Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Intel leaving low-end chipset business?

Last response: in CPUs
Share
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 3, 2005 12:16:11 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
than the CPU?

If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109

Yousuf Khan
August 3, 2005 8:33:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 3 Aug 2005 08:16:11 -0700, "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
>older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
>chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
>and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
>the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
>quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
>business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
>run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
>than the CPU?
>
>If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109
>
> Yousuf Khan

If the Centrino stuff is where the money is at for Intel then it seems
like a no brainer, and no doubt not the first time Intel left their
customers high and dry either.

Ed
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 3, 2005 8:33:17 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 3 Aug 2005 08:16:11 -0700, "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
>older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
>chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
>and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
>the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
>quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
>business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
>run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
>than the CPU?
>
>If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
>http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109

Message to Dell: "Quit dumping our 'valuable IP' - we can't sell our
silicon below cost"?????

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
Related resources
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 3, 2005 9:26:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123082171.911883.264690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
> older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
> chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
> and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely
that
> the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
> quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
> business for the last several years. And what are people going to
do,
> run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs
more
> than the CPU?

Gee, Yousuf, you've spotted an enormous hole in Intel's strategy. If
people can't buy reasonably-priced mobos for their Celerons, then they
won't buy Celerons. Intel apparently has not considered this. One of
us ought to write Intel to alert them to this oversight. We wouldn't
want folks who would otherwise have bought Intel turning elsewhere -
Via for example - for their CPUs. And poor Dell will have to close
down half of their production line.

This is a tragedy.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 12:29:57 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
> older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
> chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
> and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
> the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
> quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
> business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
> run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
> than the CPU?

Just how many people buy a system based on the relative cost of the
components? Of course they could drop the Celeron entirely, drop the
price on the Celeron-M and the chips sets, thus offering lower power and
higher performance at the same price and putting pressure on all the
other chipset makers.

How's that for totally baseless rumor? Probably as likely as the first
one, actually. I can believe (just barely) a price increase to match
supply and demand, but exit a market segment I can't. Drop a new piece
into the market with a price change? That I actually could believe.
>
> If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109

The sky is falling...

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 4:38:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> Just how many people buy a system based on the relative cost of the
> components?

I'd hope pretty much every OEM or whiteboxer out there?

> Of course they could drop the Celeron entirely, drop the
> price on the Celeron-M and the chips sets, thus offering lower power and
> higher performance at the same price and putting pressure on all the
> other chipset makers.
>
> How's that for totally baseless rumor? Probably as likely as the first
> one, actually. I can believe (just barely) a price increase to match
> supply and demand, but exit a market segment I can't. Drop a new piece
> into the market with a price change? That I actually could believe.

Whoa, where does this "baseless" rumour stuff come from? It's a rumour,
but not baseless. Intel did admit to chipset shortages in its last
quarterly report. Even though it's got five 300-mm wafer plants in
operation, and another one on the way. It produces all of its chipsets
at an older 200-mm fab, and apparently that's the fab that's maxed out
nowadays. So if it's trying to relieve some pressure from the chipset
plant, this would make some sense.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 5:26:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123082171.911883.264690@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
> older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
> chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
> and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
> the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
> quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
> business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
> run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
> than the CPU?
>
> If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109


Earth to Yousuf ... to the other companies that make chipsets
this is called ... wait for it ... "opportunity" ... right?

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 5:26:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hank Oredson wrote:
> Earth to Yousuf ... to the other companies that make chipsets
> this is called ... wait for it ... "opportunity" ... right?

Outer Space to Hank, who's going to build all of those extra chipsets
for the chipset houses? They've probably already made their capacity
decisions based on the tiny scraps of business they are scrounging out
now. They'd have to get their foundries to crank out more product than
they originally planned for.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 5:26:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:gPgIe.5651$z91.625527@news20.bellglobal.com...

> Outer Space to Hank, who's going to build all of those extra chipsets for
> the chipset houses? They've probably already made their capacity decisions
> based on the tiny scraps of business they are scrounging out now. They'd
> have to get their foundries to crank out more product than they originally
> planned for.
>
> Yousuf Khan

There's this thing you probably haven't heard of, it's called money. It
tends to cause foundries to produce your product instead of others.

DS
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 9:14:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:gPgIe.5651$z91.625527@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Hank Oredson wrote:
>> Earth to Yousuf ... to the other companies that make chipsets
>> this is called ... wait for it ... "opportunity" ... right?
>
> Outer Space to Hank, who's going to build all of those extra chipsets for
> the chipset houses? They've probably already made their capacity decisions
> based on the tiny scraps of business they are scrounging out now. They'd
> have to get their foundries to crank out more product than they originally
> planned for.


1. Exactly.
2. ...
3. ...
4. Profit!

Supply, demand, scarcity ... pretty simple actually.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 2:14:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

David Schwartz wrote:
> There's this thing you probably haven't heard of, it's called money. It
> tends to cause foundries to produce your product instead of others.

There's also this thing called being capacity constrained which money
won't resolve right away.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 4, 2005 9:26:06 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:BppIe.5756$z91.669116@news20.bellglobal.com...

> David Schwartz wrote:

>> There's this thing you probably haven't heard of, it's called money.
>> It tends to cause foundries to produce your product instead of others.

> There's also this thing called being capacity constrained which money
> won't resolve right away.

Yes, it will. If the price of a particular product rises enough, heaven
and earth will be moved to make more of it. The point is, the more of a
shortage there is and the more prices rise, the more capacity will,
miraculously, be found.

DS
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 8:59:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:BppIe.5756$z91.669116@news20.bellglobal.com...
> David Schwartz wrote:
>> There's this thing you probably haven't heard of, it's called money.
>> It tends to cause foundries to produce your product instead of others.
>
> There's also this thing called being capacity constrained which money
> won't resolve right away.


That's a real giggle.
Why not just admit this particular troll was a bit too far off-the-wall.
On to the next troll.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 1:23:27 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

These are supposed to be value-priced parts, how much extra are they
going to pay to get them, before it makes no sense bother with it? At
some point it becomes easier just to buy the higher-end parts.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 1:24:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

You are perfectly free to never read another word if you like. No one
is forcing you to keep informed, dimwit.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 9:01:55 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123259091.555921.3150@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You are perfectly free to never read another word if you like. No one
> is forcing you to keep informed, dimwit.


I am also perfectly free to comment on the "information" you post.
Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 9:36:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Hank Oredson" <horedson@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7YMIe.1847$WD.907@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123259091.555921.3150@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > You are perfectly free to never read another word if you like. No
one
> > is forcing you to keep informed, dimwit.
>
> I am also perfectly free to comment on the "information" you post.
> Nobody is forcing you to read my comments.

Speech is free. Civility is priceless. ;-) ;-)
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 9:58:54 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Bill Davidsen wrote:
> > I'd hope pretty much every OEM or whiteboxer out there?
>
> The OEM cares about the total, and building your own is less likely to
> involve the bottom end stuff, you can buy cheaper than build in most
> cases. The total cost is an issue, but that's not was I said or meant.

It's only these builders that'll care.

> > Whoa, where does this "baseless" rumour stuff come from? It's a rumour,
> > but not baseless. Intel did admit to chipset shortages in its last
> > quarterly report. Even though it's got five 300-mm wafer plants in
> > operation, and another one on the way. It produces all of its chipsets
> > at an older 200-mm fab, and apparently that's the fab that's maxed out
> > nowadays. So if it's trying to relieve some pressure from the chipset
> > plant, this would make some sense.
>
> If that starts a rumor that Intel is dropping the Celeron totally, it's
> baseless, because I just pulled it out of the air. It might make sense,
> but I had no data when I said it. If that doesn't qualify as baseless
> what does? ;-)
>
> As a former manager used to say, "I made that up."

No, as I said, it's not baseless, Intel is definitely saying they are
having trouble producing enough chipsets themselves. That's completely
established. The only rumour here is what Intel is going to do to
alleviate the situation, and in this rumour they're going to alleviate
the situation by cutting their less profitable chipsets. HOw's that for
a "grounded" rumour?

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 10:05:59 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1123259007.812644.296140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > These are supposed to be value-priced parts, how much extra are they
> > going to pay to get them, before it makes no sense bother with it? At
> > some point it becomes easier just to buy the higher-end parts.
> >
> > Yousuf Khan
> >
> Or offload the manufacturing to tsmc/chartered/etc

That's exactly where they are produced right now. Only Intel makes
their own chipsets, everybody else goes through one of these contract
manufacturers. When they're already being produced at
tsmc/chartered/etc. who have other customers they are committed to
already, who takes precedence? VIA & SiS because they can sell a few
thousand more cheap chipsets; or do they put off Broadcom, Altera,
Nvidia, or whoever else is also their customers?

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 10:44:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Yousuf Khan wrote:
> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>
>> Just how many people buy a system based on the relative cost of the
>> components?
>
>
> I'd hope pretty much every OEM or whiteboxer out there?

The OEM cares about the total, and building your own is less likely to
involve the bottom end stuff, you can buy cheaper than build in most
cases. The total cost is an issue, but that's not was I said or meant.
>
>> Of course they could drop the Celeron entirely, drop the price on the
>> Celeron-M and the chips sets, thus offering lower power and higher
>> performance at the same price and putting pressure on all the other
>> chipset makers.
>>
>> How's that for totally baseless rumor? Probably as likely as the first
>> one, actually. I can believe (just barely) a price increase to match
>> supply and demand, but exit a market segment I can't. Drop a new piece
>> into the market with a price change? That I actually could believe.
>
>
> Whoa, where does this "baseless" rumour stuff come from? It's a rumour,
> but not baseless. Intel did admit to chipset shortages in its last
> quarterly report. Even though it's got five 300-mm wafer plants in
> operation, and another one on the way. It produces all of its chipsets
> at an older 200-mm fab, and apparently that's the fab that's maxed out
> nowadays. So if it's trying to relieve some pressure from the chipset
> plant, this would make some sense.

If that starts a rumor that Intel is dropping the Celeron totally, it's
baseless, because I just pulled it out of the air. It might make sense,
but I had no data when I said it. If that doesn't qualify as baseless
what does? ;-)

As a former manager used to say, "I made that up."

--
bill davidsen
SBC/Prodigy Yorktown Heights NY data center
http://newsgroups.news.prodigy.com
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 5, 2005 11:06:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123259007.812644.296140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> These are supposed to be value-priced parts, how much extra are they
> going to pay to get them, before it makes no sense bother with it? At
> some point it becomes easier just to buy the higher-end parts.
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
Or offload the manufacturing to tsmc/chartered/etc
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2005 12:48:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1123290359.041864.297230@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1123259007.812644.296140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > These are supposed to be value-priced parts, how much extra are they
>> > going to pay to get them, before it makes no sense bother with it?
>> > At
>> > some point it becomes easier just to buy the higher-end parts.
>> >
>> > Yousuf Khan
>> >
>> Or offload the manufacturing to tsmc/chartered/etc
>
> That's exactly where they are produced right now. Only Intel makes
> their own chipsets, everybody else goes through one of these contract
> manufacturers. When they're already being produced at
> tsmc/chartered/etc. who have other customers they are committed to
> already, who takes precedence? VIA & SiS because they can sell a few
> thousand more cheap chipsets; or do they put off Broadcom, Altera,
> Nvidia, or whoever else is also their customers?
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
You make the assumption that the independent foundries are running at
full capacity. I would guess that is not true.

Del
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 6, 2005 10:35:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Del Cecchi wrote:
> You make the assumption that the independent foundries are running at
> full capacity. I would guess that is not true.
>

It's not my guess, it's the premise that these articles are about.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 7, 2005 5:01:54 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:8OqdnfrJFeGkpmjfRVn-jw@rogers.com...
> Del Cecchi wrote:
>> You make the assumption that the independent foundries are running at
>> full capacity. I would guess that is not true.
>>
>
> It's not my guess, it's the premise that these articles are about.


The proof of said premise being the recent huge spike
in in price of semiconductors, particularly chipsets.

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 7, 2005 5:41:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 5 Aug 2005 18:05:59 -0700, "YKhan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Del Cecchi wrote:
>> "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:1123259007.812644.296140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > These are supposed to be value-priced parts, how much extra are they
>> > going to pay to get them, before it makes no sense bother with it? At
>> > some point it becomes easier just to buy the higher-end parts.
>> >
>> > Yousuf Khan
>> >
>> Or offload the manufacturing to tsmc/chartered/etc
>
>That's exactly where they are produced right now. Only Intel makes
>their own chipsets, everybody else goes through one of these contract
>manufacturers. When they're already being produced at
>tsmc/chartered/etc. who have other customers they are committed to
>already, who takes precedence? VIA & SiS because they can sell a few
>thousand more cheap chipsets; or do they put off Broadcom, Altera,
>Nvidia, or whoever else is also their customers?

While we may see some short-term supply problems, the laws of supply
and demand will tend to correct things fairly quickly. TSMC,
Chartered, UMC, et al. are in the process of building more capacity
all the time. SiS doesn't even have to worry about this because,
unless something has changed recently, they still have their own fab.

Simply put, there is a LOT of semiconductor fab space out there. At
any given time there are dozens of companies going through upswings or
downswings in demand. It may take a few months for companies like VIA
to get a bit of extra fab space, but not much more. Fortunately it's
not like Intel will immediately run out of chipsets on one given day,
there will be LOTS of inventory floating through the channels for a
few months.

As I said, we might see a short-term supply issue that will result in
some odd pricing (ie low-end stuff going up to be only a few dollars
cheaper than higher-end stuff), but it will be correctly quickly
enough.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 9, 2005 1:12:56 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
> While we may see some short-term supply problems, the laws of supply
> and demand will tend to correct things fairly quickly. TSMC,
> Chartered, UMC, et al. are in the process of building more capacity
> all the time. SiS doesn't even have to worry about this because,
> unless something has changed recently, they still have their own fab.

Yeah, actually something did change, and not so recently, UMC now owns
SIS. According to SIS they have obtained guarantees from their UMC
parent for additional fab space if necessary. Not sure how much
flexibility UMC has in moving aside their other existing customers --
can't see UMC playing too much favourites with their subsidiary vs.
their customers, otherwise it would become a public relations nightmare
with their paying customers.

Here was the announcement of the merger between SIS and UMC:
http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/200402261251...

> Simply put, there is a LOT of semiconductor fab space out there. At
> any given time there are dozens of companies going through upswings or
> downswings in demand. It may take a few months for companies like VIA
> to get a bit of extra fab space, but not much more. Fortunately it's
> not like Intel will immediately run out of chipsets on one given day,
> there will be LOTS of inventory floating through the channels for a
> few months.

Another issue is that neither SiS nor VIA seem to have their
competitive integrated graphics chipsets ready to go yet. For SiS, it
is the SIS662 chipset, which it only expects will be ready to sample in
Q1 2006. Meanwhile, VIA's P4M890 integrated graphics chipset may be
ready for Q4 2005. They've both been concentrating on AMD chipsets for
the last little while, so it seems they had deemphasized their Intel
products since they were expecting to be just niche players in Intel
territory before they found out about these Intel plans.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050809A6027.html

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2005 2:44:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On 9 Aug 2005 09:12:56 -0700, "Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote:

>Tony Hill wrote:
>> While we may see some short-term supply problems, the laws of supply
>> and demand will tend to correct things fairly quickly. TSMC,
>> Chartered, UMC, et al. are in the process of building more capacity
>> all the time. SiS doesn't even have to worry about this because,
>> unless something has changed recently, they still have their own fab.
>
>Yeah, actually something did change, and not so recently, UMC now owns
>SIS. According to SIS they have obtained guarantees from their UMC

Hmm.. I must have missed that one..

>parent for additional fab space if necessary. Not sure how much
>flexibility UMC has in moving aside their other existing customers --
>can't see UMC playing too much favourites with their subsidiary vs.
>their customers, otherwise it would become a public relations nightmare
>with their paying customers.

If they were a North American company they might, but things tend to
work a little differently in China/Taiwan. They seem to have ways to
just sort of make bad public relations kind of go away and if anyone
asks their questions seem to get lost in the translation somewhere.
We all put up with it though because of the cost advantages.

>> Simply put, there is a LOT of semiconductor fab space out there. At
>> any given time there are dozens of companies going through upswings or
>> downswings in demand. It may take a few months for companies like VIA
>> to get a bit of extra fab space, but not much more. Fortunately it's
>> not like Intel will immediately run out of chipsets on one given day,
>> there will be LOTS of inventory floating through the channels for a
>> few months.
>
>Another issue is that neither SiS nor VIA seem to have their
>competitive integrated graphics chipsets ready to go yet. For SiS, it
>is the SIS662 chipset, which it only expects will be ready to sample in
>Q1 2006. Meanwhile, VIA's P4M890 integrated graphics chipset may be
>ready for Q4 2005.

Even if Intel were to stop producing low-end chipsets tomorrow it
would still give them lots of time to ramp up production. Besides
they would probably start by replacing the old i845GV and i865GV
chipsets that are still being sold in pretty large quantities. They
don't necessarily need the latest and greatest. For example, VIA's
P4M800 Pro should be more than sufficient to fit the bill for any
low-end chipsets that HPaq or Dell might want.

> They've both been concentrating on AMD chipsets for
>the last little while, so it seems they had deemphasized their Intel
>products since they were expecting to be just niche players in Intel
>territory before they found out about these Intel plans.
>
>http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050809A6027.html
>

Hang on a second... This article says absolutely nothing about low-end
chipsets, it says that Intel is getting rid of two of their
"mainstream" (ie middle of the road) chipsets, the i915GL and i915PL.
They will still have their i865GV, i910GL and i915GV, all of which
come BELLOW the pecking order of the two chipsets that they are
discontinuing! Hell, the i915PL doesn't even come with integrated
graphics!

What Intel is doing is getting rid of most of their non-DDR2 chipsets.
The only difference between the i915G and the i915GL is that the 'GL'
model lacks DDR2 support. Given that these two chipsets almost
certainly use the exact same piece of silicon (with DDR2 support
purposely disabled in the 'GL' model), it probably only makes sense to
discontinue the lower-end model and just sell the i915G for the same
price now that these chipsets have been upstaged by the i945 series.
Same story goes for the i915P vs. i915PL.

This is QUITE a different story than what you first posted.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 10, 2005 4:23:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Tony Hill wrote:
> Even if Intel were to stop producing low-end chipsets tomorrow it
> would still give them lots of time to ramp up production. Besides
> they would probably start by replacing the old i845GV and i865GV
> chipsets that are still being sold in pretty large quantities. They
> don't necessarily need the latest and greatest. For example, VIA's
> P4M800 Pro should be more than sufficient to fit the bill for any
> low-end chipsets that HPaq or Dell might want.

I think all of the old 800-series chipsets were announced to be
mothballed a long time ago.

BTW, Dell just introduced its first system based on an Nvidia Nforce
chipset.

> Hang on a second... This article says absolutely nothing about low-end
> chipsets, it says that Intel is getting rid of two of their
> "mainstream" (ie middle of the road) chipsets, the i915GL and i915PL.
> They will still have their i865GV, i910GL and i915GV, all of which
> come BELLOW the pecking order of the two chipsets that they are
> discontinuing! Hell, the i915PL doesn't even come with integrated
> graphics!
>
> What Intel is doing is getting rid of most of their non-DDR2 chipsets.
> The only difference between the i915G and the i915GL is that the 'GL'
> model lacks DDR2 support. Given that these two chipsets almost
> certainly use the exact same piece of silicon (with DDR2 support
> purposely disabled in the 'GL' model), it probably only makes sense to
> discontinue the lower-end model and just sell the i915G for the same
> price now that these chipsets have been upstaged by the i945 series.
> Same story goes for the i915P vs. i915PL.
>
> This is QUITE a different story than what you first posted.

Maybe, but it seems to be a constantly evolving story too. There was a
story on Dow Jones Newswires today saying that Intel has now asked SiS
to help it out by building chipsets for it:

> 08/09/2005
> Dow Jones News Services
> (Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.)
>
>
>
> TAIPEI (Dow Jones)--Intel Corp. (INTC) has placed an order with Taiwan's Silicon Integrated Systems Corp. (2363.TW) to help ease a chip shortage, the Commercial Times reports, without citing sources.
>
> Silicon Integrated may sell chips to Intel as early as October, the report says. The chips would be used in Intel's personal computer motherboards.
>
> United Microelectronics Corp. (UMC) will make the chips that Intel has ordered, the report says. UMC owns a controlling stake in Silicon Integrated.
>
> Intel, which is phasing out some of its older chips, has ordered chips from Silicon Integrated to stem the shortfall, the report says.
>
>
> Newspaper Web site: http://www.chinatimes.com
>
>
> -By Alan Patterson, Dow Jones Newswires; 8862-2502-2557; alan.patterson@dowjones.com
>
> -Edited by Sharon Buan
>
>
> (END) Dow Jones Newswires



Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2005 11:31:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>It's only these builders that'll care.

I have to agree that builders are not likely to use cheap parts, so
this isn't likely to affect them.

>> As a former manager used to say, "I made that up."
>
>No, as I said, it's not baseless, Intel is definitely saying they are
>having trouble producing enough chipsets themselves. That's completely
>established. The only rumour here is what Intel is going to do to
>alleviate the situation, and in this rumour they're going to alleviate
>the situation by cutting their less profitable chipsets. HOw's that for
>a "grounded" rumour?
There is such a demand they are having a hard time keeping up, so they
are going to leave the market? That doesn't sound like sound business
practice to me. Logically, they should stay in the business because
there is high demand.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 13, 2005 11:38:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

culhane@cse.ohio-state.edu wrote:
> There is such a demand they are having a hard time keeping up, so they
> are going to leave the market? That doesn't sound like sound business
> practice to me. Logically, they should stay in the business because
> there is high demand.

These are mainly support chips for their CPUs. There is high demand for
their CPUs (obviously), and therefore there is high demand for their
chipsets. But chipsets are low profit. Also if they try to maintain
their stranglehold control over their chipset market, it's going to mean
there's less chipsets available and it will reduce the demand of their
CPUs (nobody buys a CPU without having some kind of a chipset).

Anyways, the deed is already done. Intel has already contacted SIS and
UMC to produce more of their chipsets for Intel's processors. Intel is
likely going to be out of the low-end chipset business soon.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2005 1:36:11 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

culhane@cse.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>>It's only these builders that'll care.
>
>
> I have to agree that builders are not likely to use cheap parts, so
> this isn't likely to affect them.
>
>
>>>As a former manager used to say, "I made that up."
>>
>>No, as I said, it's not baseless, Intel is definitely saying they are
>>having trouble producing enough chipsets themselves. That's completely
>>established. The only rumour here is what Intel is going to do to
>>alleviate the situation, and in this rumour they're going to alleviate
>>the situation by cutting their less profitable chipsets. HOw's that for
>>a "grounded" rumour?
>
> There is such a demand they are having a hard time keeping up, so they
> are going to leave the market? That doesn't sound like sound business
> practice to me.

You are missing the point: Intel has the fab capacity to fill
the demand for high-profit chipsets *OR* low-profit chipsets.
They do NOT have the capacity to fill BOTH demands. Hence they
have chosen to use their limited fab capacity to make the
chipsets that have the higher profits. It would be absolutely
idiotic for them to do anything else.


> Logically, they should stay in the business because
> there is high demand.

No. Staying in the low-profit chipset business means diverting
some of their limited fab capacity away from the manufacture of
more profitable chipsets. It would be extremely stupid for them
to do that. If they think demand will stay high for a long time,
they can build more fab capacity but that takes several years:
until then they have no choice but to use their limited fab
capacity in the most profitable way they can.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2005 3:17:42 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

>
> No. Staying in the low-profit chipset business means diverting
> some of their limited fab capacity away from the manufacture of
> more profitable chipsets. It would be extremely stupid for them
> to do that.

> If they think demand will stay high for a long time,
> they can build more fab capacity but that takes several years:
> until then they have no choice but to use their limited fab
> capacity in the most profitable way they can.

Rob, I'm under the impression that chipsets are built on fabs that are
no longer usable for front-line CPU manufacture. Such as .13u or .18u
now. Intel doesn't build chipset fabs, they wait for existing CPU
fabs to become obsolescent. As you say, making cheap chipsets
apparently is not their best use for their existing .13 -.18u fabs.
No way is Intel (or anybody else) going to start construction on
additional .13u fabs at this time.
August 14, 2005 3:17:43 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:17:42 +0000, Felger Carbon wrote:

>>
>> No. Staying in the low-profit chipset business means diverting
>> some of their limited fab capacity away from the manufacture of
>> more profitable chipsets. It would be extremely stupid for them
>> to do that.
>
>> If they think demand will stay high for a long time,
>> they can build more fab capacity but that takes several years:
>> until then they have no choice but to use their limited fab
>> capacity in the most profitable way they can.
>
> Rob, I'm under the impression that chipsets are built on fabs that are
> no longer usable for front-line CPU manufacture. Such as .13u or .18u
> now. Intel doesn't build chipset fabs, they wait for existing CPU
> fabs to become obsolescent. As you say, making cheap chipsets
> apparently is not their best use for their existing .13 -.18u fabs.
> No way is Intel (or anybody else) going to start construction on
> additional .13u fabs at this time.

The problem is that chipsets are having higher demands put on them. A
1GHz FSB isn't an easy thing to do in .18u. Chipsets ain't what they used
to be.

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2005 5:51:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Felger Carbon wrote:
>>No. Staying in the low-profit chipset business means diverting
>>some of their limited fab capacity away from the manufacture of
>>more profitable chipsets. It would be extremely stupid for them
>>to do that.
>
>
>> If they think demand will stay high for a long time,
>>they can build more fab capacity but that takes several years:
>>until then they have no choice but to use their limited fab
>>capacity in the most profitable way they can.
>
>
> Rob, I'm under the impression that chipsets are built on fabs that are
> no longer usable for front-line CPU manufacture. Such as .13u or .18u
> now. Intel doesn't build chipset fabs, they wait for existing CPU
> fabs to become obsolescent. As you say, making cheap chipsets
> apparently is not their best use for their existing .13 -.18u fabs.
> No way is Intel (or anybody else) going to start construction on
> additional .13u fabs at this time.
>
>

You are basically right. However, even stipulating that, it
still takes years for Intel or AMD or anyone else to build a
modern .09 (or .065 ?) CPU fab so that they have surplus .13 fabs
that they can retire from CPU production and recycle for chipset
production.

And, as Keith said (even if not in exactly these words) chipsets
these days are getting to the point where they need fabs that are
not that far behind the CPU fabs.
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 14, 2005 7:06:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <bbbl67@ezrs.com> wrote in message
news:GvvLe.17206$yH2.907479@news20.bellglobal.com...
> culhane@cse.ohio-state.edu wrote:
>> There is such a demand they are having a hard time keeping up, so they
>> are going to leave the market? That doesn't sound like sound business
>> practice to me. Logically, they should stay in the business because
>> there is high demand.
>
> These are mainly support chips for their CPUs. There is high demand for
> their CPUs (obviously), and therefore there is high demand for their
> chipsets. But chipsets are low profit. Also if they try to maintain their
> stranglehold control over their chipset market, it's going to mean there's
> less chipsets available and it will reduce the demand of their CPUs
> (nobody buys a CPU without having some kind of a chipset).
>
> Anyways, the deed is already done. Intel has already contacted SIS and UMC
> to produce more of their chipsets for Intel's processors. Intel is likely
> going to be out of the low-end chipset business soon.


Thus increasing their profits and my retirement income.
Good move!

--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 15, 2005 11:04:13 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Rob Stow wrote:
> And, as Keith said (even if not in exactly these words) chipsets these
> days are getting to the point where they need fabs that are not that far
> behind the CPU fabs.

Which sort of makes the decision by AMD to move the memory controller
into the CPU more prescient. Now the chipset can putter around
controlling hard disks, serving USB, passing PCI-E around, etc. without
having to worry about keeping up with the memory demands of the CPU.

Yousuf Khan
August 16, 2005 2:32:16 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:04:13 -0400, Yousuf Khan wrote:

> Rob Stow wrote:
>> And, as Keith said (even if not in exactly these words) chipsets these
>> days are getting to the point where they need fabs that are not that far
>> behind the CPU fabs.
>
> Which sort of makes the decision by AMD to move the memory controller
> into the CPU more prescient.

Prescient? No, it is the obvious thing to do, for many reasons including
getting the traffic off the FSB. Why hasn't everyone gone there?
....search me. Memory interfaces on processors are a hassle, but what
isn't?

> Now the chipset can putter around
> controlling hard disks, serving USB, passing PCI-E around, etc. without
> having to worry about keeping up with the memory demands of the CPU.

....which they cannot. It's like real estate; Latency, latency, latency.
Why piss away the gold on a trailer-park?

--
Keith
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 16, 2005 4:17:00 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:04:13 -0400, Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@ezrs.com>
wrote:

>Rob Stow wrote:
>> And, as Keith said (even if not in exactly these words) chipsets these
>> days are getting to the point where they need fabs that are not that far
>> behind the CPU fabs.
>
>Which sort of makes the decision by AMD to move the memory controller
>into the CPU more prescient. Now the chipset can putter around
>controlling hard disks, serving USB, passing PCI-E around, etc. without
>having to worry about keeping up with the memory demands of the CPU.

Err, chipsets for AMD processors do still have a 2.0GT/s
hypertransport connection or two on them, as well as a 2.5GT/s
PCI-Express connector. Ok, these tend to be somewhat easier to handle
than, for example, the P4's 800MT/s (or 1.06GT/s) bus, but they still
aren't trivial things.

I think one of the real tricks that has changed the chipset business
though is the widespread adoption of integrated graphics. At a guess
I would say that integrated graphics chipsets probably outsell
chipsets without built-in graphics by a relatively small margin (maybe
60% with graphics, 40% without?). This is quite a change from just a
few years ago where on-board graphics was limited to a fairly small
low-end niche. If you look at a modern chipset with a built-in
graphics controller you will probably find that more than half of the
die space is actually taken up by the graphics controller portion (in
the case of ATi's chipsets I hear it's up around 90% of the die).
This transition to integrated graphics as being fairly standard is,
IMO, a major factor in wanting to move chipsets to the latest and
greatest fab technology as quickly as possible.

-------------
Tony Hill
hilla <underscore> 20 <at> yahoo <dot> ca
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 19, 2005 5:25:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Here's an update to this story. It looks like according this story,
Intel may be trying to prevent the chipset makers from becoming too
dependent on business from AMD.

Quote:
By exiting the entry level segment Intel is reducing itself as a
threat to Taiwan chipset makers, and providing them more opportunities
to expand their market presence on the Intel platform. To prevent AMD
from gaining more share, Intel is opening the door for chipset vendors
to increase their chipset production, as well as their market focus, on
the Pentium 4 platform.


http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050812A9052.html

Yousuf Khan


Yousuf Khan wrote:
> It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
> older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
> chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
> and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
> the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
> quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
> business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
> run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
> than the CPU?
>
> If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109
>
> Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2005 12:18:18 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124439907.058727.150760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Here's an update to this story. It looks like according this story,
> Intel may be trying to prevent the chipset makers from becoming too
> dependent on business from AMD.
>
>
Quote:
By exiting the entry level segment Intel is reducing itself as a
> threat to Taiwan chipset makers, and providing them more opportunities
> to expand their market presence on the Intel platform. To prevent AMD
> from gaining more share, Intel is opening the door for chipset vendors
> to increase their chipset production, as well as their market focus, on
> the Pentium 4 platform.


Oh my! Are these the same vendors who could not
possibly increase their production (grin).

> http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20050812A9052.html
>
> Yousuf Khan
>
>
> Yousuf Khan wrote:
>> It seems Intel is running tight on low-end chipset capacity at its
>> older fabs, and is going to concentrate on the high-end Centrino
>> chipsets and stuff. That means all of the Celerons will be left high
>> and dry (can't run a CPU without chipset -- yet). It's not likely that
>> the Taiwanese chipset houses will be able to fill the void that
>> quickly, especially when Intel has been driving them out of this
>> business for the last several years. And what are people going to do,
>> run a Celeron on an Nvidia Nforce board, where the chipset costs more
>> than the CPU?
>>
>> If Intel dumps low end chipsets, it leaves a big hole
>> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=25109



--

... Hank

http://home.earthlink.net/~horedson
http://home.earthlink.net/~w0rli
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 20, 2005 12:33:32 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

Hank Oredson wrote:
> Oh my! Are these the same vendors who could not
> possibly increase their production (grin).

That's still a possibility of course, as this updated story doesn't
deal with that.

Yousuf Khan
Anonymous
a b à CPUs
August 21, 2005 11:38:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.intel,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips (More info?)

On Fri, 19 Aug 2005 20:18:18 GMT, "Hank Oredson" <horedson@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>"Yousuf Khan" <yjkhan@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1124439907.058727.150760@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Here's an update to this story. It looks like according this story,
>> Intel may be trying to prevent the chipset makers from becoming too
>> dependent on business from AMD.
>>
>>
Quote:
By exiting the entry level segment Intel is reducing itself as a
>> threat to Taiwan chipset makers, and providing them more opportunities
>> to expand their market presence on the Intel platform. To prevent AMD
>> from gaining more share, Intel is opening the door for chipset vendors
>> to increase their chipset production, as well as their market focus, on
>> the Pentium 4 platform.

>
>Oh my! Are these the same vendors who could not
>possibly increase their production (grin).

Well yeah, I wonder if they're going to get a specal dispensation license
now for 800MHz... for free?... which just *might* produce chips which are
err, highly overlockable?:-P

--
Rgds, George Macdonald
!