If anything, this makes some reasonable sense. Since IFS has experience making x86, which a large % of equipment is optimized for... so that's would make any transition 100x easier vs a non x86 design. AMD get's access to a US supplier to appease the Administration, and get a 2nd source instead of TSMC, which would give them both some diversification, and more importantly, some possible pricing relief. The biggest hurdle is AMD willing to send money to their biggest PC and Server competitor... or are the benefits offset that risk. Given IFS isn't going to be profitable with or without AMD... there's actually a reasonable chance AMD would sign on to IFS (prob with some old legacy designs just in case IFS sc--ws the pooch... like they have the last 15 years).
21 replies (most recent on top)
Intel is the bottom of the barrel for everything…
Intel really scraping the bottom of the barrel if they take AMD business.
@b1 What are you smoking because it's very strong. Which companies have exactly come "rushing" to Intel for 18A?!?! Other than Intel Products, which is forced to use IFS, anyone one who has even looked at 18A has nothing positive to say. Even LBT is focusing on 14A because 18A is basically three year old diarrhea at this point.
@bc TSMC has reported 90% yield only for SRAM memory unit (the simplest chip component - one of many other). Each die has tens of different units (Core unit, Graphic unit, I/O unit etc). In order to have die yielded you must have all other components yielded on the same chip.
TSMC is reporting only SRAM unit yield for 2nm process, while hides information about real production yield (which is very, very low in fact). This statement is the same as saying that broken down and wrecked car has perfectly good new tires.
And a new slogan for Intel is born!
"Intel - We Sc--w the Pooch!"
@OP, True or this is all news just to do stock manipulation by folks who want to send intc to garbage eventually and/or make some profit in the short-term.
This isn't without precedence.
Intel put AMD silicon inside of a package several years back, so fabbing for AMD isn't as far out of reach as most folks think.
Smart, who knows... but not new.
TSMC 2nm yield is 90%, per report last month.
@ay TSMC has no one production wafer on 2nm. They had to start 2nm production yet in 2024 but failed. So the very first product was taped and put in production line only last June (this was AMD Venus). And now these wafers are showing disaster yield. This means another 6 months delay for TSMC's 2nm. And then China could come...
So it's not a big surprise that all companies rushed to Intel, which already has a ready-made 18A process and presented PTL systems from Samsung and ASUS on this process.
@ax Surprise... TSMC is still three years of Intel on 2nm! LOL... TMG/IFS is just full of dimwitted losers. Zero interest or customers on 18A... that says it all.
@OP Surprise!!! The very first AMD Venus 2nm lot, which was started by TSMC early June'25 is showing "0" yield. Looks like TSMC's 2nm technology is not yet ready.
IFS sell off or investment stake under what trade agreement ? More C/S dilution or cash is king.
Me thinks ELTs are pumping and dumping on the way out for $40M each.
INTC will be sectored off like IBM and Motorola.
Bye bye high tech jobs you have been outsourced and sold to investing partners.
AMD said not true. lol.
It is fake news. AMD will not give design to Intel. It will be stolen by Intel.
AMD will not be foolish to let Intel manufacture its chips which will not yield until 5-10 years later. LOL.
It is Intel's fake news which is spreading on every company in a roll. The fake news bump up stock price higher :-)
Its an investment scam. Intel has never Fab’d a modern chip commercially yet.
Why Intel does not use IFS for itself, but ask other companies to use IFS? It seems to be a plot to slow down others.
AMD does not have that much money to donate to Intel.
Haha, it is a good trick for Intel to raise stock price: "Intel is in talk with X-X company". Intel will earn by just knock on the door to talk.
Fake news. AMD is the competitor, it uses TSMC for faster delivery to market.
If the government and all companies that used to be “the competition” own a chunk of intel what does that make Intel? A Joke.
@a2 At a fundamental level, AMDs arch is based on x86 for PCs and servers. I would say the products are akin to distant cousins with some overlap... vs say an ARM processor or RISC-V design, which are much different. I would say a GPU design is also different.
As mentioned, I think AMD would start with legacy designs or designs that are dual sourced with TSMC, since as you point out, IFS can't execute at all. The legacy designs are on older gen products, and are not mission critical for AMD... so if it fails, or is late, it prob doesn't matter. I could see processor consoles as a viable choice... either legacy, or if newer, dual sourced with TSMC.
There is zero chance AMD would bank on IFS to do a new leading edge, TTM, mission critical, or single source product. That would just be plain stupid on their part.
I’d like more meat on the bone regarding why the x86 nature matters to risk their cpu franchise on IFS for either pc or datacenter businesses vs staying with tsmc performance and cost structure?
Maybe just graphics or consoles?
Even Intel product cant trust its roadmap on IFS and has to maintain its plan b tsmc