Intel looking to 'avoid fighting' with Apple for TSMC's 3nm chip production
A new report says that Intel executives are shortly to visit chip company TSMC, specifically to discuss the company's production capacity for 3nm processors.
Intel
Backing up previous claims that Intel is considering outsourcing production to TSMC, a new report says that a meeting is to happen in the next few weeks.
"High-level executives of Intel will pay a visit to Taiwan in mid-December," says a brief report in Digitimes, "and meet TSMC to discuss the US vendor's demanded 3nm chip capacity, according to industry sources."
Earlier reports said that Intel was considering the outsourcing, but still hoped to improve its own manufacturing capabilities.
The meeting is said to help Intel "avoid fighting with Apple" for manufacturing capacity. Presumably, this is about scheduling the runs, so TSMC won't be trying to crank out Intel processors at the same time it is producing chips for a future iPhone, but it isn't clear in the report what will be discussed to prevent that.
Separately, TSMC has begun the next stage of pilot production of 3nm processors for Apple. Devices utilizing the chips are not expected until early 2023, which is likely to be the earliest that Intel could see production too.
Digitimes has a poor track record as it pertains to Apple's future plans. It has but a much better one regarding information about Apple's suppliers. Friday's report is more of the latter than the former.
Read on AppleInsider
Intel
Backing up previous claims that Intel is considering outsourcing production to TSMC, a new report says that a meeting is to happen in the next few weeks.
"High-level executives of Intel will pay a visit to Taiwan in mid-December," says a brief report in Digitimes, "and meet TSMC to discuss the US vendor's demanded 3nm chip capacity, according to industry sources."
Earlier reports said that Intel was considering the outsourcing, but still hoped to improve its own manufacturing capabilities.
The meeting is said to help Intel "avoid fighting with Apple" for manufacturing capacity. Presumably, this is about scheduling the runs, so TSMC won't be trying to crank out Intel processors at the same time it is producing chips for a future iPhone, but it isn't clear in the report what will be discussed to prevent that.
Separately, TSMC has begun the next stage of pilot production of 3nm processors for Apple. Devices utilizing the chips are not expected until early 2023, which is likely to be the earliest that Intel could see production too.
Digitimes has a poor track record as it pertains to Apple's future plans. It has but a much better one regarding information about Apple's suppliers. Friday's report is more of the latter than the former.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Apple has been using TSMC to produce their Apple Silicon chips for the better part of a decade. They help finance development of new cutting edge nodes, and have been a critical partner in TSMC's advancement and evolution into the world's best (and possibly largest) fab.
At first, TSMC was reluctant to take on Apple's business because they didn't want to put so many of their eggs into such a large basket, but eventually the two got together and have been working with each other ever since. Apple likes doing business with TSMC because they not a competitor, and their IP won't accidentally leak into some other subdivision's competing products.
Now, along comes this new Johnny-Come-Lately with a fist full of dollars and wants you to produce their CPUs while they're upgrading their own fab to more modern standards.
Do you go with with Intel for the fast cash grab, of stick with the partner who's been working with you all this time?
Of course, when Intel gets their own fabs up to snuff, you know you'll suffer the double whammy of losing not only the business of fabricating Intel CPUs, but Intel will then try to take as many of your other customers as they can.
What's a body to do ... ?
Here’s 2 companies that did something similar and stepped on Apple’s toes:
Google
Samsung
Luckily, TSMC hasn’t put knockoff Apple products on the market but nothing is protected or off limits anymore.
TSMC may set up more fab capacity for Intel (if possible), but I think Apple's 3nm capacity is safe.
Let's hope they've got 3nm working for A16/M3, though if not there's always TSMC's N4P node (which I believe is working).
1. Intel already announced back in 2020 that they were going to use TSMC in 2022 as part of their transition year from 10nm to 7nm. (Technically Intel has been producing CPUs on their 10nm process since 2019, but they only achieved the ability to exceed 4 cores on it in 2021).
2. Only GPUs (a new product for Intel), certain Xeon CPUs (that ran into issues with Intel manufacturing them on their 10nm node) and Atom CPUs (their small core CPU that was created for their failed attempt at making smartphone and tablet CPUs ... I have no idea what they are going to be used for, maybe Windows 11 tablets) are going to be manufactured at TSMC. The vast majority of their chips - laptop, desktop and some Xeon - are going to be manufactured on Intel's 10nm node.
3. Intel already signed a deal to use TSMC's 6nm and 4nm nodes for this purpose. The first batch of GPUs is already being manufactured on this node: https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-alchemist-gpu-tsmc-6nm-process/ so all that is happening here is Intel's attempt to upgrade from the 4nm node to the 3nm node for the other half of the deal. Why is Intel doing this? Because AMD is very justifiably angry at TSMC for delaying their Zen4 from 4Q2021 to 3Q2022 (which allowed Intel to use Alder Lake to narrow the gap on process size and beat AMD in offering DDR5 and PCIe 5 ) and increasing their prices for the privilege. As a result, AMD is jumping ship to Samsung and their 3nm process: https://wccftech.com/amd-rumored-to-become-samsungs-first-3nm-customer-along-with-65-revenue-growth/
Now please note that Intel always preferred the 3nm process. TSMC suggested that they use 4nm instead because they intended to serve Apple and AMD first. But now that AMD won't be using TSMC's 3nm capacity, Intel is merely asking TSMC if that provides an opening to use 3nm instead of 4nm. So, Intel is likely asking "what is the maximum number of chips that you can fab for us while still accommodating Apple"? Unlike AMD, Intel doesn't need more than a few million GPUs and Xeon/Atom CPUs ... 10 million max likely. Whatever number TSMC will state that they can offer, Intel will buy.
That is all that is going on folks. In 2023, Intel will be back to using their foundry exclusively. The only interesting part is that TSMC may have lost AMD to Samsung for good. TSMC is fighting back by trying to get Qualcomm to choose its 3nm node over Samsung's for their flagship SOCs, and Qualcomm is listening to their pitch (no final decision yet). Also, Nvidia was frustrated with yield problems on Samsung's 8nm node - which left them unable to leave AMD in the dust because of TSMC's inability to manufacture enough GPUs for for them - so they are shifting their entire GPU operation to the 5nm and 6nm nodes that Apple and MediaTek are abandoning. However, Intel is aggressively pursuing Qualcomm, Nvidia and Google for their 7nm node starting in 2023. Samsung's new foundry in Texas is basically being built to counteract Intel's new foundries.
Now that Samsung has caught up to TSMC - they will actually start mass production on their 3nm node before TSMC will - and Intel narrowing the gap with both (their 7nm is equivalent to TSMC 6nm and Samsung 5nm), the foundry wars begun have they. It is going to be neat to watch.
As for Google, they are making 10 times the revenue now that they did in 2011 before Android took off. Not only did Android prevent Microsoft from getting even bigger - without Android, Microsoft's mobile efforts would have inevitably succeeded and been used to drive a ton more traffic to Bing - but prior to Android more people were actually taking about Yahoo as a future tech and entertainment conglomerate (remember all the hype about their hiring Marissa Mayer?) than Google.
Meanwhile, far from stepping on Apple's toes, they are doing fine. Biggest, most profitable company in history and all that? Where it can be argued that Microsoft creating Windows might have hurt Apple - though in fairness it was primarily due to Apple's abject refusal to take software seriously back then, resulting in great hardware that couldn't do what 70% of the market wanted or needed it to do - Google's creating Android didn't hurt Apple at all. Apple had absolutely no interest in the low end of the market and that is what Android primarily services. And again, if it hadn't been Android taking care of that need, Microsoft would have.