This is a pretty dumb take, honestly. Intel for basically forever operated using their own fab exclusively. After failures to maintain good yield rates at their 10nm node, they had the option of continuing to delay new product lines and be eaten by the competition in AMD, or give in to TSMC temporarily while they worked on fixing their fab in parallel. In fact, they were criticized greatly for not switching to TSMC much earlier.
While in reality TSMC gave Intel a 40% discount, a discount that was only discontinued, because Gelsinger trash talked TSMC!
So you are right they were dumb, but you are completely wrong about the why and how.
But of course based only on this article, it’s impossible to get that part right.
If you can offer a 40% discount and still make profit, your prices are probably 3 times the cost.
If you cannot go to another supplier, you have vendor lock in.
I’m an AMD guy, so I got no skin in the game defending Intel, but if you’re shilling this much for TSMC, you aren’t really bringing an unbiased opinion.
If you can offer a 40% discount and still make profit
Maybe they didn’t? Or at least maybe not much.
if you’re shilling this much for TSMC
What? How am I shilling for TSMC? And I’m 100% an AMD guy myself, I freaking stuck to AMD during the whole Buldozer shitty period, because I didn’t want an Intel monopoly. And I bought AMD stock when they revealed Ryzen.
A business easily offers a 40% discount. You didn’t critically assess that, ask how, and give off vibes it was a charitable and Intel was ungrateful. TMSC while an interesting business is still a big corp with profitability at heart.
Even if Intel aren’t the good guys, you cannot assume TMSC is. I like AMD, but I’m under no illusion they could throw consumers under the bus tomorrow for self interest. Right now, it’s king for Linux hardware though.
Who possibly saw that if you kill your manufacturing and buy from a company with monopoly power, they could write there own profits.
Sometimes big companies are really dumb.
This is a pretty dumb take, honestly. Intel for basically forever operated using their own fab exclusively. After failures to maintain good yield rates at their 10nm node, they had the option of continuing to delay new product lines and be eaten by the competition in AMD, or give in to TSMC temporarily while they worked on fixing their fab in parallel. In fact, they were criticized greatly for not switching to TSMC much earlier.
The key word is temporarily. How long ago was this?
Calling people dumb then throwing a weak argument doesn’t make it stronger.
They’re on wafer thin margins with vendor lock in. The strategy was not successful.
While in reality TSMC gave Intel a 40% discount, a discount that was only discontinued, because Gelsinger trash talked TSMC!
So you are right they were dumb, but you are completely wrong about the why and how.
But of course based only on this article, it’s impossible to get that part right.
If you can offer a 40% discount and still make profit, your prices are probably 3 times the cost.
If you cannot go to another supplier, you have vendor lock in.
I’m an AMD guy, so I got no skin in the game defending Intel, but if you’re shilling this much for TSMC, you aren’t really bringing an unbiased opinion.
Maybe they didn’t? Or at least maybe not much.
What? How am I shilling for TSMC? And I’m 100% an AMD guy myself, I freaking stuck to AMD during the whole Buldozer shitty period, because I didn’t want an Intel monopoly. And I bought AMD stock when they revealed Ryzen.
So I do NOT encourage a TSMC monopoly either.
A business easily offers a 40% discount. You didn’t critically assess that, ask how, and give off vibes it was a charitable and Intel was ungrateful. TMSC while an interesting business is still a big corp with profitability at heart.
Even if Intel aren’t the good guys, you cannot assume TMSC is. I like AMD, but I’m under no illusion they could throw consumers under the bus tomorrow for self interest. Right now, it’s king for Linux hardware though.