No this is a move to protect market share and buy time their processors with the current Intel node are not competitive this way they are able to compete with AMD as well as restrict AMD supply. They will be able to hold market share with this till their own next generation fab is fully functional.
Clearly evidence of the "free market" working on human prosperity. Oh, wait, no it's the opposite. Innovation killed over a monopoly's power. Cool, cool, cool.
This sort of anti-competitive behavior should be illegal. How is it okay to just clog your competitors supply line, when they got the better tech you just can't up?
When it comes to fab, AMD didn't beat intel, they gave up and went with TSMC. Now they have to compete with TSMC's other customers, including Intel, for access to the kingmaking process. That's not foul play, it's the bed they made, and now they get/have to lie in it.
The current high end AMD parts are multi chip modules. The CPU dies are made at TSMC in 7nm but the IO dies that glue multiple CPU dies together is made in the Global Foundries 14nm process.
GF has basically given up on 10nm and smaller nodes.
Didn't AMD have contractual obligations to use Global Foundries for their high end chips from when they split, or something along those lines? I guess that turned out really well for them, though, since that might have led to the necessity of chiplet designs.
GF has given up on research and pioneering smaller nodes. Their current process is based on tech they licensed from Samsung. I would not be surprised if they licensed another process from TSMC or Samsung in the future.
Maybe not legally, but if their (partial) intention is to retard AMD's design success, it's at least what is considered "a dick move".
Intel is strong-arming AMD on many fronts AFAIK, I sincerely hope they vanish into insignificance for their dick-locomotion nature. And I also hope the EU succeeds at spinning up their own fabs. And that ancaps one day see the light of regulation.
I want fancy tech and scifi and wealth for everyone, and the free-market doesn't deliver. It's all monopolies and patent wars...
Intel (and NVidia for that matter) don't owe AMD uncontested access to TSMC's kingmaking process, no matter how much AMD fanboys wish it were so.
> AMD's design success
The market is showing us that the value center isn't design, it's fab. Which AMD gave up on. The lack of competition that's squeezing them is the very pile of dung they created by dropping their foundries.
Sounds like you have all this backwards. If the rumours are true, it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder because they have the best tech is the free market at work. It's the opposite of anti-competitive. Intel is the one going to pay up (to TSMC) for their mistakes. Incidentally, AMD outsourcing its fab came with inherent risks, one of which is this.
> This sort of anti-competitive behavior should be illegal.
You're assuming the legal system is intended to foster competition and prevent the formation of monopolies. That is not the case. The examples of this occurring are exceptions to the rule. And as evidence, you can examine the concentration of wealth, and investment capital in the USA (or other developed capitalist countries).
Why so? They have practically a monopoly as there is nobody that can actually compete, Samsung just isn't there, same for INTC's fabs, obviously.
In addition, more and more AI/ML accelerator startups show up with even more need for wafers and ASML has 2 year old orders on the backlog (half of their EUV's machines last year went just to TSMC).
We never know when intel or Samsung will catch up, or even get ahead. They have a monopoly today, but a little bit of luck on either part and that is gone...
Sure, assuming that their in-house manufacturing is more expensive than buying externally (quite likely, considering that it was grown for decades more on USPs than on pricing). I wonder how much the "cooperate to learn" effect has been part of the decision. You surely won't get outright trade secrets this way or technological details, but valuable insights in how they think, how they "do things on a high level"
If you want volume from TSMC you make a big order, you sign a contract, and then put down a billion dollars or two and TSMC will build you a nice new fab for your needs.
That's more or less how it works. TSMC doesn't allow itself to be in a position to have to screw one customer for another customer. It would destroy the trust that customers need to put the survival of their business in TSMC's hands.
