TSMC and Google push chipmaking boundaries with 3D 'stacking'(asia.nikkei.com)
asia.nikkei.com
TSMC and Google push chipmaking boundaries with 3D 'stacking'
https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Technology/TSMC-and-Google-push-chipmaking-boundaries-with-3D-stacking
135 comments
I’m naive on this topic but what makes TSMC pretty much the only fab on the world that can do this? Do they have technology the west doesn’t? Know how? Why isn’t there a fab in the US, it can’t be just labor costs?
It is just the nature of all technology sector. Once the capital cost of entry and catch up to market far exceed any company could risk to be involved, they will consolidate to a single entity.
The same could be said with Operating System in the 90s from Microsoft. Or not just technology but the cost to be involved and Unit Cost Economics.
The same could be said with Operating System in the 90s from Microsoft. Or not just technology but the cost to be involved and Unit Cost Economics.
Matthew Effect is especially strong in semiconductor mfg.
The US closed most of it's fabs decades ago, except for Intel.
A few of Globalfoundries' fabs are in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlobalFoundries
Intel is working on 3D stacking as well.
TSMC is building a plant in Arizona.
TSMC is building a plant in Arizona.
Intel fabs are in the usa
> I’m naive on this topic but what makes TSMC pretty much the only fab on the world that can do this? Do they have technology the west doesn’t? Know how? Why isn’t there a fab in the US, it can’t be just labor costs?
Just steadily keeping doing what it did for 30 years straight without compulsion to chase "the next big thing"? A rather unglamorous industry, and for most of their history, they did not chase the bleeding edge, letting more moneyed players to bleed each others.
I read some of those very extensive market research reports (or better to say market research books) which go to semiconductor companies for few thousand bucks a pop. It's mind boggling how much consideration, calculations, and planning goes into a decision to sign on a $10B+ fab spending. Forecasts, and technology analysis goes for at least a decade forward, and they dive further than simply tech, into things like social trends, and etc.
So, it is, the industry is very hard, very obscure, and works like an ant repellent on "next big thing" chasers from Silicon Valley culture.
Just steadily keeping doing what it did for 30 years straight without compulsion to chase "the next big thing"? A rather unglamorous industry, and for most of their history, they did not chase the bleeding edge, letting more moneyed players to bleed each others.
I read some of those very extensive market research reports (or better to say market research books) which go to semiconductor companies for few thousand bucks a pop. It's mind boggling how much consideration, calculations, and planning goes into a decision to sign on a $10B+ fab spending. Forecasts, and technology analysis goes for at least a decade forward, and they dive further than simply tech, into things like social trends, and etc.
So, it is, the industry is very hard, very obscure, and works like an ant repellent on "next big thing" chasers from Silicon Valley culture.
Intel needs to step up their game if they want to stay relevant. I am sure their execs know it so I can't wait to see what they will offer in the next 5 years.
The trial balloons currently being floated by Intel forgo the pursuit of cutting edge process nodes in favor of third party fabs. Intel's existing foundries will serve older nodes while external foundries will build the high margin devices.
They've been carefully dropping hints of this since July. Through the first week of November the headlines were "Intel to decide soon" whether to outsource, with a decision supposedly appearing sometime in January. This looks like the sort of precision expectation setting one would expect of an experienced zombie corp CEO like Swan.
So don't bet on Intel making any great comeback in fab tech; they've decided they can be 'relevant' without it.
They've been carefully dropping hints of this since July. Through the first week of November the headlines were "Intel to decide soon" whether to outsource, with a decision supposedly appearing sometime in January. This looks like the sort of precision expectation setting one would expect of an experienced zombie corp CEO like Swan.
So don't bet on Intel making any great comeback in fab tech; they've decided they can be 'relevant' without it.
It will not be enough.
There are essentially 3 leading fabs left: TSMC, Samsung, Intel.
Samsung has yield issues, Intel has yield issues, TSMC somehow has no issues. GlobalFoundries has already dropped out of the race. TSMC is selling every wafer they make, and continues to invest heavily to solidify it's lead.
ALL of these fabs depend on ASML machines. IIRC last year they delivered just over half of the machines that were ordered.
There are essentially 3 leading fabs left: TSMC, Samsung, Intel.
Samsung has yield issues, Intel has yield issues, TSMC somehow has no issues. GlobalFoundries has already dropped out of the race. TSMC is selling every wafer they make, and continues to invest heavily to solidify it's lead.
ALL of these fabs depend on ASML machines. IIRC last year they delivered just over half of the machines that were ordered.
[deleted]
If all of these fabs rely on ASML machines, why does TSMC have its shit together while the other two do not?
Access to ASML's machines is a requirement to leading edge nodes, but not the only requirement.
As a matematician would say: necessary but not sufficient
That's what I was implicitly asking, what is special about TSMC? What are the other parts?
Chip foundries are extremely complex processes and it's hard to get introspection into exactly what's going on wrong at the other vendors. And if it were clear as day and night, those vendors probably would have fixed their problems and we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first lace.
But if you'll allow your question to be answered with pure rumortown and supposition:
Intel has engrained management issues that don't allow for reorganizing to systemically address their 10nm and under process issues as the little fiefdoms that control different parts of the process are spending more time throwing each other under the bus rather than collaborating.
Samsung isn't far off from TSMC (about a single node). They fell a little behind as TSMC grabbed a bunch of their contracts (most notably Apple) which left them with not as much to capital to invest in their newer process nodes at a rather critical point. At a bare minimum they'll be kept alive by TSMC's customers as a viable second source (if you squint hard enough) as a negotiating tactic (see Nvidia's 30 series on Samsung as a shot across TSMC's bow).
GloFlo canceled 7nm and under R&D. I wouldn't be surprised if they bounce back at some point when all of the EUV gotcha workarounds are more or less public knowledge and the equipment doesn't have prices on the order of a small country's GDP. If we hit fundamental limits at ~1nm and Moore's law really dies, then they should be able to jump back in with relatively less work than a newcomer and be the budget option once leading edge chips become a commodity.
But if you'll allow your question to be answered with pure rumortown and supposition:
Intel has engrained management issues that don't allow for reorganizing to systemically address their 10nm and under process issues as the little fiefdoms that control different parts of the process are spending more time throwing each other under the bus rather than collaborating.
Samsung isn't far off from TSMC (about a single node). They fell a little behind as TSMC grabbed a bunch of their contracts (most notably Apple) which left them with not as much to capital to invest in their newer process nodes at a rather critical point. At a bare minimum they'll be kept alive by TSMC's customers as a viable second source (if you squint hard enough) as a negotiating tactic (see Nvidia's 30 series on Samsung as a shot across TSMC's bow).
GloFlo canceled 7nm and under R&D. I wouldn't be surprised if they bounce back at some point when all of the EUV gotcha workarounds are more or less public knowledge and the equipment doesn't have prices on the order of a small country's GDP. If we hit fundamental limits at ~1nm and Moore's law really dies, then they should be able to jump back in with relatively less work than a newcomer and be the budget option once leading edge chips become a commodity.
I think the ASIC design industry is only going to start getting serious when Moore’s law finally slows down enough that we can get some breathing room. Current HW design is more akin to shipping an Electron-based CRUD, than some finely hand-crafted assembly.
I think in 50 years we will find out that various state security services have been interfering with IC fabrication tech. Things like deliberately moving critical things by a few nanometers so entire production runs are broken...
Funny you say that, if my memory is correct ASML was planning on sending EUV machine to SMIC in china.
Right before shipping the machine the ware house caught fire and the machine was destroyed.
Then US regime came in and convinced ASML to implement a export ban for Chinese companies.
I believe the fire was at one of their suppliers:
https://www.reuters.com/article/asml-deliveries-idUSL8N1Y817...
https://www.reuters.com/article/asml-deliveries-idUSL8N1Y817...
Those games are played on both sides.
>> I think in 50 years we will find out that various state security services have been interfering with IC fabrication tech.
That would not surprise me at all. I was hired on contract once to help a system (not ICs) that was having issues and my work was directly obstructed (a coworker said sabotaged) by the guy (foreign) who designed one subsystem. At the time I though maybe it was his ego not liking that his boss brought me in to help and I was succeeding. When it became clear from multiple incidents that he was subtly sabotaging me I started to wonder this very thing. I showed evidence to our boss who said "my hands are tied" because of the corporate structure at the time. My work did make it into production and I moved on for other reasons.
That would not surprise me at all. I was hired on contract once to help a system (not ICs) that was having issues and my work was directly obstructed (a coworker said sabotaged) by the guy (foreign) who designed one subsystem. At the time I though maybe it was his ego not liking that his boss brought me in to help and I was succeeding. When it became clear from multiple incidents that he was subtly sabotaging me I started to wonder this very thing. I showed evidence to our boss who said "my hands are tied" because of the corporate structure at the time. My work did make it into production and I moved on for other reasons.
[deleted]
Stuxnet notwithstanding, if you've ever worked in a fab, you'd realize that Hanlon's razor is as pertinent as ever, maybe even moreso.
ASML machines are just a small part of the complete equation. Even if all of them use the same working ASML machines, the other parts can have the issues
Since Intel mostly fabs it's own chips, what will it serve with older nodes ? And will that be enough ?
Intel's revenue is big enough that they must have some kind of warchest to fall back on. Obviously money isn't everything but it doesn't hurt.
They can probably still hammer AMD on both their software and documentation, i.e. roughly a quarter of their sales are to data centres.
It will be interesting to see what happens to X86 post-M1 (i.e. ARM coming of age), I suspect not much but I think the world has changed enough to have another stab at VLIW (for example) even if the cost/benefit is pretty marginal.
They can probably still hammer AMD on both their software and documentation, i.e. roughly a quarter of their sales are to data centres.
It will be interesting to see what happens to X86 post-M1 (i.e. ARM coming of age), I suspect not much but I think the world has changed enough to have another stab at VLIW (for example) even if the cost/benefit is pretty marginal.
The current CPU's already are VLIW in a fashion. Its just that they have a hardware jitter for it. That's what superscalar OoO CPU basically is, a piece of HW that generates VLIW instructions based on the normal instructions that come in. A superscalar execution port is basically just one subinstruction in VLIW. Explicit VLIW only helps you to save that piece of silicon from the chip. And it's not that much in the grand scheme of things. It used to be, but not anymore.
Static compile time VLIW means one cannot really make it wider anymore, or narrower. Dynamically doing it on runtime means a cheaper and smaller core can just be narrower. Remove an instruction slot for one integer ALU? Fine, no issues. Everything still works, albeit slower by that much. Make a beefier chip? Perfect, it got faster by the amount of instruction level parallelism that was available.
In addition a compiler cannot really see across function boundaries (except if it's statically determinable). A jitter can. Modern chips have reordering window of hundreds of instructions, M1 apparently goes up to over 600. That's quite a lot of stuff there that it can dynamically reorder across. A compiler might not have noticed that due to some weird dynamic call that was not visible during compilation time there is now an FPU instruction that could be inserted here, an OoO processor can.
Due to that explicit VLIW is basically dead outside of some highly specific applications, like DPS and whatnot.
In a similar fashion ridculously wide vector units were obsoleted by the approach pioneered by GPU's. Just add few things to allow masking based on branches and you get SIMT approach. Write as if it was scalar code and it'll run on HW that has vector lengths going from none at all up to whatever, NVidia has 32 wide vector units as an example.
Static compile time VLIW means one cannot really make it wider anymore, or narrower. Dynamically doing it on runtime means a cheaper and smaller core can just be narrower. Remove an instruction slot for one integer ALU? Fine, no issues. Everything still works, albeit slower by that much. Make a beefier chip? Perfect, it got faster by the amount of instruction level parallelism that was available.
In addition a compiler cannot really see across function boundaries (except if it's statically determinable). A jitter can. Modern chips have reordering window of hundreds of instructions, M1 apparently goes up to over 600. That's quite a lot of stuff there that it can dynamically reorder across. A compiler might not have noticed that due to some weird dynamic call that was not visible during compilation time there is now an FPU instruction that could be inserted here, an OoO processor can.
Due to that explicit VLIW is basically dead outside of some highly specific applications, like DPS and whatnot.
In a similar fashion ridculously wide vector units were obsoleted by the approach pioneered by GPU's. Just add few things to allow masking based on branches and you get SIMT approach. Write as if it was scalar code and it'll run on HW that has vector lengths going from none at all up to whatever, NVidia has 32 wide vector units as an example.
Even more importantly, and I'm surprised you didn't mention it, static compile time VLIW doesn't know what to do for memory access. A load might take any number of cycles depending on whether the line is in L1, L2 or L3 cache, with static compile time VLIW then the compiler has to guess, if it's optimistic the whole CPU stalls, if it's pessimistic then you're much slower than you would otherwise be.
I believe this is the real thing that make superscalar OoO (ie. JIT to VLIW in silicon) win.
I believe this is the real thing that make superscalar OoO (ie. JIT to VLIW in silicon) win.
That's a great point to emphasize. Because memory access times are inherently more or less nondeterministic.
I consider it to be roughly as important as being able to reorder instructions across non statically determined branches and function calls. And both of these expose the fundamental weakness in explicit VLIW, if it's essentially nondeterministic it cannot be taken advantage of.
Then we naturally have some other benefits, like hyperthreading. Which basically is just compiling two instruction streams together on the fly.
I consider it to be roughly as important as being able to reorder instructions across non statically determined branches and function calls. And both of these expose the fundamental weakness in explicit VLIW, if it's essentially nondeterministic it cannot be taken advantage of.
Then we naturally have some other benefits, like hyperthreading. Which basically is just compiling two instruction streams together on the fly.
The performance on particularly memory-bound workloads is why I chose it as an example rather than a prediction.
For it to work statically (although it really could be halfway in between), it would probably require a complete paradigm shift away from the current way we think about cpu caches
Regardless of whether it'll work or not, I'll be very happy if the mill ever makes it onto a chip.
For it to work statically (although it really could be halfway in between), it would probably require a complete paradigm shift away from the current way we think about cpu caches
Regardless of whether it'll work or not, I'll be very happy if the mill ever makes it onto a chip.
And by jitter you mean JIT-er (Just-In-Time Compiler), not jitter as in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jitter
Got really confused at first.
Got really confused at first.
You're using terms to mean things that they usually do not mean. Calling superscalar OoO scheduling a jit-ed VLIW is misleading at best. The whole point of VLIW is that you don't need the control logic and, more importantly these days, the power cost of scheduling each instruction by itself.
From a single thread performance standpoint, the important part is that OoO scheduling is able to dynamically schedule around cache misses to effectively keep more memory accesses in flight, extract more memory level parallelism. In principle you could make an OoO VLIW CPU, but that would negate most of the power benefit while hamstringing the scheduler with unnecessary dependencies. Where in-order VLIW shines is when memory accesses are predictable, like DSP code. There you get an order of magnitude power efficiency gain.
GPUs are effectively still in-order CPUs with large SIMD instructions, some useful instructions to make masked execution simpler and a specialized language and compiler to hide this model from the developers. GPU manufacturers calling these separate data lanes threads is just misleading marketing BS. There is no independent instruction pointer for each lane.
From a single thread performance standpoint, the important part is that OoO scheduling is able to dynamically schedule around cache misses to effectively keep more memory accesses in flight, extract more memory level parallelism. In principle you could make an OoO VLIW CPU, but that would negate most of the power benefit while hamstringing the scheduler with unnecessary dependencies. Where in-order VLIW shines is when memory accesses are predictable, like DSP code. There you get an order of magnitude power efficiency gain.
GPUs are effectively still in-order CPUs with large SIMD instructions, some useful instructions to make masked execution simpler and a specialized language and compiler to hide this model from the developers. GPU manufacturers calling these separate data lanes threads is just misleading marketing BS. There is no independent instruction pointer for each lane.
That's why I tried to use it more as a methaphor. Because the whole point of explicit VLIW (EPIC was what Itanium folks called it) was to save that scheduling HW. But nowadays that piece of HW is relatively minor part. So it's no longer worth to save it in a general purpose CPU. As this thread is about general purpose CPU's for direct consumer use (not a controller in hard drive or whatnot, but a full fledged CPU you run arbitrary programs in) we're talking about chips like Itanium when it comes to VLIW.
I do not disagree that VLIW is a great for things like DSP where the power consumption is of the essence. One can get ridiculously high perf/watt by going explicit VLIW. I just don't see any way we'd see that approach in general purpose CPU's again.
GPU's do not need to reorder instructions to hide memory latency. It just happens on a different level. While a single threadgroup (as in that single instruction pointer that controls the SIMD unit) will not get reordered at all, one has multiple threadgroups in flight. So if one group stalls at a memory load the unit will just schedule a different threadgroup. Because one generally has tons of them in flight. It's all about throughput. One could think of this as an in order CPU (from viewpoint of a single thread) but with ridiculous amounts of hyperthreading (one thread stalls, we can pick an instruction from another thread but never one from the stalled thread).
I do not disagree that VLIW is a great for things like DSP where the power consumption is of the essence. One can get ridiculously high perf/watt by going explicit VLIW. I just don't see any way we'd see that approach in general purpose CPU's again.
GPU's do not need to reorder instructions to hide memory latency. It just happens on a different level. While a single threadgroup (as in that single instruction pointer that controls the SIMD unit) will not get reordered at all, one has multiple threadgroups in flight. So if one group stalls at a memory load the unit will just schedule a different threadgroup. Because one generally has tons of them in flight. It's all about throughput. One could think of this as an in order CPU (from viewpoint of a single thread) but with ridiculous amounts of hyperthreading (one thread stalls, we can pick an instruction from another thread but never one from the stalled thread).
I’ll second this. My M1 Air is a freak of nature. I’m so excited for this next wave of computing. Lots of things that need setup Dev tooling wise and much work underway to get it supported but my god man... and it’s passively cooled.
I have a beast i7 gaming rig too and my M1 beats it at everything but graphics performance.
What I think Intel will continue to work their enterprise business until this “arm wave” starts to pull up. Engineers at Intel probably have some ideas.
I have a beast i7 gaming rig too and my M1 beats it at everything but graphics performance.
What I think Intel will continue to work their enterprise business until this “arm wave” starts to pull up. Engineers at Intel probably have some ideas.
I genuinely don't think M1 is a new wave of computing (yet), both in the sense that it's apple so it's not up to you what you do with it but also because ARM and X86 aren't all that different these days. Ultimately M1 is "Company with enough money to buy the US Navy, follows existing path to logical conclusion, succeeds".
If a company other than apple makes a fast arm chip that'd be very interesting, though. Nvidia have probably thought about it.
If a company other than apple makes a fast arm chip that'd be very interesting, though. Nvidia have probably thought about it.
Time will tell if you're right. I do think that what's happening under the hood of the Apple chip is real and is causing more than a few executives in the silicon world to lose sleep.
This reminds me of when RIM got their hands on an iPhone for the first time.
One of many articles: https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple...
This reminds me of when RIM got their hands on an iPhone for the first time.
One of many articles: https://appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/27/rim_thought_apple...
I think it the hints were there if you were in the industry. CPU scaling is TPU scaling and apple's chips were showing leading single core performance compared to android / qualcomm chips for many years now with very low power usage. After that you could see how they could scale that up relatively easily.
Also apple built in some special instructions that makes macOS software better, like core operations of objective-c, so some of this might be very apple runtime specific optimizations.
Also apple built in some special instructions that makes macOS software better, like core operations of objective-c, so some of this might be very apple runtime specific optimizations.
The first iPhones used generic Samsung processors and the power is quite similar to the hardware in BlackBerrys contemporary products.
They probably just didn’t realize that one day of battery life is enough for most use cases and is less important than a real browser and the other features brought by the iPhone.
They probably just didn’t realize that one day of battery life is enough for most use cases and is less important than a real browser and the other features brought by the iPhone.
I feel like you're glossing over a bunch of things here.
1) the display on the iphone was gigantic compared to any other device on the market. The fact the iPhone had the battery life it did was amazing.
2) the software on the iphone destroyed anything RIM had ever put forward.
3) the iPhone was a much better piece of hardware aesthetically and performance-wise than anything RIM had ever put out. Their closest competitor was the Pearl and it was garbage compared to the iPhone.
4) Lastly, RIM had 10 year development cycles. Pivoting to attack the iPhone meant ripping apart 10 years of planned development much of which was already executed. Pivoting that hard is just not something companies at the scale or RIM are designed to do.
RIM should've seen the writing on the wall, shred their hardware business, and gone all in on supporting BES on iPhone. I digress...
1) the display on the iphone was gigantic compared to any other device on the market. The fact the iPhone had the battery life it did was amazing.
2) the software on the iphone destroyed anything RIM had ever put forward.
3) the iPhone was a much better piece of hardware aesthetically and performance-wise than anything RIM had ever put out. Their closest competitor was the Pearl and it was garbage compared to the iPhone.
4) Lastly, RIM had 10 year development cycles. Pivoting to attack the iPhone meant ripping apart 10 years of planned development much of which was already executed. Pivoting that hard is just not something companies at the scale or RIM are designed to do.
RIM should've seen the writing on the wall, shred their hardware business, and gone all in on supporting BES on iPhone. I digress...
I don’t know if there was a future for them anyway. What could they have done that Apple could not?
Did they even have a way for third parties to make apps? Even though the iPhone originally didn’t have that the jailbreak community pretty quickly showed that was the way forward.
Did they even have a way for third parties to make apps? Even though the iPhone originally didn’t have that the jailbreak community pretty quickly showed that was the way forward.
Just to be clear, RIM was on top of the world when the iPhone came out, and, if they had been fast pivoting they might still be relevant in the world.
[deleted]
We know that some components of a chip benefit more from die shrinkage than others. Intel is having yield problems with die shrinkage. Chiplets are a thing.
I can’t for the life of me figure out why Intel hasn’t already hedged their bets and started working hard on hybrid chips. Especially since this now appears to be a long term industry direction. If the next step blunts the consequences of your current problems, why not jump on it?
Sunk cost fallacy?
I can’t for the life of me figure out why Intel hasn’t already hedged their bets and started working hard on hybrid chips. Especially since this now appears to be a long term industry direction. If the next step blunts the consequences of your current problems, why not jump on it?
Sunk cost fallacy?
Intel has EMIB [0], which they've used in i7-8809G [1]. And they seem to be going all-in on chiplets heavily... for 7nm [2]. At their current pace it'll be a few years before that.
[0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/emib.html [1] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i7/i7-8809g [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16021/intel-moving-to-chiplet...
[0] https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/foundry/emib.html [1] https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/intel/core_i7/i7-8809g [2] https://www.anandtech.com/show/16021/intel-moving-to-chiplet...
Intel already got 'Foveros 3D Chip Stacking’ Tech shipping last June, the Lakefield processor.
I wonder how much better Intel's i9 laptop chips would perform if they were on 5nm like the M1.
Would they be competitive? Or are apple so much further ahead on other things too?
Would they be competitive? Or are apple so much further ahead on other things too?
I have read somewhere that there is no benefit of making multiple layers of transistors per chip because you get to thermal limits pretty quick.
We barely can keep 1 layer whithin operating temperature.
We barely can keep 1 layer whithin operating temperature.
Generally caches, especially those using the full 8 transistors per cell instead of those trying to get by with 6, don't use all that much power. One obvious idea is to design a chip such that the hot logic layers are on top, right next to the heat sync, and the logic layers are underneath. 3D topology means that everything can effectively be closer together for lower latency and lower information transport energy but you can make the caches bigger at the same time.
For true 3D chips that are more cube-like people talk about putting liquid cooling channels into the structure but that would be a technology for quite a ways off.
For true 3D chips that are more cube-like people talk about putting liquid cooling channels into the structure but that would be a technology for quite a ways off.
Under some constraints [1] [2] if you halve the frequency and double the number of execution units, the overall power consumption drops.
Therefore, you could gain performance or reduce power by stacking layers of silicon.
This is also true for things like power LEDs; within a certain range of their operating curve (current vs. output) you can reduce current by X% and lose less than X% of output. Put down two LEDs, then, and you get more output at the same current.
[1] architectures that scale efficiently to more execution units, like GPUs
[2] you're in a suitable region of the frequency-power curve
Therefore, you could gain performance or reduce power by stacking layers of silicon.
This is also true for things like power LEDs; within a certain range of their operating curve (current vs. output) you can reduce current by X% and lose less than X% of output. Put down two LEDs, then, and you get more output at the same current.
[1] architectures that scale efficiently to more execution units, like GPUs
[2] you're in a suitable region of the frequency-power curve
Yes, the last 10 percent increase in clock speed causes a 30 percent increase in power, or something like that. If you care about total performance instead of single thread it's probably better to add more cores.
Yes and no. You do run into thermal limits, but you can control how much power you draw by adjusting voltage and clock speed. Somethings are more "transistor" hungry than "cycle" hungry.
That said, I expect the early uses might be in mixed mode (linear and digital devices in the same package) and things that benefit from a huge cache or pre-programmed ROM.
There are also things like diamond substrates that improve the thermal transfer characteristics as well which helps you to draw more heat from the package than just silicon. This was a feature of "silicon on sapphire" processes and perhaps we will see some "silicon on diamond" parts.
That said, I expect the early uses might be in mixed mode (linear and digital devices in the same package) and things that benefit from a huge cache or pre-programmed ROM.
There are also things like diamond substrates that improve the thermal transfer characteristics as well which helps you to draw more heat from the package than just silicon. This was a feature of "silicon on sapphire" processes and perhaps we will see some "silicon on diamond" parts.
I've always wondered why advances in 3D chips haven't taken advantage of nano-fluidics. One radical new chip design could be very micron-sized coolant pipes for wicking away heat. The "coolant" could perhaps be gallium for rapid heat transfer. Micro-valves could open/close as parts of the chip draw more power, pumping more fluid through them, and cooling them faster.
Every problem has a solution, we must be creative enough to discover & build it.
Every problem has a solution, we must be creative enough to discover & build it.
Microfluidics is one of the most complex fields to commercialize a product in, and is littered with dead startups. The short answer is that the scale change changes the behavior of everything - pumps and flow just plain don't work the way they do at larger scales, and the forces created by surface tension and hydrophillicity become large relative to the strength of the mechanical parts.
Nanoscale fluidics are much more efficient at transferring heat or mass. The issue is that we have just started developing an understanding of the field, so our usual understanding of those concepts have to be developed from scratch. As you mentioned, the forces become large enough, and some variables can't just be ignored. But in my experience (working with microscale perfusion reactor arrays), they actually deliver much more and reliably compared to a conventional system.
What's the breakthrough needed to make chips like these a reality?
As in any cutting-edge technology: enough willpower and finance to explore the design space until a design with sufficient potential is found and its technical challenges overcome. Academia often has already explored the design space. The industry then tries to commercialize one of these approaches. Often, they turn out to be a dud: the challenges are too large, or they are solvable but the technology is ultimately impractical for some reason, or they are a dead end and thus won't be relevant for long enough to build a company on it. And then there are various non-technological human failure modes that can befall a company...
To get a 10* speed up you would need 10* the power. Your 100w cpu would become 1kw! Its not a long term winning strategy to chase after better thermal dissipation. When we have 2d devices that running as fast as they can go and drawing 1w, then it's time to go vertical.
One could imagine to use 1 layer while the other is cooling, then switching when the current layer get too hot? But I guess the heat from 1 active layer would quickly propagate to the whole chip.
Or maybe using more transistors allow to run them at a lower power to complete the same work, which reduces the dissipated energy ?
Or maybe using more transistors allow to run them at a lower power to complete the same work, which reduces the dissipated energy ?
With a 2-d chip, you can't do much better than a big-old heat sink, and circulating a fluid. For 3-d structures, I wonder if actively moving heat to the outside with Peltier junctions would help.
“TSMC is now taking chip packaging vertically and horizontally, using a new 3-D technology that it dubs SoIC.”
They picked a name for it that is already a common term in chip packaging. Face meet palm.
They picked a name for it that is already a common term in chip packaging. Face meet palm.
I had to look that one up.
A small outline integrated circuit (SOIC) is a surface-mounted integrated circuit (IC) package which occupies an area about 30–50% less than an equivalent dual in-line package (DIP), with a typical thickness being 70% less. They are generally available in the same pin-outs as their counterpart DIP ICs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_outline_integrated_circu...
I suspect companies do these make collisions intentionally.
A small outline integrated circuit (SOIC) is a surface-mounted integrated circuit (IC) package which occupies an area about 30–50% less than an equivalent dual in-line package (DIP), with a typical thickness being 70% less. They are generally available in the same pin-outs as their counterpart DIP ICs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_outline_integrated_circu...
I suspect companies do these make collisions intentionally.
So what I take away from this is that one company, TSMC, is at the forefront of chip manufacture (with Apple M1 and now Google), whilst being a few miles away from a Chinese administration that sees a recalcitrant province not an independent country.
Our societies are like inverted pyramids- balancing on surprisingly small foundations that can tip over with more ease than we care to admit.
Our societies are like inverted pyramids- balancing on surprisingly small foundations that can tip over with more ease than we care to admit.
Relevant: "The Coming Chip Wars" by Steve Blank
https://steveblank.com/2020/06/18/the-coming-chip-wars-of-th...
https://steveblank.com/2020/06/18/the-coming-chip-wars-of-th...
Real quick we're going to need to go back to treating modern CPUs like munitions with severe export controls.
For what? The Western world imports CPUs already (so no way for export controls), and China can design and manufacture their own CPUs.
In fact, your smartphone probably already exceed all ITARed chips by computing power, and it's a big irony that all of them go through China before reaching the US.
If China wanted to put some into their ICBMs, they would've been just better off wiring a smartphone to the rocket.
If China wanted to put some into their ICBMs, they would've been just better off wiring a smartphone to the rocket.
> If China wanted to put some into their ICBMs, they would've been just better off wiring a smartphone to the rocket.
Why am I reminded of the plot of Iron Sky 1?
Why am I reminded of the plot of Iron Sky 1?
It would make designing advanced CPUs for foreign manufacture illegal so further advancements couldn’t be stolen and ensuring on shore chip fab capability.
“export” controls doesn’t mean just goods, but also designs, specifications, even basic information
“export” controls doesn’t mean just goods, but also designs, specifications, even basic information
> so further advancements couldn’t be stolen
How would you ensure the advancements couldn't be stolen? I thought we learned over the years that if hostile power wants a technology, sooner or later they will get it.
How would you ensure the advancements couldn't be stolen? I thought we learned over the years that if hostile power wants a technology, sooner or later they will get it.
It’s about adding friction, not achieving perfection. Chips are so complex and fabs so specialized and elaborate that it would seem relatively easy to keep development secrets rather well. They already have to build them in high grade clean rooms.
Recall that the Manhattan Project was done under as much secrecy as you could possibly hope for, but that there were multiple independent spies.
Remember when they intended to put an export ban on the PlayStation2 to North Korea, because the chips were so powerful that they could be used for missile guidance?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/716237.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/716237.stm
Wasn't it simply a marketing stunt?
Inconclusive, don’t see much pointing to a stunt. PS2 and PS3 clusters were used for military testing purposes, at the least.
https://www.pcmag.com/news/20-years-later-how-concerns-about...
https://www.pcmag.com/news/20-years-later-how-concerns-about...
[deleted]
TSMC is building a fab in Arizona, but it won't be production ready until mid 2020s.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/tsmc-arizona-fab-invest...
Intel has fabs in the US (and Israel), but they have some catching up to do with TSMC - a lot of things have gone wrong for Intel the last few years. I hope they'll get their shit together and bounce back.
China has its own fabs (SMIC) and has been investing heavily into this, but as they are now banned from buying the EUV machines it will take a while, possibly up to a decade until they get to smaller process nodes. Long term China will be able to fab cutting edge chips itself, and possibly surpass others - looking at their tech trajectory and state funding. The US tech sanctions against China are just buying time.
https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/news/tsmc-arizona-fab-invest...
Intel has fabs in the US (and Israel), but they have some catching up to do with TSMC - a lot of things have gone wrong for Intel the last few years. I hope they'll get their shit together and bounce back.
China has its own fabs (SMIC) and has been investing heavily into this, but as they are now banned from buying the EUV machines it will take a while, possibly up to a decade until they get to smaller process nodes. Long term China will be able to fab cutting edge chips itself, and possibly surpass others - looking at their tech trajectory and state funding. The US tech sanctions against China are just buying time.
> possibly up to a decade
Their optoelectronics/optics tech is getting to the state of the art in a short period by their pace of progress from the rumors that I heard.
I'd wager 3-4 years before they have EUV themselves while avoiding conflict supply chain. Not 10 years time as you say.
They got some of the best minds on the planet working, so I wouldn't think that they cannot achieve it rather quick.
Zeiss and ASML are going to have real competition soon.
Their optoelectronics/optics tech is getting to the state of the art in a short period by their pace of progress from the rumors that I heard.
I'd wager 3-4 years before they have EUV themselves while avoiding conflict supply chain. Not 10 years time as you say.
They got some of the best minds on the planet working, so I wouldn't think that they cannot achieve it rather quick.
Zeiss and ASML are going to have real competition soon.
> Zeiss and ASML are going to have real competition soon.
FYI: Zeiss itself been buying low-end stepper lens work from Chinese for at least a decade, or two.
FYI: Zeiss itself been buying low-end stepper lens work from Chinese for at least a decade, or two.
could absolutely happen sooner. It is of high strategic importance to China - to their whole electronics industry, and the AI dominance race, which also depends on specialised chips.
State level AI dominance race is one of the main drivers of the US/China tech sanctions, I suspect
State level AI dominance race is one of the main drivers of the US/China tech sanctions, I suspect
[deleted]
That Arizona fab line is only for military tech right, no way that its enough to feed the western world with state of the art semi conductor designs.
> TSMC is building a fab in Arizona, but it won't be production ready until mid 2020s.
And given the previously promised obscenely sized financial incentive may not come now, this is not a given now as well.
And given the previously promised obscenely sized financial incentive may not come now, this is not a given now as well.
Intel do not license out production capacity and so they are not a solution
for a diverse market of semi conductor companies.
It's not that bad - Samsung and Intel are at most 1-2 years behind TSMC. An eternity in terms of product cycles for sure, but society would not fall apart if Apple had to redesign their A15 and M2 chips for Samsung 5nm next year.
Not sure why everyone counts Intel out. They still have an enormous war chest to use hire the best and brightest to get back on track.
Everyone also seems to forget that every time AMD has caught up to Intel in the past either AMD has itself stumbled and/or Intel again jumped forward.
Everyone also seems to forget that every time AMD has caught up to Intel in the past either AMD has itself stumbled and/or Intel again jumped forward.
You really think Intel is only 2 years behind TSMC?
It's probably a reasonable assessment based on what has been publicly stated.
Intel's 7nm process (which is equivalent of TSMC's 5nm, which just began production work) has recently been delayed into 2022[1]
[1] https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/intels-7nm-process-six...
Intel's 7nm process (which is equivalent of TSMC's 5nm, which just began production work) has recently been delayed into 2022[1]
[1] https://www.allaboutcircuits.com/news/intels-7nm-process-six...
Intel 7nm line has non-economical yields and is effectively a failure. They’re backporting their 7nm designs on to older processes at huge penalty to buy time for a new approach while putting out a couple flagships on the 7n line at a loss for appearances.
At least that’s the word on the street.
At least that’s the word on the street.
I think this is the 10nm process you are talking about here.
That's had a bunch of issues and is only now producing their premium mobile CPUs.
The 7nm issues aren't great but if it weren't for the 10nm disaster they aren't really more than normal slippage at this point. If it keeps slipping then they have problems.
That's had a bunch of issues and is only now producing their premium mobile CPUs.
The 7nm issues aren't great but if it weren't for the 10nm disaster they aren't really more than normal slippage at this point. If it keeps slipping then they have problems.
The problem is they delayed to develop process twice(14nm and 10nm), who believes next 7nm would come on schedule?
Are they not delaying it year on year? I am pretty sure every time I read about 7nm of Intel over the years, it always says that it is just around the corner or it is delayed. I'd say the Intel 7nm doesn't exist nor is being worked on apart from slides.
That's 10nm. The 7nm process was never scheduled to be ready yet.
What i have learned is that nm metrics are not related to size of things. But about the generation and characteristics of the process.
They should switch the density per mm^2 instead.
remember the 2011 Thailand flood and the resulting HDD shortage?
Why can't America build anymore? Is this a cultural problem, or a failure of public policy?
Healthcare, rail, aircraft, automobiles, shipping, pharmaceuticals, and now semiconductors. We can't make any of these things at scale anymore.
They turned GE into a financial institution. They sold Bell Labs off in pieces. Boeing can't safely update 1990s vintage air frames to accommodate modern engines. And yet, the market is on a tear. This is not sustainable.
Healthcare, rail, aircraft, automobiles, shipping, pharmaceuticals, and now semiconductors. We can't make any of these things at scale anymore.
They turned GE into a financial institution. They sold Bell Labs off in pieces. Boeing can't safely update 1990s vintage air frames to accommodate modern engines. And yet, the market is on a tear. This is not sustainable.
The overarching reasoning for why manufacturing moved to China appears to be they have way more readily available skilled workers & that "The entire supply chain is in China now":
> "You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That's the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours."
> Apple had originally estimated that it would take nine months to hire the 8,700 qualified industrial engineers needed to oversee production of the iPhone; in China, it took 15 days [1]
Tim Cook on why Apple makes iPhone's in China:
> The number one reason why we like to be in China is the people. China has extraordinary skills. [2]
[1] https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones...
[2] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...
> "You need a thousand rubber gaskets? That's the factory next door. You need a million screws? That factory is a block away. You need that screw made a little bit different? It will take three hours."
> Apple had originally estimated that it would take nine months to hire the 8,700 qualified industrial engineers needed to oversee production of the iPhone; in China, it took 15 days [1]
Tim Cook on why Apple makes iPhone's in China:
> The number one reason why we like to be in China is the people. China has extraordinary skills. [2]
[1] https://theweek.com/articles/478705/why-apple-builds-iphones...
[2] https://www.inc.com/glenn-leibowitz/apple-ceo-tim-cook-this-...
Taking 9 months to diversify manufacturing of a $2T business is probably worth it.
I don't buy time being the problem. Once manufacturing is in the US, then what? It probably costs 10x+ what it would cost in China or India. That's the bigger problem.
I don't buy time being the problem. Once manufacturing is in the US, then what? It probably costs 10x+ what it would cost in China or India. That's the bigger problem.
> Why can't America build anymore? Is this a cultural problem, or a failure of public policy?
America can't build anymore because America's executives have chosen to steal every piece of wealth they can take without leaving anything behind to build for the future.
American business culture has become far more interested in zero-sum rentierism and financialization that rapidly concentrates existing wealth in the hands of the wealthy than in technological innovation that creates new wealth over the longer term.
The collapse of American industry is the entirely predictable consequence.
See also
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/18/clayton...
for a similar but slightly different take.
America can't build anymore because America's executives have chosen to steal every piece of wealth they can take without leaving anything behind to build for the future.
American business culture has become far more interested in zero-sum rentierism and financialization that rapidly concentrates existing wealth in the hands of the wealthy than in technological innovation that creates new wealth over the longer term.
The collapse of American industry is the entirely predictable consequence.
See also
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2011/11/18/clayton...
for a similar but slightly different take.
This is a large part of the problem if you ask me.
I did some research a few years back into (somewhat unrelated) process management practices. What kinda stood out to me is that in the 50s-60s many businesses transformed their leadership. They went from having engineers that grow into their leadership positions to having dedicated managers. With business degrees.
Just speculation, but I feel this shift in management culture coincides with the loss of a lot of the technical production capabilities of the west. And is closely followed by the money-grab culture.
I did some research a few years back into (somewhat unrelated) process management practices. What kinda stood out to me is that in the 50s-60s many businesses transformed their leadership. They went from having engineers that grow into their leadership positions to having dedicated managers. With business degrees.
Just speculation, but I feel this shift in management culture coincides with the loss of a lot of the technical production capabilities of the west. And is closely followed by the money-grab culture.
> engineers that grow into their leadership positions .. to having dedicated managers. With business degrees.
this also happens in software companies i feel.
The underlying issue, i suspect, is that engineers are not "people persons" - less able to manoeuvre politically, and "play the game". But in any societal organization, those who can play the political game can win.
Thus, the dedicated managers end up in those positions. They play the political game, and they get rewarded for it - because they control the reward scheme when they get to those high positions.
Meritocracy is an illusion that gets used by those playing a political game to make engineers feel they are not part of the game.
this also happens in software companies i feel.
The underlying issue, i suspect, is that engineers are not "people persons" - less able to manoeuvre politically, and "play the game". But in any societal organization, those who can play the political game can win.
Thus, the dedicated managers end up in those positions. They play the political game, and they get rewarded for it - because they control the reward scheme when they get to those high positions.
Meritocracy is an illusion that gets used by those playing a political game to make engineers feel they are not part of the game.
My suspicion is that the near zero interest rates make investment not worth it. The same is in Europe (it's even negative).
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
If investment (real investment, based on profit) is not worth it, and only the central bank wants a piece of the overpriced action, then we have essentially a centralized economy. This breeds stagnation.
Contrast to China, who had healthier yields, and only lowered them for COVID: https://tradingeconomics.com/china/interest-rate
https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/interest-rate
If investment (real investment, based on profit) is not worth it, and only the central bank wants a piece of the overpriced action, then we have essentially a centralized economy. This breeds stagnation.
Contrast to China, who had healthier yields, and only lowered them for COVID: https://tradingeconomics.com/china/interest-rate
This explanation just reworks the question into one of why western interest rates are so low.
Western central banks can't raise interest rates above the lower bound without triggering unacceptable unemployment or even deflation. Indeed, the highest safe rate has fallen in the wake of every recession.
To me, this suggests major structural problems in the western economies. It's hard to think of a single explanation that applies to all (pre-pandemic) zero-interest rate western economies, however. The economic foundations in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and the EU are different enough that there is no obvious single structural fault common to all of them.
Western central banks can't raise interest rates above the lower bound without triggering unacceptable unemployment or even deflation. Indeed, the highest safe rate has fallen in the wake of every recession.
To me, this suggests major structural problems in the western economies. It's hard to think of a single explanation that applies to all (pre-pandemic) zero-interest rate western economies, however. The economic foundations in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and the EU are different enough that there is no obvious single structural fault common to all of them.
> The economic foundations in Australia, Canada, the UK, the US, and the EU are different enough that there is no obvious single structural fault common to all of them.
There is one though: changing demographics - the median age of the population is going up and the percentage of the working population is going down.
There is one though: changing demographics - the median age of the population is going up and the percentage of the working population is going down.
This is it. China's capable labor force has a lot of growth left in it yet.
The Western world has been relatively stagnant in this regard for two generations already.
The Western world has been relatively stagnant in this regard for two generations already.
[deleted]
There are very real structural problems in the US economy. Look anywhere and you'll find them.
This doesn't make sense - zero interest rates make investment worth more.
10% interest rate => "why invest in this new factory for a 10% return when I can just keep money in the bank?"
0% interest rate => "well if I want to make money, I need to invest"
Feel free to blame other things - maybe 0% inflation rate (higher inflation => more opportunity cost of not investing) or QE (which is similar to 0% interest rates, but still different - a 0% interest rate environment persists since early 2000s whereas QE only started after 2009) which is much more problematic as it floods the market (but not the economy) with money and pushes equity prices through the roof (despite shitty fundamentals).
10% interest rate => "why invest in this new factory for a 10% return when I can just keep money in the bank?"
0% interest rate => "well if I want to make money, I need to invest"
Feel free to blame other things - maybe 0% inflation rate (higher inflation => more opportunity cost of not investing) or QE (which is similar to 0% interest rates, but still different - a 0% interest rate environment persists since early 2000s whereas QE only started after 2009) which is much more problematic as it floods the market (but not the economy) with money and pushes equity prices through the roof (despite shitty fundamentals).
There is one option you have not looked at:
0% interest rate -> I'll take my money and leave for greener pastures (other countries such as emerging markets).
0% interest rate -> I'll take my money and leave for greener pastures (other countries such as emerging markets).
The reason is class conflict, or more precisely its absence.
> They turned GE into a financial institution. They sold Bell Labs off in pieces. Boeing can't safely update 1990s vintage air frames to accommodate modern engines. And yet, the market is on a tear. This is not sustainable.
You very well see what's wrong going here. The US economy, and government institutes seem to be overran by a class of self proclaimed "value adders:" heavy hitter "pro-managers," financial "engineers," and, of course, everybody's favourite — lawyers.
It's very natural to conclude that an engineering company like GE shouldn't have been given to bankers, to be turned into a... bank, and Boeing shouldn't have been entrusted to outsourcing managers, to be turned into an outsourcing management company, and dozens electronics companies shouldn't have been given to lawyers, to be turned into patent litigation services companies, and so on, and so on.
Yet, US — one of few countries affording such high level of employee control of their companies, and quite militant unions ends up with workplaces whisked away from under the nose of their employees.
I see a simple explanation: Americans completely prematurely decided to bury the axe of class warfare, and traded peace for progress.
No conflict — no progress.
I am not advocating for violent revolution right away, certainly not that. You do not kill people over the ownership of green paper, that's morally wrong to do so. But you do not let such people simply live comfy life without opposition.
Take a look at other countries, even though they may well lag behind US on worker rights, and don't have a culture of union militancy, and overall worse off compensation even for high skill work, yet you don't see factories turning into banks, or if they do, they quickly see workers voting with their feet.
From my experience, I'd say even in China you do see factory workers changing workplaces when they feel "malaise in the air" in the company, and don't wait for company's malaise turn into (their) financial trouble.
> They turned GE into a financial institution. They sold Bell Labs off in pieces. Boeing can't safely update 1990s vintage air frames to accommodate modern engines. And yet, the market is on a tear. This is not sustainable.
You very well see what's wrong going here. The US economy, and government institutes seem to be overran by a class of self proclaimed "value adders:" heavy hitter "pro-managers," financial "engineers," and, of course, everybody's favourite — lawyers.
It's very natural to conclude that an engineering company like GE shouldn't have been given to bankers, to be turned into a... bank, and Boeing shouldn't have been entrusted to outsourcing managers, to be turned into an outsourcing management company, and dozens electronics companies shouldn't have been given to lawyers, to be turned into patent litigation services companies, and so on, and so on.
Yet, US — one of few countries affording such high level of employee control of their companies, and quite militant unions ends up with workplaces whisked away from under the nose of their employees.
I see a simple explanation: Americans completely prematurely decided to bury the axe of class warfare, and traded peace for progress.
No conflict — no progress.
I am not advocating for violent revolution right away, certainly not that. You do not kill people over the ownership of green paper, that's morally wrong to do so. But you do not let such people simply live comfy life without opposition.
Take a look at other countries, even though they may well lag behind US on worker rights, and don't have a culture of union militancy, and overall worse off compensation even for high skill work, yet you don't see factories turning into banks, or if they do, they quickly see workers voting with their feet.
From my experience, I'd say even in China you do see factory workers changing workplaces when they feel "malaise in the air" in the company, and don't wait for company's malaise turn into (their) financial trouble.
Your analysis is good, but your synthesis seems absurd. Class conflict would be good for productivity? Clearly no. You made your case for the failure of a society run by financial parasites, but so far it seems they’ve defended against class conflict by converting a huge number of people from a productive and capable working class into financial dependents of income redistribution from the middle class. This has been the character and the result of all such ‘class conflict’ so far, and it only makes things worse.
I am not at all advocating for income redistribution at all bankers, MBAs, lawyers are free to earn, and hold to their money as they are, but you do not let every job, and position in the government given to them just for them being such.
I'm rather advocating for fighting the massive loss of common sense, where you get every nook, and cranny in the society/companies/government being stuffed with those of inappropriate class, and being firm, and forceful with that, when, and if needed.
I'm rather advocating for fighting the massive loss of common sense, where you get every nook, and cranny in the society/companies/government being stuffed with those of inappropriate class, and being firm, and forceful with that, when, and if needed.
What I find remarkable about this is that I have no idea whether it is a far right or mainstream left position.
> I am not advocating for violent revolution right away, certainly not that.
no of course not, that would be terrible pr
no of course not, that would be terrible pr
Depends. SpaceX pretty much owns the global launch market, and has out built and out innovated every other country's aerospace companies.
Speaking of Musk, Tesla is now worth more than most automakers, is on a tear, and most likely will be outproducing everyone at making batteries.
I don't think this is purely an 'access to labor' problem. It's a problem of vision and risk tolerance. Musk is willing to try new approaches, even if they fail (eg trying to make a 3D almost 100% tesla factory before having to retreat to using humans)
Silicon Fabs are one of the first industries to be almost 100% automated. So clearly the issue isn't access to labor, but for Intel, it's more like they made a bad bet, and didn't "fail fast", they've been doubling down on bad bets and not willing to be more dynamic.
When you look at Aerospace: SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Rocket Lab, Relativity Space, it's clear, small focus teams can pull off amazing things, even in high-capex high-risk high-regulatory industries.
The failure of GE and owners is due to bean counters being put in charge instead of missionaries. Take GE's Nuclear division, why are they still putting money into BWRs & PWRs? Decades went by, they are not dropping any money on pebble beds, molten salt, thorium, etc. And why wait for MIT's SPARC to limp along? If they had an Elon Musk figure, he would have put them on a race to build a prototype, even if it failed, in a year, not 5 years.
Monopolies, and access to cost+ government contracts I think have killed a lot of innovation.
And if the big 3 automakers want to compete with Tesla, they need to replace their management with hardcore EV geeks who have passion and LOVE the space, and give them the resources to spin up a new division with all new people and processes. Otherwise, they're going to shamble along, and continue to try and milk their existing business lines until they die.
This is a management problem, not a labor problem. You can't solve this problem by shoveling more STEMs straight outta college onto it. There's a tendency to think China's massive stem graduation firehose will magically mean leadership, but that's million man-month thinking. It's not simply about access to labor that's the problem. Companies with 100 employees outcompete companies with tens of thousands all the time (take WhatsApp vs my employer, Google, in the messaging space)
Speaking of Musk, Tesla is now worth more than most automakers, is on a tear, and most likely will be outproducing everyone at making batteries.
I don't think this is purely an 'access to labor' problem. It's a problem of vision and risk tolerance. Musk is willing to try new approaches, even if they fail (eg trying to make a 3D almost 100% tesla factory before having to retreat to using humans)
Silicon Fabs are one of the first industries to be almost 100% automated. So clearly the issue isn't access to labor, but for Intel, it's more like they made a bad bet, and didn't "fail fast", they've been doubling down on bad bets and not willing to be more dynamic.
When you look at Aerospace: SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Rocket Lab, Relativity Space, it's clear, small focus teams can pull off amazing things, even in high-capex high-risk high-regulatory industries.
The failure of GE and owners is due to bean counters being put in charge instead of missionaries. Take GE's Nuclear division, why are they still putting money into BWRs & PWRs? Decades went by, they are not dropping any money on pebble beds, molten salt, thorium, etc. And why wait for MIT's SPARC to limp along? If they had an Elon Musk figure, he would have put them on a race to build a prototype, even if it failed, in a year, not 5 years.
Monopolies, and access to cost+ government contracts I think have killed a lot of innovation.
And if the big 3 automakers want to compete with Tesla, they need to replace their management with hardcore EV geeks who have passion and LOVE the space, and give them the resources to spin up a new division with all new people and processes. Otherwise, they're going to shamble along, and continue to try and milk their existing business lines until they die.
This is a management problem, not a labor problem. You can't solve this problem by shoveling more STEMs straight outta college onto it. There's a tendency to think China's massive stem graduation firehose will magically mean leadership, but that's million man-month thinking. It's not simply about access to labor that's the problem. Companies with 100 employees outcompete companies with tens of thousands all the time (take WhatsApp vs my employer, Google, in the messaging space)
My phrase to explain it: Engineering is not a "cost center" it's an investment in the future. Do you want to cut investment or go big on the right ones?
Most big companies just want to collect rent rather than make investments.
Most big companies just want to collect rent rather than make investments.
the economic incentives for a hired management is not aligned with innovation.
A hired CEO has incentive to make the company continue to be profitable during his/her tenure. This means conservative thinking and business continuity. Not taking big, risky bets that pay off multiple 100x in 10 years.
A new company, owned by the CEO level people, is not going to fall into this trap.
A hired CEO has incentive to make the company continue to be profitable during his/her tenure. This means conservative thinking and business continuity. Not taking big, risky bets that pay off multiple 100x in 10 years.
A new company, owned by the CEO level people, is not going to fall into this trap.
[deleted]
[deleted]
What obstacles would you face starting a competitive new big factory in US or Europe. Think it through and you'll figure out some of the answers. And watch "American Factory".
Strangley we are getting 3 examples of this with gigafactories (shanghi, texas, berlin) so there could be hard facts in a few years
Does anyone know where POWER9-chips used in the Thalos II [0] are made?
[0]: https://www.raptorcs.com/
[0]: https://www.raptorcs.com/
Power has been made at GlobalFoundries in New York but Power10 is switching to Samsung.