this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
148 points (98.1% liked)

Technology

59392 readers
3274 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] riodoro1@lemmy.world 28 points 2 weeks ago

Didn’t they like cancel a bunch of factory projects recently?

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Who possibly saw that if you kill your manufacturing and buy from a company with monopoly power, they could write there own profits.

Sometimes big companies are really dumb.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 21 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

While in reality TSMC gave Intel a 40% discount, a discount that was only discontinued, because Gelsinger trash talked TSMC!
So you are right they were dumb, but you are completely wrong about the why and how.

But of course based only on this article, it's impossible to get that part right.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 8 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Or TSMC was always planning to raise the price and Gelsinger just gave them an excuse to do so sooner while not losing face or worrying other clients too much.

[–] Buffalox@lemmy.world 5 points 2 weeks ago

Maybe, personally I think they sold to Intel cheap to discourage them from investing heavily in production. Which of course they did anyway.
But I wouldn't be surprised if the price they had with TSMC with the steep discount, would be cheaper than Intels own production.

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 20 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

This is a pretty dumb take, honestly. Intel for basically forever operated using their own fab exclusively. After failures to maintain good yield rates at their 10nm node, they had the option of continuing to delay new product lines and be eaten by the competition in AMD, or give in to TSMC temporarily while they worked on fixing their fab in parallel. In fact, they were criticized greatly for not switching to TSMC much earlier.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works -2 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

The key word is temporarily. How long ago was this?

Calling people dumb then throwing a weak argument doesn't make it stronger.

They're on wafer thin margins with vendor lock in. The strategy was not successful.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 2 weeks ago

It was a bad take. Intel has not been using TSMC long.

That said, it's pretty broadly agreed that Intel needs to toss its manufacturing arm into a subsidiary, and then possibly make that subsidiary completely independent. That's what AMD did with Global Foundries, and it worked very well for them. This process seems to have already started at Intel.

[–] KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world 3 points 2 weeks ago

I think it's been about a year? IIRC Intel only started using TSMC for their processors with Meteor Lake, which was released in late 2023.

I believe their discrete GPUs have been manufactured at TSMC for longer than that, though.

[–] firadin@lemmy.world 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

How long do you think fabs take to build and upgrade? Intel was working on fixing 10nm for years, this isn't a software situation where turnaround times are measured in days or weeks. Going from tapeout to silicon for a single line is a 6 month process after the technology process is solidified, forget if you're doing it while trying to figure out yield problems.

[–] Entropywins@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago

Three years in and at least one more to go where I work for our fab upgrade...could probably pull off new build in 4 or less not having to deal with production/cleanroom and depending on bldg/campus size.

[–] Entropywins@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Ha wafer thin margins funny!!! Side note you ever watched them pull/crystallize silicone ingots it's pretty frickin cool to see.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 0 points 2 weeks ago

Executives at that time got paid for these decisions.

Nothing dumb about being paid. Taxpayers bail these parasites out at every turn now that's idiotic but here we are 🤡

[–] solrize@lemmy.world 14 points 2 weeks ago
[–] lnxtx@feddit.nl 13 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Good days are coming for Intel.

Meanwhile stock prices going down, down, down.

[–] Alphane_Moon@lemmy.world 6 points 2 weeks ago

Perhaps that's an opportunity, if you don't think it's a value trap that is.

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Actually not, with the job cuts the other day, share price rose.

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 7 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Failing company eroding its work force get a temporary bump in stock price.

Bullish 🤡

[–] IcyToes@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 weeks ago

They have a big market share and can improve margins with big state subsidies and firing people. Bug corps always fine. Workers are the ones that suffer.

Don't crack out the violins for Intel just yet. The reporting is hyperbole, and if you can't digest the facts through the sensationalism. A media break might be a good plan.

[–] hark@lemmy.world 11 points 2 weeks ago

Break free from the solution they resorted to in the pursuit of profits? Too bad that backfired, but it's okay since Intel can keep making subpar products as long as the government has their back.

[–] Grass@sh.itjust.works 9 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

will they fuck that up too?

[–] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 3 points 2 weeks ago

Not as long ad american taxpayer keeps giving them billions;)