It would take a long time to port their design, probably longer than a fabless company since they would be trying to move from an internal process to working with an external company. AMD had their own fab, but they had some experience using an external fab from ATI, since they were fabless.
How long would it take for TSMC to increase their capacity enough to handle what Intel would require?Fab capacity isn't going to be much of a concern especially not if TSMC has a far more advanced logic fabrication technology. Right now TSMC's 7nm process is twice as dense as Intel's 14nm and if Intel are still producing the vast majority of it's highest end parts on 14nm while TSMC and are imminently transitioning to 5nm then the latter will be 4 times as dense as Intel in that scenario!
What Intel are producing now on 14nm would only take half as much die space on TSMC's 7nm and thus a fraction of the wafer capacity as well but doubly so for TSMC's 5nm ...
If Intel doesn't show some results soon for 7nm then it's only pragmatic that Intel should start transitioning their designs to TSMC because their main competitor will happily take advantage of a larger transistor budget ...
How long would it take for TSMC to increase their capacity enough to handle what Intel would require?
12 months? 18 months? 24 months? 36 months?