B A401 Intel Corporation Part3
-
Upload
guestd58dd7 -
Category
Business
-
view
958 -
download
0
description
Transcript of B A401 Intel Corporation Part3
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
By the end of 1984, logic product were the dominant source of Intel’s revenue.
The 80186 and 80286 were tremendously successful.
IBM PC purchased microprocessors either from Intel .
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
The only serious 16-bit architectural
competitor was Motorola.
Intel had developed a microcontroller
which integrated logic and memory to
provide one-chip computer which
were used to control everything
from house fans to complex satellites.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
Late 1985 was the successor to the 80268, the 32-bit 80386 microprocessor.
Motorola had developed a strong 32-bit product, the 68020,and was
already in the marketplace
winning designs.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
The 80386 was scheduled to be one of the
first product made with the new
complementary MOS (CMOS) process.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
In 1984, the Livermore group was developing two distinct processes for SRAM and microprocessor.
The high-volume SRAM segment demanded a new four-transistor cell design and process. By contrast, the high-speed SRAM and the new 80386 microprocessor both demand six-transistor CMOS design.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
The high-volume SRAM process required a complex polysilicon resistor technology.
Eventually,they decided to drop the polysilicon resistor process and go with six-transitor (focus on 386).
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
Development the 386 with a double
metalization process while as the same
time to reducing line widths to 1.5µm
(from 2µm) and implementing the CMOS process.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
Market and technology development which may have contributed to the loss of a competitive SRAM product.
- SRAM received less attention for high-quality designer.
- They had a strong position in high-speed SRAM but they give it up without really making a conscious decision.
Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984
The end of 1984 represented the same
30% of revenue that MSO had represented
in 1973. While a great deal of system business
comprised development products aimed at
microprocessor and microcontroller users.
Manufacturing and Process Fungibility
Manufacturing and Process Fungibility
Intel took great pain to standartlize each facility as it expanded its manufacturing base
Each Intel chip would
“look and taste” the same
no matter which facility produced it
Manufacturing and Process Fungibility
As larger-diameter silicon wafers became available,Intel developed a process on one line and then transferred the technology to its other facility.
By 1984,Intel had seven fab in the united States.Due to more stringent manufacturing standard, the cost of a fab area had risen dramatically since the 1970s.
Manufacturing and Process Fungibility
Around the time they were deciding to put up a fab in Israel or Japan
- Israel had tremendous government subsidies and good labor market.
- Japan have a tapped the expertise
of Japanese DRAM technology
development,silicon maker and
the infrastructure support.
Manufacturing and Process Fungibility
There are three main process areas : fabrication,assembly and test.
Fabrication is usually the bottleneck in times of tight capacity. – the good one was allocation.
The finance group thought of DRAM as a “low ROI,high beta” product line.
Environmental Forces
Environmental Forces- Competitors -
1.U.S. full line digital design and supply houses
- Motorola: produced DRAM,
microcontroller and microprocessor
- National Semiconductor
- Texas Instrument : microprocessor
Environmental Forces- Competitors -
2. AMD
3. Japan- Hitachi, Fujitsu, NEC, Toshiba
- DRAM SRAM and EPROM. Served second source to U.S. microprocessor microcontroller suppliers
DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position
DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position
By the end of 1984,Intel had lost significant market share in DRAM.The first real difficulties had come with the 64K generation.
Ron Whittier said that 64K version,
the memory cell size was reduced,
but the actual die size still had to be increased significantly.
DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position
The DRAM group calculated that the
required die size would be too big.The 64K
DRAM would be too slow to be acceptable,
In order to boost yield,the group decided to
build in redundancy at the chip level.
DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position
Redundancy – Intel added an extra column of memory elements so that in the event of a process-induced defect,the auxiliary column could be activated.There was a physical switch, or “fuse” built into each column which could be address by the tester machinery.
DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position
TI ,engineers had concluded redundancy would not be economical and
had deferred the discussion
until the next generation.
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
NMOS to CMOS
- CMOS circuit was more complex
- used in laptop Intel produced CMOS 64K and 256K
DRAM in a niche strategy.
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
In1983
Demand was in an upswing,and Intel seemed to have a techonology strategy which could lead to dominance in the 1-meg DRAM.
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
In 1984
CMOS DRAM price at about one and a half to two times the prevailing NMOS price.
Niche strategy : differentiate the product from other offering, and sell it on features.
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
The price of NMOS DRAMs fell by 40% from
May to August 1984. By late 1984 Intel was down to less than 4%
of the 256K market and had lost its position
entirely in 64K DRAMs.
Attempts to Regain Leadership Position
In the future The 1-meg DRAM will be a technically
outstanding product, at least one and a half
to two years ahead any competition. A technology transfer deal should with
a Korean chip manufacturer. New competitor
Option for DRAM
Option for DRAM
1. drop it all together. 2. stay on the business as a niche
player. 3. license the technology to another
company 4. invest in DRAM capability at the 1-
meg level and commit to a low-margin business.
Option for DRAM
We have been trying to find a clever way
to stay in this business without betting
everything we have, but maybe there
is none.