Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/craig-barrett-intel-is-back%E2%80%94stop-talking-about-breaking-it-up.22187/
        )

    [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
)

Craig Barrett: Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up

Y

Yunus

Member
"The moment you announce you are splitting up Intel you’ll lose the momentum and resources you need to succeed. In my opinion, a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years."

fortune.com

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.
fortune.com fortune.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yunus said:
fortune.com

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.
fortune.com fortune.com

"The moment you announce you are splitting up Intel you’ll lose the momentum and resources you need to succeed. In my opinion, a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years."
Click to expand...
Aptly handled? I agree that breaking up Intel is not the best idea for years yet, but does Craig agree with the reckless fab spending with no customers? Or the lack of a leadership AI chip strategy? No leadership networking strategy? (Sorry, Intel, vRAN isn't anything like enough.)

Firing most of the BoD sounds like a good idea, but one that's been posted here so many times it sounds like an infinite loop.
 
blueone said:
Aptly handled? I agree that breaking up Intel is not the best idea for years yet, but does Craig agree with the reckless fab spending with no customers? Or the lack of a leadership AI chip strategy? No leadership networking strategy? (Sorry, Intel, vRAN isn't anything like enough.)

Firing most of the BoD sounds like a good idea, but one that's been posted here so many times it sounds like an infinite loop.
Click to expand...
A younger individual who can navigate from their current state and has the drive to compete with Nvidia would be a better choice.
 
I agree to a point but Craig knows nothing about the foundry business.

"So, let’s stop talking about breaking up Intel as the only solution. Instead let’s talk about Intel eating into TSMC’s current high-end foundry business on the basis of Intel’s technology resurgence."

This is absolutely absurd. The ecosystem is just as important and Intel Foundry is still a work in progress. The biggest challenge I see for Intel to compete with TSMC's leading edge customers is relationships. TSMC has worked with these customers for many years and is a trusted foundry based on setting customer expectations and exceeding them. And now with CC Wei at the helm TSMC has never been more competitive and customer centric. The TSMC customer relationships have never been stronger before CC Wei took the helm. This is my first hand experience working in the trenches not some click bait media nonsense.

Intel Foundry can make a lot of promises but the big customers are risking billions of dollars in choosing a foundry partner. I think Intel Foundry will get a handful of key 18A design wins as a trust exercise. If Intel properly sets expectations and exceeds them more customers will come for 14A. The semiconductor industry needs a second source now more than ever before so this "Not TSMC" business is Intel's to lose. But from what I hear in the trenches Samsung Foundry will not go quietly so Intel Foundry has its work cut out for them. My opinion.
 
My opinion is, it will take 10-15 years to build a trade as a Foundry. Intel probably doesn't have that long. I think the real question is, will there be a #2? Or does everything move over to TSMC in the next few years, Intel and Samsung Foundry virtually disappear, and then China becomes #1 when they figure out EUV. I would imagine they can do it in 5 years. The AI gap closed fast didn't it, why would EUV be different?

I do agree with Craig that they're blundering, strategically, with breaking up Intel. But I think the due diligence will show that and it'll go away, as he suggests. There's no white knight or silver bullet fix.
 
I think Intel is 5 years minimum away from eating TSMCs but they are not away from Technological standpoint.
They needs to first bring their own wafers home before crying foundry
 
blueone said:
Aptly handled? I agree that breaking up Intel is not the best idea for years yet, but does Craig agree with the reckless fab spending with no customers? Or the lack of a leadership AI chip strategy? No leadership networking strategy? (Sorry, Intel, vRAN isn't anything like enough.)

Firing most of the BoD sounds like a good idea, but one that's been posted here so many times it sounds like an infinite loop.
Click to expand...
You don't want a situation where you have customer, but no fab shell. As PG stated multiple time, you need fab shell, and that thing has a long lead time.
 
siliconbruh999 said:
I think Intel is 5 years minimum away from eating TSMCs but they are not away from Technological standpoint.
They needs to first bring their own wafers home before crying foundry
Click to expand...

Nobody is going to eat TSMC lunch but the world needs competition on leading edge. You think TSMC would have gone to Nanosheet or offered out A16 as aggressively if not for Samsung and Intel?

Competition at leading edge to drive customers choice as well as drive innovation. Where would the world be if all we had was Boeing and Airbus didn’t drive things? Without Airbus we’d still be flying g 747, 757 and 737, LOL

Panther Lake and subsequent generations will put IFS on the path as they bring home more wafers which will change the finances. Intel 4/3 still hasn’t scale hopefully that changes as they bring all the TSMC wafers back. Bob Swan simply was a bean counter doing all they know and the current Board of Directors are at best D grade in governance if not an F grade
 
BruceA said:
Nobody is going to eat TSMC lunch but the world needs competition on leading edge. You think TSMC would have gone to Nanosheet or offered out A16 as aggressively if not for Samsung and Intel?

Competition at leading edge to drive customers choice as well as drive innovation. Where would the world be if all we had was Boeing and Airbus didn’t drive things? Without Airbus we’d still be flying g 747, 757 and 737, LOL

Panther Lake and subsequent generations will put IFS on the path as they bring home more wafers which will change the finances. Intel 4/3 still hasn’t scale hopefully that changes as they bring all the TSMC wafers back. Bob Swan simply was a bean counter doing all they know and the current Board of Directors are at best D grade in governance if not an F grade
Click to expand...
15 years no one thought Intel would be in such a bad spot time can change but 5 years is the minimum for Intel to even get some good commitments.
 
meo9725 said:
Mr. Barrett already had its chance. Intel stock slid from $74 in 2000 to $26 when he was asked to leave.
Click to expand...
Barrett was never "asked to leave" to my knowledge. At age 66, in 2005, he was succeeded as CEO by Otellini, but Barrett became BoD chair after being CEO, a position he held until 2009. A brilliant guy in my experience, but proof if it ever existed that leading a chip fabrication company and leading a chip design company are two completely different skill sets.
 
blueone said:
Barrett was never "asked to leave" to my knowledge. At age 66, in 2005, he was succeeded as CEO by Otellini, but Barrett became BoD chair after being CEO, a position he held until 2009. A brilliant guy in my experience, but proof if it ever existed that leading a chip fabrication company and leading a chip design company are two completely different skill sets.
Click to expand...
He was indeed very good as a chief of manufacturing operations. Not so much as the CEO.

He lacked leadership skills required to be an outstanding CEO, like Grove, Jobs, Bezos, Huang. Almost none of his acquisitions panned out. He got totally caught in the pivot of 2000/2001 when Intel stock spiraled down from $74 down to $13. For example, Intel's co-traveler Microsoft dropped "modestly" from $58 down to about $21.
 
Daniel Nenni said:
I agree to a point but Craig knows nothing about the foundry business.

"So, let’s stop talking about breaking up Intel as the only solution. Instead let’s talk about Intel eating into TSMC’s current high-end foundry business on the basis of Intel’s technology resurgence."

This is absolutely absurd. The ecosystem is just as important and Intel Foundry is still a work in progress. The biggest challenge I see for Intel to compete with TSMC's leading edge customers is relationships. TSMC has worked with these customers for many years and is a trusted foundry based on setting customer expectations and exceeding them. And now with CC Wei at the helm TSMC has never been more competitive and customer centric. The TSMC customer relationships have never been stronger before CC Wei took the helm. This is my first hand experience working in the trenches not some click bait media nonsense.

Intel Foundry can make a lot of promises but the big customers are risking billions of dollars in choosing a foundry partner. I think Intel Foundry will get a handful of key 18A design wins as a trust exercise. If Intel properly sets expectations and exceeds them more customers will come for 14A. The semiconductor industry needs a second source now more than ever before so this "Not TSMC" business is Intel's to lose. But from what I hear in the trenches Samsung Foundry will not go quietly so Intel Foundry has its work cut out for them. My opinion.
Click to expand...
You can have all the customer relationships you want, but if MSFT is able to build a superior ASIC on 18A, don't you think Amazon and Google will quickly follow? Otherwise they get left behind. Amazon already dipped its toe in, likely because it sees this as a possible scenario. Understand there is debate about whether 18A is superior to 2nm -- I believe there is a high probability that 18A is, and is the node when Intel forges ahead. If that is correct (and Craig Barrett apparently agrees, I'd trust him over the other four board members who say in their op-ed Intel is "at least a generation behind") then there is no reason why Intel can't onboard a few high-volume HPC customers. AMZN and GOOG are behind NVidia in line anyway at TSMC for capacity, so all the more reason to move over. Then there's TSMC jacking up 2nm wafer prices to $30k. All plays in Intel's favor. It would be stupid to break the company up right before 18A shows what it can do.
 
meo9725 said:
He was indeed very good as a chief of manufacturing operations. Not so much as the CEO.

He lacked leadership skills required to be an outstanding CEO, like Grove, Jobs, Bezos, Huang. Almost none of his acquisitions panned out. He got totally caught in the pivot of 2000/2001 when Intel stock spiraled down from $74 down to $13. For example, Intel's co-traveler Microsoft dropped "modestly" from $58 down to about $21.
Click to expand...
Find me a tech stock that did well in the medium-term starting from the top of the dot com bubble beginning of 2000.
 
Bdubs82 said:
You can have all the customer relationships you want, but if MSFT is able to build a superior ASIC on 18A, don't you think Amazon and Google will quickly follow? Otherwise they get left behind. Amazon already dipped its toe in, likely because it sees this as a possible scenario. Understand there is debate about whether 18A is superior to 2nm -- I believe there is a high probability that 18A is, and is the node when Intel forges ahead. If that is correct (and Craig Barrett apparently agrees, I'd trust him over the other four board members who say in their op-ed Intel is "at least a generation behind") then there is no reason why Intel can't onboard a few high-volume HPC customers. AMZN and GOOG are behind NVidia in line anyway at TSMC for capacity, so all the more reason to move over. Then there's TSMC jacking up 2nm wafer prices to $30k. All plays in Intel's favor. It would be stupid to break the company up right before 18A shows what it can do.
Click to expand...

"why Intel can't onboard a few high-volume HPC customers."

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are large scale cloud service providers, but we need to assess their foundry demand accordingly.

For example, if Amazon requires Intel Foundry to manufacture an in-house designed chip, let's assume each 12-inch wafer can produce 300 units of such a chip, and Amazon needs 2 million chips per year for three years. Theoretically, this would translate to an annual order of 6,667 12-inch wafers for Intel Foundry.

For a modern leading-edge fab, a monthly output capacity of 30,000 to 50,000 or more 12-inch wafers is common. This means that the annual demand of 6,667 wafers may not necessarily be considered "high volume" as some might think.

In my view, orders from Apple, AMD, Nvidia, MediaTek, and Qualcomm represent the true high volume orders.
 
hist78 said:
"why Intel can't onboard a few high-volume HPC customers."

Amazon, Google, and Microsoft are large scale cloud service providers, but we need to assess their foundry demand accordingly.

For example, if Amazon requires Intel Foundry to manufacture an in-house designed chip, let's assume each 12-inch wafer can produce 300 units of such a chip, and Amazon needs 2 million chips per year for three years. Theoretically, this would translate to an annual order of 6,667 12-inch wafers for Intel Foundry.

For a modern leading-edge fab, a monthly output capacity of 30,000 to 50,000 or more 12-inch wafers is common. This means that the annual demand of 6,667 wafers may not necessarily be considered "high volume" as some might think.

In my view, orders from Apple, AMD, Nvidia, MediaTek, and Qualcomm represent the true high volume orders.
Click to expand...
Fair point, but if you think Nvidia qualifies then I don't see why Amazon, Microsoft, and Google wouldn't also qualify, given that all three appear to gravitating to custom chips at both the CPU, XPU, and DPU level. Broadcom's massive 2027 guidance appears to make the case for hypergrowth in custom ASICs going forward.

I understand how Gelsinger could have overestimated external customer demand but I'm not sure it could have been by THAT much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top