Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Ba401 Intel Corporation
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Ba401 Intel Corporation

3,176

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
3,176
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
128
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Intel Corporation:The DRAM Decision<br />
  • 2. Introduction<br />
  • 3. Introduction<br />Since 1980,Intel had been losing its market position in dynamic random-access memories (DRAM) as the industry average selling price per chip had declined much more rapidly than the 20-30% / year which was customary.<br />
  • 4. Introduction<br />The Japanese had taken the lead in unit sales of the latest generation of DRAMs, the 256 kilobit(256K) version, but Intel was fighting back with next generation .It’s $50 million1 megabit.<br />
  • 5. Introduction<br />Still,a debate was growing within the company about whether Intel could continue to compete in the market of DRAMs.<br />The memory businesses had made Intel,and was still by far the largest market segment in integrated circuits.<br />
  • 6. Company Background<br />
  • 7. Company Background<br />Andy Grove,Bob Noyce and Gordon Moore<br />1969 Intel introduced first product ,a bipolar static random-access memory (SRAM) with 64-bit.<br />
  • 8. Company Background<br />Themetal-oxide-semiconductor (MOS) process promised to lead to increased transistor density.<br />MOS SRAM first commercially available,the 256-bit “1101”.<br />
  • 9. Development of DRAM<br />
  • 10. Development of DRAM<br />The first DRAM in 1970, the 1-kilobit “1103”.<br />While the SRAM required six MOS transistors per <br /> memory cell, the DRAM required only 3 transistors.<br /> With fewer elements in each memory cell, the 1103 <br /> contained more storage capacity in the same silicon<br /> area.<br />
  • 11. New DRAM Generations<br />
  • 12. New DRAM Generation<br />In 1972 DRAM (1103)converted the process from 2-inch to 3-inch. <br />Competitors entered the market for DRAM and began to erode Intel’s MOS process technology lead.<br />
  • 13. New DRAM Generation<br />The first DRAMs were not very user-friendly, and MOSTEK came out with a better product.<br />DRAM-4K was redesigned to include the internal Multiplexing logic.<br />
  • 14. New DRAM Generation<br />DRAM 16K “2116” and “2117”<br />In 1979 Intel introduced 5-volt-single-power-supply 16K DRAM “2118” ,greatly –simplified the user’s design and production tasks.<br />Intel’s competitor focus on DRAM 64K.<br />
  • 15. The Invention of the EPROM<br />
  • 16. The Invention of the EPROM<br />The EPROM (electrically programmable read-only memory) was invented by Dov Frohman.<br />It could be applied to a memory device, designed the first part,and fabricated the first device.<br />
  • 17. The Invention of the EPROM<br />Frohman was assigned to help understand a strange phenomenon which was causing reliability problems with the MOS process. <br />The problem with the<br /> MOS process involved <br /> the silicon gate structure.<br />
  • 18. The Invention of the EPROM<br /> Frohman saw that the phenomenon could be explained by the existence of an unintentional floating gate within the MOS device.<br />
  • 19. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />
  • 20. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />Ted Hoff invented the Microprocessor<br />Intel had been hired by the Japanese firm Busicom to design and build <br /> a set of chips for a number of <br /> different calculators.<br />
  • 21. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />Hoff was the architect of the chip set which Federico Faggin and a team of designers implemented. The set included four chips: <br /> 1.A central processing unit (CPU) called the 4004.<br />
  • 22. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />2.A read-only memory (ROM) with <br />custom instructions for <br />calculator operation.<br />3.A random-access memory (RAM).<br />4.A shift register for input/output buffering<br />
  • 23. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />Early 1970,Intel signed a $60,000 contract which gave Busicomproprietary rights to design.The CPU chip,4004, was eventually called a Microprocessor.<br />While Intel produced chips for Busicom which were successfully made into 100,000 calculators.<br />
  • 24. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />4004 – The 4004 was introduced in 1971.<br />It contained 2,300 MOS transistors <br /> and could execute 60,000 <br /> instructions per second.<br />
  • 25. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />8008- Intel developed 8-bit microprocessor which was introduced in 1972.<br />It was too slow and required 20 support chips for operation.<br />
  • 26. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />8080- Intel had created an NMOS process.it could execute 290,000 instructions per second,in addition, the 8080 required only six support chips for operation.<br />Intel was one year ahead of Motorola’s <br /> introduction or the 6800 and <br /> eventually took nearly the entire<br /> 8-bit market.<br />
  • 27. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br />Intel’s 16-bit ,the 8086, again was first to market by about one year when it was introduced in 1978.<br />Motorola introduced its own 16-bit ,<br /> the 68000,and appeared <br /> to be gaining momentum <br /> in the field.<br />
  • 28. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br /> Intel created a task force to attack the<br /> 68000.The project was called operation <br /> CRUSH.<br /> The CRUSH campaign emphasized Intel<br /> the most notable win was IBM’s decision <br /> to use the 8088 in their first PC.<br />
  • 29. The Invention of the Microprocessor<br /> The 80186 and 80286 were designed <br /> to increased integration, internal <br /> memory management ,and advanced <br /> software protection capability.<br /> Motorola- project CHECKMATE paralleled <br /> the earlier project CHUSH in concept.<br />
  • 30. Synergies Between EPROMs and Microprocessor<br />
  • 31. Synergies Between EPROMs and Microprocessor<br />EPROM better thanROM<br />- develop and reviseprogram. <br /> - could not effort the expense of a custom <br /> ROM could substitute off-the-shelf <br /> EPROMS.<br />
  • 32. Synergies Between EPROMs and Microprocessor<br />Intel had a competitive advantage in the EPROM <br /> - EPROM’s Intel had floating gate process. <br /> - Packaging, testing and reliability engineering.<br />
  • 33. Synergies Between EPROMs and Microprocessor<br />In1977 Intel introduced the 16K EPROM,2716,which was compatible<br /> with any microprocessor system.<br />In 1981 the EPROM market was challenged by several competitor.<br />
  • 34. Synergies Between EPROMs and Microprocessor<br /> Intel 64K EPROM“2764” met <br /> very aggressive yield goals <br /> and was again leading the <br /> world in EPROM.<br />
  • 35. Technology Development<br />
  • 36. Technology Development<br />3 groups of Intel Technology Development<br /> - DRAM<br /> - EPROM<br /> - Logic/SRAM<br />
  • 37. Technology Development Groups<br />
  • 38. Technology Development<br />The memory technology development group represented Intel’s best corporate resource for process development.<br />There is more of a connection between the designer and the process engineer.<br />
  • 39. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />
  • 40. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />By the end of 1984, logic product were the dominant source of Intel’s revenue.<br />The 80186 and 80286 were tremendously successful.<br />IBM PC purchased microprocessors either from Intel .<br />
  • 41. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />The only serious 16-bit architectural <br /> competitor was Motorola.<br />Intel had developed a microcontroller <br /> which integrated logic and memory to <br /> provide one-chip computer which <br /> were used to control everything<br /> from house fans to complex satellites.<br />
  • 42. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />Late 1985 was the successor to the 80268, the 32-bit 80386 microprocessor.<br />Motorola had developed a strong 32-bit product, the 68020,and was <br /> already in the marketplace <br /> winning designs.<br />
  • 43. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />The 80386 was scheduled to be one of the <br /> first product made with the new <br /> complementary MOS (CMOS) process.<br />
  • 44. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />In 1984, the Livermore group was developing two distinct processes for SRAM and microprocessor.<br />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.<br />
  • 45. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />The high-volume SRAM process required a complex polysilicon resistortechnology.<br />Eventually,they decided to drop the polysilicon resistor process and go with six-transitor (focus on 386).<br />
  • 46. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />Development the 386 with a double<br /> metalization process while as the same <br /> time to reducing line widths to 1.5µm <br /> (from 2µm) and implementing the CMOS process. <br />
  • 47. Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />Market and technology development which may have contributed to the loss of a competitive SRAM product.<br /><ul><li>SRAM received less attention for high-quality designer.
  • 48. They had a strong position in high-speed SRAM but they give it up without really making a conscious decision.</li></li></ul><li>Intel Product Line and Situation in Late 1984<br />The end of 1984 represented the same <br /> 30% of revenue that MSO had represented <br /> in 1973.<br /> While a great deal of system business <br /> comprised development products aimed at <br /> microprocessor and microcontroller users.<br />
  • 49. Manufacturing and Process Fungibility<br />
  • 50. Manufacturing and Process Fungibility<br />Intel took great pain to standartlize each facility as it expanded its manufacturing base<br />Each Intel chip would <br /> “look and taste” the same <br /> no matter which facility produced it<br />
  • 51. Manufacturing and Process Fungibility<br />As larger-diameter silicon wafers became available,Intel developed a process on one line and then transferred the technology to its other facility.<br />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.<br />
  • 52. Manufacturing and Process Fungibility<br />Around the time they were deciding to put up a fab in Israel or Japan<br /> - Israelhad tremendous government subsidies and good labor market.<br /> - Japan have a tapped the expertise <br /> of Japanese DRAM technology<br /> development,silicon maker and <br /> the infrastructure support.<br />
  • 53. Manufacturing and Process Fungibility<br />There are three main process areas : fabrication,assembly and test. <br />Fabrication is usually the bottleneck in times of tight capacity. – the good one was allocation.<br />The finance group thought of DRAM as a “low ROI,high beta” product line.<br />
  • 54. Environmental Forces<br />
  • 55. Environmental Forces- Competitors -<br />1.U.S. full line digital design and supply houses<br /> - Motorola: produced DRAM,<br /> microcontroller and microprocessor<br /> - National Semiconductor<br /> - Texas Instrument :microprocessor<br />
  • 56. Environmental Forces- Competitors -<br />2. AMD<br />3. Japan-Hitachi, Fujitsu, NEC, Toshiba<br /> - DRAM SRAM and EPROM. Served second source to U.S. microprocessormicrocontroller suppliers<br />
  • 57. DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position<br />
  • 58. DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position<br />By the end of 1984,Intel had lost significant market share in DRAM.The first real difficulties had come with the 64K generation.<br />Ron Whittier said that 64K version,<br /> the memory cell size was reduced,<br /> but the actual die size still had to be increased significantly.<br />
  • 59. DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position<br />The DRAM group calculated that the <br /> required die size would be too big.The 64K<br /> DRAM would be too slow to be acceptable,<br /> In order to boost yield,the group decided to <br /> build in redundancy at the chip level.<br />
  • 60. DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position<br />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.<br />
  • 61. DRAM Situation in 1984Loss of Leadership Position<br />TI ,engineers had concluded redundancy would not be economical and <br /> had deferred the discussion <br /> until the next generation.<br />
  • 62. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />
  • 63. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />NMOS toCMOS<br /> - CMOS circuit was more complex<br />- used in laptop<br />Intel produced CMOS 64K and 256K DRAM in a niche strategy.<br />
  • 64. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />In1983<br />Demand was in an upswing,and Intel seemed to have a techonology strategy which could lead to dominance in the1-meg DRAM.<br />
  • 65. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />In 1984<br /> CMOS DRAM price at about one and a half to two times the prevailing NMOS price.<br /> Niche strategy : differentiate the product from other offering, and sell it on features.<br />
  • 66. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />The price of NMOS DRAMs fell by 40% from<br /> May to August 1984.<br />By late 1984Intel was down to less than 4%<br />of the 256K market and had lost its position <br /> entirely in 64K DRAMs.<br />
  • 67. Attempts to Regain Leadership Position<br />In the future<br />The 1-meg DRAMwill be a technically <br /> outstanding product, at least one and a half <br /> to two years ahead any competition.<br />A technology transfer deal should with <br /> a Korean chip manufacturer.<br />New competitor<br />
  • 68. Option for DRAM<br />
  • 69. Option for DRAM<br />1. drop it all together.<br />2. stay on the business as a niche player.<br />3. license the technology to another company<br />4. invest in DRAM capability at the 1-meg level and commit to a low-margin business.<br />
  • 70. Option for DRAM<br />We have been trying to find a clever way<br /> to stay in this business without betting<br /> everything we have, but maybe there <br /> is none.<br />

×