Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-bit-off-more-than-it-could-chew-with-18a-process-node.25240/
        )

    [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
)

Intel bit off more than it could chew with 18A process node

Fred Chen

Moderator
1780672474952.png


CFO Zinsner insists the troubled node was a one-off as 14A stays on track
Published Wed 03 Jun 2026 // 16:20 UTC


Intel is keen to reassure investors that its troubles with the 18A manufacturing process were a one-off, and that it is better positioned to capitalize on what it expects will be growing demand for CPUs used in AI inference workloads.

Speaking at the Bank of America 2026 Global Technology Conference in San Francisco, Chipzilla’s chief financial officer David Zinsner claimed that the firm simply bit off more than it could chew in trying to move too fast with the new process node.

“I would say it this way, I don't know, early last year, I think the challenge around 18A was two things. One, we tried to do too much at once. And it took a while to get that settled. And I think second is, we were trying to play performance and yield and trying to improve both at the same time. It was like trying to fly the plane and fix the wing at the same time, basically,” he said.

Intel 18A - its angstrom-era process, marketed as a 1.8 nm-class node - was initially expected to be production-ready by late 2024 and ramp toward volume manufacturing in 2025. However, the technology ran into delays, with the first products built on 18A not arriving until Intel unveiled its Core Ultra Series 3 CPUs back in January this year.

Zinsner said that after Pat Gelsinger's departure, when he and Michelle Johnston Holthaus took over as interim co-CEOs, he put Intel global operations chief Naga Chandrasekaran on the case, “and then they really just focused on first, stabilizing performance. And so they stabilize performance. Then once you've got your performance stabilized, then all you do is you work yield every month,” he explained.

“The second thing that we did when Lip-Bu joined is we really opened up our data to our vendors to really help us learn things that we could do to improve yield and that made a dramatic difference,” Zinsner added.

This meant overcoming some cultural resistance to sharing data, he claimed, but then “Once we fixed that, we really started to get some feedback into what we could do to improve. And then it was just our team just grinding it out every month.”

Intel’s goal is now to get to yields that generate great margins, and the firm is now ahead of its schedule to get there by the end of 2027, he claimed.

And when it comes to the next-generation 14A process, the one that Intel hopes will allow it to set up its foundry division as a contract manufacturing business as well as making its own chips, Zinsner was keen to stress that the program remains on track.

“Now I would just say we have a more aggressive plan for 14A than 18A. When you look at kind of yield and performance measures at this point in time and maturity of 14A compared to that same moment in time for 18A, we're ahead,” he claimed.

“All the stuff that I said that we bit off more than we can chew on 18A, and it really took some time. Now it's just a little bit of a rinse and repeat. I mean it will be a lot easier to do 14A because it's just using a lot of the gate-all-around and backside power and so forth that we implemented in 18A,” Zinsner explained.

As Intel chief Lip-Bu Tan explained a couple of weeks ago, the firm is now anticipating increasing demand for CPUs as the focus of the AI craze turns from training to inferencing work.

Zinsner said that it is hard to judge exactly how big the growth in CPU demand would get, but “I think it's going to be a big market.”

“If you just stamped something and called it a CPU right now, it probably would sell. So in the near term, it's all about supply,” he claimed.

“I mean we've got enough demand out there that if we can do a good job executing on the ramping of supply, we should have no issue with growing our revenue meaningfully in the datacenter space,” he added.

Zinsner also said that Intel was looking to draw up more long-term agreements with customers in the future.

“So we're locking in a price, for sure. We're locking in a volume commitment. And then that enables us to do a better job of planning out our capacity and making sure when we're investing in capacity, we're going to see customers take that supply when it comes off the line,” he said.

Intel this week unveiled its Clearwater Forest Xeon chips, along with more details of its upcoming Diamond Rapids Xeons, at the Computex trade show in Taiwan. ®


 
Zinsners commentary is always awsome and spot on. He and LBT really understand what Intel's cultural problems were and I hear that he has addressed them.

I agree Intel is heading in the right direction -- a lot of beef there to show it, too. Though "18A was a one-off" seems a far reach -- Intel 10nm, Intel 4, and Intel 20A were all fairly troubled nodes, too :)
 
I agree Intel is heading in the right direction -- a lot of beef there to show it, too. Though "18A was a one-off" seems a far reach -- Intel 10nm, Intel 4, and Intel 20A were all fairly troubled nodes, too :)
Nothing beat 10nm for a troubled node 20A would save them $$$ so was worth it to cancel. 10nm(Intel 7 is still giving them financial trouble).
 
Last edited:
“The second thing that we did when Lip-Bu joined is we really opened up our data to our vendors to really help us learn things that we could do to improve yield and that made a dramatic difference,” Zinsner added.

This meant overcoming some cultural resistance to sharing data, he claimed, but then “Once we fixed that, we really started to get some feedback into what we could do to improve. And then it was just our team just grinding it out every month.”
A welcome change in culture.
 
and Intel 20A were all fairly troubled nodes

According to the September 4, 2024 Intel announcement, Intel 18A development was doing well and 20A becomes unnecessary.

Source: https://newsroom.intel.com/opinion/continued-momentum-for-intel-18a

"Since releasing the Intel 18A Process Design Kit (PDK) 1.0 in July, we have seen positive response across our ecosystem and are encouraged by what we’re seeing from Intel 18A in the fab. It’s powered on and booting on operating systems, healthy, and yielding well – and we remain on track for launch in 2025.

One of the benefits of our early success on Intel 18A is that it enables us to shift engineering resources from Intel 20A earlier than expected as we near completion of our five-nodes-in-four-years plan. With this decision, the Arrow Lake processor family will be built primarily using external partners and packaged by Intel Foundry.

The journey to Intel 18A has been built on the groundwork laid by Intel 20A.

It enabled us to explore and refine new techniques, materials and transistor architectures that are crucial for advancing Moore's Law. With Intel 20A, we successfully integrated both RibbonFET gate-all-around transistor architecture and PowerVia backside power delivery for the first time, and these learnings have directly informed the first commercial implementation of both technologies in Intel 18A. This points to the iterative nature of semiconductor innovation, and we’re excited to bring these advancements to all Intel Foundry customers.

Focusing resources on Intel 18A also helps us optimize our engineering investments. When we set out to build Intel 20A, we anticipated lessons learned on Intel 20A yield quality would be part of the bridge to Intel 18A. But with current Intel 18A defect density already at D0 <0.40, the economics are right for us to make the transition now."


Obviously, the above Intel statement has credibility issues. Do you think Intel is really different this time under the new management and actually more credible?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top