Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/could-intel%E2%80%99s-foundry-be-worth-500-billion.24926/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] => 2031070
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

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

Could Intel’s Foundry Be Worth $500 Billion?

CapEx waste or capacity mismatches could explain why Intel’s revenue declined during a booming semiconductor cycle, even while the company claimed its own capacity was tight after spending $127.27 billion in CapEx.

But there’s another possibility (entirely legal): Intel may have been capitalizing expenses. By doing this, Intel can spread costs, costs that otherwise would have been fully expensed in the year they occurred, over eight years or more through depreciation or amortization. The benefit is that it boosts reported profit or reduces reported losses.

The drawback is that when the market needs Intel chips, Intel may not have enough effective, real capacity available. Capitalized expenses looks good on financial statements, but it doesn’t guarantee usable manufacturing capability for an IDM - Intel.
Intel capitalizes equipment related service contracts like everyone and building improvements. I am not sure of any "operating expenses" that are capitalized.

Just as an example: I would guess that If Intel did no new nodes in production (just R&D) and no new wafer volume expansion. the Capex budget would be 10-12B per year

I can tell you that Intel made some very problematic calls in 2024 and as a result has the wrong capacity in the wrong place at the wrong time
 
All my spreadsheets are forward looking. DZ specifically said IF Intel has to spend to ramp a customer for 14A it would HURT their chance for breakeven. Sometimes AI is not the best summary of what is actually happening LOL.

If there is tons of demand out there, they would have to start designing on Intel silicon today. Which means they would not have meaningful revenue until 2029? correct.

What is you estimate of Tesla demand as a percentage of total foundry TAM?

Please let me know what numbers would be a scenario for breakeven (other than a massive write off, which may be planned). What do you think will happen?
If the timeline delay is due to external demand for 14A, then that is a good problem to have. If so, IFS should be valued on a sum-of-the-parts basis, which appears to be reflected in analysts’ recent target prices.

CPU supply is constrained. Whatever Intel can deliver is being sold. Also LBT also said they pulled Coral Rapids forward.

Tesla could also help share the costs of foundry/process development
 
Also, does this growth imply that Intel’s products are becoming more competitive and starting to regain some market share?
Is Intel regaining market share? we should know this week

Question: If IFS gets 3 large customers. total revenue = 5B/year. and IFS has losses of 2-3B per year through 2030. [hypothetically] .... Is that a good thing? should they continue?
 
those are great questions. They were asked in a emotional manner at last earnings report by analysts

Our model based on some inputs from very wise people on this site and inputs from people who know the Intel fabs:

1) Intel 7 demand is vert high for both client and server. 85+ of Intels sales are Intel 7 or Older.
2) Intel took Intel 7 capacity down thinking people would move to 18A
3) 18A cannot be ramped full out and customers forced to 18A (or 3) due to financial constraints and negative margin impacts (Intel 7 has HIGHER margin than 3 or 18A).
4) People are not as interested in higher price points for Newest products from Intel. Intel continues to lose share so Intel has limitations.

The amount of wasted and stranded Capex by Intel from 2021-2024 is very high....

Hopefully they clear up some items this week.

I respect your opinions and appreciate your insights, but you and that analyst guy, Stacy, are the closest to a 'bean counter' type of person I know. No offense.

By your logic, Intel should always stay on Intel 7 and older, because those have high margins.

Fortunately, there are investors who have a bit longer time horizon.
 
Is Intel regaining market share? we should know this week

Question: If IFS gets 3 large customers. total revenue = 5B/year. and IFS has losses of 2-3B per year through 2030. [hypothetically] .... Is that a good thing? should they continue?
1. IDM/2.0: Margin stacking
2. LBT answered it in the video: 94% of advanced semi manufacturing in Taiwan. Hence, there is an embedded geo-risk call option.
 
Last edited:
I respect your opinions and appreciate your insights, but you and that analyst guy, Stacy, are the closest to a 'bean counter' type of person I know. No offense.

By your logic, Intel should always stay on Intel 7 and older, because those have high margins.

Fortunately, there are investors who have a bit longer time horizon.
Stacy’s previous analyses were not correct, as he discounted the importance of CPUs in those assessments.

When I was doing research last year, we found that LLMs without verification were less useful. This observation has also been reported in several other studies. Several times, I discussed this with my supervisor, arguing that most of this verification work is performed on the CPU. At the time, many people believed that Nvidia GPUs were the way, and the only way, even in academic environments. In any case, I just want to highlight that those analyses may not be accurate, as they contain inherent biases.
 
@XYang2023 ,
I know you stay close to what Intel is doing. Just saw this today.


Sounds like they are winding down some of their open source software efforts, mostly on non-core areas ? That makes sense as part of LBTs focus on the future of the core product areas. Any idea on what's still being focused on from an open source perspective ?
I think that makes sense. As AMD has more market cap, let AMD and others do it.

Intel is actively working on some key projects, like Pytorch, Triton, etc:
 
Intel is actively working on some key projects, like Pytorch, Triton, etc:
But even there, it seems like their focus has significantly narrowed, which is probably a good thing. Seems like FPGA and SSE AI support is going away. And for new work that wants to ride Intel’s roadmap rather than fight it:
For local / edge / client LLMs:
• Design around Core Ultra (with NPU + larger Xe iGPU) and assume OpenVINO / oneAPI support there.
For data‑center inference:
• Assume Xeon 6 + data center GPUs (Crescent Island, Jaguar Shores) as the “native” Intel path.
For software stack:
• Rely on oneAPI libraries + OpenVINO + Intel‑optimized TensorFlow/PyTorch, understanding that these are tested primarily on Intel CPUs/GPUs.
For data center inference acceleration
•. Leverage SambaNova plus data center GPUs plus Xeon 6 for disaggregated inference - haven’t seen the software for this yet.
 
But even there, it seems like their focus has significantly narrowed, which is probably a good thing. Seems like FPGA and SSE AI support is going away. And for new work that wants to ride Intel’s roadmap rather than fight it:
For local / edge / client LLMs:
• Design around Core Ultra (with NPU + larger Xe iGPU) and assume OpenVINO / oneAPI support there.
For data‑center inference:
• Assume Xeon 6 + data center GPUs (Crescent Island, Jaguar Shores) as the “native” Intel path.
For software stack:
• Rely on oneAPI libraries + OpenVINO + Intel‑optimized TensorFlow/PyTorch, understanding that these are tested primarily on Intel CPUs/GPUs.
For data center inference acceleration
•. Leverage SambaNova plus data center GPUs plus Xeon 6 for disaggregated inference - haven’t seen the software for this yet.
I think narrowing and focusing on its own products is the right approach. The current focus is LLM.
 
1777508324835.png
 
Intel (INTC) invested nearly five years making a promise that the market was skeptical about. The company dedicated over $100 billion to revamping its manufacturing capabilities, betting that it could once again manufacture the most sophisticated chips in the U.S.

For an extended period, the evidence suggested otherwise.

Intel Reports Quarterly Earnings


SANTA CLARA, CA - JANUARY 16: The Intel logo is displayed outside of the Intel headquarters on January 16, 2014 in Santa Clara, California. Intel will report fourth quarter earnings after the closing bell. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images).

Nodes were consistently delivered late. Yield objectives were not achieved. Customers shifted to TSMC. The stock plummeted. Intel’s Foundry division reported an operational deficit of approximately $7 billion in 2023, with further losses projected through 2024 and 2025.

However, in the past few quarters, that narrative is beginning to shift.

Intel’s 18A process node - its most advanced version to date - is currently in commercial manufacturing. The company has attracted business from prestigious external clients. Its manufacturing facilities based in the U.S. are increasingly regarded as strategically essential.

Remarkably, the stock has surged nearly 3x over the past year.

Four particular advancements account for these gains and explain why further growth is feasible.

The catalysts

Elon Musk’s Terafab initiative will leverage Intel’s design, manufacturing, and packaging capabilities for AI chips intended for Tesla’s (TSLA) robotics project and xAI’s data centers. Terafab represents Musk’s plan to construct a domestically sourced AI computing infrastructure - from chip design to data center installation -thereby decreasing reliance on TSMC and Nvidia. Intel Foundry’s involvement may serve as a validation of the 18A's production readiness. The fact that Tesla, a firm with the financial resources and engineering capabilities to establish its own fabs, opted for Intel reinforces foundry credibility.

Intel reacquired Apollo Global’s 49% ownership of its Ireland fabrication facility for $14.2 billion. The original sale in 2023 served as a financing method: Intel required funds to support its expansion without straining a balance sheet already absorbing billions in annual losses. Regaining ownership may signal that Intel’s peak cash outflow period has concluded.

U.S. government CHIPS Act funding has converted a portion of Intel's capital risk into a federal obligation. Intel has received or is in line to receive approximately $8.5 billion in direct grants plus access to roughly $11 billion in government loans, together covering a material share of the Arizona and Ohio fab costs. The market is now assigning Intel Foundry a floor valuation consistent with a regulated infrastructure asset, not a cyclical manufacturer.

Ongoing U.S. - China trade tensions have elevated Intel’s domestic manufacturing presence as a strategically significant U.S. industrial resource. TSMC is responsible for producing the majority of the world’s leading-edge logic at facilities primarily located in Taiwan, and there is no effective backup plan if access to these fabs is compromised. Intel is now the sole company that provides such an alternative. Admittedly, external customer revenue continues to be limited, and utilization rates have potential for growth. However, the asset is in place and operational, and no one else is creating a viable substitute. That position holds significant value.

Intel’s CPUs are also anticipated to experience considerable demand as the AI sector matures. The same could also apply to AMD (AMD).

The Development of a $500 Billion Enterprise?
It must be noted, Intel shares appear to be pricey, trading at approximately 120x predicted 2026 earnings and 60x projected 2027 earnings, with revenue growth anticipated to be below 2% this year and around 7% next year. The market is evaluating the likelihood of Intel Foundry attaining a high-utilization, high-margin stable state by 2028 and thereafter. Despite the elevated valuation, there may be meaningful upside potential.

Here’s some straightforward math.

The global semiconductor industry is expected to surpass $1.6 trillion by 2030, more than doubling from 2024 levels. If Intel successfully captures, for instance, 5% of that market share, it equates to approximately $80 billion in annual foundry revenue. With a net margin of 25%, significantly lower than TSMC’s current 45% margins, that results in $20 billion in profit. A 25x valuation on the foundry sector implies a possible worth of $500 billion for that division. That figure considerably exceeds Intel’s current $300 billion market capitalization.

Intel’s foundry venture appears attractive, but substantial risk remains. If you wish to implement high-conviction, data-driven strategies across your entire portfolio without managing daily execution on your own, we can assist. Our Trefis High Quality Portfolio (HQ) strategy has outperformed its market benchmark (a combination of the S&P 500, S&P mid-cap, and Russell 2000), delivering more than 105% returns since inception.



При этом важно понимать: сценарий роста Intel далеко не гарантирован. Конкуренция с TSMC и Samsung остаётся крайне жёсткой, а любые технологические задержки или проблемы с выходом годных чипов могут быстро изменить текущие ожидания рынка. История компании уже показывала, что даже лидер отрасли может надолго уступить позиции.

Кроме того, значительная часть текущего роста акций основана не на фактических результатах, а на ожиданиях будущей эффективности Foundry-направления. Это означает, что инвесторы фактически «ставят» на успех стратегии Intel, оценивая вероятность её реализации. В этом смысле рынок иногда начинает напоминать поведенческую модель, где решения принимаются не только на основе цифр, но и на уровне доверия к истории роста — примерно так же, как пользователи выбирают платформы вроде win casino лучшее онлайн казино, ориентируясь не только на шансы, но и на общий пользовательский опыт и уверенность в результате.
Intel price should be even lower I think
 
Back
Top