Slashdot Mirror


AMD, Nvidia Reportedly Tripped Up On Process Shrinks

itwbennett writes: In the fierce battle between CPU and GPU vendors, it's not just about speeds and feeds but also about process shrinks. Both Nvidia and AMD have had their move to 16nm and 20nm designs, respectively, hampered by the limited capacity of both nodes at manufacturer TSMC, according to the enthusiast site WCCFTech.com. While AMD's CPUs are produced by GlobalFoundaries, its GPUs are made at TSMC, as are Nvidia's chips. The problem is that TSMC only has so much capacity and Apple and Samsung have sucked up all that capacity. The only other manufacturer with 14nm capacity is Intel and there's no way Intel will sell them some capacity.

20 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. I got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Build your own fab

    1. Re:I got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      ain't nobody got time for that!

    2. Re:I got an idea by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Informative

      And get owned by intel's illegal monopolistic deals with OEMs?

      Been there, done that. Signed: AMD.

    3. Re:I got an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Build your own fab

      AMD did exactly that. Intel responded by raising their prices and offering "discounts" to vendors in exchange for refusing to stock any AMD products, ensuring that AMD's production capacity was wasted because customers found it incredibly difficult to find anyone willing sell them (despite having a large performance, price and temperature advantage over Intel at the time). AMD took Intel to court over this and won, but Intel managed to drag the case out so ridiculously long that AMD weren't able to keep their foundries. Their R&D took a big hit too.

    4. Re:I got an idea by alexander_686 · · Score: 5, Informative

      I read an interview of John Sculley, ex Apple CEO, 10 years after he left Apple. (There is a link to it somewhere here on Slashdot. ) He said that one of his great mistakes was to choose Motorola's PowerPC RISC chip over Intel's x386 design. All of Apple engineers pulled for the Motorola chip, pointing to its better architecture. And it was true, for a given bit of silicon Motorola was better than Intel.

      Except that Intel's fabs were so much more efficient than Motorola's, they were able to deliver more powerful chips at a cheaper price even with poorer design. Which allowed them to make fat profits, which they plowed back into newer fab plants, which let them sprint past Motorola.

    5. Re:I got an idea by unixisc · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe yes, maybe no.

      Fabs are incredibly capital intensive. If you build one you sort of need to run it at full hilt to make money off of them. And then you are on the tread mill of always having to build another one to have the latest and greatest.

      I am not saying they should not build it, just that it is a completely different beast then design and marketing of their chips. You can't do it half way. FYI, almost everybody agrees that the reason why the x386 dominates today is not because Intel had the best or most efficient designs for microchips but that it had the best run and most efficient fabs. Intel has publicly said it want to be the "McDonalds" on the CPU world – standardized and cheap.

      Are AMD and Navida ready to bit off such a big chuck? I doubt it.

      Fully agree w/ this - it costs a ton of cash to just build the fab, then quite some time before they are in full production, and only after they've run for a few years and been depreciated that their products are profitable. By then, it's usually time to shrink, but by now, at ~15nm, there ain't too much scope for that.

      But in addition to that, the costs of running a fab are recurring - even if there is no demand for a product, the fab has to be kept running, thereby piling on inventory. Which is a good reason why a lot of companies either started of as, or later became, fabless. The only one who is profitable is Intel, as a result of being a full 2 generations ahead of the competition. Reason? Because they make volumes of products that they can sell in the market profitably, thereby enabling themselves to put in a whole ton of cash into newer fabs, better equipment and everything else geared towards process improvements.

    6. Re:I got an idea by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 5, Funny

      AMD: They are fab-u-less!

      FTFY. :-)

    7. Re:I got an idea by Trongy · · Score: 5, Informative

      AMD did not own the sever space. With the introduction of AMD64, they had superior CPUs. However, thanks to intel's illegal monopolistic deals with OEMs they didn't get the sales and profits to plough back into R&D and sustain their technical lead.

    8. Re:I got an idea by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well that too but there's a long feedback loop from profits to production capacity, building a new process facility typically takes 3-4 years. AMD held the lead from mid 1999 (launch of Athlon) to early 2006 (launch of Intel Core). First they had to make some money on that achievement, this still being the dotcom days the stock flew through the roof until the dotcom bubble burst in early 2000. Everything tech-related came crashing down, you could buy AMD stock in 2002 for less than in 1999 despite their excellent products at the time. AMD probably had a helluva time finding funding to expand.

      So if you don't get serious ramp-up capital until 2002, well you're not going to get it online until 2005-2006 and if you look at the stock charts then January 2006 is when they peaked. All looked bright, AMD still had the best product and finally the production capacity to knock Intel out of the driver's seat. Then Intel Core gave them a real kick to the nuts. They just couldn't sell as much as they had planned for, the financial burden from the fabs was dragging the whole company down. That's the trouble with betting too much on growth, when you fail you fail hard. But then everyone had been shouting build more, take down Intel. Hindsight is easy.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  2. bean counters ruin another company by banbeans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Who didn't see not having their own fabs was going to bite them in the rear?
    Only a bunch of bean counters would not have seen this coming.

    1. Re:bean counters ruin another company by DarkOx · · Score: 3

      How are they bitten exactly. Neither one of them can get chips. There is therefore no real competitive disadvantage. They only way I see them getting bitten is if Intel decides they really want a slice of the high end GPU market; ups their game on the design side AND allocates their 14nm facilities to GPUs in favor of cranking out more CPUs.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:bean counters ruin another company by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Funny

      How are they bitten exactly. Neither one of them can get chips.

      Well, then it's a good thing there's only two of them.

      A third company who owned some fabrication facilities would completely screw things up.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:bean counters ruin another company by knightghost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really don't see that. Manufacturing in the USA typically runs Lean and often Cell based with process changes made in minutes. The people also tend to have a wider range of skills and experience. The states with unions pretty much don't do any more manufacturing.

      Outsourcing only works from 2 fundamentals - ignoring IP (theft) and currency manipulation.

    4. Re:bean counters ruin another company by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Outsourcing only works from 2 fundamentals - ignoring IP (theft) and currency manipulation.

      You left out government regulation, taxes, and pollution controls.

  3. No... by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Informative

    NVidia has always been fabless, but AMD owned its own fabrication plants until a few years ago... when they were spun off into a separate company called Global Foundries.

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  4. Re:Actually...about Intel... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    it wouldn't surprise me if someone at Intel Legal has written up an "AMD/Foundry Contract Opinion.doc" and squirreled it away somewhere.

    Or they can take advantage of the situation to acquire nVidia's market position in GPU computing and patent arsenal (to annihilate the trolls - probably not gunning for AMD). Intel wants a viable AMD, to keep DoJ off its back. nVidia is just a market competitor with a manufacturing problem.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  5. Re:no way??? by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Funny

    Riiiight. Because Intel never ever sells fab capacity.

    AMD going to Intel for fab capacity is like the Palestinians going to the Israelis for rocket technology.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  6. Nokia the ultimate outsourcing warning by jphamlore · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The ultimate story about the dangers of outsourcing is how Nokia destroyed its mobile phone business. Once upon a time Nokia and Texas Instruments had a very close working arrangement with TI being Nokia's fab partner. The two together had a complete phone solution. So how does Nokia treat TI in the mid 2000s: They decided to diversify their wireless chipset providers away from working with TI. Only Nokia forgot one thing: TI don't play in markets where it cannot be overall #1. TI will as fast as possible get out of business segments where it cannot lead. And so TI said to Nokia, bye by 2012. In 2009. By then Nokia had decided it wanted to get its ARM SoCs and wireless modems from the same supplier, and there was one natural candidate, especially since they were, and still are, the leaders in LTE: Qualcomm. Only there was one big problem: Nokia had been caught in a patent war with Qualcomm for years trying to put Qualcomm out of business. It was Nokia that wound up having to settle for billions of US dollars, and suddenly it was at the mercy of the company to whom it had been an existential threat. Oops.

  7. Re:Shrinking your competitor's capacity by ArhcAngel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually oil companies have been exporting crude products abroad (They still can't legally export unrefined crude oil) for a few years now because they can make more selling them in other countries. In fact this past June some restrictions were lifted and they started exporting unrefined ultralight oil

    --
    "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
  8. Re:Build your own fab by hendrips · · Score: 4, Informative

    As of September 2014:

    -AMD's available cash: $950 million
    -AMD's market capitalization: $2.6 billion
    -AMD's credit rating: Absolute garbage
    -Cost of a new Intel/TSMC style fab: $7 billion - $10 billion

    It's a nice thought, but the reason that so many companies, including huge companies like Apple, IBM, and Qualcomm, have gone fabless is that fabs are astonishingly, mind-blowingly, expensive.