Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
After Anti-M1 Ads, Intel Wants to Make Future Apple Silicon Chips
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Expensive yes, but Intel versions are more expensive than M1 versions. For sure Intel will raise the prices a bit more if they are the ones manufacturing it and we as consumers don't want that.
Agreed ! Then Intel may have its way and force Apple to make Bootcamp run on it.
Actually, i think this is Intel dealing with the 5 stages of grief. This today shows they entered stage 3 (bargaining). The ads before where stage 2 (anger).
Just look at all the repair campaigns on any vehicle and you'll see how great industry awards are when a company took shortcuts. No company is perfect but there is a reason GM is also called General Mess.
There actually is no corporation known as Samsung Technologies, nor is there any known as Samsung Mobile. The heart of the Samsung group is Samsung Electronics; Samsung Display is a former operating division of Samsung Electronics that was spun out as a Korean-Japanese joint venture in 2011 to induce technologies that Samsung Electronics could not develop on its own and which the Japanese did not want to transfer outright. Samsung Display is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Samsung Electronics.
Samsung Electronics' mobile-phone division is not a separate company.
If they can make better/equal chips for cheaper they will be competitive , but with Intel long history of VERY HIGH gross margins (doubles Apple GM which in itself leads the OEM`s in GM) i dont see them selling them in a competitive price , so the only way for them to get premium money to justify it will be to leapfrog TSMC and be a leading the node race , if they can do it they can lure back the big clients , but thats very hard to see in today`s landscape.
IMHO Intel din't just burn the Bridge but they poured gas on the smoking ruins and set fire to that. Then Intel realizes 'hey don't I need to cross that bridge?'
Yes, I should have been clearer. Obviously we have companies like TI and GloFo, but they're not at the level of TSMC or Samsung. Intel, while it has fallen behind, has the talent and capital to potentially catch up.
Nobody here wants to hear reasonable stuff, when you can bash Intel. I certainly wouldn’t ...
Intel has been saying they can support smaller sizes for years and have so far not produced when they promised. Why should things change now?
Last edited:
Sears was 90 years old when things started to go wrong. Past performance is no guaranty of future performance or prevention of the company going off a cliff thanks to clueless management.
All they need to do is have a chip called Erie Lake (it caught fire back in the day)
Apple didn't "lie" about perforce of the PowerPC as one person put it "often when a new PowerPC processor came out, it was faster than contemporary Intel processors, but Intel soon caught up each time."
Intel is till stuck on 14nm (i9), and TSMC has progressed to 12,10 ... 7 nm. Working on 5nm already (for 2022).
Get real. If INTEL still had some foundry know-how then Apple would not have moved to M1 that quick.
Right now, they are in denial - awaiting $$$ billions from the America First crowd.
Best of luck with that: the additional $$$ will allow INTEL to continue it's olds ways, avoiding any drastic changes. Really sad, but they lost the edge 10 years ago when they started laying off engineers to beef up the balance sheet (= $m bonus for managers).
Smart move, if they can pull it off. But if they can’t match TSMC currently, how could they magically be able to compete in this space? Can someone with more knowledge on the topic speak to this?
A lot of it is volume. TSMC can’t produce enough chips for everyone who wants to use their services. But more than that Intel’s 10nm is roughly equivalent to TSMC’s 7nm and Samsung’s 5nm in terms of performance and power. (Samsung and TSMC are easier to equate because they have enough of the same designs produced on each it allows an easier comparison but analysts can still study the end result for Intel and make adjudications - going forwards easier comparisons also might be true for Intel) Beyond process node, packaging chiplets and tiles (Intel’s version of chiplets) is going to be a key area of competition and each fab has its own packaging technologies. There’s reason to believe Intel’s are pretty good. Thus they should on these bases get customers, even possibly Apple. Maybe. Apple needs *a lot* of chips. And there are only 3 leading edge fabs. Having said that TSMC is currently the best, is currently able to meet demand for Apple, and is thus likely to be at least the primary supplier even if Apple chooses to diversify its supply of chips. (This is not easy as designing for multiple fabs is tricky - doable though especially if different chip lines - more on how tricky it is next)
The real challenge is going to be communicating with customers. Translating design into actual fabrication is quite tricky. As @cmaier has said though previously Intel has used its own ... particular methods for chip design unique to Intel. This means previous attempts by Intel at being a foundry ended poorly even when they were ahead in process. Now they’re saying they are going to use the standard tools and methods other fabs use, but the Intel fabs aren’t use to those so we’ll see how it goes!
Another part of the announcement not focused on here is that Intel themselves might not even use their own fabs for their own chips given that TSMC is ahead. That’s another BIG change for Intel.
Last edited:
Good luck with that. Last time I heard Intel was still using 14nm++++++++++++ with 20 chips made using 10nm (not 20 part numbers, 20 chips).
Under Tim Cook this is true. Under Steve Jobs these things were often taken a lot more personally.