this post was submitted on 02 Nov 2024
148 points (98.1% liked)
Technology
59569 readers
3825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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.