The Fall of Intel

To demonstrate that the lack of EUV was not the sole reason they fell behind TSMC. They were having other manufacturing problems beyond and predating EUV and according to your link may in fact helped cause some of the delay in adopting EUV.
In that case, shouldn't it have read "Intel's struggles with 10 nm began **before** or **around** 2014"? I still don't understand why it's relevant that "Intel's struggles with 10nm began after 2014".

And from what I understand, TSMC used EUV for their 7 nm process, which is approximately equivalent to Intel's 10 nm. If so, that suggests EUV would have faciliated Intel's 10 nm, and thus Intel's struggles with 10 nm aren't inconsistent with the idea that the lack of EUV hampered them, no? I.e., irrespective of whether their original attempt at 10 nm was in bad shape, maybe if they'd switched to an EUV-based approach to 10 nm, they could have achieved a successful 10 nm process, as TMSC was able to do their equivalent (7 nm) node.

I'm not disagreeing with the substance of what you wrote, since I don't know what the substance (i.e., the specifics of Intel's struggles) is supposed to be. I'm just not following the logic. Then again, I am easily confused ;).
 
Last edited:
In that case, shouldn't it have read "Intel's struggles with 10 nm began **before** 2014"? That's part of what confused me.
The reason I said 2014 is that was Intel's deployment of their last successful new node, 14nm. While we don't know what was happening internally at that point, externally everything looked fine - it wasn't until 2016 when Intel began missing publicly declared deadlines for 10nm that publicly issues began to be known. Nodes typically take 3-5 years to develop, but I don't know when Intel first began to realize their node was troubled or when the key decisions that caused the problems were made.
And from what I understand, TSMC used EUV for their 7 nm process, which is approximately equivalent to Intel's 10 nm. If so, that suggests EUV would have faciliated 10 nm, and thus Intel's struggles with 10 nm aren't inconsistent with the idea that the lack of EUV hampered Intel, no?
TSMC used EUV for 7nm+. The original TSMC N7 didn't use EUV, it was a normal finfet node (I've seen reference that TSMC had an internal only 10nm EUV but N7+ was their first commercial EUV).

From what I understand part of what caused the problem for Intel was that Intel wanted to use an experimental cobalt interconnect layer and combine it with more complex lithography and basically failed to combine them and it was too late to reverse course by the time they realized it (Intel 4 which had been their 7nm node dropped the cobalt). Basically had Intel gone with a more conservative 10nm, they could have had a working, competitive node to TSMC all the way through finfet, their non-EUV finfet wouldn't have been so far behind TSMC's initial EUV nodes, and they might've made the transition to EUV faster as well.

And of course Intel also suffered from a host of design problems that were only tangentially related to their manufacturing issues that I mentioned in my initial post - the iPhone was 2008 and it's not like Nvidia has always used the latest and greatest node for their AI products (Blackwell being a recent case in point). And then there's Intel's bad bet on Xeon Phi versus using GPUs (to be fair Xeon Phi was a cool idea it just didn't work out for multiple reasons).

EUV and manufacturing in general were a huge part of their troubles, don't get me wrong, but overall Intel's fall from kinghood was multifactorial. A lot of things went wrong for them all around the same time.

EDIT: I see that your edited your post while I was typing but I think managed to address your questions, if I didn't let me know, although you've probably hit the extent of my knowledge on this topic, so if you have more questions someone more versed like @Cmaier or @mr_roboto or others here would probably be better suited to reply.
 
The reason I said 2014 is that was Intel's deployment of their last successful new node, 14nm. While we don't know what was happening internally at that point, externally everything looked fine - it wasn't until 2016 when Intel began missing publicly declared deadlines for 10nm that publicly issues began to be known. Nodes typically take 3-5 years to develop, but I don't know when Intel first began to realize their node was troubled or when the key decisions that caused the problems were made.

TSMC used EUV for 7nm+. The original TSMC N7 didn't use EUV, it was a normal finfet node (I've seen reference that TSMC had an internal only 10nm EUV but N7+ was their first commercial EUV).

From what I understand part of what caused the problem for Intel was that Intel wanted to use an experimental cobalt interconnect layer and combine it with more complex lithography and basically failed to combine them and it was too late to reverse course by the time they realized it (Intel 4 which had been their 7nm node dropped the cobalt). Basically had Intel gone with a more conservative 10nm, they could have had a working, competitive node to TSMC all the way through finfet, their non-EUV finfet wouldn't have been so far behind TSMC's initial EUV nodes, and they might've made the transition to EUV faster as well.

And of course Intel also suffered from a host of design problems that were only tangentially related to their manufacturing issues that I mentioned in my initial post - the iPhone was 2008 and it's not like Nvidia has always used the latest and greatest node for their AI products (Blackwell being a recent case in point). And then there's Intel's bad bet on Xeon Phi versus using GPUs (to be fair Xeon Phi was a cool idea it just didn't work out for multiple reasons).

EUV and manufacturing in general were a huge part of their troubles, don't get me wrong, but overall Intel's fall from kinghood was multifactorial. A lot of things went wrong for them all around the same time.

EDIT: I see that your edited your post while I was typing but I think managed to address your questions, if I didn't let me know, although you've probably hit the extent of my knowledge on this topic, so if you have more questions someone more versed like @Cmaier or @mr_roboto or others here would probably be better suited to reply.
Thanks, that helps to clear things up!

Any thoughts on Intel's chances of getting back on track? This says they acquired ASML's entire 2024 production of their latest high numerical aperture EUV machines (another article indicates they were ordered in 2022), but I don't know how long it will take before they are able to use them for commerical production. I believe this makes Intel the first to acquire this new generation of machines.
 
Last edited:
Thanks, that helps to clear things up!

Any thoughts on Intel's chances of getting back on track? This says they ordered ASML's entire 2024 production of their latest high-aperture EUV machines, but I don't know who long it will take before they are able to use them for commerical production.
I don't know. I mean I would say in the short term it more depends on how the next couple of nodes pan out and how successfully they are able to fab 3rd party chips and how their own designs go and what happens with their competitors in both design and fabrication (as far as fabs go it's not like Samsung is doing fantastically either). They have a lot of ground to make up and I just don't know. High NA stuff is still years away and they've got there first.

I should also add that 10nm wasn't fully a failure they did produce mobile chips on it successfully after all, but even then I'm not sure about what those could've been you know? - i.e. did the node troubles impact them too? or just the desktop/servers? I mean at least I think it delayed them, but beyond that I don't know.
 

Trump wants TSMC to take over Intel? (At least the manufacturing biz, though it sounds like more than that)
Maybe not:


Then again Trump vacillates so hard who knows?
 

TSMC gets fans, and Broadcom the rest?

Eww. (Broadcom is owned by Avago)

Hmmm … this assumes Broadcom wants to continue x86 design in particular. Maybe?
 

Possible delay in Panther Lake because 18A yields not yet production ready.
 

Possible delay in Panther Lake because 18A yields not yet production ready.
Further possible evidence of yield problems with Intel 18A:


I wouldn't say any of this is definite, but the tea leaves are not great.
 
Back
Top