Mayberry jumped back to 1998 when the U.S. based technology research
consortium Semiconductor Research Corp. had 34 members, when the
International Technology Roadmap on Semiconductors (ITRS) initiative was
started and when Intel first joined an IMEC research program.
drew a picture of remarkable consistency of ideas with many companies
pooling their research through a pre-competitive funnel which ended up
with essentially one manufacturing process used by multiple companies
for multiple products. Although Mayberry didn't mention it explicitly it
seems likely that the technical homogeneity has promoted the
foundry/fabless business model and consolidation on the manufacturing
side of the semiconductor industry.
Jump forward to 2013 and SRC
has 13 members. "There are fewer customers for the research and
perception issues with governments," said Mayberry. There is a
temptation to become a customer of such research collaborations but in
fact the industry as a whole needs to move to the left, to move upstream
and support a range of research on dissimilar processes, Mayberry
The industry demands constant innovation and novel
materials deployed in complex 3-D structures will likely become the
norm, he said. "Today we have even more choices than we have had in the
past – this is both good and bad for research," Mayberry concluded.
challenged from the floor that he was ignoring the economic crunch of
researching more technologies from an industry base that is experiencing
declining growth, declining margins and is generally under pressure,
Mayberry said it about making choices.
"It is a question of
funding the right cooperations. In the industry there is enough total
money available. It is like saving for your pension fund. A choice
between enjoying the expensive car today or putting something aside to
fund the future."
Click on image to enlarge.
What lies in the fog of technical
uncertainty? The end of the road for silicon development, or just an
inflection point, Mayberry asked of the ITF audience.
The last statement flies in the face of today's stock holder, who wants short term performance. It takes a cash cow(s) to be able to fund research in today's climate. The X86 has done that for Intel. How long will that continue?
I saw the Intel talk. As usually no useful information was given...just a lot of hot air
"Mayberry said that everything up to the 10-nm CMOS node – which is in development at Intel and will ramp production in 2015 - is effectively done."
give me a break. Intel cant even get 22nm atom parts to work before Q4 or early 2012
You know a lot less than you think you do.
I do agree that most talks from Intel are scant on details, but you have to look at their track record. Unlike IBM they don't systematically over-promise and under-deliver. Sure, there is a miss here and there, but rarely anything serious.
I suspect that the Atom issue has more to do with design than manufacturing. And Mayberry was talking about the manufacturing side. The recent gutting of IAG senior management suggests the same thing.
Aside from manufacturing breakthrough, much can be done in design and application areas. There are opportunities but there are lots of challenges, especially in the scale large enough for Intel. In addition to high volume applications, Intol may be benefited to develop low volume high value areas.
I invented a CPU cooler - 3 times better than best - better than water. Intel have major CPU cooling problems - "Intel's microprocessors were generating so much heat that they were melting" (iht.com) - try to talk to them - they send my communications to my competitor & will not talk to me.
Winners of major 'Corporate Social Responsibility' awardS!!!
When did RICO get repealed?"
INVENTORS - DO NOT TRUST INTEL!!!
BTW, I have the evidence - my competitor gave it to me.
BBTW, I am prepared to apologise to Intel if;
• They can show that the actions were those of a single individual in the company, acting outside corporate policy, and:
• They gain redress on my behalf.
Inventors - help your fellow inventors - share your experiences with companies - good and bad.
Intellectual Property Rightful Owners Action Group