I do not want to see our tax dollars going to Intel. It is a corrupt former monopolist that actually has held back computing, until finally computing overran it and moved on. While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did.

The x86 architecture is not a good one. Though it has survived, it is really just the veneer. In the core of modern chips are RISC processors optimized to translate and execute x86 code. The z80 made significant improvements to x86. The 6502 was easy to program, made efficient use of transistors, and used both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. Unfortunately, mismanagement by MOS/Commodore in not developing a 16 bit version really doomed them. It takes a special gift to create the world's best selling computer and then to piss it all away. The Moto 68000 was groundbreaking, but it did require many more transistors. What really killed it is not keeping up, and the 68010 not continuing to break much ground.

Just like these companies, Intel came out with plenty of duds: the i860, killing StrongArm, and no one can forget the Itanic. So did other companies. But Intel used it's position to push around system builders, bribe computer magazines, and used politics and government levers to further it's monopoly. Thus, me and many others were forced to use WinTel at work, and it sucked all the joy out of computing.

i'm glad to see the industry "route around the damage." You no longer have to use Intel or even x86, and so my last two personal laptops have been Apple-powered.

(09-02-2025 12:59 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I do not want to see our tax dollars going to Intel. It is a corrupt former monopolist that actually has held back computing, until finally computing overran it and moved on. While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did.

The x86 architecture is not a good one. Though it has survived, it is really just the veneer. In the core of modern chips are RISC processors optimized to translate and execute x86 code. The z80 made significant improvements to x86. The 6502 was easy to program, made efficient use of transistors, and used both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. Unfortunately, mismanagement by MOS/Commodore in not developing a 16 bit version really doomed them. It takes a special gift to create the world's best selling computer and then to piss it all away. The Moto 68000 was groundbreaking, but it did require many more transistors. What really killed it is not keeping up, and the 68010 not continuing to break much ground.

Just like these companies, Intel came out with plenty of duds: the i860, killing StrongArm, and no one can forget the Itanic. So did other companies. But Intel used it's position to push around system builders, bribe computer magazines, and used politics and government levers to further it's monopoly. Thus, me and many others were forced to use WinTel at work, and it sucked all the joy out of computing.

i'm glad to see the industry "route around the damage." You no longer have to use Intel or even x86, and so my last two personal laptops have been Apple-powered.

Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

Intel isn't exactly getting "bailed out". They have a market cap of $108B. They aren't on the verge of going out of business nor going bankrupt. But they are an American company that could sell at least some ownership in their chip and/or foundry business to a foreign company - perhaps one largely controlled/influenced by China or other potential adversaries.

I don't love the idea of the government owning a portion of Intel (roughly 10%) even if it is non-voting. But I get the argument that it is critical for our national security while also giving us potential upside that we didn't get from the money already committed in the original 2022 CHIPS Act.

I know nothing about the inner workings of Intel. Never paid attention.

All I know is Kevin O'Leary said it was one of the worst run companies ever, didn't deserve to be bailed out, was pouring good money after bad, and that somebody should take it behind the woodshed and shoot it.

RISC. Man, I haven't heard that term since the early 90's when I worked at an MCI junction and part of my duties were updating and backing up their RISC servers, along with maintaining and administering multiple VAX nodes and a Nortel SL-100 cut through PBX. My industry is all but dead. What it used to take an entire building to house now takes nothing more than a large closet.

It's where I learned v.25 and v.35 data transmission protocols, where I learned how to run T-Bird and Firebird protocol analyzers, hell, I even learned how to use an O-scope there. It's where I got my start into the world of packetized data that still serves me well today.

"The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way." - Milton Friedman

I don't see how part-ownership of Intel helps US security.

What it really does is stifle innovation. No one wants to enter a market that is controlled by a government-backed firm, because the government-backed firm can lower prices to the point that they lose money, and drive your product out of the market (even if it's a better product).

This isn't a factory whose goal is production (like a government-owned shipyard, or a government-owned factory operated by a private firm like the Lima Army Tank Plant). This isn't DARPA-funded research at a private firm. This is US ownership of a firm whose business is innovation.

Government-run innovation only works if there is one specific end goal that is extremely expensive (like the Manhattan project or the Apollo project). Government-driven innovation programs typically do a poor job of achieving nebulous innovation goals.

(09-03-2025 06:21 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  RISC. Man, I haven't heard that term since the early 90's when I worked at an MCI junction and part of my duties were updating and backing up their RISC servers, along with maintaining and administering multiple VAX nodes and a Nortel SL-100 cut through PBX. My industry is all but dead. What it used to take an entire building to house now takes nothing more than a large closet.

It's where I learned v.25 and v.35 data transmission protocols, where I learned how to run T-Bird and Firebird protocol analyzers, hell, I even learned how to use an O-scope there. It's where I got my start into the world of packetized data that still serves me well today.

I always love talking to the old guys in my industry for statements like that. I was doing an install at a casino in Vegas for their restaurant. At the same time was a team that was replacing their phone system with a voip one. He took me into the "phone" closet and it was probably 3 or 4000 sqft of wires going in every different direction. I always wondered what it looked like when they are done.

(09-03-2025 08:02 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  "The great achievements of civilization have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn’t construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn’t revolutionize the automobile industry that way." - Milton Friedman

I don't see how part-ownership of Intel helps US security.

What it really does is stifle innovation. No one wants to enter a market that is controlled by a government-backed firm, because the government-backed firm can lower prices to the point that they lose money, and drive your product out of the market (even if it's a better product).

This isn't a factory whose goal is production (like a government-owned shipyard, or a government-owned factory operated by a private firm like the Lima Army Tank Plant). This isn't DARPA-funded research at a private firm. This is US ownership of a firm whose business is innovation.

Government-run innovation only works if there is one specific end goal that is extremely expensive (like the Manhattan project or the Apollo project). Government-driven innovation programs typically do a poor job of achieving nebulous innovation goals.

The US government isn't controlling Intel. It's shares are non-voting and get no representation on the BoD. But your concerns about government run business manipulation are very valid and could and likely are happening with China already.

If Intel flops, we are screwed anyway and lose all the CHIPs money we committed to them in 2022. But now, if they succeed, we share in the profits (while also have some leverage to avoid an Intel sell-off to China, etc.)

(09-03-2025 06:21 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  RISC. Man, I haven't heard that term since the early 90's when I worked at an MCI junction and part of my duties were updating and backing up their RISC servers, along with maintaining and administering multiple VAX nodes and a Nortel SL-100 cut through PBX. My industry is all but dead. What it used to take an entire building to house now takes nothing more than a large closet.

It's where I learned v.25 and v.35 data transmission protocols, where I learned how to run T-Bird and Firebird protocol analyzers, hell, I even learned how to use an O-scope there. It's where I got my start into the world of packetized data that still serves me well today.

That is some pretty impressive credentials.

(09-02-2025 01:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 12:59 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I do not want to see our tax dollars going to Intel. It is a corrupt former monopolist that actually has held back computing, until finally computing overran it and moved on. While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did.

The x86 architecture is not a good one. Though it has survived, it is really just the veneer. In the core of modern chips are RISC processors optimized to translate and execute x86 code. The z80 made significant improvements to x86. The 6502 was easy to program, made efficient use of transistors, and used both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. Unfortunately, mismanagement by MOS/Commodore in not developing a 16 bit version really doomed them. It takes a special gift to create the world's best selling computer and then to piss it all away. The Moto 68000 was groundbreaking, but it did require many more transistors. What really killed it is not keeping up, and the 68010 not continuing to break much ground.

Just like these companies, Intel came out with plenty of duds: the i860, killing StrongArm, and no one can forget the Itanic. So did other companies. But Intel used it's position to push around system builders, bribe computer magazines, and used politics and government levers to further it's monopoly. Thus, me and many others were forced to use WinTel at work, and it sucked all the joy out of computing.

i'm glad to see the industry "route around the damage." You no longer have to use Intel or even x86, and so my last two personal laptops have been Apple-powered.

Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

The problem with your view is something you point out early on---

"While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did."

In the current world order where there are now peer threats seeking to undermine the United States, US technology and production cannot be held hostage by foreign nations. Chips are the steel of the early 1900's---as important to the existence of a technology-based superpower today as energy. Intel may not be the best----but its what we have. Would you suggest buying our drones and missles from China or Russia because they had a better drone or missile? Of course not----You'd do what was necessary for American based Raytheon or Boeing (or whoever) to close the tech gap in that weapons line. Its no different for Intel. Chips are not just chips anymore---chips literally represent a national security issue. Im not crazy about Intel---but its pretty much all we have to work with for the forseeable future when it comes to domestic chip production.

That said, what I wouild not mind is some effort to expand the options available domestically. Maybe its an arm of the defense department---doing work to try to move the process forward. The reseaerch could then be shared with the private defense contractors to insure the US maintains its tech edge. Im open to ways that might expand---not just the US chip making capacity---but also the number of competing domestic chip makers.

(09-04-2025 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 01:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 12:59 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I do not want to see our tax dollars going to Intel. It is a corrupt former monopolist that actually has held back computing, until finally computing overran it and moved on. While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did.

The x86 architecture is not a good one. Though it has survived, it is really just the veneer. In the core of modern chips are RISC processors optimized to translate and execute x86 code. The z80 made significant improvements to x86. The 6502 was easy to program, made efficient use of transistors, and used both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. Unfortunately, mismanagement by MOS/Commodore in not developing a 16 bit version really doomed them. It takes a special gift to create the world's best selling computer and then to piss it all away. The Moto 68000 was groundbreaking, but it did require many more transistors. What really killed it is not keeping up, and the 68010 not continuing to break much ground.

Just like these companies, Intel came out with plenty of duds: the i860, killing StrongArm, and no one can forget the Itanic. So did other companies. But Intel used it's position to push around system builders, bribe computer magazines, and used politics and government levers to further it's monopoly. Thus, me and many others were forced to use WinTel at work, and it sucked all the joy out of computing.

i'm glad to see the industry "route around the damage." You no longer have to use Intel or even x86, and so my last two personal laptops have been Apple-powered.

Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

The problem with your view is something you point out early on---

"While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did."

In the current world order where there are now peer threats seeking to undermine the United States, US technology and production cannot be held hostage by foreign nations. Chips are the steel of the early 1900's---as important to the existence of a technology-based superpower today as energy. Intel may not be the best----but its what we have. Would you suggest buying our drones and missles from China or Russia because they had a better drone or missile? Of course not----You'd do what was necessary for American based Raytheon or Boeing (or whoever) to close the tech gap in that weapons line. Its no different for Intel. Chips are not just chips anymore---chips literally represent a national security issue. Im not crazy about Intel---but its pretty much all we have to work with for the forseeable future when it comes to domestic chip production.

That said, what I wouild not mind is some effort to expand the options available domestically. Maybe its an arm of the defense department---doing work to try to move the process forward. The reseaerch could then be shared with the private defense contractors to insure the US maintains its tech edge. Im open to ways that might expand---not just the US chip making capacity---but also the number of competing domestic chip makers.

This is the real reason. We need the chips for the military.

(09-04-2025 11:41 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 01:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 12:59 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  I do not want to see our tax dollars going to Intel. It is a corrupt former monopolist that actually has held back computing, until finally computing overran it and moved on. While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did.

The x86 architecture is not a good one. Though it has survived, it is really just the veneer. In the core of modern chips are RISC processors optimized to translate and execute x86 code. The z80 made significant improvements to x86. The 6502 was easy to program, made efficient use of transistors, and used both the rising and falling edge of the clock cycle. Unfortunately, mismanagement by MOS/Commodore in not developing a 16 bit version really doomed them. It takes a special gift to create the world's best selling computer and then to piss it all away. The Moto 68000 was groundbreaking, but it did require many more transistors. What really killed it is not keeping up, and the 68010 not continuing to break much ground.

Just like these companies, Intel came out with plenty of duds: the i860, killing StrongArm, and no one can forget the Itanic. So did other companies. But Intel used it's position to push around system builders, bribe computer magazines, and used politics and government levers to further it's monopoly. Thus, me and many others were forced to use WinTel at work, and it sucked all the joy out of computing.

i'm glad to see the industry "route around the damage." You no longer have to use Intel or even x86, and so my last two personal laptops have been Apple-powered.

Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

The problem with your view is something you point out early on---

"While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did."

In the current world order where there are now peer threats seeking to undermine the United States, US technology and production cannot be held hostage by foreign nations. Chips are the steel of the early 1900's---as important to the existence of a technology-based superpower today as energy. Intel may not be the best----but its what we have. Would you suggest buying our drones and missles from China or Russia because they had a better drone or missile? Of course not----You'd do what was necessary for American based Raytheon or Boeing (or whoever) to close the tech gap in that weapons line. Its no different for Intel. Chips are not just chips anymore---chips literally represent a national security issue. Im not crazy about Intel---but its pretty much all we have to work with for the forseeable future when it comes to domestic chip production.

That said, what I wouild not mind is some effort to expand the options available domestically. Maybe its an arm of the defense department---doing work to try to move the process forward. The reseaerch could then be shared with the private defense contractors to insure the US maintains its tech edge. Im open to ways that might expand---not just the US chip making capacity---but also the number of competing domestic chip makers.

This is the real reason. We need the chips for the military.

And cars, and TV's, and phones, and many other devices. As we saw during Covid, chips shortages can ripple all through multiple US supply chains. Pharma is the same way. We are far too dependent on life saving medicines that are developed here---but manufactured overseas.

(09-04-2025 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 01:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

The problem with your view is something you point out early on---

"While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did."

In the current world order where there are now peer threats seeking to undermine the United States, US technology and production cannot be held hostage by foreign nations. Chips are the steel of the early 1900's---as important to the existence of a technology-based superpower today as energy. Intel may not be the best----but its what we have. Would you suggest buying our drones and missles from China or Russia because they had a better drone or missile? Of course not----You'd do what was necessary for American based Raytheon or Boeing (or whoever) to close the tech gap in that weapons line. Its no different for Intel. Chips are not just chips anymore---chips literally represent a national security issue. Im not crazy about Intel---but its pretty much all we have to work with for the forseeable future when it comes to domestic chip production.

That said, what I wouild not mind is some effort to expand the options available domestically. Maybe its an arm of the defense department---doing work to try to move the process forward. The reseaerch could then be shared with the private defense contractors to insure the US maintains its tech edge. Im open to ways that might expand---not just the US chip making capacity---but also the number of competing domestic chip makers.

Taiwan is a good ally, though they are in a precarious position. However, Samsung has a semiconductor process that is almost as good, and they are in Korea. So there is a good second source. Though TSMC is supposed to set up a foundry in the US, I just don't think it will be as good as the Taiwan foundry because you can't control for all variables.

It is super expensive to build a cutting-edge semiconductor factory, and super-expensive to keep up. However, older semiconductor processes are easier to build and run, they just are not near as profitable. Since military equipment typically use embedded processors, they can usually get away with older processes. As an added benefit, they usually have debugged the assembly line so that things are more reliable. Malaysia is picking up a lot of older-process semiconductor work, with Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines getting in the act as well. Because of lower operating costs, reduced environmental regulations and plentiful water, these lower end foundries do have some advantages over production in the US. Could an older US foundry serving the military have enough volume to be price-competitive?

I agree we do need chip manufacturing in the US. And, a glance at the attached map shows that the US does have many chip manufacturing plants. However, the best chips are being made at TMSC and Samsung, in part because of Intel relying on monopoly and market dominance instead of innovating.

Incidentally, I bought an AMD Athlon just after they first came out - and the first one in my research group in grad school. I built a Linux system around it. The senior Grad student in our group was a stuck on WinTel, and thought it would break or would have other errors. While the other grad students were excited about it, it seemed like he didn't want to admit that Intel had been beaten.

https://www.semiconductors.org/ecosystem/

(09-04-2025 10:00 PM)HawkeyeCoug Wrote:  

(09-04-2025 11:25 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(09-02-2025 01:28 PM)mlb Wrote:  Everything you said only makes sense if our weapons are not run on the Intel/x86/x64 architecture. That last sentence makes me wonder why you attack Intel at such a high level, however... Apple left Motorola and shortly afterwards the PowerPC architecture in the early/mid 2000s for Intel. Intel was unquestionably the best at that point. Just finally was Apple able to design and manufacture chips at capacity that were competitive with Intel, hence their reasoning for switching in 2020. So why do you have so much hatred towards Intel, especially considering Apple even left the competitors in the dust 20 years ago themselves?

The problem with your view is something you point out early on---

"While I wish an American company did what Arm did, at least there is solace in knowing Intel has been forever marginalised, and will never have the ability to hold down the market as it once did."

In the current world order where there are now peer threats seeking to undermine the United States, US technology and production cannot be held hostage by foreign nations. Chips are the steel of the early 1900's---as important to the existence of a technology-based superpower today as energy. Intel may not be the best----but its what we have. Would you suggest buying our drones and missles from China or Russia because they had a better drone or missile? Of course not----You'd do what was necessary for American based Raytheon or Boeing (or whoever) to close the tech gap in that weapons line. Its no different for Intel. Chips are not just chips anymore---chips literally represent a national security issue. Im not crazy about Intel---but its pretty much all we have to work with for the forseeable future when it comes to domestic chip production.

That said, what I wouild not mind is some effort to expand the options available domestically. Maybe its an arm of the defense department---doing work to try to move the process forward. The reseaerch could then be shared with the private defense contractors to insure the US maintains its tech edge. Im open to ways that might expand---not just the US chip making capacity---but also the number of competing domestic chip makers.

Taiwan is a good ally, though they are in a precarious position. However, Samsung has a semiconductor process that is almost as good, and they are in Korea. So there is a good second source. Though TSMC is supposed to set up a foundry in the US, I just don't think it will be as good as the Taiwan foundry because you can't control for all variables.

It is super expensive to build a cutting-edge semiconductor factory, and super-expensive to keep up. However, older semiconductor processes are easier to build and run, they just are not near as profitable. Since military equipment typically use embedded processors, they can usually get away with older processes. As an added benefit, they usually have debugged the assembly line so that things are more reliable. Malaysia is picking up a lot of older-process semiconductor work, with Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines getting in the act as well. Because of lower operating costs, reduced environmental regulations and plentiful water, these lower end foundries do have some advantages over production in the US. Could an older US foundry serving the military have enough volume to be price-competitive?

I agree we do need chip manufacturing in the US. And, a glance at the attached map shows that the US does have many chip manufacturing plants. However, the best chips are being made at TMSC and Samsung, in part because of Intel relying on monopoly and market dominance instead of innovating.

Incidentally, I bought an AMD Athlon just after they first came out - and the first one in my research group in grad school. I built a Linux system around it. The senior Grad student in our group was a stuck on WinTel, and thought it would break or would have other errors. While the other grad students were excited about it, it seemed like he didn't want to admit that Intel had been beaten.

https://www.semiconductors.org/ecosystem/

AMD had a streak there in the 2000s where they were beating the bricks off of intel in the power/$ margin. I built a rig around an Athlon 64 x2 in 2005 that ran circles around my roommates intel processor that cost around $100 more.

(09-04-2025 10:31 PM)bobdizole Wrote:  AMD had a streak there in the 2000s where they were beating the bricks off of intel in the power/$ margin. I built a rig around an Athlon 64 x2 in 2005 that ran circles around my roommates intel processor that cost around $100 more.

It was still an X86 based instruction set though. HawkeyeCoug's contention is that it is inferior to other available instruction sets out there.

AttackCoog basically restated my original point... we need factories in the states for these chips. We need lots of manufacturers building them here. We also need weapons systems using more/different chips should one of those become unavailable in a time of war.