Comment by andreadev | Hacker News Reader

Comment by andreadev | Hacker News Reader

I think everyone's focusing on the core count, but the packaging story is way more interesting here. This thing is 12 separate chiplets on 18A stacked on base dies made on Intel 3, connected to I/O tiles on Intel 7. Three different process nodes in one package, shipping at volume. That's nuts.

And it's clearly an IFS play too. Intel Foundry needs a proof point — you can publish PDKs all day, but nothing sells foundry credibility like eating your own cooking in a 288-core server part at 450W. If Foveros Direct works here, it's the best ad Intel could run for potential foundry customers.

The chiplet sizing is smart for another reason nobody's mentioned: yield. 18A is brand new, yields are probably rough. But 24 cores per die is small enough that even bad yields give you enough good chiplets. Basically AMD's Zen playbook but with a 3D twist.

Also — 64 CXL 2.0 lanes! Several comments here are complaining about DDR5 prices, which is fair. But CXL memory pooling across a rack could change that math completely. I wonder if Intel is betting the real value isn't the cores but being the best CXL hub in the datacenter.

The ARM competition is still the elephant in the room though. "Many efficient cores" is what ARM has always done natively, and 17% IPC uplift on Darkmont doesn't close that gap by itself.

Agree entirely with your take. The packaging story is awesome, I wish there were more details on the stacking used on this one.

But I am at a loss to how Intel are really going to get any traction with IFS. How can anyone trust Intel as a long-term foundry partner. Even if they priced it more aggressively, the opportunity cost in picking a supplier who decides to quit next year would be catastrophic for many. The only way this works is if they practically give their services away to someone big, who can afford to take that risk and can also make it worth Intel's continued investment. Any ideas who that would be, I've got nothing.

I suspect that timing might help Intel here, with so much of the better established foundries near fully allocated for the next two years, it may be more a question of availability than brand name risk. And for whatever problems Intel has, it's pretty unlikely they'd go completely under and disolve in less than a year. Good non completion clauses in the contracts can mitigate a good chunk of the remaining risk.

Not to mention potential customers who would prefer a US based foundry regardless. My guess is that there's a pretty large part of the market that would be perfectly fine with using Intel.

> How can anyone trust Intel as a long-term foundry partner

With the standard form of business trust: a contract.

Worthless. Just looks how IFS worked out the previous two times they gave it a go. If you're not in the industry you may not even be aware it was a thing. And then not. Twice.

And how many times did Intel get sued for breach of contract over changing their mind? If they have a contract, they'll honor it or compensate.

And that's why it's got to be a big company that takes this on, you need deep pockets to successfully sue a company like Intel. It's not realistic for most. Plus the huge opportunity cost of missing your market and wasting years having to start over. Again, a bigger company can survive that with multiple projects in parallel.

> 18A is brand new, yields are probably rough.

That the CPU cores are low frequency cores probably helps with yield as well.

Are the two things related?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com