News & Analysis
Comment
resistion
Intel also missing an interposer strategy here.
skywoo
Altera has no good options. Altera is loosing leading edge to Xilinx at 28nm
Intel to make 14-nm FPGAs for Altera
Rick Merritt
2/26/2013 1:01 AM EST
SAN JOSE, Calif. – Intel Corp. will build FPGAs for Altera Corp. using its 14-nm FinFET process technology in a deal that turns up the heat on TSMC in foundry and Xilinx in high-end FPGAs. The deal marks the largest of a string of publicly disclosed foundry deals for Intel to date--and its first at 14 nm--but is not expected to result in products until 2014.
Altera (San Jose, Calif.) declined to disclose details of the deal, including what products it will make when. However, Altera CEO John Daane did say he believes Intel is two to four years ahead of other foundries with its 14-nm FinFET process, which Altera will use initially to give its highest-end FPGAs advantages in density, performance and power.
High-end parts make up about half the FPGA market, with Altera claiming a lead with 40- and 28-nm parts that it aims to extend with the new Intel process. Besides winning more business away from rival Xilinx, the 14-nm parts could help Altera grab more sockets away from ASICs and application-specific standard devices, Daane said.
Intel promised Altera access to the 14-nm process for 12 years to satisfy long-term availability requirements of defense and other customers, Daane said. The multi-year deal allows Altera to use other existing and future nodes, but the FPGA maker initially will focus on high-end parts at 14 nm, he said.
Using multi-die chip stacks, Altera currently ships an FPGA that packs 1.2 million logic elements, lagging a similar chip from Xilinx with 2 million logic elements. However, such parts have relatively high costs and power and take a performance hit due to additional on-chip communications. They are used “for prototyping predominantly—it’s a niche,” Daane said.
Altera surveyed foundries for a year before striking the deal with Intel. It will continue to make chips at TSMC and conduct ongoing evaluations of other processes as they develop.
Daane cited reports that other foundries are grafting a first-generation of FinFETs on to existing 20-nm design rules to create what they are calling a 14-nm node. “Intel’s 14-nm is a second generation FinFET process, while others are just starting to implement their first,” he said.
The deal marks "a significant departure for Altera," said Deutsche Bank analyst Ross Seymore, who doesn't expect Altera to see revenue from it until 2015. It is also "a validation of Intel's manufacturing leadership" that "should help Intel make gains in foundry services," he added.
"It is not Intel's objective to become a general foundry service provider," said Len Jelinek, a chief analyst at IHS iSuppli. Rather it aims "to select a few high volume [foundry] clients [that] provide Intel with an additional revenue stream to help defer the cost of its advanced manufacturing capability," he said.
Altera (San Jose, Calif.) declined to disclose details of the deal, including what products it will make when. However, Altera CEO John Daane did say he believes Intel is two to four years ahead of other foundries with its 14-nm FinFET process, which Altera will use initially to give its highest-end FPGAs advantages in density, performance and power.
High-end parts make up about half the FPGA market, with Altera claiming a lead with 40- and 28-nm parts that it aims to extend with the new Intel process. Besides winning more business away from rival Xilinx, the 14-nm parts could help Altera grab more sockets away from ASICs and application-specific standard devices, Daane said.
Intel promised Altera access to the 14-nm process for 12 years to satisfy long-term availability requirements of defense and other customers, Daane said. The multi-year deal allows Altera to use other existing and future nodes, but the FPGA maker initially will focus on high-end parts at 14 nm, he said.
Using multi-die chip stacks, Altera currently ships an FPGA that packs 1.2 million logic elements, lagging a similar chip from Xilinx with 2 million logic elements. However, such parts have relatively high costs and power and take a performance hit due to additional on-chip communications. They are used “for prototyping predominantly—it’s a niche,” Daane said.
Altera surveyed foundries for a year before striking the deal with Intel. It will continue to make chips at TSMC and conduct ongoing evaluations of other processes as they develop.
Daane cited reports that other foundries are grafting a first-generation of FinFETs on to existing 20-nm design rules to create what they are calling a 14-nm node. “Intel’s 14-nm is a second generation FinFET process, while others are just starting to implement their first,” he said.
The deal marks "a significant departure for Altera," said Deutsche Bank analyst Ross Seymore, who doesn't expect Altera to see revenue from it until 2015. It is also "a validation of Intel's manufacturing leadership" that "should help Intel make gains in foundry services," he added.
"It is not Intel's objective to become a general foundry service provider," said Len Jelinek, a chief analyst at IHS iSuppli. Rather it aims "to select a few high volume [foundry] clients [that] provide Intel with an additional revenue stream to help defer the cost of its advanced manufacturing capability," he said.
|
|
|
|
|
Navigate to related information
eewiz
2/26/2013 1:20 AM EST
Interesting! So Intel is going into full fledged foundry business. Get the high end customers first and then aim for mid end and leave the low end for others. TSMC/GF got a thing to worry.
Sign in to Reply
SKYHAWK
2/26/2013 6:11 PM EST
One word for Intel foundry. "Capacity", oops they are full now.
Sign in to Reply
garydpdx
3/2/2013 12:02 PM EST
At the bottom of page 1:
"It is not Intel's objective to become a general foundry service provider," said Len Jelinek, a chief analyst at IHS iSuppli. Rather it aims "to select a few high volume [foundry] clients [that] provide Intel with an additional revenue stream to help defer the cost of its advanced manufacturing capability," he said.
Sign in to Reply
Kresearch
2/26/2013 3:03 AM EST
It sounds a little step foreward for Intel. The tipping point comes when Intel gets foundry orders from Apple, Qualcomm or Nvidia. Let's wait and see then.
Sign in to Reply
Wilco1
2/26/2013 8:25 AM EST
Do you seriously believe Intel will fab ARM SoCs for all its competitors on its latest processes? That won't happen unless Intel spins off its expensive idling fabs, or if demand for x86 CPUs falls significantly.
Sign in to Reply
Jack.L
2/27/2013 8:40 AM EST
Intel has an architectural license to ARM though they have stated in the past they will not use it.
The question for Intel sales and marketing is is this a good back door method for getting into those companies to sell their architecture?
Sign in to Reply
Wilco1
2/27/2013 6:18 PM EST
Intel used their ARM license for XScale which was successful in phones (ironically more so than Atom is today).
And I don't see Apple, QC or NVidia drop their ARM designs for x86 - even if competitive. There are advantages to creating your own designs rather than being at the whim of a single supplier.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
2/26/2013 9:03 AM EST
You can bet Quaqlcomm and Nvidia won't be on the list...but maybe Apple, Cisco and...?
Sign in to Reply
junko.yoshida
2/26/2013 8:05 AM EST
So, first Achronix, then Altera!
Sign in to Reply
Garcia-Lasheras
2/26/2013 8:36 AM EST
...and don't forget Tabula.
Three different programmable logic devices companies are already using Intel foundry. It was hard to imagine that a couple of years ago.
Sign in to Reply
de_la_rosa
2/26/2013 9:08 AM EST
DUV immersion lithography is really impressive.
Sign in to Reply
Navaneethan
2/26/2013 9:53 AM EST
New partners. New competitors. Now, Altera needs to work with competitors ARM & Intel as well as competitors TSMC and Intel... Its going to be interesting.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
2/26/2013 10:10 AM EST
This quote just added to the story:
"It is not Intel's objective to become a general foundry service provider," said Len Jelinek, a chief analyst at IHS iSuppli. Rather it aims "to select a few high volume [foundry] clients [that] provide Intel with an additional revenue stream to help defer the cost of its advanced manufacturing capability," he said.
Sign in to Reply
chipmonk
2/26/2013 11:54 AM EST
In a world dominated increasingly by ARM based designs at the expense of X86, device & mfg are Intel's remaining strengths. But to stay ahead of the pack and generate enough revenue for R&D and next gen Fabs, Intel needs volume. Otherwise TSMC will soon catch up.
To maintain R&D & process lead Intel must not only generate enough revenue of its own but also deny TSMC and Samsung the tech creds and huge revenues they have been making from Foundry service. Even though demand for Mobile chips is expected to grow at 30+ %, when it comes to tech creds. and markup ( ASP ) it is still a zero sum game. Just look at TSMC vs older UMC at 28 nm.
As Intel's cash cow PC business begins to stagnate in spite of their best design / marketing effort, they need to find new volume, FPGAs and network processors ain't gonna do it. Mobile is the obvious answer.
Pushing own high end designs ( but with 32 nm transistors - no better than Foundries ! ) as a continuation of the top dog mentality ( a byproduct of the x86 monopoly ) has bombed.
Instead Intel should accept reality and implement a nuanced strategy to grow its Mobile business, but still leveraging their lead in process / mfg. tech :
1. Commit to QC and AAPL no competition in leading edge chips for Mobile ( what does US anti-trust laws have to say about that ? any exceptions during the Great Recession ? )
2. Offer these large Fabless co.s Foundry service from Intel's upcoming 20,14 nm Fabs( 2 nodes, well ahead of TSMC / Samsung ).
3. develop its own non ARM architecture & processor / baseband chips ( like MediaTek ) for low end Smartphones & Tablets ( perhaps cheap Windows Phablets to replace Laptops ) aimed at emerging markets but still using its leading node ( 20 nm ) Fabs & therefore lower power ( compared to TSMC or Samsung )
Sign in to Reply
Jack.L
2/27/2013 8:53 AM EST
2) With Apple controlling the end product space, it makes sense to target them as a customer. Apple is a big customer to Intel already and while their processors could be considered competitive, they are not a competitor to Intel. That is not true at all of Qualcom who is definitely a competitor. Partnering with Qualcom would mean Intel abandoning a large future market space. That is just not going to happen.
3) Compared to overall Intel revenue, this portion of the market could be small, even at a 100 million+ units/year. A $10 processor at 100 million units is still only $1 billion. Yes a nice adder to the bottom line, but ultimately not huge dollars for a company of Intel's size. The question is whether yield and die size would offer enough cost savings to give them sufficient margin to justify the business. Also need to consider what portion of the power budget is processor and if the impact of Intel allows a premium charge.
Sign in to Reply
the_floating_ gate
2/26/2013 12:32 PM EST
Here's the reason for ALTR's move - quote from yesterday when ALTR presented @ Morgan Stanley Tech conference.
Intel has die size advantage because it seems very difficult to scale the backend/interconnect.
Also FPGA are early adopters of bleeding edge - it's a blow to TSMC
Well, the most obvious reason is it's, obviously, a smaller nanometer, 14 versus 20, even though 16 is called, 16 FF, it's actually 20 nanometers. But the real key, as you get to these smaller and smaller geometries, is the need for essentially FinFET or technology that prevents transistors from arcing. And Intel's had that technology at 22 and obviously, we'll have that at 14, and it becomes increasingly important as you move down the nodes and that's the biggest reason. TSMC will have it. We feel that this was a -- those of you that talked to me before, you know that we do a constant evaluation of foundry capability, weighing a number of factors, been really open about that and at this point, we just decided this made the most sense. Keep in mind TSMC still is building all of our products and so they're still a very, very important partner to us
Sign in to Reply
joshxdr
2/26/2013 12:55 PM EST
This is a very dangerous time for Intel. They have had a very good run with x86, but this market is flattening. Intel has huge overhead costs for design and manufacturing, they depend on the growth of x86 to sustain their business model. The fact that Intel is pursuing foundry deals is an admission that they cannot fill their cutting edge fabs with x86, not to mention their older fabs. Intel needs to find a new business model or accept a future where there is a potential death spiral of declining profits, declining technology investiment, and declining leadership in process technology.
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
2/26/2013 1:11 PM EST
So where's that new Intel CEO?
Sign in to Reply
MikeSmith2011
2/26/2013 5:02 PM EST
Morris Chang would be perfect for that!
Sign in to Reply
GoGoGeek
2/26/2013 1:36 PM EST
Where will they make the 14nm? Ireland, D1X, Fab 42?
Sign in to Reply
luting
2/26/2013 2:38 PM EST
This is huge gambling to Altera since there is no tracking record at Intel that it could deliver a foundry service to outsider. Cost & IP availability will be another major concern to Altera as well.
Sign in to Reply
Jack.L
2/27/2013 8:57 AM EST
On the other hand, Intel has been one of the most reliable companies at consistently hitting their process milestones on time.
Then you add in the huge potential performance/cost advantage of a true 14nm node.
Those two things together likely equal a lot less risk to forward profits than counting on TSMC.
Sign in to Reply
asianews
2/26/2013 3:34 PM EST
Altera told Taiwan foundry "still committed 95% of its volume going forward" . Just one product on next generation Intel 14FF.
However, this does mean Altera has no interested in Taiwan foundry finfet going forward (16FF or 10FF). Move driven since early test chips on Taiwan foundry 16FF were not promising for speed or power(16FF worse than current FPGA 28HP).
Sign in to Reply
rick.merritt
2/26/2013 4:16 PM EST
I wonder what percentage of the foundry revenue and profit than 5% might be?
Sign in to Reply
WSS-T
2/27/2013 9:20 AM EST
Would this be one of the business negotiation, marketing, and investor/stakeholder PR tactics?
Sign in to Reply
DMcCunney
2/27/2013 12:19 PM EST
It makes sense for Intel and Altera.
As you move into progressively smaller geometries, fewer foundries qualify. Altera wants to move to 14nm for new products. Who else *can* make them?
But as you move down into that range, the cost of building a fab rises into the ionosphere. Very few companies can afford to build them at all, and those that can want to be sure a substantial market is there for what the fabs will make.
The deal with Altera provides Intel with a chunk of revenue to help offset the design and construction costs of 14nm geometries, and Altera is not a direct competitor to Intel. The question is what Altera has in the pipeline that it might ask Intel to manufacture for them.
Intel is essentially in two businesses, design and manufacture. Competitors like ARM are in one: design. Intel has historically designed what it made, but as growth in the X86 market flattens, the question arises of what business will keep those oh so expensive foundries operating at capacity.
"It is not Intel's objective to become a general foundry service provider," sounds quite true, but they also need to keep the fabs turning out product and generating revenue 24/7 to justify having them. Juart filling in the corners and mopping up any idle capacity will be attractive.
I'm just wondering how firm Intel's insistence that while it *has* an ARM license, it doesn't intend to *use* it will remain. Intel *used* to make ARM CPUs via its former StrongARM division. If someone like Apple inquired about Intel making ARM CPUs at 14nm geometries for them, what do you suppose Intel might say? I can see the design side of the house turning colors and sputtering, and the manufacturing side calling the janitors to mop up the drool.
Sign in to Reply
Peter.Ting
2/27/2013 12:59 PM EST
Whats to prevent Intel from been the best ARM isa
cpu design and manufacturing co.
Sign in to Reply
Wilco1
2/27/2013 6:31 PM EST
Good question. Intel did try with XScale - the fastest ARM at the time. One reason for its failure was that they only made CPUs, not SoCs. If they gave up on trying to shoehorn x86 in the mobile space (while holding back at the same time to avoid cannibalizing their main market), and instead went all-out on ARM then they could well become ARM manufacturer #1.
Sign in to Reply
wishboneash
2/27/2013 1:12 PM EST
Altera is behind technically compared to Xilinx in 20nm and trying to use process technology to leapfrog Xilinx. It is not difficult to see why they are doing this.
Sign in to Reply
Hermann C
2/27/2013 1:51 PM EST
t
Sign in to Reply
fundamentals
2/27/2013 1:52 PM EST
The article does not state if the deal with Altera is exclusive or not. Assuming that it is not exclusive, expect Xilinx to do the same very soon. They will be crazy not to! But if the deal is exclusive, then this changes the rules of the game for the FPGA industry, with profound implications in about three to five years.
Sign in to Reply
abc555
2/27/2013 2:13 PM EST
cool cooments
h
Sign in to Reply
Hyperdude
2/27/2013 2:25 PM EST
Does Intel have an ARM arch license for all ARM architectures? I through it was only for the older instruction sets. That being said, do you need ARM's permission to FAB parts for another company who has bought the ARM cores?
I don't see how you can make any dent in volume products without making chips with ARM cores in there. Anything else would not be considered a high volume device. My guess is that Intel is just testing the waters with foundry flow business model.
Sign in to Reply
resistion
4/3/2013 1:06 PM EDT
Altera's a bit crazy to do this, there's not even any 14 nm published data yet, even from Intel.
Sign in to Reply
skywoo
5/2/2013 8:59 AM EDT
Altera has no good options. Altera is loosing leading edge to Xilinx at 28nm
Sign in to Reply
resistion
5/2/2013 6:19 PM EDT
Intel also missing an interposer strategy here.
Sign in to Reply