Intel getting help from Commerce Secretary Raimondo as part of effort to spur U.S. production

[hist78]

"In a recent meeting with Raimondo, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger voiced frustration over the heavy reliance that U.S. companies have on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, the world's largest contract chipmaker."

"Raimondo followed that up with meetings with a handful of public market investors to reinforce the importance of chip manufacturing in the U.S., given the growing geopolitical risk around Taiwan, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Raimondo's goal was to urge shareholders in companies like Nvidia and Apple to recognize the economic benefits of having a U.S. foundry that can produce AI chips, the people said."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/12/intel-gets-boost-from-raimondo-effort-to-spur-us-chip-production.html

 

[Daniel Nenni]

"In a recent meeting with Raimondo, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger voiced frustration over the heavy reliance that U.S. companies have on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, the world's largest contract chipmaker."

"Raimondo followed that up with meetings with a handful of public market investors to reinforce the importance of chip manufacturing in the U.S., given the growing geopolitical risk around Taiwan, according to people familiar with the matter who asked not to be named because the discussions were private. Raimondo's goal was to urge shareholders in companies like Nvidia and Apple to recognize the economic benefits of having a U.S. foundry that can produce AI chips, the people said."

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/12/intel-gets-boost-from-raimondo-effort-to-spur-us-chip-production.html

Good luck with that. I can assure you Apple, Nvidia, and AMD all know that but it comes down to competitive silicon (PPAC). Will the US consumer pay more for US made silicon that is less competitive? Will investors accept lower margins and lower profits? I can assure you the answer will be a resounding no. Raimondo should know that, she is deflecting.

The Question I have for Raimondo is: Do you enjoy your job? Because if you do not help Intel your legacy will be muddied. I will rally the SemiWiki community and we will march! No semiconductors no peace!!!! Bring mud!!!!

 

[Maximus]

"In a recent meeting with Raimondo, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger voiced frustration over the heavy reliance that U.S. companies have on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing, the world's largest contract chipmaker."

I’m curious if Pat's remark about "U.S. companies' heavy reliance on TSMC" also includes companies starting with the letter "I."

After all these time, Pat is still voicing geopolitical risk to Raimondo, which really highlights that there's still no incentive for other companies to place orders with IFS.

 

[blueone]

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/09/12/intel-gets-boost-from-raimondo-effort-to-spur-us-chip-production.html

My favorite quote:

Intel’s foundry effort has been stunted by delays, according to sources with knowledge of the matter. TSMC is also building a foundry in Arizona and has faced similar issues.

Seriously? I can't think of anything TSMC's AZ delays and Intel's IFS challenges have in common. Their sources must be LLMs hallucinating.

 

[XYang2023]

Good luck with that. I can assure you Apple, Nvidia, and AMD all know that but it comes down to competitive silicon (PPAC). Will the US consumer pay more for US made silicon that is less competitive? Will investors accept lower margins and lower profits? I can assure you the answer will be a resounding no. Raimondo should know that, she is deflecting.

The Question I have for Raimondo is: Do you enjoy your job? Because if you do not help Intel your legacy will be muddied. I will rally the SemiWiki community and we will march! No semiconductors no peace!!!! Bring mud!!!!

Intel’s license to sell client processors to Huawei has been cancelled, which seems counter-intuitive.

Intel is attempting to provide assurance to American companies, but this move is unfair to its shareholders and product groups.

Given the significant capital already invested in process technologies and building capacities, they should allocate the funding accordingly.

 

[Mooredaddy]

Pat crying as usual

 

[Maximus]

Pat crying as usual

Hundreds of comments on the SemiWiki forum suggest that if Intel were to split, IFS wouldn't survive because its design group would likely choose TSMC for manufacturing. It’s hard to see how Pat can criticize other U.S. companies when his own design team also prefers TSMC.

While Samsung also struggles to secure orders for advanced nodes, we don’t see Samsung’s CEO publicly complaining about it.

 

[hist78]

Good luck with that. I can assure you Apple, Nvidia, and AMD all know that but it comes down to competitive silicon (PPAC). Will the US consumer pay more for US made silicon that is less competitive? Will investors accept lower margins and lower profits? I can assure you the answer will be a resounding no. Raimondo should know that, she is deflecting.

The Question I have for Raimondo is: Do you enjoy your job? Because if you do not help Intel your legacy will be muddied. I will rally the SemiWiki community and we will march! No semiconductors no peace!!!! Bring mud!!!!

IMHO, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is just doing her job. The mission of the Commerce Department is to "promote job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce and constitutional democracy, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development." When Intel is seriously wounded, it is her responsibility to provide help.

But what kind of help can the U.S. government provide? Intel is probably looking for a Chips Act 2 (aka the Intel Bailout Act). Will the Commerce Department, DoD, DoE, and the White House blindly agree to Intel's demands? Probably not.

At the very beginning, the primary goal of the predecessor to the Chips Act was to fund TSMC's Arizona project and, consequently, to encourage other semiconductor companies to invest and build manufacturing capacity on U.S. soil. The top four recipients of the Chips Act grants are Intel ($8.5 billion), TSMC ($6.6 billion), Samsung ($6.4 billion), and Micron ($6.14 billion). Although Intel was awarded the largest amount, most of the Chips Act money was actually awarded to non-Intel companies. Why is that?

I believe the U.S. government already knew that Intel was going to face enormous difficulties and that many building blocks, such as ecosystems, manufacturing technology, management effectiveness, financial viability, customer relationships, and trust, are not things that can be built solely with taxpayers' money.

While Pat Gelsinger is promoting supply chain diversity and resilience, the U.S. government is doing exactly the same. However, the government's plan assumes that if Intel is weak or in trouble, there will be other capable players, like TSMC, to fill the gaps and achieve the original policy goals.

Don't forget that Secretary Gina Raimondo herself was an experienced venture capitalist in New York and Rhode Island before entering politics.

 

[kevin01]

Hundreds of comments on the SemiWiki forum suggest that if Intel were to split, IFS wouldn't survive because its design group would likely choose TSMC for manufacturing. It’s hard to see how Pat can criticize other U.S. companies when his own design team also prefers TSMC.

While Samsung also struggles to secure orders for advanced nodes, we don’t see Samsung’s CEO publicly complaining about it.

I don't believe Pat G asked the secretary to pressure or persuade other companies to use IFS, becuase IFS does not really have enough capacity in leading edge process now. It is far more likely that the Intel CEO asked for a swift fund disbursement, and/or a CHIPs act ii.

Now that the secretary is likely to step down even if Kamala gets elected in Nov, if you were her, what would you do?

And let's say if Trump gets elected into the office, what will be his attitude on CHIPs act ii?

 

[siliconbruh999]

I don't believe Pat G asked the secretary to pressure or persuade other companies to use IFS, becuase IFS does not really have enough capacity in leading edge process now. It is far more likely that the Intel CEO asked for a swift fund disbursement, and/or a CHIPs act ii.

Now that the secretary is likely to step down even if Kamala gets elected in Nov, if you were her, what would you do?

And let's say if Trump gets elected into the office, what will be his attitude on CHIPs act ii?

I don't know but since his last comment on TSMC i don't think he likes them lol

 

[jim_22222]

IMHO, Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo is just doing her job. The mission of the Commerce Department is to "promote job creation and economic growth by ensuring fair trade, providing the data necessary to support commerce and constitutional democracy, and fostering innovation by setting standards and conducting foundational research and development." When Intel is seriously wounded, it is her responsibility to provide help.

But what kind of help can the U.S. government provide? Intel is probably looking for a Chips Act 2 (aka the Intel Bailout Act). Will the Commerce Department, DoD, DoE, and the White House blindly agree to Intel's demands? Probably not.

At the very beginning, the primary goal of the predecessor to the Chips Act was to fund TSMC's Arizona project and, consequently, to encourage other semiconductor companies to invest and build manufacturing capacity on U.S. soil. The top four recipients of the Chips Act grants are Intel ($8.5 billion), TSMC ($6.6 billion), Samsung ($6.4 billion), and Micron ($6.14 billion). Although Intel was awarded the largest amount, most of the Chips Act money was actually awarded to non-Intel companies. Why is that?

I believe the U.S. government already knew that Intel was going to face enormous difficulties and that many building blocks, such as ecosystems, manufacturing technology, management effectiveness, financial viability, customer relationships, and trust, are not things that can be built solely with taxpayers' money.

While Pat Gelsinger is promoting supply chain diversity and resilience, the U.S. government is doing exactly the same. However, the government's plan assumes that if Intel is weak or in trouble, there will be other capable players, like TSMC, to fill the gaps and achieve the original policy goals.

Don't forget that Secretary Gina Raimondo herself was an experienced venture capitalist in New York and Rhode Island before entering politics.

The investments of TSMC and Intel in Arizona reflect differing strategic approaches. Intel's investment can be seen as a demonstration of its commitment to maintaining and advancing its core technologies within the United States. As a company with a long-standing presence in the U.S., Intel's expansion in Arizona is aligned with its broader strategy to reinforce its leadership in semiconductor innovation and manufacturing on American soil.
In contrast, TSMC, while making a significant investment, does so with its primary base and most advanced technologies remaining in Taiwan. The technology TSMC is bringing to its Arizona facility is not leading-edge compared to what is being used in its Taiwan fabs. This suggests a more cautious approach, potentially positioning the U.S. operations to focus on more mature technologies, which may not require the same level of investment in cutting-edge research and development.
Furthermore, TSMC's U.S. investment could be seen as more vulnerable to scaling back or even closure should geopolitical or economic situations change. The company's primary allegiance to its operations in Taiwan might mean that the Arizona facility is more at risk of being affected by shifts in strategy or global semiconductor demand.
Overall, while both companies are contributing to the growth of semiconductor manufacturing in Arizona, the nature of their investments indicates different levels of strategic commitment and varying implications for the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem. Intel's investment is a reinforcement of its foundational presence in the U.S., while TSMC's is an extension of its global footprint, potentially more susceptible to external influences.

 

[osnium]

The investments of TSMC and Intel in Arizona reflect differing strategic approaches. Intel's investment can be seen as a demonstration of its commitment to maintaining and advancing its core technologies within the United States. As a company with a long-standing presence in the U.S., Intel's expansion in Arizona is aligned with its broader strategy to reinforce its leadership in semiconductor innovation and manufacturing on American soil.
In contrast, TSMC, while making a significant investment, does so with its primary base and most advanced technologies remaining in Taiwan. The technology TSMC is bringing to its Arizona facility is not leading-edge compared to what is being used in its Taiwan fabs. This suggests a more cautious approach, potentially positioning the U.S. operations to focus on more mature technologies, which may not require the same level of investment in cutting-edge research and development.
Furthermore, TSMC's U.S. investment could be seen as more vulnerable to scaling back or even closure should geopolitical or economic situations change. The company's primary allegiance to its operations in Taiwan might mean that the Arizona facility is more at risk of being affected by shifts in strategy or global semiconductor demand.
Overall, while both companies are contributing to the growth of semiconductor manufacturing in Arizona, the nature of their investments indicates different levels of strategic commitment and varying implications for the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem. Intel's investment is a reinforcement of its foundational presence in the U.S., while TSMC's is an extension of its global footprint, potentially more susceptible to external influences.

Would you say that Japan is doing something similar with giving funds to both TSMC and Rapidus? One can think of Intel being like the US equivalent of Rapidus in that both companies are new to the semiconductor foundry business and are trying to catch up to existing players like TSMC and Samsung. On the other hand, TSMC is the world leader with a proven track record.

 

[hist78]

Hundreds of comments on the SemiWiki forum suggest that if Intel were to split, IFS wouldn't survive because its design group would likely choose TSMC for manufacturing. It’s hard to see how Pat can criticize other U.S. companies when his own design team also prefers TSMC.

While Samsung also struggles to secure orders for advanced nodes, we don’t see Samsung’s CEO publicly complaining about it.

In some ways, Pat Gelsinger seems to have a limited ability to sense his surroundings and the world.

For example, during the peak of the pandemic, he informed the White House that Intel was considering utilizing a non-Intel idle fab in mainland China to help address the semiconductor shortage. The White House's response was: "You’ve got to be kidding!"

Under his leadership, Intel published a series of videos ridiculing Apple Mac computers. After that, he still had the audacity to say that Intel hopes Apple will one day become a customer of Intel Foundry.

Pat Gelsinger also likes to remind people how dangerously located TSMC and Taiwan are. But he seems to forget that Intel itself has fabs, R&D centers, and about 12,000 employees in Israel, a region with ongoing and serious conflict.

The list can go on for a while. In corporate America, Pat Gelsinger is a unique case.

 

[hist78]

The investments of TSMC and Intel in Arizona reflect differing strategic approaches. Intel's investment can be seen as a demonstration of its commitment to maintaining and advancing its core technologies within the United States. As a company with a long-standing presence in the U.S., Intel's expansion in Arizona is aligned with its broader strategy to reinforce its leadership in semiconductor innovation and manufacturing on American soil.
In contrast, TSMC, while making a significant investment, does so with its primary base and most advanced technologies remaining in Taiwan. The technology TSMC is bringing to its Arizona facility is not leading-edge compared to what is being used in its Taiwan fabs. This suggests a more cautious approach, potentially positioning the U.S. operations to focus on more mature technologies, which may not require the same level of investment in cutting-edge research and development.
Furthermore, TSMC's U.S. investment could be seen as more vulnerable to scaling back or even closure should geopolitical or economic situations change. The company's primary allegiance to its operations in Taiwan might mean that the Arizona facility is more at risk of being affected by shifts in strategy or global semiconductor demand.
Overall, while both companies are contributing to the growth of semiconductor manufacturing in Arizona, the nature of their investments indicates different levels of strategic commitment and varying implications for the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem. Intel's investment is a reinforcement of its foundational presence in the U.S., while TSMC's is an extension of its global footprint, potentially more susceptible to external influences.

The U.S. government, policymakers, and TSMC are likely more practical and programmatic than people think.

TSMC's major R&D centers, supply chain, ecosystem, and fabs are in Taiwan or close to Taiwan. If the U.S. government demands that TSMC replicate everything on U.S. soil within three years to produce the most advanced chips in Arizona, it would not only be far from realistic but would also pose many challenges and risks to both the U.S. government and TSMC. It would be reckless!

For example, ASML has 3,600 employees from 25 countries currently working in Taiwan to support TSMC and other semiconductor companies' operations. Several Japanese chemical manufacturers that provide materials to TSMC have their biggest or most advanced factories located in Taiwan rather than Japan. TSMC can build one or two fabs in Arizona, but will those partners and suppliers follow TSMC to Arizona in time?

The U.S. government has no intention to harm TSMC. Helping TSMC succeed, and in turn, rebuilding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing capability, is a prerequisite for achieving many other important policy goals.

TSMC's N5/N4 fab in Arizona will start high-volume manufacturing (HVM) in 2025. It's a good, solid, and more measured start for all the parties involved. The N3/N2 nodes are scheduled to start HVM in 2028. By the way, N5/N4 are definitely not mature nodes.

The trust and collaboration between the U.S. government and TSMC are strong and extensive. IMO, the mutual trust level is probably on par with or even stronger than the trust between the U.S. government and Intel nowadays.

 

[jim_22222]

Would you say that Japan is doing something similar with giving funds to both TSMC and Rapidus? One can think of Intel being like the US equivalent of Rapidus in that both companies are new to the semiconductor foundry business and are trying to catch up to existing players like TSMC and Samsung. On the other hand, TSMC is the world leader with a proven track record.

The query at hand cannot be distilled into a straightforward binary answer.
Such nuanced inquiries often present a challenge for clear-cut positions, which can be a source of confusion in American discourse. The public tends to gravitate towards more definitive stances, as exemplified by polarizing topics such as support or opposition to a figure like President Trump.
To draw an analogy, consider the consumption of candy. In moderation, certain types of candy might offer some benefits, perhaps in the form of energy or enjoyment. However, excessive intake can lead to adverse health effects. It is essential to be mindful of the impact that candy has on one's health. For individuals with diabetes, for instance, the consequences can be severe, potentially life-threatening. Conversely, for those facing certain nutritional deficiencies, candy—in this context, a source of quick glucose—might offer a temporary benefit.
The key is to assess the situation holistically and understand the broader implications of any action on an individual's well-being.

 

[siliconbruh999]

Would you say that Japan is doing something similar with giving funds to both TSMC and Rapidus? One can think of Intel being like the US equivalent of Rapidus in that both companies are new to the semiconductor foundry business and are trying to catch up to existing players like TSMC and Samsung. On the other hand, TSMC is the world leader with a proven track record.

Intel and rapidus are very different comparison one is a startup and is using licenced tech from IBM and one has been doing this since inception of ICs and has their own tech the difference is Rapidus is actually getting government support and backing of Japanese corporation while intel is Alone and it's own government doubts it

 

[jim_22222]

The U.S. government, policymakers, and TSMC are likely more practical and programmatic than people think.

TSMC's major R&D centers, supply chain, ecosystem, and fabs are in Taiwan or close to Taiwan. If the U.S. government demands that TSMC replicate everything on U.S. soil within three years to produce the most advanced chips in Arizona, it would not only be far from realistic but would also pose many challenges and risks to both the U.S. government and TSMC. It would be reckless!

For example, ASML has 3,600 employees from 25 countries currently working in Taiwan to support TSMC and other semiconductor companies' operations. Several Japanese chemical manufacturers that provide materials to TSMC have their biggest or most advanced factories located in Taiwan rather than Japan.

The U.S. government has no intention to harm TSMC. Helping TSMC succeed, and in turn, rebuilding U.S. semiconductor manufacturing capability, is a prerequisite for achieving many other important policy goals.

TSMC's N5/N4 fab in Arizona will start high-volume manufacturing (HVM) in 2025. It's a good, solid, and more measured start for all the parties involved. The N3/N2 nodes are scheduled to start HVM in 2028. By the way, N5/N4 are definitely not mature nodes.

The trust and collaboration between the U.S. government and TSMC are strong and extensive. IMO, the mutual trust level is probably on par with or even stronger than the trust between the U.S. government and Intel nowadays.

What Happened: Trump had earlier suggested that Taiwan should compensate the U.S. for defense, accusing the island nation of taking American semiconductor business.
"Taiwan, they took our business away. We should have stopped them. We should have taxed them. We should have tariffed them," said Trump,

so you think you are smarter than trump on this subject?

Trump Misunderstands Taiwan's Role In Chip Industry, Says Economy Minister: 'The President Has A Lot On His Plate' - Taiwan Semiconductor (NYSE:TSM)

Trump had earlier suggested that Taiwan should compensate the U.S. for defense, accusing the island nation of taking American semiconductor business.

www.benzinga.com

 

[hist78]

What Happened: Trump had earlier suggested that Taiwan should compensate the U.S. for defense, accusing the island nation of taking American semiconductor business.
"Taiwan, they took our business away. We should have stopped them. We should have taxed them. We should have tariffed them," said Trump,
so you think you are smarter than trump in this subject?

Trump Misunderstands Taiwan's Role In Chip Industry, Says Economy Minister: 'The President Has A Lot On His Plate' - Taiwan Semiconductor (NYSE:TSM)

Trump had earlier suggested that Taiwan should compensate the U.S. for defense, accusing the island nation of taking American semiconductor business.

www.benzinga.com

Yes, I am smarter than him on this subject.

Mr. Trump probably had no time or interest to talk to his own cabinet members (like Secretary Mike Pompeo) about TSMC and the semiconductor industry in general. He likely didn't have time or interest to speak with senators and representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties who worked hard to architect the Chips Act and bring TSMC to Arizona.

 

[kevin01]

Intel and rapidus are very different comparison one is a startup and is using licenced tech from IBM and one has been doing this since inception of ICs and has their own tech the difference is Rapidus is actually getting government support and backing of Japanese corporation while intel is Alone and it's own government doubts it

US government is quite bureaucratic, in the sense that its officials primarily don't want to get blamed in the future. So they are dragging their feet, adding a lot of conditions, instead of quickly and effectively doing things to achieve their policy goals.

 

[jim_22222]

Yes, I am smarter than him on this subject.

Mr. Trump probably had no time or interest to talk to his own cabinet members (like Secretary Mike Pompeo) about TSMC and the semiconductor industry in general. He likely didn't have time or interest to speak with senators and representatives from both the Republican and Democratic parties who worked hard to architect the Chips Act and bring TSMC to Arizona.

Trump's approach to such matters is rooted in his business acumen and a straightforward view of economic relationships, where he sees the imposition of tariffs as a means to correct what he considers imbalances in trade. His comments also imply a confidence in his ability to see through what he might describe as 'propaganda'—narratives that downplay the challenges posed by foreign competition—to focus on what he believes are the core economic realities facing the United States.

Former President Trump's comments reflect his business-oriented perspective on international trade and his belief in protecting American economic interests. As a successful businessman known for his assertive approach to negotiation, Trump often advocated for measures such as tariffs and taxes as tools to level the playing field and safeguard American businesses.
His statement suggests that he perceives Taiwan's success in certain industries, particularly in technology and manufacturing, as a competitive threat that could have been mitigated by more aggressive trade policies. Trump's perspective is that he has identified the crux of the issue—foreign competition impacting American industry—and believes that direct action should have been taken to address it.