> I was not talking about Samsung's total capex, just the capex on Logic which is expected to be around
> US$7-8bn. Samsung's total capex for 2013 is expected to come at US$23bn (far far higher than that
> Intel) includes its capex on DRAM, NAND, consumer electronics and displays. On just the logic capex,
> the point I was making was that this is the first time in 25 years, since the start of the microprocessor
> industry really, that a competitor in Logic is able to match Intel's capex. That has huge implications.
> Assuming the other guys ,like Samsung, TSMC and GloFo are not entirely stupid and don't literally
> piss away the money, you are going to see a narrowing of the tech lead that Intel enjoys today -
> which is the direct result of its outsized capex spend of previous years.

I don't know what numbers you are using, but they sound wrong:
http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1280675

I don't care about samsung's spending on displays or CE. That's not relevant to logic.

Also, capex != R&D.

> > > The ARM ecosystem spends significantly
> > > more and all these players are making money.
> >
> > Global foundries isn't making money. TI already bailed from the
> > mobile market. It's not clear that it's that good of a market.
> >
>
> Yes, GloFo is not making money. Not to say that it wont. But yes, it is investing
> so that it can remain relevant vs its competitors (meaning TSMC, Samsung).

> > >Just look at TSMC's P&L. So what is the outlook for Intel's
> > > edge in process node? How long will it sustain with these guys bearing down on it at such >a rate...
> >
> > Why don't you tell us? Right now, Intel is 1.5-2 years ahead of everyone else in terms
> > of moving to the next node, and 3-4 years ahead in terms of performance enhancements (e.g.,
> > strained silicon, HKMG, FinFETs, etc.). When do you expect that gap to narrow?
> >
> > David
> >
>
> Well, Intel introduced HKMG in 2007, Samsung in 2012 and TSMC in 2013. Finfet - Intel introduced in 2011 and
> TSMC and Samsung in 2014.

When making these sorts of comparisons, you should be very careful. Intel starts shipping products in massive volumes...typically the first production at TSMC is FPGAs, and it takes a while for them to really reach the same level of maturity as Intel. Ditto for any foundry really.

Samsung and TSMC have committed to early 2014 customer tape-outs. That means actual production in 2015.

Just think about it for a minute. TSMC and Samsung aren't going to even ship any 20nm parts in production this year, because their yields are terrible according to Digitimes. Why would you believe that in ~1 year they can fix the 20nm problems, ramp FinFETs and handle the yield issues there, and then ramp volume? That isn't plausible.

In my mind, the foundries have a huge credibility problem about any claims they make because they consistently fail to deliver, and many of their claims are based on non-comparable timelines.

>So, the gap is already narrowing.

I will believe it when I see actual evidence.

>My point is, if you don't assume the others are
> chipmunks, they will invest the capex spend relatively wisely,

Like spending on gate-first HKMG? Or FD-SOI? etc. etc.

>then there is no way that Intel can maintain
> that 3-4 years edge in tech when spending the same or less. It is mathematical really, the edge is a function
> of the cumulative capex and r&d spend. when the spend gap narrows, the tech difference >should also narrow.

First of all, Intel is working under very different constraints than Samsung or TSMC. Foundries need to support an ecosystem and are limited by that. Moving to FinFETs is hard because all your IP needs to change. OTOH, Intel basically controls the IP development and can really co-optimize.

I agree you have a valid point that as TSMC or Samsung becomes larger, they have the potential to narrow the gap. But that doesn't seem to be happening.

David