Can someone explain to me why manufacturing is the culprit of Intel's woes?

[StrayKAT]

Talk to me like a noob. I just watched Cold Fusion's take on Intel, and the conclusion is that he lays the blame on Intel trying to juggle manufacturing and design. That dropping this might solve problems. This doesn't make any sense to me. Intel's manufacturing is still done with cheaper labor. It's not like they're necessarily paying higher costs than TSMC. This conclusion to break up Intel seems suspect and with ulterior motives. And it's bad enough that this has already happened to multiple American computer companies (AMD included). Wasn't it the old AMD CEO himself who once said, "Real men have fabs"?

I can definitely get behind the idea that Intel has been (extremely) wasteful in R&D and incompetent over the years (and as a result of the incompetence, abusive in covering it up), but manufacturing being a problem specifically? It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry if this is the wrong section to ask this question.

Intel - From Inventors of the CPU to Laughing Stock [Part 1] - YouTube

 

[mouacyk]

Real men have fabs

That explains why Intel is still able to squeeze so much out of 14nm. Imagine what's possible with a shrink to 7nm and beyond, if they continue to juggle both. AMD can't juggle both out of necessity.

 

[StrayKAT]

That explains why Intel is still able to squeeze so much out of 14nm. Imagine what's possible with a shrink to 7nm and beyond, if they continue to juggle both. AMD can't juggle both out of necessity.

I moved to AMD for now, but yeah... Respect.

 

[Operandi]

Semiconductor fabrication is not done with cheap labor. They are literally building chips with transistors with light at the physical limits of physics. Intel, TSMC, Samsung are all at the cutting edge of science and manufacturing. The only cheap labor is the dude putting the chip in the box.

 

[StrayKAT]

Semiconductor fabrication is not done with cheap labor. They are literally building chips with transistors with light at the physical limits of physics. Intel, TSMC, Samsung are all at the cutting edge of science and manufacturing. The only cheap labor is the dude putting the chip in the box.

Sorry, I meant relatively. Intel still goes overseas for much of it (right?), even if it's in house.

 

[Operandi]

Sorry, I meant relatively. Intel still goes overseas for much of it (right?), even if it's in house.

Relative to what? These are highly desirable, high paying jobs that states and countries compete over to have in their economies. Intel does have fabs outside of the US but the vast majority is located here and I think all the cutting edge stuff is here.

 

[kapone32]

Relative to what? These are highly desirable, high paying jobs that states and countries compete over to have in their economies. Intel does have fabs outside of the US but the vast majority is located here and I think all the cutting edge stuff is here.

They move around.

 

[newtekie1]

It isn't about the cost of labor, it's about the cost of R&D and refinement of a process. Intel still can't get good yields on anything below 14nm. This means their production is limited on their 10nm node, which is why we haven't seen 10nm desktop processors.

I don't think splitting Intel into chip design and chip manufacture would help this any though.

 

[StrayKAT]

Relative to what? These are highly desirable, high paying jobs that states and countries compete over to have in their economies. Intel does have fabs outside of the US but the vast majority is located here and I think all the cutting edge stuff is here.

Thanks for pointing it out. I did a comparison and some positions at TSMC are actually earning a little more, surprisingly. But I'm even more confused now.

 

[Voluman]

Talk to me like a noob. I just watched Cold Fusion's take on Intel, and the conclusion is that he lays the blame on Intel trying to juggle manufacturing and design. That dropping this might solve problems. This doesn't make any sense to me. Intel's manufacturing is still done with cheaper labor. It's not like they're necessarily paying higher costs than TSMC. This conclusion to break up Intel seems suspect and with ulterior motives. And it's bad enough that this has already happened to multiple American computer companies (AMD included). Wasn't it the old AMD CEO himself who once said, "Real men have fabs"?

I can definitely get behind the idea that Intel has been (extremely) wasteful in R&D and incompetent over the years (and as a result of the incompetence, abusive in covering it up), but manufacturing being a problem specifically? It doesn't make any sense.

Sorry if this is the wrong section to ask this question.

Intel - From Inventors of the CPU to Laughing Stock [Part 1] - YouTube

Main reason is probably Krzanich (sry if i mispelled his name), he ruined almost everything. He fired good, expierienced, software, hardware engineers and hire young, inexperienced ones instead. He blew away the software side too and, kinda everything for short term financial gains...
How is the proverb: dont change what works, now he did not accept this...

 

[Frick]

Making cutting edge chips is one of the hardest, most complex and most expensive things you can do. If Intel indeed has a long history of mismanagement and general "brain drain" it's not strange at all they are lagging behind. And it's a long game, you can't chase those quartely reports forever.

And it's hard to know exactly what happens at Intel, or any semiconductor company.

 

[TheUn4seen]

It's all about yields. If you pay 40 million for a lightbulb (otherwise known as an EUV source), 90 million for a single EUV lens and billions for a single production line you need to ensure return of investment. Companies like TSMC can juggle between processes and methods of optimization because they manufacture for many different clients with different needs. Intel, as a singular client for their own manufacturing, doesn't have this luxury. They have a very limited number of product lines and they have to make it work. In other words, if TSMC has a process line which is not yet perfectly optimized for high performance parts, they can use it for clients who don't need absolutely highest quality. Intel can't do this, they really need to get their yields high to be profitable. That's why there is some talk of Intel selling it's manufacturing ability to others, but we probably won't see this happening soon.

 

[freeagent]

They need some of that good old fashioned corporate espionage action to see how the "other" guys are doing things

The world has gone soft its not like the movies

 

[StrayKAT]

They need some of that good old fashioned corporate espionage action to see how the "other" guys are doing things

The world has gone soft its not like the movies

That happened with Samsung and TSMC actually

 

[JDMAN]

I saw an explanation of Intel's difficulty... but I don't remember what article I was reading.

The author suggested that AMD using the chiplet design vs. Intel using a single chip for all cores is the issue. Four years ago, 4-6 physical cores was the max on mainstream processors. Anything more was lower frequency, server class chips, expensive and low volume. But AMD created a 'core gap' with their Ryzen line, making 6-8 physical cores mainstream, while lowering process from 14 nm to 7nm.

The article pointed out that the single chip design results in significantly higher failure rates as the core count rises. If even a single core fails spec, the entire processor fails. AMD, by using 2 and 4 core chiplets, can scale up core count without increasing the loss due to defects.

Add to it trying to move to a new, smaller process, Intel is probably suffering from an unacceptable defect rate in their 10nm process, making it cost prohibitive... or at least uncompetitive with AMD. The article did point out that the chiplet design has drawbacks, specifically with DRAM, on Zen and Zen+, but Zen 2's changes to the on-chip memory controller appear to have made significant improvement in that area.

I suppose intel could sell the partially defective chips as lower clock speed and/or lower core count chips, but the production cost is the same as with the working chips and they will have to be sold at much lower price / margin.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Sorry, I meant relatively. Intel still goes overseas for much of it (right?), even if it's in house.

Your joking right, these machines cost 5/10 billion ,you choose wisely who goes near it in any way.
Doesn't matter where, the people be on the ball, they have more balls in the air then Any other chip company if you count sub divisions.
And owned devices.
They hit the walls AMD dodged with chiplets, the uncore ,all other parts of the CPU that aren't core's don't scale as well without great efforts, plus intel evolved technology in other directions that could yet vindicate their direction like emib, big little GPU , advanced memory types.