Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#571

Post by simne »

idrathernot wrote: post #570
simne wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm confused ... > The original Rolls-Royce company ...due to financial issues with its aerospace business. Well, it is because you do not understand economy of business. Unfortunately, main goal of any business is to be viable, not mean profitable, just be good enough to pay expenses need to run things defined as goals. By definition, ALL old automotive companies started as hybrids - car division to make profits a…

I think the main counter example to this in the case of Intel is Global Foundries success after splitting from AMD. However GF had to find their own niche downmarket to the cutting edge nodes that AMD requires. So in the case of RR, it’d be like if the turbine segment gave up on SOTA aero engines and instead transitioned into electricity generation turbines (or some less sexy end market). My personal bias is that in…

> Global Foundries success after splitting from AMD

As I know, in ~1990th HBR written article about constantly under-loaded semiconductor fabs and concluded, it is unprofitable to tightly couple them to R&D.

Counter-argument was, that Intel used ties to fabs, to achieve extreme level of scalability, to fill market demand fastest, so marketing won.

What really happen, appeared few new specialized classes of semiconductors - signal, accelerators, high-power (high-current), and low-power (energy effective), and independent fabs made universal pipeline, to fill all market demand, but Intel stuck on desktop CPUs and failed all other classes (as example, Intel was unsuccessful in try to got niche on smartphones SoCs - still have not made cellular modem and nearly failed on GPUs).

To be more exact, Nvidia in reality is most software company from hardware companies, and AMD with their GPU division constantly competes to Nvidia literally head-to-head.

And what was gamechanger - when AMD struck to limits of reliable transistors on one die, they decided to switch to chiplets - they made 2.5D multiple-die design with silicon interimposer, while Intel used their manufacturing superiority to make huge dies with all included.

- Once appeared, with chiplets, AMD could achieve much better performance on weaker but much cheaper technology and won.

So my point - Intel suffered from too tightly couples with fabs, so once they have to adapt their designs and marketing to semiconductors, when AMD successfully avoided this trap. BTW, for this exist much better example - similar problem once killed Atari and Commodore.

Re: US Intel

#572

Post by simne »

simne wrote: post #571
idrathernot wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the main counter example to this in the case of Intel is Global Foundries success after splitting from AMD. However GF had to find their own niche downmarket to the cutting edge nodes that AMD requires. So in the case of RR, it’d be like if the turbine segment gave up on SOTA aero engines and instead transitioned into electricity generation turbines (or some less sexy end market). My personal bias is that in…

> Global Foundries success after splitting from AMD As I know, in ~1990th HBR written article about constantly under-loaded semiconductor fabs and concluded, it is unprofitable to tightly couple them to R&D. Counter-argument was, that Intel used ties to fabs, to achieve extreme level of scalability, to fill market demand fastest, so marketing won. What really happen, appeared few new specialized classes of semiconduc…

Example, how Intel could use their superiority and fast feedback.

Semiconductor fabs usually not make ultraclean materials themselves, but bought from many smaller specialized entities. As example exist few companies, producing ultraclean silicone as crystal cylinders. When fab bought such crystal they could slice from it few wafers and made test runs with their product line designs. For example, they could try i7-7700, i7-7700hq and i7-7700k. If they seen good output with 7700k, it is best possible, as these chips have very similar die size, but 7700k is most expensive; if they seen moderate output with 7700k, but good output with 7700, it's also ok, for them also good demand; but if only 7700hq have good output, things are not good, because notebook chip is not so easy to sell, so have to do some marketing (usually these seen as some exceptionally high prices for some chips, because of low silicone output).

Unfortunately, semiconductors have limits on how large could be one die. Companies like Cerebras use some tricks, usually they just disable parts of die with jumpers, as I know, same tricks used Nvidia before 30th series, but approx same time appeared whole industry movement for chiplets standards, and looks like Nvidia used 2.5D technology to avoid trap with too large die.

Re: US Intel

#573

Post by downrightmike »

Panzer04 wrote: post #394
downrightmike wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And Core was a lucky happenstance for Intel as they were not innovating at all and fell behind, thank goodness their isreal lab was doing something other than P4 work. Even recently, we've seen that all intel can do is increase cores and increase power consumption, and they still can't compete. This is itanium all over again, because that is how intel functions.

This is just doomerism. Intel's current chips are "fine" and competitive with AMD chips. If anything, Intel is trying out more things than AMD is.

"Throw shit at the wall and see what sticks", isn't a top tier business strategy, it is desperate though.

Re: US Intel

#574

Post by jojobas »

0xDEAFBEAD wrote: post #417
jojobas wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VCs are happy to send a vast majority of their investments in search for billion-dollar company. There is no chance to get an agricultural startup to billion dollar valuation, agricultural innovations don't scale at a click of a button.

I don't see any reason in principle why a $1B+ exit wouldn't be possible. This YCW18 ag company was acquired less than 3 years in by John Deere for $250M: https://techcrunch.com/2021/08/05/john-deere-buys-autonomous...

Surely this company was 80%+ software.

Re: US Intel

#575

Post by nonethewiser »

aurareturn wrote: post #547
nonethewiser wrote: post #538

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They want to wait when it's so obvious that Taiwan would lose and lose quickly that Taiwan simply gives itself up. I agree they prefer a peaceful resolution but that would be in the form of Taiwan wanting to become part of China and deciding to reunify. It makes no sense to surrender without being forced to.

It makes sense if it's inevitable.

Its not inevitable if they arent willing to actually invade

Re: US Intel

#576

Post by sitzkrieg »

BeetleB wrote: post #331
sitzkrieg wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you think on call doesn't exist in software? its a common squeeze and replace w h1b tool

Worked as a SW engineer for over a decade. Never did on-call. Not all SW jobs are web related.

i've never been on call for web

Re: US Intel

#577

Post by osnium123 »

sgerenser wrote: post #366
georgeburdell wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I may add my view as a formerly high-achieving semiconductor worker that Intel would benefit greatly from having right now, a lot of us pivoted to software and machine learning to earn more money. My first 2 years as a software engineer earned me more RSUs than a decade in semiconductors. Semiconductors is not prestigious work in the U.S., despite the strategic importance. By contrast, it is highly respected and r…

I think this is more of an Intel problem than a general semi industry problem. I work for Arm and I’m compensated better than when I worked at Microsoft (although it’s partly due to stock appreciation after the IPO). But I’ve also heard that Broadcom has top-teir RSU grants as well, and even AMD is more competitive than Intel.

Doesn’t Broadcom work their people like dogs though?

Re: US Intel

#578

Post by osnium123 »

pests wrote: post #305
lovich wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking 10% of Intel. Intel was already supposed to get this money and then retroactively were told to give up 10% for it

FWIW, in exchange for less restrictions on what they do with the money and less strict clawback terms.

Yes, Intel won’t have to build out their fabs as aggressively to get the money now.

Re: US Intel

#579

Post by hrq »

vel0city wrote: post #567
hrq wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. Also the biotech industry is largely getting defunded. Venture funds are pointing dollars elsewhere so fewer new companies are being started, while more biotechs are being started in China. Most new drugs come from biotechs nowadays (not all of them, not GLP-1’s). But many do. If that innovation is happening in China and not the US today then it will create an issue in several years. We will not control our s…

Biotech still has a lot of basic science kinds of questions in it too. There's a lot about biology we seem to not really know in large populations. A ton of things we need to know more about before we even talk about commercial applications still.

OTOH, the pharma industry has large revenues selling commercially viable therapeutics that seem to have dramatically increased human lifespan and increased quality of life. Even without fully understanding biology there is a lot that can and has been done.

Re: US Intel

#580

Post by hrq »

CincinnatiMan wrote: post #559
hrq wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe something similar is happening in drug development right now. It may take less than 5, 10, 15 years to see the impact to the US. But from someone who has a vantage point to see it across many parts of the industry, including having seen the evolution of Intel / TSMC, I think it is a very similar story. Right now is like 2007 (or maybe even a bit later) for therapeutics. In the future, we will look back on t…

It could be argued that new drug development is less needed during wartime than processor manufacturing.

New drugs have changed the course of some wars!
Post reply on HN