The blog post "Chipzilla Devours the Desktop" argues that Intel's dominance in the desktop PC market, achieved through aggressive tactics like rebates and marketing deals, has ultimately stifled innovation. While Intel's strategy delivered performance gains for a time, it created a monoculture that discouraged competition and investment in alternative architectures. This has led to a stagnation in desktop computing, where advancements are incremental rather than revolutionary. The author contends that breaking free from this "Intel Inside" paradigm is crucial for the future of desktop computing, allowing for more diverse and potentially groundbreaking developments in hardware and software.
Broadcom and TSMC are reportedly exploring separate deals with Intel that could break up the struggling chip giant. Broadcom is considering acquiring Intel's networking business, while TSMC is in talks to potentially build a dedicated fabrication plant near Intel's Arizona site. These deals, if they materialize, would represent a significant shift for Intel, signaling a potential move away from its traditional integrated device manufacturing model and allowing it to focus on its core chip-designing business.
HN commenters are skeptical of the WSJ article's premise that Intel would split its manufacturing operations. Several point out that Intel's foundry business is integral to its IDM (Integrated Device Manufacturing) model and selling it off, especially to a competitor like TSMC, would be strategically unsound. Others argue that Intel's manufacturing capabilities, while currently lagging behind TSMC, are still a valuable asset, especially given the current geopolitical climate and the desire for more geographically diverse chip production. Some commenters suggest the rumors might be intentionally leaked by Intel to gauge public and investor reactions, or even to put pressure on governments for more subsidies. The overall sentiment is that a complete split is unlikely, but smaller deals, like selling specific fabs or collaborating on specific technologies, are more plausible.
TSMC is reportedly in talks with Intel to potentially manufacture chips for Intel's GPU division using TSMC's advanced 3nm process. This presents a dilemma for TSMC, as accepting Intel's business would mean allocating valuable 3nm capacity away from existing customers like Apple and Nvidia, potentially impacting their product roadmaps. Further complicating matters is the geopolitical pressure TSMC faces to reduce its reliance on China, with the US CHIPS Act incentivizing domestic production. While taking on Intel's business could strengthen TSMC's US presence and potentially secure government subsidies, it risks alienating key clients and diverting resources from crucial internal development. TSMC must carefully weigh the benefits of this collaboration against the potential disruption to its existing business and long-term strategic goals.
Hacker News commenters discuss the potential TSMC-Intel collaboration with skepticism. Several doubt Intel's ability to successfully utilize TSMC's advanced nodes, citing Intel's past manufacturing struggles and the potential complexity of integrating different process technologies. Others question the strategic logic for both companies, suggesting that such a partnership could create conflicts of interest and potentially compromise TSMC's competitive advantage. Some commenters also point out the geopolitical implications, noting the US government's desire to strengthen domestic chip production and reduce reliance on Taiwan. A few express concerns about the potential impact on TSMC's capacity and the availability of advanced nodes for other clients. Overall, the sentiment leans towards cautious pessimism about the rumored collaboration.
Intel's Battlemage, the successor to Alchemist, refines its Xe² HPG architecture for mainstream GPUs. Expected in 2024, it aims for improved performance and efficiency with rumored architectural enhancements like increased clock speeds and a redesigned memory subsystem. While details remain scarce, it's expected to continue using a tiled architecture and advanced features like XeSS upscaling. Battlemage represents Intel's continued push into the discrete graphics market, targeting the mid-range segment against established players like NVIDIA and AMD. Its success will hinge on delivering tangible performance gains and compelling value.
Hacker News users discussed Intel's potential with Battlemage, the successor to Alchemist GPUs. Some expressed skepticism, citing Intel's history of overpromising and underdelivering in the GPU space, and questioning whether they can catch up to AMD and Nvidia, particularly in terms of software and drivers. Others were more optimistic, pointing out that Intel has shown marked improvement with Alchemist and hoping they can build on that momentum. A few comments focused on the technical details, speculating about potential performance improvements and architectural changes, while others discussed the importance of competitive pricing for Intel to gain market share. Several users expressed a desire for a strong third player in the GPU market to challenge the existing duopoly.
Intel's $2 billion acquisition of Habana Labs, an Israeli AI chip startup, is considered a failure. Instead of leveraging Habana's innovative Gaudi processors, which outperformed Intel's own offerings for AI training, Intel prioritized its existing, less competitive technology. This ultimately led to Habana's stagnation, an exodus of key personnel, and Intel falling behind Nvidia in the burgeoning AI chip market. The decision is attributed to internal politics, resistance to change, and a failure to recognize the transformative potential of Habana's technology.
HN commenters generally agree that Habana's acquisition by Intel was mishandled, leading to its demise and Intel losing ground in the AI race. Several point to Intel's bureaucratic structure and inability to integrate acquired companies effectively as the primary culprit. Some argue that Intel's focus on CPUs hindered its ability to recognize the importance of GPUs and specialized AI hardware, leading them to sideline Habana's promising technology. Others suggest that the acquisition price itself might have been inflated, setting unreasonable expectations for Habana's success. A few commenters offer alternative perspectives, questioning whether Habana's technology was truly revolutionary or if its failure was inevitable regardless of Intel's involvement. However, the dominant narrative is one of a promising startup stifled by a corporate giant, highlighting the challenges of integrating innovative acquisitions into established structures.
According to Morris Chang, founding chairman of TSMC, Apple CEO Tim Cook expressed skepticism about Intel's foundry ambitions, reportedly stating that Intel "didn't know how to be a foundry." This comment, made during a meeting where Chang was trying to convince Cook to let Intel manufacture Apple chips, highlights the perceived difference in expertise and experience between established foundry giant TSMC and Intel's relatively nascent efforts in the contract chip manufacturing business. Chang ultimately declined Intel's offer, citing their high prices and lack of a true commitment to being a foundry partner.
Hacker News commenters generally agree with the assessment that Intel struggles with the foundry business model. Several point out the inherent conflict of interest in competing with your own customers, a challenge Intel faces. Some highlight Intel's history of prioritizing its own products over foundry customers, leading to delays and capacity issues for those clients. Others suggest that Intel's internal culture and organizational structure aren't conducive to the customer-centric approach required for a successful foundry. A few express skepticism about the veracity of the quote attributed to Tim Cook, while others suggest it's simply a restatement of widely understood industry realities. Some also discuss the broader geopolitical implications of TSMC's dominance and the US government's efforts to bolster domestic chip manufacturing.
Ken Shirriff reverse-engineered interesting BiCMOS circuits within the Intel Pentium processor, specifically focusing on the clock driver and the bus transceiver. He discovered a clever BiCMOS clock driver design that utilizes both bipolar and CMOS transistors to achieve high speed and low power consumption. This driver employs a push-pull output stage with bipolar transistors for fast switching and CMOS transistors for level shifting. Shirriff also analyzed the Pentium's bus transceiver, revealing a BiCMOS circuit designed for bidirectional communication with external memory. This transceiver leverages the benefits of both technologies to achieve both high speed and strong drive capability. Overall, the analysis showcases the sophisticated circuit design techniques employed in the Pentium to balance performance and power efficiency.
HN commenters generally praised the article for its detailed analysis and clear explanations of complex circuitry. Several appreciated the author's approach of combining visual inspection with simulations to understand the chip's functionality. Some pointed out the rarity and value of such in-depth reverse-engineering work, particularly on older hardware. A few commenters with relevant experience added further insights, discussing topics like the challenges of delayering chips and the evolution of circuit design techniques. One commenter shared a similar decapping endeavor revealing the construction of a different Intel chip. Overall, the discussion expressed admiration for the technical skill and dedication involved in this type of reverse-engineering project.
Summary of Comments ( 3 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43149833
HN commenters largely agree with the article's premise that Intel's dominance stagnated desktop CPU performance. Several point out that Intel's complacency, fueled by lack of competition, allowed them to prioritize profit margins over innovation. Some discuss the impact of Intel's struggles with 10nm fabrication, while others highlight AMD's resurgence as a key driver of recent advancements. A few commenters mention Apple's M-series chips as another example of successful competition, pushing the industry forward. The overall sentiment is that the "dark ages" of desktop CPU performance are over, thanks to renewed competition. Some disagree, arguing that single-threaded performance matters most and Intel still leads there, or that the article focuses too narrowly on desktop CPUs and ignores server and mobile markets.
The Hacker News post "Chipzilla Devours the Desktop" discussing the linked article about Intel's dominance sparked a lively discussion with several compelling comments.
Many commenters agreed with the author's premise, lamenting the stagnation and lack of competition within the x86 desktop market. One commenter pointed out how this dominance allows Intel to dictate pricing and features, stifling innovation and leaving consumers with limited choices. Another expressed frustration with the lack of viable alternatives, highlighting how difficult and expensive it is for competitors to enter the market. The difficulty stems from the integrated nature of modern CPUs with motherboards and other components, creating a substantial barrier to entry. This integrated approach, while beneficial for performance in some aspects, reinforces Intel's market grip.
However, some commenters offered counterpoints. One argued that while Intel holds a dominant position, the overall market for desktop PCs is shrinking. They suggested that Intel's focus might be shifting towards more profitable segments like servers and mobile devices. This commenter also argued that focusing solely on instruction set architecture (ISA) overlooks other important factors like manufacturing process and microarchitecture, where Intel excels. Another commenter suggested that Apple's M-series chips represent a significant competitive threat, forcing Intel to innovate and improve its offerings. The M-series, according to this commenter, demonstrates that performance gains are achievable and could incentivize competition.
The conversation also delved into technical details. Some discussed the complexities of instruction set architectures (ISAs), arguing that x86's entrenched position and vast software ecosystem make it exceedingly difficult for alternatives like RISC-V to gain traction. One commenter detailed the history of competing architectures and the various reasons they failed to challenge Intel's dominance. There was also a discussion about how the shift to ARM in mobile devices is a potential sign of change, though some doubted its immediate impact on the desktop market. The specific challenges of power consumption and software compatibility were raised as significant hurdles for ARM on desktops.
Some commenters questioned the author's pessimism, highlighting areas where Intel is facing competition, like GPUs from NVIDIA and AMD. They argued that while Intel’s CPU dominance is clear, the broader landscape of desktop computing is more nuanced.
Finally, a few commenters touched upon the regulatory aspects of the situation, mentioning antitrust concerns and the potential for government intervention to foster competition. However, these comments were less developed than the technical and market-focused discussions.