You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
In this video, we're recapping Intel's last year of downward spiral as it has failed to launch competitive CPU products, has delayed, slowed, and canceled fab construction projects, has swapped CEOs, and has laid off tens of thousands of employees around the world. This comes at a time when new Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan has been publicly challenged by the US Government and President, following his prior workplace's guilty plea for violation of export control laws (at Cadence).
damn, even Gamers Nexus is doing a report on Intel.
LBT has only been in the job for a few months and needs a bit more time before judgement can be passed.
I think he made the right call on the cost cuts and stopping the bleeding when it comes to investing in fabs, and I think he will eventually make the right call when it comes to spinning out the fabs as well. Intel's turnaround will take at least 5 years AFTER fabs are spun out.
LBT has only been in the job for a few months and needs a bit more time before judgement can be passed.
I think he made the right call on the cost cuts and stopping the bleeding when it comes to investing in fabs, and I think he will eventually make the right call when it comes to spinning out the fabs as well. Intel's turnaround will take at least 5 years AFTER fabs are spun out.
Agreed; this is premature sensationalism, but it definitely underscores the tech press really doesn't want Intel to fail. Which is a good thing for once
LBT has only been in the job for a few months and needs a bit more time before judgement can be passed.
I think he made the right call on the cost cuts and stopping the bleeding when it comes to investing in fabs, and I think he will eventually make the right call when it comes to spinning out the fabs as well. Intel's turnaround will take at least 5 years AFTER fabs are spun out.
If that's the plan why leave all that capital tied up? Pausing development is also far worse in terms of the national security risk that everyone is thumping on about than spinning out the fabs.
Question: if you believe becoming a foundry is not possible for Intel, and for example GF had a meaningful foundry business and still became a zombie business, is your opinion that the only viable option is for Intel to keep the fabs but stop leading edge node development? Basically go fab-lite with TSMC for leading edge and then internal manufacturing for packaging and trailing node use cases like non-compute chiplets? Because no one will buy the fabs from Intel except some PE firm maybe with 10+ years of wafer contracts with Intel Products…
Question: if you believe becoming a foundry is not possible for Intel, and for example GF had a meaningful foundry business and still became a zombie business, is your opinion that the only viable option is for Intel to keep the fabs but stop leading edge node development? Basically go fab-lite with TSMC for leading edge and then internal manufacturing for packaging and trailing node use cases like non-compute chiplets? Because no one will buy the fabs from Intel except some PE firm maybe with 10+ years of wafer contracts with Intel Products…
The worlds most Successful companies outsource manufacturing (even TSMC outsourced some of their manufacturing LOL)
The 2020 solution was to stop investing, keep small TD going and outsource manufacturing. If it worked, sell off manufacturing. Pat reversed that plan and spent tons on process development and manufacturing with the idea that customers would flock to Intel. They did not.
Now the problem is worse and the SCIP programs mortgaged Intels future.
Intel needs to spin it off eventually. bleed it out for 4 years. keep small TD group (Some smart guy once called this IBM2.0). If the government wants it, threaten to shut it down and force them to buy it. These options are being worked but there are no takers yet
not to derail the main discussion, while I agree with the comment regarding Virtuoso, LPT's main claim in cadence is to revitalize their digital and signoff franchise, getting cadence to be on par with Synopsys, the market share, share price, valuation ... all followed that.
My personal observation is that the success GF has experienced is based on better terms and pricing than TSMC. It was not based on superior technology. Same with Samsung and SMIC. This is the core of the NOT TSMC market. Good enough technology and better terms and pricing. This is what IFS can do today with funding from USG and big customers. Tomorrow, hopefully IFS can continue to push TSMC on innovation in process technology and packaging.
My personal observation is that the success GF has experienced is based on better terms and pricing than TSMC. It was not based on superior technology. Same with Samsung and SMIC. This is the core of the NOT TSMC market. Good enough technology and better terms and pricing. This is what IFS can do today with funding from USG and big customers. Tomorrow, hopefully IFS can continue to push TSMC on innovation in process technology and packaging.
I agree that any company who wants to be a second source needs to compete on better terms and pricing.
What happens in the IDM model is that external and internal customers are competing, there is always going to be a preference for the internal customer (even if there is a separate P&L, there is always going to be a certain amount of pressure to give preferential treatment to the internal customer), and there is never going to be a disagreement on terms with the internal customer. The natural tension and competitive pressure of not having an internal customer to fall back on will force the foundry to focus in a way that cannot be achieved by mandates, because winning becomes a matter of survival... it's already a matter of survival but people might think failure is 5-10 years away, but once IFS is stand alone they have to compete with a much higher sense of urgency.
Sense of urgency and focus are what's missing from Intel's culture.
Also the idea that government will bail them out also takes away from sense of urgency. The government needs to say to Intel... if you fail we will have TSMC build us fabs, we don't care if Intel fails. That will make sure they get it.
Also the idea that government will bail them out also takes away from sense of urgency. The government needs to say to Intel... if you fail we will have TSMC build us fabs, we don't care if Intel fails. That will make sure they get it.
And the US will forever have N-1 or N-2 nodes unless they strong arm TSMC to give up their literal crown jewel of national sovereignty. Do people seriously believe the Taiwanese government is going to give the US their leading edge tech? Move TSMC TD to US? No way…
The USG needs to make US companies invest in Intel Foundry somehow lest the US forever loses this skill and it exists only in Asia going forward.
Also the idea that government will bail them out also takes away from sense of urgency. The government needs to say to Intel... if you fail we will have TSMC build us fabs, we don't care if Intel fails. That will make sure they get it.
The current administration seems to be open to pushing US businesses to invest in US manufacturing. This can be another case, Qualcom, Broadcom, Microsoft, Marvell, Google, Amazon, etc... Do your patriotic duty and use Intel Foundry! God Bess America!
The current administration seems to be open to pushing US businesses to invest in US manufacturing. This can be another case, Qualcom, Broadcom, Microsoft, Marvell, Google, Amazon, etc... Do your patriotic duty and use Intel Foundry! God Bess America!
