AMD turns TSMC into a CPU manufacturing giant

[Shintai]

according to your picture TSMC has a tremendous advantage in producing SRAM cells?
i dont argue it's not that good as Intel's or AMD's processes, but it is far from garbage...

Advantage? In density yes. In performance no. TSMC optimises for cheap, not performance.

I would bet if you made say a Core 2 on their 65 or 45nm process it would barely break 2-2½Ghz and use alot of power. But it would be cheaper.

[GoThr3k]

Advantage? In density yes. In performance no. TSMC optimises for cheap, not performance.

I would bet if you made say a Core 2 on their 65 or 45nm process it would barely break 2-2½Ghz and use alot of power. But it would be cheaper.

But if they would optimize their process for performance we might see a good manufacturer. because an SRAM cell at that size is quite insane if you ask me. Maybe thats why all other specs are so bad in comparison to intel/AMD. But i am pretty sure if they would make a cpu or something else fusion like they would do that on a special developped process. Or a slightly more optimized process.

So actually TSMC is far from crap, it just has other objectives then AMD/intel

[Shintai]

But if they would optimize their process for performance we might see a good manufacturer. because an SRAM cell at that size is quite insane if you ask me. Maybe thats why all other specs are so bad in comparison to intel/AMD. But i am pretty sure if they would make a cpu or something else fusion like they would do that on a special developped process. Or a slightly more optimized process.

So actually TSMC is far from crap, it just has other objectives then AMD/intel

Optimize for performance=they lose they cell density. You cant blow air and have flour in your mouth the same time. You choose one path. And for TSMC cheap is the path. Compete in terms of performance and they will lose badly.

Would you want to risk the entire business to make CPUs that wouldnt even take up 5% of your production?

TSMC is crap when we talk about performance. Not discount production with lower quality and less lifetime. Dead/semidead GPUs, NICs etc that most if not all know about on a closer relation.

[GoThr3k]

Optimize for performance=they lose they cell density. You cant blow air and have flour in your mouth the same time. You choose one path. And for TSMC cheap is the path. Compete in terms of performance and they will lose badly.

Would you want to risk the entire business to make CPUs that wouldnt even take up 5% of your production?

TSMC is crap when we talk about performance. Not discount production with lower quality and less lifetime. Dead/semidead GPUs, NICs etc that most if not all know about on a closer relation.

Offc they will lose the cel density if they would optimize for performance, no doubt about that. But if they would optimize a line especially dedicated for performance they would get great results i think

[Shintai]

Offc they will lose the cel density if they would optimize for performance, no doubt about that. But if they would optimize a line especially dedicated for performance they would get great results i think

And use what, 1-2billion to do it and put the company in red? And then get slammed hard by other companies that are much better at it?

Its easier and cheaper to make a Ford sedan than it is to make a Ferrari formula 1 racer.

You know the production line needs to be customized to each design or you end up on the short end of the stick. They could at best make the very most lowend AMD CPUs. But for what profit? They might even have worse cell density then than what AMD got itself. Do what you are good at, not try to do something others are much better at.

[vitaminc]

And use what, 1-2billion to do it and put the company in red? And then get slammed hard by other companies that are much better at it?

Its easier and cheaper to make a Ford sedan than it is to make a Ferrari formula 1 racer.

You know the production line needs to be customized to each design or you end up on the short end of the stick. They could at best make the very most lowend AMD CPUs. But for what profit? They might even have worse cell density then than what AMD got itself. Do what you are good at, not try to do something others are much better at.

You have a fairly misleading analogy and is spreading a good amount of misinformation. You have not understand or have avoided the single key issue of the manufacturing model. That is, IDM will always have better process and design integration than fabless. The key here is integration, not the ability to produce better processes or better designs. A better analogy would be comparing bespoke/custom-made clothing to off-the-rack clothing; the former will always fit better than the latter.

Other than that, here are some counter to your points:

1) Please name one single company that is better than TSMC in contract manufacturing semiconductor chips. I just want to know by whom will TSMC "slammed hard by".

2) Too bad the only 'Ferrari' maker in the semiconductor industry got its ass kicked so hard that it has to exit the 'Ford sedan' DRAM business. Guess it's just easier and cheaper to make a 'Ferrari' than a 'Ford sedan' using your moronic analogy without any basis.

3) There are always trade-offs in manufacturing process and transistor design and you can't optimize for all parameters and have your yields too. High density leads to low yield, high performance leads to low density, low leakage leads to low yield, etc.

4) A company of TSMC's size could easily afford $1-2B investments over a 12-18 month horizon. And contrary to what you believe, it is not production line that has to customized but the process recipe. You can spend thousands of dollars buying William Sonoma gears and still won't make any French recipe spicy.