
Chips and Geopolitics - denzil_correa
https://stratechery.com/2020/chips-and-geopolitics/
======
ksec
_“As the world is no longer peaceful, TSMC is gaining vital importance in
geostrategic terms,”_

-Morris Chang, former chairman and CEO of the world’s largest semiconductor foundry Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in 2019.

And he said something similar in 2017 as well. Turns out he foresee all sort
of problems when TSMC became the leading Fab for the world.

The 2013 piece [1] on Intel is also interesting. That was when Intel were
about to launch their delayed 14nm. It is rather unfortunate Intel decide not
to follow through their Custom Foundry.

[1] [https://stratechery.com/2013/the-intel-
opportunity/](https://stratechery.com/2013/the-intel-opportunity/)

~~~
GregarianChild
The long interview [1] with Morris Chang is interesting. When asked why he
went to Taiwan to found TSMC (at a reduced level of compensation) he replied:
_it was the newness that appealed to me, the difference from what I had been
doing for several decades!_

[1] [https://www.semi.org/en/Oral-History-Interview-Morris-
Chang](https://www.semi.org/en/Oral-History-Interview-Morris-Chang)

------
sremani
>> the lesson in 2020 should be that technology is inseparable from
geopolitics.

I cannot agree more. If we learn one thing this year this is it.

~~~
remarkEon
The thing is this used to be a _well known_ truism, for a long time. Not sure
when we forgot it ... maybe after the USSR collapsed and everyone read "The
End of History" and actually believed what Fukuyama wrote.

------
trynumber9
It wasn't only Intel making microprocessors in the US. Samsung has one of
their largest fabs in Texas. Global Foundries has their best fab in New York.
As I understand they're both equipped to make 14nm-class processors. Not that
it detracts from the general point of the article.

------
zozbot234
I assume that multi-chip packages will soon develop as a new source of
modularity within chip fabrication itself. There will be common standards for
how multiple chiplets can be wired inside of a package, and the OEM will no
longer be restricted to having a single supplier like TSMC for the entire
"package" component but be free to choose among multiple, freely-competing
suppliers ala TSMC, Intel, Samsung, SMIC etc. Then the "geopolitical" need for
an advanced, billion-dollar "fab" will essentially be disintermediated away -
only a few tiny, perhaps optional components will ever be manufactured at
anything like a 7nm or 5nm process. Everything else will simply end up as a
basic commodity.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
IANoWayAFabExpert but I don't think so. I understand the cost of transferring
signals between chiplets is high, so I don't see this as a way forward except
for when the cost of such a transfer can be amortised by handing over a
smallish packet of work (in terms of data size) that needs a large quantity of
CPU, and a smallish amount of data to transfer back. So coarse grained only.
Not suitable for general computation anyway.

IMO only. Not my area. Pinch of salt etc.

~~~
BrainlingPdx
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point, but hasn't AMD proven this wrong at
this point? With a correctly architected interconnect you can absolutely do
chiplet based general computation processors.

Again, I may be misunderstanding your point...but I think the chiplet future
is here on some level.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
And I may be wrong, and for sure chiplets are proven (for now) to be a very
good way of doing things, but those chiplets in AMD chips are relatively
decoupled[0]. They're very large and connected within themselves already. They
can be expected to operate substantially independently[0]. While they do have
to talk to each other to get memory, probably a lot, DRAM access is so slow
that it swamps the overhead of inter-chiplet communication[0]. Shared L3
cache, that's another matter I dunno.

I took it you meant like much smaller components, like ALU from this supplier,
DRAM controller from that supplier, cache from another supplier etc, all on
separate chiplets, each having to go off-chiplet to speak to the others. I am
sure[0] that would cost much power and performance.

[0] serious risk of n00b arse-speak happening here, beware.

------
danioli
Typo: 80286 (not 80826), and 80386 (80836), in the opening paragraphs.

~~~
Scoundreller
I gotta say my brain auto-correct those kind of things.

------
mchusma
I would love to see Intel get into contract manufacturing. We need more
competition in that space and Intel's position no longer makes sense in the
current environment.

~~~
ksec
They did, It is called Intel Custom Foundry and had customers from Nokia to
Ericsson. In the end they failed. And it is no longer a path they want to
follow.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Why did they fail?

~~~
ip26
They are extremely secretive:

 _One of the funniest stories I heard was about the first copy of the Intel
14nm design rules Altera got from Intel. They were heavily redacted, which is
something I had never seen in the foundry business._

[https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-
manufacturers/intel/7912-...](https://semiwiki.com/semiconductor-
manufacturers/intel/7912-intel-discontinues-the-custom-foundry-business/)

Additionally, a contract fab tries to be flexible, easier to design for. They
make their libraries & design rules work well with commercial design software.
A private fab on the other hand can boost yield & performance by pushing
increasingly complex design rules on the design team, and the design team can
use customized or internally developed software to make it all work.

So in short, they had the best fab tech in the business but they weren't used
to servicing anyone other than themselves.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Surely 'themselves' is a huge enough market, and 'boost[ing] yield &
performance' is exactly what they want to do, as the world's largest CPU
maker? It sounds perfect. I guess maybe financially the extra perf etc. just
wasn't worth it.

(thanks for answer though)

~~~
ksec
There is no reason why you cant optimise for both. To simply put they wasn't
ready to be a contract manufacture, and TSMC set the standard of what is
expected to be a contract manufacture in the Fabs industry and Intel failed
miserably to meet even the pass mark.

Yes, it make perfect sense to optimise for you own yield and performance until
TSMC overtake you and you no longer has the volume advantage. In manufacturing
volume is _everything_.

It is also worth pointing out Altera is actually a Subsidiary of Intel. If
that is what they were going through you can imagine about the others.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Maybe they do know how to optimize, but not exactly why anymore?

I've seen a tv-documentary about 15 years ago about their fabs. Therein some
reporter asked why there was a bend in some bundle of pipes for no apparent
reason. They answered that was there because in another factory there was a
column there which they had to route around, which didn't exist at this
factory. They explained further to not wanting to risk process variation, by
building that bundle of pipes straight again. Since then i have been
unimpressed by all that high-tech, being so complex, having to cargo-cult
around, instead of being able to understand it from first principles and build
according to the situation. _Not_ blindly copying something which worked at
another place but doesn't apply anymore, because the place and its conditions
changed.

~~~
pkaye
I used to work in R&D for developing the machines used in the fabs. Sometimes
the trivial details make a difference in the results and you don't always have
to time to isolate and analyze each little thing. If you have a proven recipe,
don't change it unless you have a reason.

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
I understand what you mean, time to market, pressure, deadline, and so on...

But see where it got them?

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
I think your criticism is cheap and unwarranted. Where you see stupidity I see
wisdom, though we can both agree it's ugly, but let's ask a straight question.

If it were _your_ $$$billions being spent on a fab, what would you do?

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
Probably going broke because of unwarranted perfectionism.

/me lifts hat and bows.

~~~
throwaway_pdp09
Consider the compliment well and truly returned for your honesty - thanks!

~~~
LargoLasskhyfv
While sleeping and cuddling with my cats, they whispered into my dreams:
_Stoopid hooman, alwayz so slooow! If yooo 'd got Billionz to burn, yoo'd push
forward minimal.fab of Yokogwawa and BiZEN from Searchforthenext/Wafertrain!
Rrrr Rrrr Rrrr!_

Courtesy of Lilly, Mieze, and Mimi.

------
camillomiller
Amazing read, but I disagree with this simplistic political conclusion:

> Second, at some point every tech company is going to have to make a choice
> between the U.S. and China. It is tempting to blame the tension between the
> two countries on Trump, but the truth is that China, particularly under Xi
> Jinping, has been significantly hardening its rhetoric and actions since
> before Trump was elected, and has been committed to not just catching but
> surpassing the U.S. in technology for years. There is a fundamental clash of
> values between the West and China, and it is clear that China is interested
> in exporting theirs. At some point everyone will be stuck in the middle,
> like TSMC, and Switzerland won’t be an option.

If Cold War has taught us anything, it’s that display of force didn’t yield
anything. Dialogue and exporting values did. So yes, absolutely: the
escalation is Trump’s fault, because of the insufferable rhetoric of his
warmongering hawks. Xi Jinping is a way more tactical and dialogue oriented
leader (not a positive judgement on official PRC values, of course) that is
being defeated by the proverbial pigeon shitting on the board during a game of
chess. Decoupling from China is easily sellable as the anti-communist
propaganda in the 50s, but the harsh reality is that in today’s world it means
recklessly hammering pieces off of the global economy jenga tower, and hoping
it will stay up. Dialogue and severely regulated exchange with the potential
enemy is the real weapon that could weaken China. Putting human rights on the
table when it comes to trade treaties, for example. Instead, there’s a
resurgence of scary nationalism that is exactly what brought the world on the
brink of collapse 75 years ago. If I had to choose two words, right now, I
would go with “brace brace”.

~~~
jeegsy
> Putting human rights on the table when it comes to trade treaties, for
> example.

Hasn't this been tried before? What happens if they refuse? We do nothing and
just keep talking? The absence of any nationalist impulse is even scarier than
your 'scary nationalism'. I would note that China has none of this sort of
self doubt.

------
antoniuschan99
Any recommendations on a pcb assembly house in Taiwan?

~~~
kilroy_jones
To get something made or to work at?

~~~
antoniuschan99
To get the electronics made

