http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/ Engadget Comments for IBM, Samsung, Globalfoundries, and more looking to beat Intel to 28nm market http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 5:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/
Remember in the past? We went from:

90nm to 65nm
65nm to 45nm
45nm to 32nm

but 32nm to 28nm isn't much of an optical difference.]]>Apr 17th 2009 12:59PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 10:12PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:09AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Not that it matters...]]>Apr 17th 2009 5:54PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 10:15PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:20AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 9:36AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:35AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 11:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 6:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 7:26AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 1:45PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 7:52AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 8:24AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 12:37PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 8:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 8:59AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 10:17AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/
It seems like it would make for an interesting board game or an outline for a city map in an FPS.]]>Apr 17th 2009 11:03AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 11:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 1:48PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 11:34AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/Apr 17th 2009 12:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/power/hardware/index.html

Also some Intel Xeon and Extreme chips got at 3.8Ghz and 3.73Ghz respectively.
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL8P2
http://processorfinder.intel.com/details.aspx?sSpec=SL9AN]]>Apr 17th 2009 12:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/
Which sort of explains why everyone's now concentrating on performance per clock and per watt, rather than increasing the clock speed at any cost.]]>Apr 17th 2009 6:49PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/
...At which time Intel will be gearing up to go 22nm.

This is pointless.]]>Apr 17th 2009 12:31PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/17/ibm-samsung-globalfoundries-and-more-looking-to-beat-intel-to/
Except for Samsung, none of them can make money in this industry anymore, and the 28 nm node is pretty much the last viable business half node. It is not clear that Intel will even try to commercialize 22 nm. The business decision is still pending, although R&D has started in full force now that the 32 nm ramp is about to start.

IBM strategy is not a business strategy, it is instead a survival strategy, a final battle being fought using a risk management strategy instead a product success strategy. Essentially, all the partners conceded that the profits that Intel generates allow Intel to beat them to the ground anytime. Since IBM has about $1.2B (for about 1200 people) in revenue from licensing and less than $4B (and about 6000 people) from product; the business for IBM is next to an annoyance (out of over $120B revenue, and 300k people)

IBM makes these announcements regularly to try to buy credibility, primarily among its own management team and also among the business and government partners.

The situation is getting desperate for all the "ganged partners", particularly because the only company turning profits in this downturn is Intel, and is also the only one likely to emerge with a solid balance sheet.

Keep in mind that business battles are won not only through cool technology but also through good business execution. Intel is superb at both.

This announcement does not even challenge Intel dominance in MPUs; instead, it is mostly a move against TSMC that has already moved to 28 nm for "mostly on-state applications" such as smart phones and the like. TSMC, correctly so, several months ago, identified 28 nm for low power as the key battle ground for mobile. IBM 32 nm HKMG process is almost 30% more expensive per wafer than that of TSMC, although IBM's is potentially faster, a superfluous factor since nobody cares about speed anymore.

The announcement is aimed at assuring IBM partners and remaining customers that they intend to compete with TSMC. IBM and its allies are in fact correcting course midway, to fight two battles: Intel at 32 and 22 nm for computer chips; and....TSMC at 28 nm for smart mobile processors.

I might be wrong, but I suspect that IBM and its allies are headed for their own Battle of Jena somewhere around 2010 and 2011; and that IBM, just like the Prussians, is unlikely to remain in the semi industry after 2013. In fact, I read in this press release that IBM has set the final date for their exit from microelectronics, on or around 2013. Basically, IBM is assuming that the outcome of this final battle will not be that of Waterloo, in which the allies of the “7th coalition” finally defeated Napoleon in the field of Waterloo. (and the Prussians weren’t there)

I guess, I believe the only sure thing is that by 2015 we will all be using Intel chip; simply because, in business war, the Gods always help those that deliver consistent profits.

Just some brief thoughts!]]>Apr 17th 2009 7:52PM