• IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    2 months ago

    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
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • shastaxc@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months 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.

      • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you can offer a 40% discount and still make profit, your prices are probably 3 times the cost.

        If you cannot go to another supplier, you have vendor lock in.

        I’m an AMD guy, so I got no skin in the game defending Intel, but if you’re shilling this much for TSMC, you aren’t really bringing an unbiased opinion.

        • Buffalox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          If you can offer a 40% discount and still make profit

          Maybe they didn’t? Or at least maybe not much.

          if you’re shilling this much for TSMC

          What? How am I shilling for TSMC? And I’m 100% an AMD guy myself, I freaking stuck to AMD during the whole Buldozer shitty period, because I didn’t want an Intel monopoly. And I bought AMD stock when they revealed Ryzen.

          So I do NOT encourage a TSMC monopoly either.

          • IcyToes@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            A business easily offers a 40% discount. You didn’t critically assess that, ask how, and give off vibes it was a charitable and Intel was ungrateful. TMSC while an interesting business is still a big corp with profitability at heart.

            Even if Intel aren’t the good guys, you cannot assume TMSC is. I like AMD, but I’m under no illusion they could throw consumers under the bus tomorrow for self interest. Right now, it’s king for Linux hardware though.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              2 months ago

              https://archive.fo/VnQUu

              In public, TSMCdownplayed, opens new tab the comments, with its founder calling Gelsinger“a bit rude.” Privately, TSMC said it would no longer honor the discount, the sources said: about 40% off the $23,000, 3-nanometer wafers on which TSMC would print chips for Intel. Intel had to pay full price, shrinking its profit margin on the deal.

            • Buffalox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              and give off vibes it was a charitable

              WTF! I did no such thing, that’s 100% on you to put that into it. I think they did it to discourage Intel from investing too heavily in their own production which would compete with TSMC.

              Even if Intel aren’t the good guys

              Again WTF? Where did any of that come from? They are businesses, their purpose is to make money!

              You are being delusional.

    • firadin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      2 months ago

      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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        2 months ago

        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.

        • KingRandomGuy@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months 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.

        • frezik@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months 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.

        • firadin@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months 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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months 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 🤡