Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia • Hacker News Board

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#141

Post by dathinab » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:07 AM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #121

rakah wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EUV is hard, but isn't part of the reason why only ASML can make those machines because of the CRADA they have with DOE as a member of the EUV LLC? I believe this agreement was why ASML wasn't allowed to sell their solution to China recently. I bet Intel will have no trouble buying EUV to bring in-house - especially if that serves US strategic interests.

ASML only makes a few machines every year, you can't just buy them off the shelf IMHO banning sales of ASML's product to China is chest thumping protectionist nonsense - if you're worried about the rise of China's military then you should be tangling their economy up more with that of the West so that they have more reasons not to go to war rather than driving them to be self sufficient.

> tangling their economy up more with that of the West

That might have worked in the past but doesn't anymore as China actively counters this.

Selling them such machines will just bring short term production benefits to china and potentially gives them a chance to have it a bit easier to copy the technology.

But long term China will have it's own production methods and for it's military they will only use this sources. Currently they are at 28nm as far as I know. Which might be still quite a bit away from stat or the art but is already fairly useful for many use cases.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#142

Post by not_exactly__ » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

m463 wrote: post #110

ngngngng wrote: post #10

I'm stoked. I've been a bit of an Intel hater lately but more competition is good for everyone. Though I'm guessing other people are excited about these directions as well because their stock is pretty high at the moment.

There have traditionally been cycles and we all win. I remember years back when AMD became competitive with intel and then intel turned around and came out with fast cpus, and we had all kinds of choices. I think the PC is a really good thing we don't want to lose it. When we have competition it is better for customers with more choices, and employees who actually have to compete, and there are standard interfaces ne…

Have you used an M1 Air yet? I Because that’s the best computer I’ve ever owned.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#143

Post by vimy » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:10 AM UTC

Taniwha wrote: post #121

rakah wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

EUV is hard, but isn't part of the reason why only ASML can make those machines because of the CRADA they have with DOE as a member of the EUV LLC? I believe this agreement was why ASML wasn't allowed to sell their solution to China recently. I bet Intel will have no trouble buying EUV to bring in-house - especially if that serves US strategic interests.

ASML only makes a few machines every year, you can't just buy them off the shelf IMHO banning sales of ASML's product to China is chest thumping protectionist nonsense - if you're worried about the rise of China's military then you should be tangling their economy up more with that of the West so that they have more reasons not to go to war rather than driving them to be self sufficient.

The next war will be fought with AI. It's essential the West stays ahead in chip technology, one of the few advantages we still have. It could be the difference between winning or losing a war with China.

> tangling their economy up more with that of the West so that they have more reasons not to go to war

This strategy failed, China wasn't interested in becoming like the West. We're in a new cold war, it's time people wake up to this new reality.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#144

Post by dathinab » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:13 AM UTC

r3trohack3r wrote: post #31

paxys wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a national security argument will highlight the importance and urgency a lot better.

I think National Security might have something to do with manufacturing of electronics moving outside the US. The war on crypto called for manufactures to either provide two versions of their product, or move manufacturing to a place they could export a single product: https://www.eff.org/pages/decrypting-puzzle-palace

IMHO (ok not very humble) any ware on crypto, weather it's in the past or modern approaches to it is stupid af and I want to give a metaphorical kick to anyone pushing it.

What many people which push it don't seem to realize is that such approaches undermine national and personal security and any benefits gained for it are likely outstripped by the long term drawbacks.

Drawbacks like making it easier for foreign actors to enact industry espionage or find ways to influence or blackmail people.

The idea of a government accessible backdoor which can't be accessed by foreign powers is just ridiculous. Especially if the access doesn't require physical access to the devices in question.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#145

Post by dannyw » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:16 AM UTC

Nokinside wrote: post #54

As he says here, the decision not to take risk and jump to EUV with TSMC and Samsung was the mistake that started this downfall and it snowballed. The decision happened somewhere in the pathfinding stage into 10nm. When Gerald Marcyk was running Intel components research back in the 2001 Intel was already considering using EUV lithography for the 45nm technology node that would come out 2007. It turned out that the s…

Intel invested lots and lots in novel EUV alternatives and they didn't work out. They took risks, they spent big on R&D, and I think you can certainly blame mismanagement but it's wrong to imply Intel wasn't taking risks.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#146

Post by numpad0 » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:21 AM UTC

ripe wrote: post #125

numpad0 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how often would you refer to people from India as Asians, should you use the word?

In Britain they call people from India Asians all the time. Immigrants from the Indian subcontinent are the biggest nonwhite group, and that’s the word they are known by. In the US, I think people often use “Asian” to euphemistically refer to people they used to call Orientals. The latter term is considered problematic. The new term hasn’t improved their treatment, though.

Found this definition by UN sub-dividing Asia into five(six) sub-regions[1], containing nations as Kazakhstan, China, Philippines, India, Saudi Arabia(, Russia) to name one from each.

I think the "India" prefix in the terminology you mentioned and the fact that euphemistic American "Asian" including only East/Sountheast Asians indicate that there is a widely recognized and practical distinction between the groups, which also aligns with the UN definition, despite both partly sharing the literal expression.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_geoscheme_for_A...

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#147

Post by dannyw » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:30 AM UTC

totalZero wrote: post #134

topspin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's also talking out of both side of his mouth. Yesterday we learn this[1] and this "Galsigner says" story unironically fails to point it out. [1] Intel to Outsource Some Key CPU Production for 2023 Chips to TSMC https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-to-outsource-some-ke...

First, Intel has bought several businesses and some of them (Altera for example) have a pre-existing relationship with TSMC. Second, every wafer that Intel fabs at TSMC is a wafer that AMD cannot fab at TSMC. Intel plays defense on pricing and supply by producing with TSMC. Not to mention the greater market awareness that Intel gains by being a client of its competitor.

TSMC knows Intel is a fab competitor, and everyone involved in the relationship will be thinking first about how to protect TSMC interests and trade secrets, and secondly servicing Intel.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#148

Post by dannyw » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:32 AM UTC

davedx wrote: post #109

Full of sound and fury, isn't he? Let's see Intel really take that gigantic mountain of cash they have and actually execute on this. Then we'll see.

Intel spends $13.5B a year on R&D. AMD spends $2B. TSMC spends about $3B.

Spending more cash isn't the problem. I know it's easy to blame the bean counters for everything, but in the chip-making business, today's problems are created 5 years ago, and if Bob did a good job, we'll see it years after his departure.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#149

Post by kats » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:34 AM UTC

Arm has a better business model because there are so many great computer engineers in the world and with ARM they all create new SoCs.

Because of Arm's model there are many diverse ARM SoCs, and ARM is the leader in everything from wireless keyboards up to the fastest smartphones. ARM is also in the fastest supercomputer. In the areas of desktops and servers, ARM will keep gaining popularity because there will be many new ARM-based designs for every 1 produced by Intel or AMD. Intel will never catch up when they are competing against many excellent companies that are all sharing some of their code.

Re: Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: Too many chips made in Asia

#150

Post by dannyw » Thu, Mar 25, 2021, 12:35 AM UTC

coliveira wrote: post #82

NobodyNada wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that? As the article explains, they have just announced their plans to directly compete against TSMC/Samsung as a manufacturer of chips for other companies (rather than just manufacturing their own designs). To me, this suggests Gelsinger is confident in the company’s ability to get their 7nm-and-beyond processes back on track and become competitive once again.

> this suggests Gelsinger is confident in the company’s ability to get their 7nm-and-beyond processes back Or it may suggest that the company wants to say anything to reassure investors that it will change course and stop losing market share. I wouldn't read any particular guarantee into these statements.

Credibility is an asset. Talk enough shit, and you're out as the CEO.