Well considering Intel already has 32nm SRAM chips working I don't think it will be hard for them to do it alone. Money may be one thing but you have to remember that in the past 1.5 years C2D and C2Q have been selling very well so I am sure that Intel will have the money to build the FABs.
Also they could just convert one of their 65nm FABs to 32nm since 45nm will take over in 08 and on and 32nm in 09 and on. It will also cost less to convert a FAB than build a new one like in Chandler.
I can tell that Intel more than likely will do this easily and the others will be working on either SOI(which I doubt will work) or a Hafnium based design like Intel is using for 45nm and smaller.
As of Q3, Intel has $14B of cash & short term investments (that can be sold quickly for cash) and no debts. Plus it is generating $1.1B free cash flow after paying for capital investment in one quarter.
So yeah, Intel can afford about 5 extra fabs at $3B each just from the cash it has. Not to mention it is generating more cash every quarter. Not to mention it can easily borrow money if needs to.
------------------------------Intel will not take the top spot, or probably the top 3 spot back for the forseeable future. Not even with 32nm and more cores will intel be able to beat Jaguar. - JennyH the AMDiot, Nov 2009
Reply to yomamafor1
This is about the 4th industry collaborative effort (that I know of) where Intel has chosen not to participate. I can appreciate that Intel as gobs of money to "go it alone" but I would think (there I go thinking again!) that Intel would want have some input with creating the standards or influence best practices. Obviously Intel has their formula and it appears to be working for them. But much like Quickpath, x86-64, and IMC Intel would rather re-create and re-engineer what these types of industry collaborations have already implemented.
Good news is that this type of effort means that AMD is still in the game and is looking at the long term. I just hope that this helps AMD pull their head out of their hiney and get it together.
This is about the 4th industry collaborative effort (that I know of) where Intel has chosen not to participate. I can appreciate that Intel as gobs of money to "go it alone" but I would think (there I go thinking again!) that Intel would want have some input with creating the standards or influence best practices. Obviously Intel has their formula and it appears to be working for them. But much like Quickpath, x86-64, and IMC Intel would rather re-create and re-engineer what these types of industry collaborations have already implemented.
Good news is that this type of effort means that AMD is still in the game and is looking at the long term. I just hope that this helps AMD pull their head out of their hiney and get it together.
Why do you say that Intel tried IMC but the costs at that node were unacceptable, x86-64 is just a extension of IA32 Intel went the IA64 route it appears to have failed most likely due to the need for compiler support for effective usage and quick path I am assuming is Hyper Transport which pretty well comes with the IMC. Fact is Intel doesn't seem interested in certain technologies unless they are cost effective at the die which for them seems to be 45nm node. This regardless of what we think is how they do business and how they remain effectively profitable.
As for them re-engineering that’s what comes with the territory of being number one, additionally their technology might not be compatible with say AMD's implementation but that’s a finer point and more or less moot as well.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.