Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/why-nvda-should-buy-intc.20791/page-3
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

Why NVDA should buy INTC...

osnium said:
AMD was able to fool the Emiratis/Mubadala into funding GF. Given their unpleasant experience, no one will invest in Intel’s fabs at the moment so spinning them off is akin to shutting them down
Click to expand...
No one want to buy inefficient low performance used fabs. Except the government..... Fabs can be the Amtrack of semiconductors. "Amfab"

Intel is worth 2x+ current price once Intel outsources everything and Gives Amfab away (or pays someone to take it)

ON a Positive note: IF Intel can cut its OM for foundry to NEGATIVE 2B in 2025 (without fake accounting), I will say they can turn it around
 
MKWVentures said:
No one want to buy inefficient low performance used fabs. Except the government..... Fabs can be the Amtrack of semiconductors. "Amfab"

Intel is worth 2x+ current price once Intel outsources everything and Gives Amfab away (or pays someone to take it)

ON a Positive note: IF Intel can cut its OM for foundry to NEGATIVE 2B in 2025 (without fake accounting), I will say they can turn it around
Click to expand...
What would be required to cut OM to negative $2B in your opinion? More layoffs? Better fab utilization? New and different fab management? Better and harder working engineers?
 
osnium said:
What would be required to cut OM to negative $2B in your opinion? More layoffs? Better fab utilization? New and different fab management? Better and harder working engineers?
Click to expand...
Fully load current fabs (they are still releasing Intel7 SKUS which is good), Stop spending on new fabs no one wants yet (Ohio, Fab 62). Ramp 18A in Oregon only until you can fill Fab 52. you could also ramp Fab52 fully but based on on the order and timing for Intel processors, that seems too late (Intel would have had to cancel TSMC products and replace them with Intel products that cost even more)

As with everything, there are tradeoffs. Pat spent big on new fabs to show Intel was serious about foundry. Intel was serious but it didnt work out. Now Intel still doesnt have orders to even fill one fab on 18A/20A in 2026. If it leaks out that Fab62 and Ohio are mothballed, that doesnt help Intels foundry strategy and hype.

Lets see what happens on Arrow Lake announcements to see if Intel is on track for Process technology and manufacturing and we might know more about the plans.

I have a list of changes that Intel needs to make in order to become efficient (Zinsner has similer list). But I can show why those are not easy or quick fixes like Intel thinks they are. Naga knows far more than me on this and has a challenge to implement them. All have risky trade offs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top