Quote from: LOL on February 01, 2021, 12:50:14
Exynos is still a terrible product, don't be fooled into thinking that AMD will 'rescue' Exynos or Samsung's grander SoC industry ambitions.

Samsung should just kill off Exynos and operate like TSMC: produce chips for Apple or Qualcomm.

I do agree with exynos being a bad products but only with mongoose core. The current one should be on par with sd since both are using same core config

Quote from: _MT_ on February 01, 2021, 09:21:45

Quote from: TommyBoy on January 31, 2021, 13:29:15
Interesting. Intel can reduce competition simply by buying capacity at its rivals foundry.  If Intel is seen in any way limiting AMD or nVidia, there will be lawsuits again.  TSMC cannot cut AMD's capacity just because a richer client comes in.  It will be seen as yet another illegal anticompetitive move.

Nobody is reducing AMD's contracted capacity (putting aside any reductions resulting from the pandemic which should hit their customers proportionately). TSMC just struggles to provide additional capacity. In other words, AMD failed to secure enough capacity ahead of time, probably because they didn't anticipate such demand. In this climate where everybody seems to want more, there is just nothing left. And Apple's manufacturing on 5 nm node probably isn't causing any trouble to AMD on 7 nm node. It's a different node. With its own machinery. On the contrary, because Apple moved on, there is less competition on the older node. You can't just wave your hand to create more capacity. You can spend money to have spare capacity or allow for easier expansion. But not only it's making your manufacturing more expensive, it's a finite resource.

Of course Intel can buy whatever capacity it wants. It's a free market. If they have the money, come first and make a good offer, why not. It can only become a problem because of their dominant position. And it's not a sustainable strategy. You're just motivating them to build more capacity. And of course TSMC could drop one client in favour of a richer one. If he is paying so much more that they can cover any penalties resulting from unfulfilled shipments/ contract termination and any potential damage to reputation, why not. I wouldn't without an understanding from my partner but penalty clauses are in contracts for a reason. You don't rely on people's sense of honour. And they certainly can prefer whatever client they want when it comes to future contracts. It's their job to do what they think is best for their company.

If AMD wants better control over its supply chain, perhaps they should cough up some money and build their own facility.

Cough up some money for new fab?

Intel earning 77bil q4 and amd 3bil q4. And you want amd to build a new fab? Why didn't intel do it? The reason is obvious. The difference in their earnings already tells you who should do what. Getting a node ready would have exhausted their q4 earning in a sec. Why you think GloFo stop pursuing 7nm? Intel should be investing in new fab instead trying to get tsmc current best and future node. Can't you see it? They have done it in the past. Their earning the past few years of anticompetitive got them hundreds of billion and they have to pay amd 1.25bil only. Surely that's an easy thing for intel.

Exynos is still a terrible product, don't be fooled into thinking that AMD will 'rescue' Exynos or Samsung's grander SoC industry ambitions.

Samsung should just kill off Exynos and operate like TSMC: produce chips for Apple or Qualcomm.

All i see is intel try to cut off amd. Why i3 on 5nm tsmc when the rest are on 10nm sf? Yes the 10nm sf could be superior but outsourcing the most unit the will be bought (office/normal people) on a fab that has limited capacity are pretty obvious. And amd earning are no where near intel. Just paying extra and cut off amd seems like the plan this time.

Quote from: TommyBoy on January 31, 2021, 13:29:15
Interesting. Intel can reduce competition simply by buying capacity at its rivals foundry.  If Intel is seen in any way limiting AMD or nVidia, there will be lawsuits again.  TSMC cannot cut AMD's capacity just because a richer client comes in.  It will be seen as yet another illegal anticompetitive move.

Nobody is reducing AMD's contracted capacity (putting aside any reductions resulting from the pandemic which should hit their customers proportionately). TSMC just struggles to provide additional capacity. In other words, AMD failed to secure enough capacity ahead of time, probably because they didn't anticipate such demand. In this climate where everybody seems to want more, there is just nothing left. And Apple's manufacturing on 5 nm node probably isn't causing any trouble to AMD on 7 nm node. It's a different node. With its own machinery. On the contrary, because Apple moved on, there is less competition on the older node. You can't just wave your hand to create more capacity. You can spend money to have spare capacity or allow for easier expansion. But not only it's making your manufacturing more expensive, it's a finite resource.

Of course Intel can buy whatever capacity it wants. It's a free market. If they have the money, come first and make a good offer, why not. It can only become a problem because of their dominant position. And it's not a sustainable strategy. You're just motivating them to build more capacity. And of course TSMC could drop one client in favour of a richer one. If he is paying so much more that they can cover any penalties resulting from unfulfilled shipments/ contract termination and any potential damage to reputation, why not. I wouldn't without an understanding from my partner but penalty clauses are in contracts for a reason. You don't rely on people's sense of honour. And they certainly can prefer whatever client they want when it comes to future contracts. It's their job to do what they think is best for their company.

If AMD wants better control over its supply chain, perhaps they should cough up some money and build their own facility.

The availability problems with AMD GPUs and CPUs show that the issue of TSMC not having enough capacity is real, and so going to Samsung is reasonable. However, the availability problems with Nvidia GPUs show that it will be a while before Samsung is in a position to help much.

Interesting. Intel can reduce competition simply by buying capacity at its rivals foundry.  If Intel is seen in any way limiting AMD or nVidia, there will be lawsuits again.  TSMC cannot cut AMD's capacity just because a richer client comes in.  It will be seen as yet another illegal anticompetitive move.

Intel "helping" TSMC on their 2nm and 3nm will backfire for TSMC.TSMC better going alone with more capacity other customers like AMD and leaving Intel to their problems.

Honestly I wonder if AMD would re purchase global foundries and get them running on lower process nodes now that they're making bank

Everyone should diversify. TSMC is not going to be a long-term solution with China eyeing Taiwan closely. China could gobble up Taiwan and secure the world's largest and most advanced supplier of high-density semiconductors and everyone would be entirely screwed. China is already the major player in many modern materials like rare earths and is increasingly looking to secure foreign resources in the ocean, the arctic and in Africa. TSMC is aggressively building fabs outside of the reach of China (like in the US) and diversifying to Samsung's fabs is a good idea at this time.

It stands to reason, that Intel will get higher priority than AMD for future TSMC supply?  It stands to reason that the opposite is true.

Intel securing large fab capacity from TSMC is complete FUD, meant to prop up Intel stock.