←back to thread

229 points mshockwave | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.212s | source
Show context
somanyphotons ◴[] No.44502235[source]
Suddenly another company that has (old?) fabs and a cpu design team in-house

This could be interesting to see how much they try to loss-lead to get market share in the low-end

replies(4): >>44502261 #>>44502358 #>>44502670 #>>44503490 #
kragen ◴[] No.44502358[source]
GF's fabs aren't that old. They were neck-and-neck with TSMC until 02018, when they could do 12nm: https://web.archive.org/web/20190107061855/https://www.v3.co...
replies(2): >>44502554 #>>44506840 #
kasabali ◴[] No.44502554[source]
Imagine canning your 7nm process last minute only few years before the chip shortage.

Must be the most moronic decision ever.

and it's not like 20/20 hindsight either, because every hardware enthusiast knew at the time Intel was having troubles and was worried TSMC (and Samsung at the time) were going to be the only fabs producing leading edge lithographies.

replies(6): >>44502753 #>>44503357 #>>44503544 #>>44503709 #>>44505232 #>>44505248 #
MangoCoffee ◴[] No.44503357[source]
>Imagine canning your 7nm process last minute only few years before the chip shortage.

https://www.eetimes.com/samsung-globalfoundries-prep-14nm-pr...

"Samsung expects to be in production late this year with a 14 nm FinFET process it has developed. GlobalFoundries has licensed the process and will have it in production early next year."

GlobalFoundries licensed 14nm from Samsung. How do you know GlobalFoundries is capable of 7nm?

replies(2): >>44503365 #>>44503754 #
kragen ◴[] No.44503365[source]
This was from 02014, btw.
replies(2): >>44503395 #>>44503425 #
MangoCoffee ◴[] No.44503395[source]
that's my point. how does OP know GlobalFoundries is capable of 7nm if they can't even do 14nm. do you have any insider info that you can share?
replies(4): >>44503643 #>>44503886 #>>44504566 #>>44507137 #
kasabali ◴[] No.44504566[source]
No I don't have insider info. Neither do you. What an ridiculous nit to pick.
replies(1): >>44504919 #
jonas21 ◴[] No.44504919[source]
You're the one claiming it's the "most moronic decision ever".

The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process profitably, as opposed to them looking at the data and coming to a rational conclusion that they couldn't.

replies(2): >>44505128 #>>44507217 #
1. kasabali ◴[] No.44507217[source]
> The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they could have executed a 7nm process profitably

Why the fuck I'd have to prove that given that GloFo themselves claimed that they pulled out of it because it'd be unprofitable? Some people in this subthread are very eager to put words into my mouth.