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

Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 647 posts

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#81

Post by dtwest »

long_time_gone wrote: post #73
qsmi wrote: post #67

Does anyone know why Intel would want to build a "mega-site" in the city of Columbus Ohio? Why not choose Cleveland Ohio where one has port access with an existing route to Europe? Fabs are international affairs, no matter where they're rooted, because just to keep the place running one needs a constant stream of parts from everywhere. It seems like being in a sea/rail/truck hub would be a logistics advantage. [1] ht…

> Does anyone know why Intel would want to build a "mega-site" in the city of Columbus Ohio? My guess would be access to talent and costs. Columbus is more than 2x bigger than Cleveland. Building cars is also an international affair and we see those plants all over the place.

Columbus metro area is roughly the same size as Cleveland metro area so I don't think that is the reason.

However, it could still have a talent advantage. Having OSU nearby is helpful, and maybe it is easier to attract talent to move to a city with a big university.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#82

Post by RC_ITR »

ksec wrote: post #50
missedthecue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ohio is situated on the great lakes and therefore has a lot of cheaply available water, while Arizona does not. Chip production is water intensive. Not to mention the vast expanses of cheap land, and their electricity costs are pretty low as well. These could be reasons.

Modern Fabs can recycle its water usage by up to 90%. Electricity cost for Business in both state seems to be about the same. Land are cheap as well ( From what I have been told ). You do get operational efficiency from having Fabs all located within one place. And that is a quote from TSMC's ex-CEO Morris Chang. That is why I wonder if there is something missing. Or is it the simplest explanation Not to put all eggs…

Arguments can be made that TSMC's choice to consolidate locations is part of the reason that we have a semi shortage right now (concentrated water shortage risk, concentrated worker illness risk, etc. etc.)

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#83

Post by dragontamer »

qsmi wrote: post #77
tux3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mandatory comment is your threadly reminder that node names are entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions, as has been the case for many years now. You should not interpret node names as meaning anything more than a point on the semiconductor roadmap. Nodes that share the same names across foundries will not have the same performance characteristics, but are usually roughly comparable (especially since Intel…

> node names are entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions I agree they're not necessarily related to any particular transistor dimension but are you sure it's entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions? If so, here is a question I have. 28nm, 22nm, 20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, 3nm. What progression is that? Why skip 6nm and 4nm?

A "full node" step is 1/2 the area of the previous. Since area is dimension-squared, 28 x 28 == ~800 area, while 20 x 20 == ~400 area.

So 28 -> 20 is a "full node" decrease (ie: twice the transistors).

---------

We can see the full-node step from 14nm -> 10nm as well: 14 x 14 == ~200, 10x10 == 100. So its a full node step. The next full-node is 7 x 7 == ~50, which is half of 100. After 7 comes 5, because 25 is half of 50.

The next full node is sqrt(12.5) or 3.5, smack dab between 3 and 4, so not really easy to round.

---------

The steps in between are "half-node" decrements, where you didn't quite achieve a full 1/2 area reduction. An incremental technology that represents something in between the full node step progression.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#84

Post by RC_ITR »

jdhn wrote: post #35
missedthecue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ohio is situated on the great lakes and therefore has a lot of cheaply available water, while Arizona does not. Chip production is water intensive. Not to mention the vast expanses of cheap land, and their electricity costs are pretty low as well. These could be reasons.

They're building the plant near Columbus, which isn't near the Great Lakes. If they wanted Great Lakes water they would've chosen Cleveland, which is very close to Lake Erie.

Semantically, damning water in the Great Lakes Watershed (how Columbus get's its water) is not THAT different from letting that water flow into Lake Erie and then piping it back.

Point being, Ohio has very few long-term drought concerns.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#85

Post by xxpor »

brewdad wrote: post #44
missedthecue wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ohio is situated on the great lakes and therefore has a lot of cheaply available water, while Arizona does not. Chip production is water intensive. Not to mention the vast expanses of cheap land, and their electricity costs are pretty low as well. These could be reasons.

Water in AZ is some of the cheapest in the country. At least until Lake Powell runs dry. Not a bad idea to spread the risks around however.

No wonder they grow all that lettuce in Yuma.

Seems extremely stupid from a long term perspective, but what do I know. I'm just a software guy.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#86

Post by nurspouse »

beambot wrote: post #56
bushbaba wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Foxconn is hard, repetitive manual labor. chip fab isn’t nearly as bad of work. Americans don’t want crappy jobs which is why foxcon had issues.

"TSMC’s Arizona Culture Clash" - https://www.eetimes.com/tsmcs-arizona-culture-clash/ > Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co. (TSMC) faces challenges managing employees at its new fab in Arizona who are unaccustomed to the long work hours and management culture that in Taiwan have helped make the company the world’s largest chip foundry.

Having worked at Intel, I can tell you that the process side of Intel has similar work hours. This, in particular, rings true for Intel:

> Different positions may have different requirements, so work hours vary, according to the principal engineer. “An equipment engineer might start work at 8 o’clock in the morning and leave around 9 o’clock at night, but is it normal? This may happen two or three days a week. On a production line, the equipment must be maintained.

> “If you are a process engineer, it will be more stable. Maybe you can start work at 8:30 a.m.and leave before 7:30 p.m. If there are some urgent matters, you may have to stay later.”

At Intel, process engineers had to attend a daily meeting at 7:40am (mandatory), and would rarely leave before 6pm (meetings scheduled at 5 or 6pm were common). I sometimes would wander around in that part of the building at 7pm and a significant fraction of cubicles would be filled.

Almost all Intel process engineers have PhDs.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#87

Post by 7952 »

qsmi wrote: post #67

Does anyone know why Intel would want to build a "mega-site" in the city of Columbus Ohio? Why not choose Cleveland Ohio where one has port access with an existing route to Europe? Fabs are international affairs, no matter where they're rooted, because just to keep the place running one needs a constant stream of parts from everywhere. It seems like being in a sea/rail/truck hub would be a logistics advantage. [1] ht…

It has an international airport, intermodal rail freight depot and interstate highways.

I would guess that raw materials can be transported by road or rail. Access to a waterway is sometimes needed for very heavy indivisible parts (not sure if this is commons for fabs) but that is unlikely to be a regular occurrence. Just drive it down the interstate with a police escort at 2am.

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#88

Post by [deleted] »

qsmi wrote: post #77
tux3 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This mandatory comment is your threadly reminder that node names are entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions, as has been the case for many years now. You should not interpret node names as meaning anything more than a point on the semiconductor roadmap. Nodes that share the same names across foundries will not have the same performance characteristics, but are usually roughly comparable (especially since Intel…

> node names are entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions I agree they're not necessarily related to any particular transistor dimension but are you sure it's entirely unrelated to any physical dimensions? If so, here is a question I have. 28nm, 22nm, 20nm, 14nm, 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, 3nm. What progression is that? Why skip 6nm and 4nm?

[deleted]

Re: Intel's $20B Ohio factory could become world's largest chip plant

#90

Post by qsmi »

ksec wrote: post #15

Intel said the same thing for Arizona as well. Initial $20B investment which could expand to $100B. So they are building it in two places. I wonder why they dont keep it all in Arizona? ( May be Tax Break, but I have no idea how Tax Break works in US ) And if you include their (expected) expansion in EUR, Intel is layering the foundation for Foundry Services. Compared to its half assed Custom Foundry in 2012/2013 wit…

Increasing supply chain resiliency by having multiple, geographically separated, sites this more of a thing now.

https://hbr.org/2020/09/global-supply-chains-in-a-post-pande...

"The obvious way to address heavy dependence on one medium-risk or high-risk source (a single factory, supplier, or region) is to add more sources in locations not vulnerable to the same risks."

Post reply on HN