Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Reported To Be Looking At Acquiring GlobalFoundries

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #51
    Originally posted by hyperchaotic View Post

    Maybe Intel is trying to diversify business by adding contract manufacturing? There is a strong demand for mature nodes and it is only projected to grow. Over half of the global market for ICs is 68nm/40nm/28nm. GloFlo's 14nm and 12nm nodes could live on for a long time.
    Maybe:

    1 - intel is after some process IP it deems worth it acquiring an outdated fab
    2 - and more likely - intel is in full desperation, spray-and-pray mode, hoping to hit something that will get it back to its glory days, or the good old "swing at every ball"

    Cuz it is not like intel is short on what glofo has - dated 14nm process. If anything, their 14++++++++++ is marginally better.

    There is healthy demand for older process nodes but it is not exactly high margin products, and intel has proven time and time again completely incompatible with low profit margin products. I mean if they are that desperate to diversify, they got a mountain of money and there is plenty of business prospect outside of semiconductors.

    Comment


    • #52
      Originally posted by Developer12 View Post

      GloFo has a reputation for being bottom-barrel when it comes to making logic. I got first hand experience of this when working for a while at one of *those* two top-level tooling companies.
      So, you are saying GloFo is "bottom of the barrel" of the TOP THREE to FIVE PLAYERS IN THE WORLD ?
      That's still pretty damn high.
      They have had misfortune with SOI. But then, no one knew how it is going to pan out and (then) AMD wasn't exactly botomless money source.
      And they had to compete against 10x bigger Intel.
      Ofcourse they had to take some shortcuts and take their chances.

      So they went with SOI because they felt they have greatest chances there.
      It didn't pan out. That doesn't make them morons.

      WRT to that engineerign beer stories, they have been known to say whatever for a beer.
      Who cares about the shape of a transistor. Give me something I can work with and I don't care if it looks like a potato.


      Comment


      • #53
        Originally posted by Brane215 View Post

        So, you are saying GloFo is "bottom of the barrel" of the TOP THREE to FIVE PLAYERS IN THE WORLD ?
        That's still pretty damn high.
        They have had misfortune with SOI. But then, no one knew how it is going to pan out and (then) AMD wasn't exactly botomless money source.
        And they had to compete against 10x bigger Intel.
        Ofcourse they had to take some shortcuts and take their chances.

        So they went with SOI because they felt they have greatest chances there.
        It didn't pan out. That doesn't make them morons.

        WRT to that engineerign beer stories, they have been known to say whatever for a beer.
        Who cares about the shape of a transistor. Give me something I can work with and I don't care if it looks like a potato.
        in my memory it was SOI zram why they did go this way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z-RAM

        "Theoretically, a reduced cell size would have allowed denser storage, which in turn could (when used with large blocks) have improved access times by reducing the physical distance that data would have to travel to exit a block.[3] For a large cache memory (as typically found in a high-performance microprocessor), Z-RAM would then have been potentially as fast as the SRAM used for conventional on-processor (L1/L2) caches, but with lower surface area (and thus cost). However, with advances in manufacturing techniques for conventional SRAM (most importantly, the transition to 32nm fabrication node), Z-RAM lost its size advantage.

        Although AMD licensed the second generation Z-RAM in 2006,[4] the processor manufacturer abandoned its Z-RAM plans in January 2010.[5] Similarly, DRAM producer Hynix had also licensed Z-RAM for use in DRAM chips in 2007,[6] and Innovative Silicon announced it was jointly developing a non-SOI version of Z-RAM that could be manufactured on lower cost bulk CMOS technology in March 2010, but Innovative Silicon closed on June 29, 2010. Its patent portfolio was acquired by Micron Technology in December 2010.[7]
        "
        Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

        Comment


        • #54
          Originally posted by ddriver View Post
          Who cares if intel 10nm is roughly equivalent to tsmc 7nm, when the former still struggles to ramp up and the latter is already "old tech". Intel 10nm is nowhere near tsmc 7nm in terms of neither scale nor yield.
          Wrong. Density Intel actually has higher or similar (only TSMC EUV+ 7nm is better). Also yield seems fine too, since Intel newest mobile chips can turbo up to 4.8GHz, what in 45W package is rather promising. And Intel actually according to mobile CPU tests (recent ones) can actually compete and wins in single threaded workloads and in multithreaded wins in one loses in another. Just seems intel put all their 10nm capacity on server and mobile chips.

          Again, where Intel is losing is lacking multi-chip designs and not having 10nm capacity on desktop. Those are real deal breakers as it allows producing 64 core CPUs, not by having extraordinary luck that in one large piece of wafer every key part is without errors. Production for AMD is simply cheaper and just by giving more cores or better binned 8 core chips they can compete with Intel very well everywhere, except total budget desktop CPUs or laptop CPUs, where i would say they are equal.

          Comment


          • #55
            Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post
            Wrong. Density Intel actually has higher or similar (only TSMC EUV+ 7nm is better).
            TSMC 6nm has 28% higher density than TSMC 7nm...
            also 5nm is also in the game
            and IBM 2nm is coming 2022...

            Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post
            Also yield seems fine too, since Intel newest mobile chips can turbo up to 4.8GHz, what in 45W package is rather promising. And Intel actually according to mobile CPU tests (recent ones) can actually compete and wins in single threaded workloads and in multithreaded wins in one loses in another. Just seems intel put all their 10nm capacity on server and mobile chips.
            4,8ghz is not good enough their 14nm++++ is at 5.3ghz and even AMD is at 5ghz...

            "wins in single threaded workloads"
            becomes more and more irrelevant...

            Originally posted by piotrj3 View Post
            Again, where Intel is losing is lacking multi-chip designs and not having 10nm capacity on desktop. Those are real deal breakers as it allows producing 64 core CPUs, not by having extraordinary luck that in one large piece of wafer every key part is without errors. Production for AMD is simply cheaper and just by giving more cores or better binned 8 core chips they can compete with Intel very well everywhere, except total budget desktop CPUs or laptop CPUs, where i would say they are equal.
            even if they put 10nm on desktop this means they go from 5,3ghz to 4.8ghz... for marketing purpose alone this is a nightmare for intel.

            also people do not care about 8 or 10core cpu anymore they buy 12-16core cpus and no little.big fake 16cores will not save them.

            yes this is right "where Intel is losing is lacking multi-chip designs"

            but who cares about intel anymore ? soon you can buy AMD TSMC EUV+ 6nm products... @5ghz

            it for sure has higher Density than intel (but no one care about this part.) but EUV+6nm AMD can produce cheaper than intel.
            Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

            Comment


            • #56
              Am I the only one considering as a serious hypothesis the fact Intel wants to buy GloFo just to pursue the same illegal anti-concurrential manoeuvers they did 15 years ago (and probably have continued doing), but on the "root" level?

              Like, "hey, sorry, we would REALLY love to produce your chips AMD, unfortunately we had another customer that reserved prod lines for about no more than 5 years ahead... Wait, let me get its name... Oh wait, it's me! No worries though, I can probably make some space for you, but I'll have to change my plans, so I need to overcharge you. Nothing more than 50% overhead, fair enough no?"

              Even if AMD could technically fall back to another manufacturer, it would make a mess for them (negociation, organization, etc).

              EDIT: ok, my bad, I missed quite a few memos, TSMC being apparently the prime manufacturer for AMD's latest CPUs since at least 3 years... XD
              Last edited by Citan; 19 July 2021, 04:49 AM.

              Comment


              • #57
                Originally posted by Citan View Post
                Am I the only one considering as a serious hypothesis the fact Intel wants to buy GloFo just to pursue the same illegal anti-concurrential manoeuvers they did 15 years ago (and probably have continued doing), but on the "root" level?
                Like, "hey, sorry, we would REALLY love to produce your chips AMD, unfortunately we had another customer that reserved prod lines for about no more than 5 years ahead... Wait, let me get its name... Oh wait, it's me! No worries though, I can probably make some space for you, but I'll have to change my plans, so I need to overcharge you. Nothing more than 50% overhead, fair enough no?"
                Even if AMD could technically fall back to another manufacturer, it would make a mess for them (negociation, organization, etc).
                EDIT: ok, my bad, I missed quite a few memos, TSMC being apparently the prime manufacturer for AMD's latest CPUs since at least 3 years... XD
                you are fully right intel don't do this out of love... they do this because they are "evil" and i mean really "evil"
                all of these Wintel companies are pure evil: Microsoft, intel and Nvidia...

                "I missed quite a few memos, TSMC being apparently the prime manufacturer for AMD's latest CPUs since at least 3 years... XD"

                wrong... AMD 3950X and 5950X had the 12nm GloFO IO chip. only some APU and mobile cpus are 7nm only without 12nm IO chip. also all the mainboard 570 chipset are also 12nm GloFo...

                Evil intel "same illegal anti-concurrential manoeuvers they did 15 years ago"

                yes of course ... but i tell you a secret if you read wikipedia about 7nm or 5nm nodes and so one
                who was the first who had fully working 5nm node yes it was IBM in 2017...
                just read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_nm_process

                i can tell you Intel is fucked... why? well IBM 2nm Node... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_nm_process

                "In May 2021, IBM announced it had produced 2 nm class transistor using three silicon layer nanosheets with a gate length of 12nm.[11][12][13]"

                AMD+IBM+TSMC and also samsung work together against the evil "intel"

                that intel buy GloFO only means that the "Loser" intel buy another "Loser"

                and do you know why intel gets some patents and some tech out of GLoFo???? it is only because IBM granded patends and tech to GloFO.. maybe intel only buy GLoFO to get this IBM technology "Legally" yes it is outdated if you compare it to 5nm and IBM 2nm node but intel is in a very bad situation they just take all they can get.

                but be sure soon (2022-2023) you can buy 2nm AMD cpus and intel produce 10nm and also builds up 7nm in the same time...
                Phantom circuit Sequence Reducer Dyslexia

                Comment


                • #58
                  Originally posted by Brane215 View Post
                  Who cares about the shape of a transistor. Give me something I can work with and I don't care if it looks like a potato.
                  Shape is everything. We're forming nano-structures in silicon a few strands of DNA across which carefully manipulate quantum electrodynamics.

                  Higher precision in a process node means higher repeatability which means pushing the envelope further with more complex, more densely packed structures. It's the difference between being able to sometimes make a 3nm feature without accidentally carving a chunk out of it (and throwing off the electrical specs) and being dead nuts on and relying on it every time.

                  Unless you like having transistors with terrible characteristics that very from chip to chip, causing low yield issues and forcing you to dial back your designs so even the wonkiest transistors can keep up.

                  Comment


                  • #59
                    Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                    wrong... AMD 3950X and 5950X had the 12nm GloFO IO chip. only some APU and mobile cpus are 7nm only without 12nm IO chip. also all the mainboard 570 chipset are also 12nm GloFo...
                    Currently, sure. But the writing is on the wall, and AMD is in the process of transferring all of that over to TSMC already. They've got another 3 years or so of purchasing lots of silicon from GloFo, after that it's going to start drying up fast and it'll be at least that long before Intel could take over. (Plus they've already signed that contract, so if Intel tried to back out of it they'd just sue)

                    This is not about screwing up AMD's manufacturing. I'm not entirely sure I understand what Intel thinks they will get out of it, but it's not that.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X