Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Intel radically changes its foundry plans

QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
Intel made a number of announcements yesterday that together amount to a dramatic change of direction for the company.  The changes basically amount to betting the company on their new direction being better.  Which may sound dramatic, but without changes, Intel was on the path to irrelevance and ultimately bankruptcy.  So what are the changes?

1)  Intel will no longer exclusively manufacture their own products.  While they had previously been inching away from that stance, they made it official in a huge way yesterday.  The next Intel CPU you buy might have been manufactured by TSMC--or Samsung, Global Foundries, or even UMC.  Well, probably not GloFo or UMC for CPUs, but Intel did say that some products will be manufactured there.  Maybe they'll be chipsets, I/O dies like what AMD builds at GloFo, or random other things like ethernet controllers.

2)  Intel will no longer exclusively manufacture their own products.  This might look like the same as (1), but it's in the other sense.  Intel foundries will be open to anyone who wants to manufacture anything, just like TSMC and Samsung are.  Well, not quite absolutely anyone, as they're not going to violate laws by helping Iran or North Korea manufacture things.  But while in the past, they've been extremely restrictive about who else can manufacture anything at Intel fabs, now they're going to open it up and accept most companies who want to manufacture products there.  A future GPU that you buy might be fabricated by Intel, even if it says GeForce or Radeon on the box.

3)  Intel will open up their designs and IP for use by others, much like ARM does now.  It's not clear just how far they'll go in this direction, as they may be unwilling to, for example, let Nvidia build consumer SoCs with the latest and greatest Intel CPU cores to compete with Intel's Core lineup (and AMD's Ryzen Mobile).  But they do very much intend to let some other companies build chips using Intel x86 CPU cores at Intel fabs.

4)  Intel is promising a return to tick-tock, with new process nodes coming a lot more frequently.  How do you do that?  By making smaller changes from one process node to the next.  Their 10 nm node tried to make far too large of a jump all at once, and it hurt the company badly.

5)  Intel CPUs are going chiplets, like what AMD has done, starting (at least for consumer use) with Meteor Lake on 7 nm in 2023.  Intel calls the approach "tiles" rather than chiplets, though I expect them to have some difficulty if they really want to dislodge the chiplet nomenclature.  There are some technical differences between what Intel is going to do and what AMD CPUs are doing, but they will fundamentally be piecing together several smaller chips to make products instead of sticking with monolithic dies.

Overall, I'd say that Intel is really just doing what they had to do to survive.  This is far short of closing their struggling fabs entirely or even spinning it off as a separate company.  But with their traditional approach, either CPU design or fabs faltering could kill the whole company.  Had Intel decided to make some CPUs at TSMC years ago like AMD did, they'd probably still be competitive with AMD today.

This is not just a case of Intel's new CEO changing things for the sake of justifying his existence.  Intel needed dramatic changes in order to save the company, and this might do it.  Or it might not.  We'll see how it works out.
Sandmanjwfrancis_baudUngood

Comments

  • olepiolepi Member EpicPosts: 3,034
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.

    ------------
    2024: 47 years on the Net.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    TSMC is building a 5 nm foundry in Arizona that should start production in 2024.  Samsung is also planning to build a foundry in the United States shortly after that, and still working on selecting a location.

    Both of those are driven by US government subsidies, not market conditions.  With IBM and AMD no longer having their own foundries anywhere remotely near the cutting edge and uncertainty over how much longer Intel will do so, the government is paranoid about having sensitive (e.g., military) components fabricated on foreign soil so near major rivals, especially China.  The government would much rather have military equipment use computer chips fabricated on a TSMC 5 nm process node in Arizona (or anywhere else in the US, really) than on exactly the same TSMC 5 nm process node in Taiwan.
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    olepi said:
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.
    Don't get too caught up in the marketing names.  It's probable that Intel's 7 nm process node will be significantly better than TSMC's 7 nm node.  Samsung's 5 nm node seems to only be about as good as TSMC's 7 nm node.  Intel probably won't get to their own 7 nm until significantly after AMD is building chips on TSMC's 5 nm node, but that would be a much smaller gap in foundry performance than Intel is facing today while they're still mostly building parts on 14 nm.

    Another announcement yesterday is that Intel plans to finally move the majority of their production to 10 nm later this year.  For now, most of what they have is Tiger Lake chips in fairly low volumes, most likely because the yields are terrible.
    GorweUngood
  • olepiolepi Member EpicPosts: 3,034
    edited March 2021
    Quizzical said:
    olepi said:
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.
    Don't get too caught up in the marketing names.  It's probable that Intel's 7 nm process node will be significantly better than TSMC's 7 nm node.  Samsung's 5 nm node seems to only be about as good as TSMC's 7 nm node.  Intel probably won't get to their own 7 nm until significantly after AMD is building chips on TSMC's 5 nm node, but that would be a much smaller gap in foundry performance than Intel is facing today while they're still mostly building parts on 14 nm.

    Another announcement yesterday is that Intel plans to finally move the majority of their production to 10 nm later this year.  For now, most of what they have is Tiger Lake chips in fairly low volumes, most likely because the yields are terrible.
    New process nodes take years to develop and perfect. AMD has been working in 7nm for close to 5 years, and in 5nm for at least a year or more. If Intel is just now developing a 7nm process that might be competitive with TSMC's 5nm process, they are still years behind.

    If Intel had a 7nm process that is competitive with TSMC's 5nm, they would need to already be developing chips in it for over a year, more likely two years.

    Intel will somehow have to leapfrog a process node or two.

    ------------
    2024: 47 years on the Net.


  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    olepi said:
    Quizzical said:
    olepi said:
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.
    Don't get too caught up in the marketing names.  It's probable that Intel's 7 nm process node will be significantly better than TSMC's 7 nm node.  Samsung's 5 nm node seems to only be about as good as TSMC's 7 nm node.  Intel probably won't get to their own 7 nm until significantly after AMD is building chips on TSMC's 5 nm node, but that would be a much smaller gap in foundry performance than Intel is facing today while they're still mostly building parts on 14 nm.

    Another announcement yesterday is that Intel plans to finally move the majority of their production to 10 nm later this year.  For now, most of what they have is Tiger Lake chips in fairly low volumes, most likely because the yields are terrible.
    New process nodes take years to develop and perfect. AMD has been working in 7nm for close to 5 years, and in 5nm for at least a year or more. If Intel is just now developing a 7nm process that might be competitive with TSMC's 5nm process, they are still years behind.

    If Intel had a 7nm process that is competitive with TSMC's 5nm, they would need to already be developing chips in it for over a year, more likely two years.

    Intel will somehow have to leapfrog a process node or two.
    Intel's 7 nm process node has been in development for years.  Foundries have to put a lot of work into developing a process node before their customers can meaningfully start designing chips for the details of that particular node.  Even so, some amount of designing chips happens concurrently with the foundry developing the node, as the foundry can work on improving the node (e.g., for better yields) while the customer designs the chips.

    The 2023 date is when Intel expects Meteor Lake CPUs to launch for consumer ("client") use.  Or at least it's when they claim to expect it.  After the 10 nm debacle, it's possible that internal estimates might not match public claims.  Depending on yields and fab capacity, those might be laptop-only, as with Ice Lake and Tiger Lake.

    Intel's fabs are certainly well behind TSMC right now.  Intel's CPU design teams still seem to be competent, but there's only so much you can do when you designed your chips according to the rules that your foundry listed, but they just can't build them.  It's basically the reverse of the situation where AMD's fabs were behind Intel's for decades.  AMD had some good CPU designs during that time, but the only time that they were able to make CPUs better than Intel's were when Intel had an awful design, mainly Netburst (Pentium 4 and D).  It wasn't enough for AMD to merely have a better CPU design than Intel.  To produce a better CPU overall, the CPU design had to be better by a large enough margin to overcome Intel's fab advantage.

    It's also possible that Intel will build some cutting edge CPUs at TSMC, as in point (1).  If they do that, then AMD's current fab advantage disappears.  They could do what Apple did for at least one generation and design a chip at multiple foundries (in Apple's case, both Samsung and TSMC), and then actually build it at whichever foundry can deliver something that works (or both).  That adds a lot of development cost, certainly, but that added cost is a lot less bad than what Intel is going through right now where they just can't build any competitive products.

    But there's no guarantee that Intel will remain behind forever, just as they didn't remain ahead forever.  Intel can buy the same foundry equipment from ASML and other companies that TSMC can buy, and it's just a question of how well you can make everything work.

    It's also very possible that TSMC will fall on their face for a generation or two.  Their 10 nm and 20 nm process nodes were rather bad, for example.  That's why AMD and Nvidia mostly ignored them, and other customers moved off of those nodes quickly as soon as the next one was ready.
  • GorweGorwe Member Posts: 1,597
    edited March 2021
    Good, good. Taste their fear and despair! And remember! This is what passes for once high and mighty Intel.

    Oh how cruel the fate(s) can be! Perfect! >:)
  • VrikaVrika Member LegendaryPosts: 7,984
    olepi said:
    Quizzical said:
    olepi said:
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.
    Don't get too caught up in the marketing names.  It's probable that Intel's 7 nm process node will be significantly better than TSMC's 7 nm node.  Samsung's 5 nm node seems to only be about as good as TSMC's 7 nm node.  Intel probably won't get to their own 7 nm until significantly after AMD is building chips on TSMC's 5 nm node, but that would be a much smaller gap in foundry performance than Intel is facing today while they're still mostly building parts on 14 nm.

    Another announcement yesterday is that Intel plans to finally move the majority of their production to 10 nm later this year.  For now, most of what they have is Tiger Lake chips in fairly low volumes, most likely because the yields are terrible.
    New process nodes take years to develop and perfect. AMD has been working in 7nm for close to 5 years, and in 5nm for at least a year or more. If Intel is just now developing a 7nm process that might be competitive with TSMC's 5nm process, they are still years behind.

    If Intel had a 7nm process that is competitive with TSMC's 5nm, they would need to already be developing chips in it for over a year, more likely two years.

    Intel will somehow have to leapfrog a process node or two.
    For fabs a new process node can easily take half a decade to deliver.

    But for just purchasing manufacturing like AMD and NVidia do you can move your manufacturing to a new node relatively quickly. It's likely to take more than 6 months but less than a year, if you decide you want to use your development resources that way instead of using the same resources to develop a completely new product.
    [Deleted User]
     
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    Vrika said:
    olepi said:
    Quizzical said:
    olepi said:
    Intel stumbled badly and is now almost 2 whole generations behind. AMD has been using 7nm for over a year now, and 5nm is imminent. Chips in 5nm will be coming out next year. TSMC 3nm is on the horizon.

    To be competitive, Intel will need to be moving to 5nm now, although even if they do, they are still far behind AMD.

    Intel is one company that still uses a lot of their own CAD tools and systems. If they try to move to TSMC, they may also have to change some number of CAD tools to TSMC approved standards. This will take time.

    Opening their fabs to other companies makes sense, since without that, the fabs are just a giant money hole.
    Don't get too caught up in the marketing names.  It's probable that Intel's 7 nm process node will be significantly better than TSMC's 7 nm node.  Samsung's 5 nm node seems to only be about as good as TSMC's 7 nm node.  Intel probably won't get to their own 7 nm until significantly after AMD is building chips on TSMC's 5 nm node, but that would be a much smaller gap in foundry performance than Intel is facing today while they're still mostly building parts on 14 nm.

    Another announcement yesterday is that Intel plans to finally move the majority of their production to 10 nm later this year.  For now, most of what they have is Tiger Lake chips in fairly low volumes, most likely because the yields are terrible.
    New process nodes take years to develop and perfect. AMD has been working in 7nm for close to 5 years, and in 5nm for at least a year or more. If Intel is just now developing a 7nm process that might be competitive with TSMC's 5nm process, they are still years behind.

    If Intel had a 7nm process that is competitive with TSMC's 5nm, they would need to already be developing chips in it for over a year, more likely two years.

    Intel will somehow have to leapfrog a process node or two.
    For fabs a new process node can easily take half a decade to deliver.

    But for just purchasing manufacturing like AMD and NVidia do you can move your manufacturing to a new node relatively quickly. It's likely to take more than 6 months but less than a year, if you decide you want to use your development resources that way instead of using the same resources to develop a completely new product.
    A lot of how long it takes depends on what time you count.  Just going from tape out to a commercial launch typically takes on the order of a year for advanced products.  And tape out is when your initial design is done and you give it to the foundry and ask them to build some physical chips.  It also takes time before that to make the design, and that time can vary greatly depending on what you're trying to design.

    Things can be simpler if your design isn't that demanding and you're using an older, very mature process node.  If you're starting on a brand new chip today and TSMC's 28 nm node is plenty good enough, for example, then you could probably reach a commercial launch significantly faster than if you tried to build exactly the same thing on TSMC's 5 nm node.  Well, at least if you assume that the foundries have plenty of capacity to build whatever you want on all nodes, which definitely isn't the case today.  But it's still going to take quite a while.
  • Sal1Sal1 Member UncommonPosts: 430
    Wow. I am just shocked by this news. 
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    edited March 2021
    I must have missed something about that whole Intel vs AMD CPU thing.

    For instance, my CPU (10700k, 8c/16t) is just as fast as the AMD equivalent (5800x, 8c/16t) and costs 150€ less. All the other equivalent AMD processors are slower, and all those which are faster are also way more expensive. The 3800x, which has a similar price, and is also 8c/16t, is just slower overall, but seems the better purchase to me vs the 5800x.

    So what's the deal ?

    Both companies seem to be on par, with AMD even on the slightly more expensive side this time if you want similar performance.

    And don't come to me with crap like TDP or power consumption, I don't give a shit, I'm not a damned treehugger. The 5800x consumes 20w less for 150€ more... well, no thanks.
    What you're missing is that Zen 3 cores are a major advance over Zen 2 cores.  It's easily the biggest architectural jump that we've seen on the same process node as before at least since Sandy Bridge (2011), if not Conroe (2006).

    No, a Core i7-10700K is not just as fast as a Ryzen 7 5800X.  Not even close.  Or at least not in typical CPU-heavy workloads for which the CPU is the bottleneck.  For example, see here:

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/16214/amd-zen-3-ryzen-deep-dive-review-5950x-5900x-5800x-and-5700x-tested/12

    If you want to compare the 5800X to the 10700K in the 39 CPU tests, the 5800X wins 37 out of 39, and often by large margins.  The 5800X often even beats the 10900K in multi-theaded tests, even though the latter has two more cores and uses nearly double the power.

    In the gaming tests, at minimum settings (which are most CPU-intensive), all four of the Ryzen 5000 series CPUs beat all tested Intel CPUs (including the top of the line Core i9-10900K) in a clean sweep of all 13 games tested.  In only three of the games is it even close, and the 5800X often beats the 10700K by 20% or so.  At higher settings when there is a GPU bottleneck, the Intel CPUs can catch the AMD CPUs, but that's not really a CPU test anymore.  For comparison, in exactly the same review, the Core i7-10700K beats even the Ryzen 9 3950X in 12 of those 13 games.

    And no, it's not a difference of 20 W.  The Core i7-10700K has a PL2 power of 250 W, and you'll typically use somewhere around there in heavy CPU workloads that can push all of the cores.  The Ryzen 5000 series CPUs have a max turbo power of 142 W.  That's a gap of over 100 W.  You can decide to care about that gap or not, but it is not a small one.

    You seem to be focusing on TDP, but TDP isn't meaningful anymore in desktop CPUs, as basically all motherboards will ignore it.  Turbo power is what matters, as that's what the CPU is going to use when you push it hard.  Intel and AMD have some nominal limits on how long the CPUs will use the turbo power, and those limits may be enforced in laptops, but they allow motherboard vendors to just ignore the TDP and run max turbo forever.   Basically all motherboards do that, as if you don't, then people will think your motherboard is slow and not buy it.

    Even Intel's upcoming Core i9-11900K usually isn't as fast as a Ryzen 7 5800X, though it does narrow the gap quite a bit.  But the power consumption and temperatures are pretty awful, and the prices probably won't be pretty, either.

    The higher end Comet Lake and Rocket Lake CPUs are the most power-hungry mainstream consumer CPUs ever, and the only other CPUs to come close some old super high clocked Piledriver CPUs such as the FX-9590.  (I exclude HEDT from that comparison.)  Maybe you don't care about the difference between 105 W and 125 W, but 250 W is really a lot of power for a consumer CPU.
    [Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    Yet in gaming, that AMD processor is just on par with the 10700k, which is what matters on a gaming forum.

    Look at the differences on your linked "heavy CPU" benchmarks... it's insignificant considering the huge price difference.
    And the few gaming benchmarks are so biased it's hilarious. Many gaming site did way more in depth tests. And even then, for most games the difference is minimal.

    Fact is, nothing I see there is worth the 150€ price difference. And the 10700k beats the same gen/same price AMD cpu.
    When you have a GPU bottleneck, the difference between a lot of CPUs is often minimal.  That's not at all the same as saying that the two CPUs are the same speed.  You can, if you like, argue that you shouldn't spend a lot of money on a CPU for gaming because, depending on what games you play and what settings you run, spending the extra money on a faster GPU would make a larger difference.  But that's a very different argument from saying that all CPUs are the same speed.

    If your big complaint about the Ryzen 7 5800X is the price tag, then why not compare it to a Ryzen 5 5600X instead?  That's still faster than a Core i7-10700K at gaming, and much closer to the same price, at least if you can find one at MSRP.  And if you want to argue that MSRP doesn't matter when parts are out of stock, have you had a look at GPUs lately?  The Ryzen 5 5600X is going to be widely available at MSRP before any GeForce 3000 or Radeon 6000 series GPUs, and gaming is the goal, you usually want a new GPU, too.
  • laseritlaserit Member LegendaryPosts: 7,591
    Yet in gaming, that AMD processor is just on par with the 10700k, which is what matters on a gaming forum.

    Look at the differences on your linked "heavy CPU" benchmarks... it's insignificant considering the huge price difference.
    And the few gaming benchmarks are so biased it's hilarious. Many gaming sites did way more in depth tests. And even then, for most games the difference is minimal.

    Fact is, nothing I see there is worth the 150€ price difference. And the 10700k beats the same gen/same price AMD cpu.

    It's sad to see though that AMD still needs one generation ahead to get on par with Intel CPUs. All I want is them to really be up to the challenge, at same prices, so there's real competition.
    I've done a lot of testing with Microsoft Flight Simulator with ultra settings @3440x1440

    7700k @ 5ghz with GTX 1080ti = avg 28fps limited by CPU

    7700k @5ghz with RTX 3090 = avg 28fps limited by CPU

    Ryzen 3950 @4.5ghz with GTX 1080ti = avg 39fps jumping between CPU and GPU limited.

    Ryzen 3950 @4.5ghz with RTX 3090 = avg 42fps CPU limited.

    Ryzen 5900 @4.7ghz with RTX 3090 = avg 57fps GPU limited

    Conclusion: the new Ryzen 5000 series are a beast when running MS Flight Simulator


    "Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    I'm just disappointed that they aren't that much better than an older generation Intel CPU.
    If 20% more performance in 40% less power is "not that much better", then what is "that much better"?
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 1,132
    Its being tanked on purpose so it can be moved out of the USA and reintegrated  in Israel. This is mostly complete but you never heard about it. They only care about controlling the designs and that's why your seeing what your seeing.  

      
    .05 of a second to midnight
  • MendelMendel Member LegendaryPosts: 5,609
    remsleep said:
    Gorwe said:
    Good, good. Taste their fear and despair! And remember! This is what passes for once high and mighty Intel.

    Oh how cruel the fate(s) can be! Perfect! >:)

    Time destroys all. Remember that.

    AMD could fall on really hard times in the future as well.

    Just wait until Nerf and Lego combine to make computer chips.  :)



    [Deleted User]

    Logic, my dear, merely enables one to be wrong with great authority.

  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 25,490
    Rungar said:
    Its being tanked on purpose so it can be moved out of the USA and reintegrated  in Israel. This is mostly complete but you never heard about it. They only care about controlling the designs and that's why your seeing what your seeing.  
    You are mistaken.  They're actually moving the company to Mars.  After all, that's only slightly less plausible than your claim.

    While Intel does have a significant presence in Israel, their struggles with 10 nm will ultimately cost the company tens of billions of dollars.  And that's even if they get everything fixed for 7 nm, which is far from certain.  If Intel's only goal were to reincorporate in Israel, they surely could find a much cheaper way to do that.
  • ScotScot Member LegendaryPosts: 24,331
    Torval said:
    Rungar said:
    Its being tanked on purpose so it can be moved out of the USA and reintegrated  in Israel. This is mostly complete but you never heard about it. They only care about controlling the designs and that's why your seeing what your seeing.  

      

    Where are you sourcing that information?
    Guys you cannot be taking this seriously. Come on. :)
    Ridelynn[Deleted User][Deleted User]
  • RungarRungar Member RarePosts: 1,132
    not just intel... facebook, google, amazon...others they are all being centralized there as the USA gets hollowed out. 

    Cant give you a source I'm afraid. Do your own research, maybe youll learn something.  

    Its always rubbish...until it isnt.
    .05 of a second to midnight
Sign In or Register to comment.