> chips built on their process node were materially worse

Would they be considered the same chip in the same design? Or same chip with slightly different design? Or different design altogether?

Genuinely curious because sometimes to support both Windows and Linux code would need to follow OS distinct paths in many locations even if the compiler is supposed to support cross arch, resulting in binaries that are supposed to be the same but behaves differently due to necessity. Is this the case here? Does TSMC and Samsung support different format of chip design equivalent of code?

Yeah, I remember hearing NVidia did the same thing via Moore’s Law is Dead podcast. At this point it seems incredibly unlikely Intel will unseat TSMC anytime soon. TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and quality required by the likes of Apple, NVidia, and AMD. It also has substantially deeper pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.

I think if Intel is to stand a chance it’ll be via gaining momentum and market via “good enough” nodes and not cutting edge, essentially taking a page out of TSMCs playbook from the late 2000s and early 2010s. It needs more capital than it can raise, and time, both of which are hard to come by.

I think this is a very astute comment.

It reminded me that for a while all SIM everywhere seemed to come from one european chip plant, although now I say it I wonder if they were just the assembly & packaging and fabrication was offshore?

In both cases (tpm and sim) the cynic would say it's only deciding which economy owns the back-door.

What, in your mind, is a "security processor module"? As far as I'm aware, there is no such entity in Apple systems; security functionality is on the same die as the CPU/GPU. (Which is a good thing; it means that communications between the CPU and that security processor cannot easily be intercepted or interfered with.)

If TSMC is compromised, getting the security processor made in the US won't help.

The CPU enforces the security boundary between web pages, apps, the OS, the hypervisor and so on. If you control that, you control everything.

At that point Intel would be a highly successful foundry business! Then they could make very high performance RISC-V cores and offer them to foundry customers who need CPU. No need for legacy x86 at that point.

Apple did this before with Samsung, I can totally see them doing this to Intel.

Typically Apple offers to pay a large percent of R&D cost in return for a year of exclusivity. I do not know why they'd not do the same here.

That would be an interesting play. Acquire a chip design and foundry company all because they couldn't meet the purposely stringent deadline, and then use their expertise and assets to produce AI chips for yourself.

If one executive hire was all it took to steal a whole process node, TSMC could never have built the lead it has (nor Intel the lead it had in previous decades).

Semiconductor manufacturing is an exercise in blood, tears and careful note taking, not Magic Secrets.

Yeah, this is pure clickbait. And it's barely even new "news" anyway. Apple has been actively testing Intel's 18A process, and has been in talks with Samsung as well.

There are only three advanced chip manufacturers in the world (TSMC, Samsung, and Intel), so of course Apple has been in talks with all of them.

The whole story is based on a tweet from an analyst anyway. "Company that designs its own chips might use one of the three chip manufacturers in the world, based on my hunch." hmmmmmmmmm... Sounds more like someone just loaded up on Intel calls to me. (Not that the reality of the situation isn't real and obvious.)

At best, it’s Intel outside

TSMC's dominance is bad for the entire industry. Everybody is better off having alternatives - everybody except TSMC.

Packaging is something Intel does very well and they have facilities is the USA. The rumor is many companies might do final assembly with Intel.

https://www.eetimes.com/intels-embarrassment-of-riches-advan...

Why not? A single Boeing 747-8F could carry 10M-50M chips in a single trip.

No, they send them back to china to put them in the retail box.

TSMC is geographically decentralized, nowadays.

Getting foundry services off the ground requires starting somewhere. Apple is hedging. I don’t see it as a bad thing for Intel.

I'm kinda surprised this deal seems to be 18A still. While progress, 14A is what really matters, as Intel has more or less been threatening to just give up if they don't get a large 14A commitment(unless that's changed recently).

Though, if this goes well, it stands to reason Apple may be that needed commitment.

Dual sourcing keeps prices low.

This might make Trump happy, but more importantly it makes the military happy. No military leader with any intelligence is happy with so much critical for war supply chain being in China or Taiwan - the two are showing signs of going to war with each other in the future. (it may not happen, but there are enough signs military and political leaders should worry). Military leaders are not just the US, leaders in Europe are happy too - they may not trust the US but the US is still at least a second option (and Trump is 79: he is statistically unlikely to live much longer)

Pretty sure the answer is "No" - Intel is still pretty far behind TSMC on the high-end. But the old metric of "transistor size" measured in nanometers isn't a good indicator any more. The marketing numbers don't reflect reality in ways I don't understand.

I think a lot missed it because of Thanksgiving in the US.

So conspiracy theories are cool again?

No, your "dear leader" didn't buy intel.

You're on HN not some crappy FB group. The bar is higher around here.

The very first sentence of the article: "Will Apple turn to Intel for production of its M-series chips in 2027? " So it is not returning to Intel architecture.

They're talking about Intel fabbing Apple Silicon chips, not going back to x86.