Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-reports-second-quarter-2025-financial-results.23234/
        )

    [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] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Intel Reports Second-Quarter 2025 Financial Results

hist78

Well-known member
1753402420948.png


News Summary

Second-quarter revenue was $12.9 billion, flat year-over-year (YoY).

Second-quarter earnings (loss) per share (EPS) attributable to Intel was $(0.67); non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel was $(0.10).

$(0.45) impact to GAAP EPS attributable to Intel from $1.9 billion of restructuring charges; $(0.23) and $(0.20) impact to GAAP and non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel, respectively, from $800 million of impairment charges and $200 million in one-time period costs.

Forecasting third-quarter 2025 revenue of $12.6 billion to $13.6 billion; expecting third-quarter EPS attributable to Intel of $(0.24) and non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel of $0.00.

Taking actions to drive improved execution and efficiency; continue to target $17 billion of non-GAAP1 operating expenses in 2025 and $16 billion in 2026; $18 billion in gross capital expenditures for 2025.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
News Summary

Second-quarter revenue was $12.9 billion, flat year-over-year (YoY).
Second-quarter earnings (loss) per share (EPS) attributable to Intel was $(0.67); non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel was $(0.10).

$(0.45) impact to GAAP EPS attributable to Intel from $1.9 billion of restructuring charges; $(0.23) and $(0.20) impact to GAAP and non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel, respectively, from $800 million of impairment charges and $200 million in one-time period costs.

Forecasting third-quarter 2025 revenue of $12.6 billion to $13.6 billion; expecting third-quarter EPS attributable to Intel of $(0.24) and non-GAAP EPS attributable to Intel of $0.00.

Taking actions to drive improved execution and efficiency; continue to target $17 billion of non-GAAP1 operating expenses in 2025 and $16 billion in 2026; $18 billion in gross capital expenditures for 2025.


Pat Gelsinger, as the CEO, got almost four years to improve Intel. I think Mr. Lip-Bu Tan probably has about 2+ years to right the ship. The time is really running out.
 
Revenue about $1B above estimate ($11.9B vs. $12.8B) is a good sign. Earnings were down due to write-offs and severances. For a fairly fixed cost entity like Intel, revenue should be the priority.
 

"As part of the transformation of the company, we have begun implementing a more disciplined approach to the deployment of capital. The design, development, and manufacturing of leading-edge semiconductor manufacturing process technologies, or nodes, is risky and capital-intensive, and it takes years for capital investments to yield a return. Under our more disciplined approach, we intend to invest capital in future node development and additional or upgraded manufacturing facilities only where we have a clear line of sight to an acceptable return on that capital. We expect to release the first SKU of our first products manufactured on our new leading-edge node, Intel 18A, by the end of 2025, and continue to develop its derivative node, Intel 18A-P, designed for future Intel products and external customers.

We are focused on the continued development of Intel 14A, the next generation node beyond Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P, and on securing a significant external customer for such node. However, if we are unable to secure a significant external customer and meet important customer milestones for Intel 14A, we face the prospect that it will not be economical to develop and manufacture Intel 14A and successor leading-edge nodes on a go-forward basis. In such event, we may pause or discontinue our pursuit of Intel 14A and successor nodes and various of our manufacturing expansion projects.

While we continue to evaluate Intel 14A for use in future Intel products and our plan includes an initial product designed to utilize Intel 14A, at present we are maintaining the option to design future Intel products requiring nodes with performance beyond Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P to be produced internally or by an external foundry. If we were to discontinue development of Intel 14A and successor nodes, we expect that a majority of our products would continue to be manufactured in our own facilities utilizing our nodes up to Intel 18A-P through at least 2030. By focusing on our customers and delivering the best semiconductor products to the market, manufactured on the most appropriate internal or external node from a performance and cost perspective, and only deploying capital on new nodes and manufacturing facilities where we believe they will yield an attractive return, we believe we can improve the competitiveness of our products business, and the overall financial results for the company."
 
Revenue about $1B above estimate ($11.9B vs. $12.8B) is a good sign. Earnings were down due to write-offs and severances. For a fairly fixed cost entity like Intel, revenue should be the priority.
Non-gaap does not include write offs and severance. correct? Looks like the issue was 18A based on foundry finances and COS finances
 
you missed the best part. Intel will be at 75K employees at end of year.
Pat decided to prioritize and invest in foundry. the write off will cost Intel about 50B

LBT will focus on things Intel can win at.
Agreed; however insane it might sound not to have a second source to TSMC, if it's not making money, it has to go. Private investors are not in the business of subsidizing redundancy, national security etc. etc.
 
Agreed; however insane it might sound not to have a second source to TSMC, if it's not making money, it has to go. Private investors are not in the business of subsidizing redundancy, national security etc. etc.

Customers must fund this, not investors. If customers want a second source here in the United States Intel Foundry will succeed. If customers are comfortable with a single source out of Taiwan then so be it. I believe 75% of TSMC's business is from North America so it is in everyone's best interest for Intel Foundry to succeed.
 
This has already been published by other outlets:

Memo from Lip-Bu Tan July 25th 1:01pm to All Intel Employees:

To: All Employees
Subject: Steps in the Right Direction
From: LBT
Date/Time: July 24, 2025 at 1:01 pm PT
Team,
This afternoon, we reported our Q2 2025 results. We delivered revenue above the high end of our guidance, reflecting solid demand and execution across the business. I want to thank you all for the work you are doing to move the business forward.
I know the past few months have not been easy. We are making hard but necessary decisions to streamline the organization, drive greater efficiency and increase accountability at every level of the company. These actions are critical to strengthening our competitive position going forward, but it means we are saying goodbye to valued colleagues. To everyone who will be leaving Intel: Thank you, sincerely, for your contributions.
We are implementing a plan to reduce our headcount by approximately 15%, and we plan to end the year with a global workforce of about 75,000 employees as a result of workforce reductions and attrition. We completed a significant amount of our workforce reductions in Q2, streamlining the number of management layers by about 50% in the process. We are also on track to implement our return-to-office policy in September, with sites completing necessary improvements to operate at full capacity.
All of this is designed to drive organizational effectiveness and transform our culture. We will become a faster, more agile and more vibrant company. We will eliminate bureaucracy and empower engineers to innovate with greater speed and focus. And we will reduce our costs to enable investments in future growth. These are the building blocks of a new Intel – and we took important steps in the right direction in Q2.

Strategic Pillars of Growth​

The next step is uniting behind a clear strategy to regain market share and drive profitable long-term growth. I have taken a holistic view of the business and identified three critical areas of focus:

1. Become a More Financially Disciplined Foundry​

We will take a fundamentally different approach to building our foundry business. Over the past several years, the company invested too much, too soon – without adequate demand. In the process, our factory footprint became needlessly fragmented and underutilized. We must correct our course.
Going forward, we will follow a systematic approach to growing our factory footprint that’s fully aligned with the needs of our customers. We will be judicious and disciplined as we allocate capital – because that’s what great foundries do.
With that in mind, we have decided not to move forward with previously planned projects in Germany and Poland. We also plan to consolidate our assembly and test operations in Costa Rica to our larger sites in Vietnam and Malaysia. Costa Rica remains a large and important Intel site that’s home to key engineering teams and corporate functions.
We remain deeply committed to investing in the U.S., where we will apply the same level of financial discipline. To that end, we are further slowing construction in Ohio to ensure our spending is aligned with demand – while maintaining flexibility to accelerate based on new customer wins.
We are also sharpening the focus and financial discipline of our technology development investments. Job number one is ramping Intel 18A at scale. Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P are critical nodes for Intel Products and will drive meaningful wafer volumes well into the next decade – starting with Panther Lake later this year. As we ramp our own products in high volume and deliver for important Intel 18A customers like the U.S. government, we will be in a better position to attract external customers to this technology.
Looking further ahead, we’re developing Intel 14A as a foundry node from the ground up in close partnership with large external customers. This is essential to designing a process that meets specific customer requirements and enables us to address a broader segment of the market. Going forward, our investment in Intel 14A will be based on confirmed customer commitments. There are no more blank checks. Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution.

2. Revitalize the Intel x86 Ecosystem​

We will focus on growing share in our core client and server segments. To that end, I am working closely with our product and engineering teams to strengthen our roadmap.
In client, Panther Lake is our top priority as it will reinforce our strength in notebooks across consumer and enterprise. We also must drive continued progress on Nova Lake to close gaps in the high-end desktop space.
In data center, we are focused on regaining share as we ramp Granite Rapids while also improving our capabilities for hyperscale workloads. To support this, we are reintroducing simultaneous multi-threading (SMT). Moving away from SMT put us at a competitive disadvantage. Bringing it back will help us close performance gaps. We are also making good progress in our search for a new leader of our data center business, and I plan to share more on that this quarter.
Across client and data center, I’ve directed our teams to define next-generation product families with clean and simple architectures, better cost structures and simplified SKU stacks. In addition, I have instituted a policy where every major chip design is reviewed and approved by me before tape-out. This discipline will improve our execution and reduce development costs.

3. Refine our AI Strategy​

We will focus our AI efforts on developing a cohesive silicon, system and software stack strategy. In the past, we have approached AI with a traditional, silicon- and training-centric mindset. This needs to change – and we have already started incubating new capabilities while attracting new talent.
As we make this shift, we will concentrate our efforts on areas we can disrupt and differentiate, like inference and agentic AI. Our starting point will be emerging AI workloads – then we will work backward to design software, systems and silicon that enable the best customer outcomes. We have a lot of work underway, and will be sharing more about our plans in the coming months.

Owning Our Future​

The future of Intel is ours to build, but we have no time to waste. We must continue acting with urgency, discipline and focus in everything we do.
Q2 was the first step in the right direction, and our operational results give me confidence we have what it takes to win. We will meet this moment – by building a new Intel for a new era.
Thank you again for your commitment and hard work. I look forward to talking with you later today.

Lip-Bu
 
Last edited:
Customers must fund this, not investors. If customers want a second source here in the United States Intel Foundry will succeed. If customers are comfortable with a single source out of Taiwan then so be it. I believe 75% of TSMC's business is from North America so it is in everyone's best interest for Intel Foundry to succeed.
TSMC has cleverly out-manuevered Intel's US national interests play by moving into AZ.

We are focused on the continued development of Intel 14A, the next generation node beyond Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P, and on securing a significant external customer for such node. However, if we are unable to secure a significant external customer and meet important customer milestones for Intel 14A, we face the prospect that it will not be economical to develop and manufacture Intel 14A and successor leading-edge nodes on a go-forward basis. In such event, we may pause or discontinue our pursuit of Intel 14A and successor nodes and various of our manufacturing expansion projects.

While we continue to evaluate Intel 14A for use in future Intel products and our plan includes an initial product designed to utilize Intel 14A, at present we are maintaining the option to design future Intel products requiring nodes with performance beyond Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P to be produced internally or by an external foundry. If we were to discontinue development of Intel 14A and successor nodes, we expect that a majority of our products would continue to be manufactured in our own facilities utilizing our nodes up to Intel 18A-P through at least 2030. By focusing on our customers and delivering the best semiconductor products to the market, manufactured on the most appropriate internal or external node from a performance and cost perspective, and only deploying capital on new nodes and manufacturing facilities where we believe they will yield an attractive return, we believe we can improve the competitiveness of our products business, and the overall financial results for the company."
After this statement -- which is extremely transparent and necessary -- what customer is going to pump 100s of millions of dollars in pre-design / exploration work when it's now officially on record that the rug may be pulled? Is this effectively a death knell for Intel Foundry? which whale is going to White Knight 14A? Nvidia? Microsoft? Amazon? Qualcomm? Apple?

I don't know. This is the worst I've felt about Intel Foundry surviving to "escape velocity" as an actual profitable business.
 
Looking further ahead, we’re developing Intel 14A as a foundry node from the ground up in close partnership with large external customers. This is essential to designing a process that meets specific customer requirements and enables us to address a broader segment of the market. Going forward, our investment in Intel 14A will be based on confirmed customer commitments. There are no more blank checks. Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution.
So... they do have external customers, but just exploring and helping design the node but not committed to wafers (yet)? Yeesh, it's extremely precarious.

But, if there's any environment to drive employees to make the best node that 14A can possibly be, this type of communication would be it; being transparent with "we must execute 14A incredibly well or it's over" is motivating, IMO, as long as employees aren't working with 1 hand tied behind their by lack of investment and resources...
 
The unfortunate thing...that statement and the additional context provided in the "risks" section are unlikely to get discuss openly within the company. I applaud the external transparency but as to internal discussions history says not so much.
 
Customers must fund this, not investors. If customers want a second source here in the United States Intel Foundry will succeed. If customers are comfortable with a single source out of Taiwan then so be it. I believe 75% of TSMC's business is from North America so it is in everyone's best interest for Intel Foundry to succeed.
Nations should be funding this too. Depending on one company, literally in harm's way geographically and politically, for an indispensable technology which is incredibly difficult to develop is lunacy. No other company has the potential to actually be a TSMC second source as Intel does. TSMC AZ doesn't make me feel any better about the foundry supply chain. I think the US government and its allies need to order a box of clues from Amazon about what to do next.
 
Customers must fund this, not investors. If customers want a second source here in the United States Intel Foundry will succeed. If customers are comfortable with a single source out of Taiwan then so be it. I believe 75% of TSMC's business is from North America so it is in everyone's best interest for Intel Foundry

I don’t see customers shelling out 10s of billions to Intel to build them a fab when Intel has no track record of success when it comes to running a fab business, and also with Intel having an internal conflict of interest with its design business.

I think most customers are happy to talk about wanting a second source but talk is cheap. They won’t pay more to have a second source.
 
Imagine for a moment if China actually did attack Taiwan, and in the process make TSMC unviable for an indeterminate period of time. How long would it take to reconstitute the company? We should also note that many of the suppliers for the AZ fabs are in Taiwan. As is most of the advanced packaging capacity. So then the entire pipeline of products and support sold by companies like ASML, Applied Materials, Lam Research, KLA, etc, to TSMC goes away for the duration, along with a substantial portion of their revenue streams, so these supporting companies are at risk, probably have to cut costs dramatically, and the revenue of many fabless semi companies around the world eventually collapses. Trillions in market capitalization are lost. Because a large of group of countries representing perhaps $50 trillion or more of total GNP are unwilling to invest what's necessary to make a viable second source leading edge foundry? Which might cost what? $100 billion? $200 billion? So dumb, IMO. Worldwide defense spending outside of China is on the order of $2T per year. Trump is worried about our trade imbalance with our allies? He'd better spend his time worrying about a backup plan for Taiwan, and get started now.
 
I don’t see customers shelling out 10s of billions to Intel to build them a fab when Intel has no track record of success when it comes to running a fab business, and also with Intel having an internal conflict of interest with its design business.

I think most customers are happy to talk about wanting a second source but talk is cheap. They won’t pay more to have a second source.
I agree. It's just a matter of competition. If one company pays but its competitors won't, that puts the payer in an inferior financial position, and their competitors get to eventually benefit when the second source is viable. Government funding is a better answer.
 
Nations should be funding this too. Depending on one company, literally in harm's way geographically and politically, for an indispensable technology which is incredibly difficult to develop is lunacy. No other company has the potential to actually be a TSMC second source as Intel does. TSMC AZ doesn't make me feel any better about the foundry supply chain. I think the US government and its allies need to order a box of clues from Amazon about what to do next.
If I was another nation I would not be trying to subsidize an American company .... between trump 1, biden, trump 2..... the US is not friendly or easy to work with.... At any time US will ban shipments to you or tariff the crap out of your exports. :ROFLMAO: :LOL:

Simple question... Right now, who would you trust to deliver foundry wafers in the next 4 years. TSMC or Intel?
 

"The increase in capital cost at Intel 14A makes it clear that we need both Intel products and a meaningful external customer to drive acceptable returns on our deployed capital. And I will only invest when I’m confident those returns exist." -- LBT
If 14A doesnt get committed volume in the next 1 year. 18A is the last node. We have seen this story before and we know how it ends.
 
Back
Top