Advertisement
REGISTER | LOGIN
Breaking News
News & Analysis

Intel Opens Door on 7nm, Foundry

Inside Intel’s foundry service
9/11/2014 07:45 AM EDT
14 comments
< Previous Page 2 / 3 Next >
More Related Links
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Moore's Law lives...at what cost!
rick merritt   9/11/2014 12:25:26 PM
NO RATINGS
They say they can keep making the chips at lower cost/transistor per node...but what's the premium foundry customers must pay?

geekmaster
User Rank
Author
Intel foundry at dedicated facilities!
geekmaster   9/11/2014 1:30:40 PM
NO RATINGS
I wonder which facilities Intel uses for the foundry service and are they dedicated to foundry? Intel takes IP very serious, especially when it comes to leading edge. The only way they can guarantee best IP control is dedicating certain facilities to foundry.

HJ88
User Rank
Author
Profit Margins
HJ88   9/11/2014 2:14:37 PM
NO RATINGS
One advantage Intel has in the foundry business is single margin. In the foundry-fabless ecosystem, both foundry and fabless companies have to stack profit margins.

STMicroelectronics is in a similar position to Intel.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Intel foundry at dedicated facilities!
rick merritt   9/11/2014 4:59:52 PM
NO RATINGS
@geekmaster: Interesting question. Rikhi showed all Intel's global fabs including the little discussed one in Dalian, China. He did not suggest in any way that any were off limits. But Intel is only sharing its leading edge 22 and 14nm processes now, so I guess older ones are out--which seems a little strange, doesn't it?

resistion
User Rank
Author
7 nm and 10 nm
resistion   9/11/2014 8:55:51 PM
NO RATINGS
Intel's 10 nm seems pretty much settled now, but it has also been implied pretty often that 7 nm will use the same SAQP methodology as 10 nm. We often hear both nodes talked about in the same breath. Maybe they're looking at DSA as well. In foundry world, only hear TSMC and Intel talk about these nodes. The next few years will be very interesting...

m00nshine
User Rank
Author
Re: Intel foundry at dedicated facilities!
m00nshine   9/11/2014 11:17:41 PM
NO RATINGS
US laws prevent (last time I checked) the export of leading edge technology to China, which is why Fab68 at least started up only making chipsets on 65nm when intel was making processors on 32nm. That would suggest 10/7nm foundry in China is a long way off. Also, EE Times seems even more Intel centric than usual lately. Feels like I'm reading PR news releases from them here every other day or so.

Susan Rambo
User Rank
Author
Re: Intel foundry at dedicated facilities!
Susan Rambo   9/12/2014 12:43:38 AM
NO RATINGS
@m00nshine, the Intel Developer Forum is on right now in San Francisco. That's why Intel is in the news.  You're also seeing a lot of Apple in the news this week.

msporer
User Rank
Author
2.5D Breakthrough!
msporer   9/12/2014 12:30:24 PM
NO RATINGS
Wow! No one commented yet on the 2.5D announcement.  This to me is the most significant development of all.   Interposer interconnect WITHOUT TSVs!  Silicon area a fraction of current interposer solutions.  No ultra-thin handling requirements.  Available next year.  Brilliant!  Now all we need are chips with the IO routed to the edge...

JimMcGregor
User Rank
Author
Re: Moore's Law lives...at what cost!
JimMcGregor   9/12/2014 5:23:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Having the technology is good, but what most people miss is that Intel typically locks down its process and tries to run everything on it. That is fine for your own products, but foundries need to be able to tweek the process to the customer's products. To be a major foundry player, Intel will have to break the "no process modification" mindset and having dedicated fabs may be the first step. But as Rick pointed out, even with the right foundry mindset, the cost of the technology may ultimately be the limiting factor.

AZskibum
User Rank
Author
Re: Moore's Law lives...at what cost!
AZskibum   9/12/2014 7:06:55 PM
NO RATINGS
I would like to hear more about how they are reducing mask count on some layers rather than increasing it as they go from 14 nm to 7 nm. That is very counter-intuitive.

Page 1 / 2   >   >>
Like Us on Facebook
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed