Intel is dying and we can’t save it • Hacker News Board

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#31

Post by mhh__ » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #27

mhh__ wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count#MOSFET_nodes Look it up yourself. Intel being on 14nm vs (say) 5nm is actually quite flattering to Intel.

That only lists the number, not what the # actually means in terms of actual lithography or more importantly, transitor performance. It used to be minimum feature size, or just L of the gate, but with finfet it can be an overloaded term. Scaling in x of .75 and y of .7 lead to 10% performance improvement per node at Intel. TSMC hasn't been that clear. And that doesn't even account for increase in metal layers, pitch…

And what information is there that isn't under NDA?

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#32

Post by dh303 » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:26 AM UTC

"I’m no market analyst or trader, and it would be a massive stretch to call me an expert in the tech world."

If the author would have put this at the beginning instead of the end, I wouldn't have read it. Kudos. Still, not sure it's worth reading...

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#33

Post by SoSoRoCoCo » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:28 AM UTC

monocasa wrote: post #29

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 3-5 times behind TSMC lithographically, I'm not entirely sure that is true. TSMC plays fast and loose with their definition of node. Any fab folks want to speak up? What I mean by that: https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/tsmc-7nm-5nm-and-3nm-are-just-n... "And also goes some way to explaining why, despite TSMC offering a nominally 7nm process, the general consensus has been that Intel’s 10nm design is pretty much analogo…

Every fab plays loose and fast with the terms, including Intel these days. More or less TSMC 7nm := Intel 10nm, and TSMC 5nm := Intel 7nm. It's more complex than that, one has denser logic while the other has denser SRAM and what have you, but it's a good baseline. Since Intel is struggling with 10nm but is shipping, that puts TSMC about a node and a half ahead. If you want to dig in deeper, wikichip has most of the…

Ah, good info. Thanks.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#34

Post by henry_bone » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:28 AM UTC

Is it sensible (viable, potentially profitable, possible) for Intel to build RISC-V CPUs?

Could they collaborate with Dell or Lenovo and make RISC-V based SoCs to go into laptops to compete with the macs?

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#35

Post by monocasa » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:29 AM UTC

dathinab wrote: post #30

monocasa wrote: post #6

Any analysis that says that Intel's death is being precipitated by AMD and Apple rather than by TSMC is pretty much worth ignoring. The fact that they're almost equivalent to those two at 5nm when Intel is at 14nm+++++++++ shows how killer the RTL and tape out folk are at Intel. The real fight has always been at the fab layer.

It also shows that you can't compare nm measurements which measure slightly different thinks and are missing out a lot of factors ;=)

Haha, sure, but there's only a node or so difference. 10nm Intel is about 7nm TSMC density wise (with a lot of caveats in either direction, one has denser logic, the other has denser SRAM, etc).

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#36

Post by ChrisIsTaken » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #16

mhh__ wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel will shift to a TSMC model. I think fabbing for outsiders would probably be a good idea, but splitting the fabs out from the designers seems like a bad idea.

Yeah, agreed. The designers / integration will probably get the newest nodes--and the headaches with getting their yields up! I suspect the older high-yield nodes will be filled with tenants pretty quickly. I don't have much knowledge of how this is going, at least from the inside.

"Higher yield nodes" are full, that's why Intel is outsourcing to TSMC. Intel has already sold every 14nm, 22nm, 32nm and 45nm wafer it can make. They have zero capacity, which is an amazing problem for a "dying" company to have.

Even if they axed all process R&D and returned the cash to shareholders, due to the eye watering costs of designing at 10nm and lower I expect there will be a lot of business to keep their fabs turning over for the next decade.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#37

Post by badRNG » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #22

jasoneckert wrote: post #8

I'd be cautious about the use of "We Can't Save It" in the title of this article. This industry has a history of big players losing steam and then making big comebacks.

Including Intel themselves, who came back from the Pentium 4 Prescott design disaster, late dual-core support, and late x86_64 support. And then promptly ate everyone's lunch with the Core 2 Duo and ruled unchallenged for a decade.

And, of course, including AMD.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#38

Post by mellow-lake-day » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:30 AM UTC

We need Intel as a competitor to TSMC and AMD. Also we need Intel from a national security point of view. Intel is definitely facing tough competition but that's not new for them. Intel will definitely have to reimagine the SoC but this is far from over.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#39

Post by exintelwithop » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:31 AM UTC

I worked at Intel years ago.

At that time, The ratio of excellent to useless people I experienced there was 1:40. That is way out of whack. I am certain it only got worse because all the 1/40’s I knew left.

They are going to have to go and get people who have modern skillsets and mindsets and those people don’t want to live in Hillsboro. And it’s going to be expensive.

And those people don’t tolerate dead weight.

My take is that Bob Swan was only ever a placeholder. The board needed to be put in the worst possible negotiating position: Literally on their knees begging because they are getting their asses kicked in every single competitor category.

A smart guy like Pat wouldn’t take the CEO job until they (a) are crawling on all fours and (b) give him the latitude to clean house as vigorously as he wants and (c) a preposterous paycheck.

No one intelligent would want that job without all three. That’s why Bob got to babysit that role for two years.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#40

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Thu, Jan 14, 2021, 3:32 AM UTC

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #5

Intel innovates in process. Everything else is ruled by backwards compatibility and frenetic management scared to stay the course. (The vast majority of projects are killed if they don't tape out in ~2 years.) Intel will shift to a TSMC model. They have the best fabs on the planet, and the best fab engineers. I believe it is something like a 3 millions dollars lost per minute if they are idle. They have already start…

In fairness, Intel probably has enough people left who remember Itanium and are scared of trying big new innovation for an honestly legitimate reason.