Slashdot Log In
Intel Recruits TSMC To Produce Atom CPUs
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Mar 02, 2009 06:17 PM
from the plug-and-play-companies dept.
from the plug-and-play-companies dept.
arcticstoat writes "Intel has surprised the industry by announcing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Taiwanese silicon chip maker TSMC to manufacture Atom CPUs. Although TSMC is already employed by AMD, Nvidia and VIA to make chips, it's not often you see Intel requiring the services of a third fabrication party. Under the MOU, Intel agrees to port its Atom CPU technology to TSMC, which includes Intel's processes, intellectual properties, libraries and design flows relating to the processor. This will effectively allow other customers of TSMC to easily build Atom-based products similarly to how they might use an ARM processor in their own designs. However, Intel says that it will still pick the specific market segments and products that TSMC will go after, which will include system-on-chip products, as well as netbooks, nettops and embedded platforms."
Related Stories
[+]
Intel Introduces Atom Chips For New Devices 50 comments
angry tapir writes "Not only has Intel recruited another company to produce Atom CPUs, as covered earlier on Slashdot, the chipmaker also unveiled four Atom chips that will go into devices such as entertainment systems for cars, videoconferencing devices, robots and interactive kiosks. The Z500-series Atom processors are integrated chips the size of a penny that draw little power and do not require fans to operate. The chips draw 2.5 watts of power or less and run at speeds of between 1.10GHz and 1.6GHz. The chips offer integrated 2D and 3D graphics and will be manufactured using Intel's existing 45-nanometer process."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Stock (Score:2)
This news did some interesting things to TSMC's stock today.
http://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE:TSM [google.com]
It shot up to ~$7.82 in very early trading, but closed down 1.19% at $7.45.
TSMC using Intel's HKMG 45nm process? (Score:2)
Or does that mean that the TSMC-made Atom chips will be more leaky (and thus, using more power)?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Neither company has revealed which manufacturing technology will be used to make the Atom chips, but Maloney hinted that the CPUs would be built on a 32nm process, saying that "both companies have a sense of urgency, and both companies want to make things as advanced as they can."
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
sauce [tsmc.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Long time coming (Score:2, Interesting)
I worked at Intel in a temp position last year, and this is nothing new. It was the dirty secret around the fab that Intel was using TSMC for certain runs, and it was only a matter of time before something large scale was announced. Fabs are not profitable without huge volume and both AMD and Intel are feeling the pressure.
Re: (Score:2)
cpus are not the only thing that intel makes. there are also chipsets, networking chips and so on.
it is possible, that they are second sourced from other fabs.
I have a bad feeling about this (Score:3, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reverse_engineering#Binary_software [wikipedia.org]
If Intel licenses its 32nm manufacturing process to TSMC it will make it harder for TSMC to create a new 32nm for creating chips for other manufacturers. Intel could claim TSMC used information given to them under a license agreement. It will be hard for TSMC to claim any new 32nm process wasn't created using information covered under that license.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Another move to mess with AMD (Score:4, Interesting)
Intel does not need any fabbing capacity. What they do like is to mess with AMD partners.
Let the games begin.
Re: (Score:2)
If they don't need the capacity then they're gonna end up with lots of useless Atoms. I remember a game company here in the UK bought up all the tape copying duplication facilities they could in the run-up to Christmas back in the 80s just to mess with their competitors; it was one of the decisions that lead to their eventual bankruptcy (not piracy as one of the former directors still likes to claim).
Nothing exciting to see here (Score:4, Interesting)
This is Intel saying they MIGHT outsource some manufacturing to TSMC for the Atom SOC applications. Intel has their own pretty substantial fab facilities. However, they're out on this netbook limb now. If it takes off, they're going to need extra manufacturing to meet demand. If it doesn't take off, they don't want to have a lot of capital tied up in extra fab facilities.
I'm not a big Intel fan, but this is a fairly astute move on their part and buys them some flexibility in the medium-term depending on where netbook sales go.
Best,
Intel (Score:2)
Note: I parallelized my software and the Core i7 is awesome. Superlinear speedup is easy to achieve with a dedicated L2 cache. The Phenom II would also give great performance. So I would bet that Atom and other underpowered cpus are a fad. They will not look very good nex
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do you think they are a fad? They obviously aren't going to be much use for what you do, but the vast majority of people can do what they want to do with with fairly low powered hardware. For them, a cheap Atom-based computer may be hard to pass up. The Atom 330 is a dual core 1.6Ghz processor with Hyperthreading. That's a fairly respectable
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Atom 330 is a dual core 1.6Ghz processor with Hyperthreading. That's a fairly respectable amount of power for a computer used for browsing the internet, viewing photos, and managing a music collection. You can buy an Atom 330 CPU/board combo for $80 by the way.
The megahertz myth is important here though. A 1.6Ghz Core2 Duo based chip - very powerful for most user's needs. A 1.6Ghz Atom (even dual core) - not so much. When comparing single cores the Atom doesn't even stack up Mhz to Mhz to the Via chips.
Then compare: for about $90 you can get a dual core 1.6ghz Celeron chip based on the Core 2 Duo architecture that will smoke a 1.6ghz Atom in performance terribly.
Basically, the low-low end of standard desktop components is on parity in price to the high end Atom
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Nice Intel (Score:5, Insightful)
Not too surprising given the situation with the economy. I'm sure its far cheaper manufacturing chips overseas than it is here.
Why?
Labor costs? I doubt a chip fab is really that senstive to hourly wages. Its not like each chip is hand crafted. Its all automated; and the robots are the same price anywhere. So sure labor is a bit cheaper, but we're probably talking a labor as fractional cents per cpu... they can afford it.
Materials cost? I can't really see it making much difference.
Environmental regulation compliance? Maybe; I have no idea how much a chip fab pollutes.
IP? Are there per cpu royalties that would be owed in the manufacturing process itself that they can avoid by doing it elsewhere? Maybe; but I doubt it. Intel's got plenty of patents and surely has the ability to easily cross-license with anyone that could prevent it from manufacturing.
Or is TMSC hurting for business due to the economic downturn, and is willing to make them dirt cheap, just to keep the factories running...?
So, serious question, why is it cheaper to have it done overseas?
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nice Intel (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:Nice Intel (Score:4, Informative)
Wafertech is a subsidiary of TSMC, so pretty close.
Also, as to reasons Intel might want to move some production to TSMC....
Feyde is that you?
Parent
Re:Nice Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
I think they're just buying up the competition's workspace. After all TMSC is going to KNOW the check from Intel will cash, no matter what... and like Apple buying up Samsung flash ram, this makes prices higher for everybody else...and gives Intel CONTROL over one of the few companies that could make VIA's nano or Nvidia's ION. It's also, lower cost, older process equipment closer to China where they want these chips to be sold.
I think you're also looking at the patent front, that Intel will fill the place up with their patented processes and TMSC won't be able to fill orders for VIA/AMD/Nvidia without stepping on some Intel patents.. or have to run those jobs in the backroom on old, unproductive, equipment.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As someone who works in semiconductors in the USA I would answer your question with its a little bit of all of these.
As for labor in a modern factory there are very few line operators but the TSMC equivenent of my Engineering position gets paid a whole lot less than I do and if your process is complex enough you will still need process and equipment engineers as stuff will always break.
Marerial costs can come down a little bit, especially if your location has really cheap electricity and reasonably clean wa
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Semiconductor companies have been opening plants in China due to strong government incentive programs. China has been trying to shake the stigma off that "Made in China" sticker by bringing in more R&D and high-tech manufacturing with big corporate tax breaks and other goodies.
I remember reading that the government of one Chinese province was actually paying the majority of the construction costs for a new fab, but I can't remember the Province, or the company which was going to use the fab. I'll try to
Re:Nice Intel (Score:4, Interesting)
Taiwan != China. Actually TSMC has been making chipsets for the Atom for some time, so I'm told. The Atom itself was made by Intel, on its latest process. TSMC lags behing Intel in process technology, but apparently that no longer matters for Atom. As anantech put it
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/intel/showdoc.aspx?i=3522&p=2 [anandtech.com]
The other thing to keep in mind is that Moorestown, the first Atom SoC, will be built at 45nm while the first 32nm CPUs are shipping from Intel. Another way of putting it is that Atom processors don't appear to need the latest manufacturing process, just one that's mature and good enough. TSMC is transitioning to 40nm now, so Atom SoCs that are made there won't really be that far behind those made at Intel, if at all.
Actually if you read the rest of the article, there's a deeper reason for this. Historically chips for something like a cellphone take an ARM core and some custom peripherals, integrate them onto a chip and then fab them at somewhere like TSMC. Intel has never done this - they selll chips not IP. In fact one of the reasons the XBox360 moved to PPC was because Intel would not license their core as IP to be integrated into an ASIC. Intel Atoms on a TSMC process would be cheaper, but the real benefit would be (as Anandtech put it)
The Lincroft and Langwell blocks are done by Intel. The PMIC and Evans Peak blocks are partly Intel and partly 3rd party IP that are intermixed. Evans Peak in particular looks like it's going to be home to all sorts of IP depending on the application. A smart phone Atom SoC design might integrate a 3G modem here, while an iPod would opt for something else.
This makes sense if Atom is supposed to be competing with ARM. Maybe in the future they will sell Atoms as a hard macro like Arm do.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Ever wonder why so many things are being manufactured in the NOT-USA? Some of these reasons are why. Globalization... (Service-based jobs are here to say.. for now.) Sad but true.
Your ignorance is showing. (Score:5, Informative)
Obviously you know nothing about Taiwan. This isn't China we're talking about. They do have nationalized health care, although they are plagued with the same problems such programs face in Europe everywhere else. They are required to pay some level of compensation for overtime, but it isn't extravagant. They do have guidelines for worker safety and labor laws are fairly stringent. Not quite to the extreme of the US, but it is moving in that direction.
Taiwan does have lower slightly lower corporate taxes than the US and last year I know the proposal was made to lower by 5% I believe, but I don't know if it ever went through. The US could easily address this situation, but the Obama administration seems intent on doing the opposite.
They do have unions in Taiwan although I'm not aware of one for the semiconductor industry; unions aren't necessarily a good thing anyway. I do know from personal experience that jobs in the semiconductor industry, everything from engineering on down to manufacturing, are in high demand. They pay quite well.
Wages certainly are lower in Taiwan than the US, by a good bit, but they are also significantly higher than in China. The key distinction is that quality is guaranteed and the companies are more trustworthy. It's very unlikely a Taiwanese company is going to go behind your back rip off your designs.
Companies outsource to Taiwan or Korea when they don't want quality close to what could be gotten out of Japan but without paying the excessive cost. Companies go to China when they want maximum savings even at the expense of quality.
That said, nowadays even Taiwan, Japan and Korea are outsourcing some of their manufacturing to China because even for them it's not as cost-effective as they'd like. The problem is that many people still lump Taiwan together with China so not only are they incapable of competing on price, but they're stuck with the perception of making cheap knockoffs.
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way. And Taiwanese companies are a bit too reluctant to give up OEM manufacturing. They should be building their own brands on the level Korea has done over the last decade or so. Of course, Korean companies have had heavy government backing whereas Taiwanese companies have generally been left to fend for themselves.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure Intel is doing this because it leads to making more money for Intel. They are very smart.
US companies will save money and have higher profits making many
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I'll open a can of worms for saying this, but the Bush administration had 8 years of mostly positive economic growth to address this situation. Instead they chose to invest in other, less profitable ventures, like the wa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Where do you get that idea? The average combined federal and state corporate tax rate in the U.S. is 39.3 percent, second among OECD countries to Japan's combined rate of 39.5 percent [taxfoundation.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, the Taiwanese government bureaucracy is at fault for doing a piss poor job of marketing their own country in every way.
Doesn't this have SOMETHING to do with the fact that China is very unhappy about Taiwan's existence as an autonomous entity, and doing everything they can to subjugate them?
Re:Nice Intel (Score:4, Informative)
Did you read or just fire from the hip? I think you're inferring a fact not in evidence; no fab closure was mentioned in the ARSTechnica report about this. In fact, it was stressed that this was an agreement for fabbing projects in addition to what both companies had independent of each other.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I only expect him to RTFA if he thinks he has something to say about the matter... if he doesn't, then he can skim and delete to his heart's contentment. That's not to say I expect him to spend a week researching the topic and become an EXPERT... life is (or should be) a collective learning process for us all, and we all make wrong conclusions now and then. Nevertheless there is such a thing as due diligence, and I think that R'ingTFA upon which one feels compelled to comment is a bare minimum of diligenc
Re:Nice Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
Disclaimer: I work for Intel, but I'm not involved in manufacturing, so I only know what the public knows.
From what I understand, pretty much every employee at the fabs being closed are being offered jobs at other fabs, and pretty much the only way that anyone's losing their job is if they can't move, or refuse to do so.
Unless I'm mistaken, the closing of the fabs is merely a consolidation of resources, as well as an elimination of older process technologies, without a reduction in workforce.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
In addition, the fabs that were closed are not compatible with the process that makes the Atom... So that means outsourcing to TSMC is not costing any US jobs, especially when you consider what markets Intel is trying to go after with this. (ie, markets they are not currently in)
And FWIW, not all TSMC operations are overseas. There is a TSMC fab in the Portland metro area.
Re:Nice Intel (Score:4, Insightful)
From what I understand, pretty much every employee at the fabs being closed are being offered jobs at other fabs, and pretty much the only way that anyone's losing their job is if they can't move, or refuse to do so.
Picking up your life and your family's life and moving involves, for many or most people, selling their house, which is insanely difficult or involves selling at a very low price in the current economic crisis.
Intel executives likely realize this, and realize many people will have little choice but to not accept a position at a different fab. However, isn't it so nice for Intel executives that they get to make it look like they're purely good guys?
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm relatively new at Intel, but it seems to me that the employees knew this was coming eventually, regardless of economic conditions.
Intel tends to use a fab for several years, until that process technology has become outdated. At that point, they close down the fab, selling it off about half the time, and starting the long task of re-tasking the fab for a smaller process the other half. The fabs being closed in this case are all on a process greater than 100nm -- remember that with the Prescott, launched
Re: (Score:2)
Picking up your life and your family's life and moving involves, for many or most people, selling their house, which is insanely difficult or involves selling at a very low price in the current economic crisis.
If you work for Intel then surely this is something you should plan for? I'm a dyed in the wool Socialist (and so obviously think Intel should have some sort of relocation allowance scheme) but am still OK with this. Even though I don't work there I know about how they shut down / retool fabs etc (as Chabo mentions below), I'd imagine they make the effort to tell prospective employees directly before they join.
Re:Nice Intel (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, Intel spread the layoffs around, closing two test/assembly fabs in the Phillippines and Malaysia as well as a fab in Oregon and one in Santa Clara. All of these fabs were running 200mm wafers at older tech nodes (120nm and up, I believe).
These closings would likely have come along in the due course of time, but the economy hastened things a bit. As to moving the fabrication of Atoms over to TSMC, it's a pretty logical move. Atom is a low-margin part, so Intel probably doesn't want to clog up its most advanced fabs with Atom wafer starts, when it can ride out the recession and hope for a resurgence in demand for high-performance, high-margin parts.
That said, it's quite interesting that Intel is contracting with TSMC, because Intel's real market advantage has always been its fabrication prowess. I'm sure there are about a thousand pages of legalese restricting TSMC's rights to the high-k process (or any other tricks Intel has up their sleeve)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I remembering history wrong?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Still awaiting (stock) 4 GHz CPUs.
Re: (Score:2)
Even so, Intel just released a 3.5Ghz Core 2 Duo chip. So while the Prescott P4 still holds the record for fastest clocked x86 CPU at 3.8Ghz, it will probably be eclipsed by something in about a year or so. We'll probably have 4Ghz in a couple of years, potentially sooner if Intel starts to feel threatened by AMD again.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't be surprised if the Atom profit margin is higher than an average desktop CPU (obviously not the $1000+ i7s, but I doubt margins are high on the typical low-clocked dual-cores that compete with Athlons). Sure, the profit per sale is lower, but it they sell more then that compensates.
I have one Atom system here already, and I'm thinking of building a couple more in the next year because they're cheap, run Linux decently and use relatively little power; I wouldn't buy three Core 2s in a year.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actuall
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)