Intel Employees "Very Optimistic"

[hist78]

Very interesting discussion. I wonder what all the Intel Employess are thinking going over all these discussion threads and arguments in SemiWiki? (Artificer60, Dan: any feedback from your Intel contacts?)

Suppose the wafer price would be say 45 k$, this order would bring in 3704*45 = 167 M$ / year, right?

Not sure if this changes the needle sufficiently at Intel Foundry even if they produce this at 40% Foundry gross margin?

I have no idea about wafer prices, but here some "rumors":
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...ent-increase-in-pricing-over-prior-gen-wafers

Follow your thoughts, 10 such orders from external non-Intel customers will potentially bring in $1.67 billion revenue annually.

Considering the large Capex required, 40% gross profit margin and Intel's annual revenue ($53.1 billion for 2024), I would say this type of Intel Foundry sales is really a high cost and high risk venture. Is it too small to be justified?

 

[XYang2023]

Very interesting discussion. I wonder what all the Intel Employess are thinking going over all these discussion threads and arguments in SemiWiki? (Artificer60, Dan: any feedback from your Intel contacts?)

Suppose the wafer price would be say 45 k$, this order would bring in 3704*45 = 167 M$ / year, right?

Not sure if this changes the needle sufficiently at Intel Foundry even if they produce this at 40% Foundry gross margin?

I have no idea about wafer prices, but here some "rumors":
https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-i...ent-increase-in-pricing-over-prior-gen-wafers

Time code: 22:25

 

[XYang2023]

Which would you rather have for the best combination of power efficiency and capability? An Arm v9 core or an x86 Intel efficiency core?

For laptops, I prefer x86 since Lunar Lake is already good enough. As for servers, I'm not familiar, so I can't comment. If I would need to choose myself, to be safe, I would go for x86.

 

[user nl]

Follow your thoughts, 10 such orders from external non-Intel customers will potentially bring in $1.67 billion revenue annually.

Considering the large Capex required, 40% gross profit margin and Intel's annual revenue ($53.1 billion for 2024), I would say this type of Intel Foundry sales is really a high cost and high risk venture. Is it too small to be justified?

Hist78: here some history from 2010 where some people (academic?) predicted @ ISSCC that Fabs would cost 100 B$ sometime in the future. It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future. But somehow this unknown academic seems to have had some crystal ball looking some 10-15 years into the future.

It seems to me that TSMC, from their actions in the past and present suggesting that GigaFabs may be the only feasible way to operate EUV-fabs, is not too far off with it's price tag of 165 B$ for GigaFab Arizona to be established sometime around 2030-2035? Say they'll need some 10-15 years (2020-2035) period to establish such an economical US EUV Gigafab in Arizona.

This seems to be the Taiwan-US executive top that aims to bring TSMC-GigaFab-Arizona to blossom:
On April 1, 2024, TSMC announced that Rick Cassidy, CEO and president of TSMC Arizona, would be promoted to chairman. Y.L. Wang, vice resident for Fab Operations I, took on the role of CEO, while Brian Harrison assumed the position of president.
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20240920PD209/tsmc-arizona-president-ic-manufacturing-production.html

There must be some good long-term strategists at TSMC@Taiwan, besides excellent CEOs like Morris Chang and CC Wei.

History: https://www.chiphistory.org/844-semiconductor-wafer-fab-cost-escalation-a-threat

 

[blueone]

For laptops, I prefer x86 since Lunar Lake is already good enough. As for servers, I'm not familiar, so I can't comment. If I would need to choose myself, to be safe, I would go for x86.

I agree about clients, especially Lunar Lake. Regarding servers, for Amazon's Graviton, for example, x86 compatibility is not a factor (Amazon has complete control over the software stacks they use Gravitons for internally), Arm cores are more power efficient, and Arm's IP to make chip development easier is excellent. I've had some trouble figuring out how many employees Annapurna Labs has, but the available evidence says low hundreds. If correct, that's an amazingly efficient organization, even if each ArmV9 core is somewhat lower in performance than a comparable Intel x86 core. I have a lot of respect for what Amazon's team has accomplished in cloud server CPUs. The value proposition for AWS appears to be awesome.

 

[XYang2023]

I agree about clients, especially Lunar Lake. Regarding servers, for Amazon's Graviton, for example, x86 compatibility is not a factor (Amazon has complete control over the software stacks they use Gravitons for internally), Arm cores are more power efficient, and Arm's IP to make chip development easier is excellent. I've had some trouble figuring out how many employees Annapurna Labs has, but the available evidence says low hundreds. If correct, that's an amazingly efficient organization, even if each ArmV9 core is somewhat lower in performance than a comparable Intel x86 core. I have a lot of respect for what Amazon's team has accomplished in cloud server CPUs. The value proposition for AWS appears to be awesome.

By the way, Annapurna Labs was backed by Lip-Bu (one of the backers). He mentioned it many times before.

 

[Artificer60]

According to LinkedIn I am connected to 1,221 current Intel employees. All close personal friends of course. I am more of a foundry person though by experience.

Intel manufacturing wanted to get away from design and design wanted to get away from manufacturing. Mission accomplished.

Almost everyone I know is in the trenches. No where near your 1200 close personal friends, but probably 20-30 folks I know well enough to ask sensitive questions.

Based on your comments I had some further discussions. From the folks at the base of the organization I would revise my original statement to say that they don't know what Lip-Bu Tan's vision is. They have no idea what to expect from the company in 5 years time or 10 years time, or what the company will even look like. Why? Because they have heard almost nothing from Mr. Tan.

They have heard he will flatten management. That appears to be starting. I've spoken with two current front line managers that are being demoted back into the ranks. There have been a few "retirements" announced in upper management, but not much movement in middle management they anyone I know has seen. I'm told the plan to flaten the organization was supposed to have been sorted by end of May, but now has been pushed to mid-June.

They have heard that there will be headcount reductions. No one knows where those cuts are going to come or how deep they are going to be. All anyone has heard is that they will be skills based, but no indication of what skills are valued. Given all the turmoil over headcount reductions I would say that the best way to characterize the attitude towards further headcount reductions is numbness. You can only get whacked with a stick so many times before before you just stop caring. One person I spoke to said he was "cautiously optimistic" about Intel's prospects assuming he was still at the company in 6 months. Another told me he is no less confident that he was under Gelsinger. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

The one bright spot from employees has been Naga Chandrasekaran. Apparently he has been very candid and open in his communication with employees and is indicating that he is looking to address several long-standing issue those in the trenches have been dealing with for years. I suppose some credit for this goes to Lip-Bu Tan for creating an environment where Naga is allowed to communicate freely, but as far as employees at the bottom of the organization I know are concerned, they don't have a clue what to expect from Mr. Tan.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

Almost everyone I know is in the trenches. No where near your 1200 close personal friends, but probably 20-30 folks I know well enough to ask sensitive questions.

Based on your comments I had some further discussions. From the folks at the base of the organization I would revise my original statement to say that they don't know what Lip-Bu Tan's vision is. They have no idea what to expect from the company in 5 years time or 10 years time, or what the company will even look like. Why? Because they have heard almost nothing from Mr. Tan.

They have heard he will flatten management. That appears to be starting. I've spoken with two current front line managers that are being demoted back into the ranks. There have been a few "retirements" announced in upper management, but not much movement in middle management they anyone I know has seen. I'm told the plan to flaten the organization was supposed to have been sorted by end of May, but now has been pushed to mid-June.

They have heard that there will be headcount reductions. No one knows where those cuts are going to come or how deep they are going to be. All anyone has heard is that they will be skills based, but no indication of what skills are valued. Given all the turmoil over headcount reductions I would say that the best way to characterize the attitude towards further headcount reductions is numbness. You can only get whacked with a stick so many times before before you just stop caring. One person I spoke to said he was "cautiously optimistic" about Intel's prospects assuming he was still at the company in 6 months. Another told me he is no less confident that he was under Gelsinger. Hardly a ringing endorsement.

The one bright spot from employees has been Naga Chandrasekaran. Apparently he has been very candid and open in his communication with employees and is indicating that he is looking to address several long-standing issue those in the trenches have been dealing with for years. I suppose some credit for this goes to Lip-Bu Tan for creating an environment where Naga is allowed to communicate freely, but as far as employees at the bottom of the organization I know are concerned, they don't have a clue what to expect from Mr. Tan.

I had always heard the big cut was end of June, end of quarter and it will be discussed on the next investor call.

Lip-Bu has sent internal memos, keynoted, and has held many meetings, some at his house for upper management. He is communicating. But yes, the worse is yet to come and plans are still being formed. Hopefully after one year of employment the direction will be clear and there will be some notable milestones behind them.

 

[user nl]

I had always heard the big cut was end of June, end of quarter and it will be discussed on the next investor call.

Lip-Bu has sent internal memos, keynoted, and has held many meetings, some at his house for upper management. He is communicating. But yes, the worse is yet to come and plans are still being formed. Hopefully after one year of employment the direction will be clear and there will be some notable milestones behind them.

A key (priority) test for the new Intel leader: do his employees come before his customers, Wall Street and his own ego? And will his employees give him their trust and their professional life in this existential fight?

For some inspiration on how former Intel CEOs sailed the ship during the first 50 years: https://www.chiphistory.org/intel-ceo-history

 

[siliconbruh999]

A key (priority) test for the new Intel leader: do his employees come before his customers, Wall Street and his own ego? And will his employees give him their trust and their professional life in this existential fight?

For some inspiration on how former Intel CEOs sailed the ship during the first 50 years: https://www.chiphistory.org/intel-ceo-history

The article is too nice to Paul and Brian kranzich and it is difficult for anyone in the industry to be able to compete with the Trinity.

 

[sit]

I had always heard the big cut was end of June, end of quarter and it will be discussed on the next investor call.

Lip-Bu has sent internal memos, keynoted, and has held many meetings, some at his house for upper management. He is communicating. But yes, the worse is yet to come and plans are still being formed. Hopefully after one year of employment the direction will be clear and there will be some notable milestones behind them.

Internal memos, keynotes, and meetings for upper management are all "nice", but wrt to the 100,000+ employees he and KOB are largely MIA and it is not clear where the ship is being steered. Are employees optimistic? Those I know...not so much.

 

[hist78]

Hist78: here some history from 2010 where some people (academic?) predicted @ ISSCC that Fabs would cost 100 B$ sometime in the future. It is hard to make predictions, especially about the future. But somehow this unknown academic seems to have had some crystal ball looking some 10-15 years into the future.

It seems to me that TSMC, from their actions in the past and present suggesting that GigaFabs may be the only feasible way to operate EUV-fabs, is not too far off with it's price tag of 165 B$ for GigaFab Arizona to be established sometime around 2030-2035? Say they'll need some 10-15 years (2020-2035) period to establish such an economical US EUV Gigafab in Arizona.

This seems to be the Taiwan-US executive top that aims to bring TSMC-GigaFab-Arizona to blossom:
On April 1, 2024, TSMC announced that Rick Cassidy, CEO and president of TSMC Arizona, would be promoted to chairman. Y.L. Wang, vice resident for Fab Operations I, took on the role of CEO, while Brian Harrison assumed the position of president.
https://www.digitimes.com/news/a20240920PD209/tsmc-arizona-president-ic-manufacturing-production.html

There must be some good long-term strategists at TSMC@Taiwan, besides excellent CEOs like Morris Chang and CC Wei.

History: https://www.chiphistory.org/844-semiconductor-wafer-fab-cost-escalation-a-threat

From TSMC’s point of view, the GigaFab model is the preferred approach. However, for the Arizona project, TSMC chose not to follow that model. Instead, it opted for the MegaFab approach. This decision likely gives TSMC more flexibility to handle various issues, uncertainties, and demands that may not arise in Taiwan or other parts of Asia.

Source: https://www.tsmc.com/english/dedicatedFoundry/manufacturing/gigafab

###############


TSMC North America Leadership

• CEO: David Keller
• President: Sajiv Dalal

TSMC Arizona Leadership

• Chairman: Rick Cassidy (Also Senior Vice President of Corporate Strategy Development at TSMC)
• CEO: Dr. Y.L. Wang
• President: Rose Castanares

It appears that TSMC is preparing for the next phase of executive leadership - both in Taiwan and in the United States.

There are several interesting commonalities among the executives at TSMC’s U.S. subsidiaries:

1. Long Tenure at TSMC

All have worked at TSMC for over two decades:

Rick Cassidy – 28 years
David Keller – 28 years
Sajiv Dalal – 26 years
Dr. Y.L. Wang – 23 years
Rose Castanares – 27 years

• 
  2. National Semiconductor Connections

All of them, except Dr. Y.L. Wang, worked at National Semiconductor at some point in their careers.


3. Strong Account Management Background

• Dr. Y.L. Wang is a fab production and operations expert, dispatched from Taiwan. The rest of the team has extensive experience in TSMC’s account management organizations. Despite their customer facing experience at TSMC, all have engineering degrees from their university years.
  

 

[XYang2023]

Intel has to cut its workforce. There is no way around it. But it needs to do it with precision. I prefer Lip-Bu's approach to handle it thoughtfully unlike how PG did it last time.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1930992017854652735

 

[Artificer60]

A key (priority) test for the new Intel leader: do his employees come before his customers, Wall Street and his own ego? And will his employees give him their trust and their professional life in this existential fight?

I couldn't agree more. I know I'm more inclined to cut Otellini some slack than many others because his actions indicated that he cared about his employees. Yes there was a large layoff under his watch, but he also gave an out of cycle stock reward to employees one year when no raises were given. Employees I know felt like at least he was making an effort to look out for them even if the current environment wasn't particularly favorable.

And now the employees that I know feel completely isolated from Lip-Bu Tan. It is still early and there is plenty of time for him to correct that, but I would probably give him a D if I had to grade him on this criterion right now.

 

[osnium]

A key (priority) test for the new Intel leader: do his employees come before his customers, Wall Street and his own ego? And will his employees give him their trust and their professional life in this existential fight?

For some inspiration on how former Intel CEOs sailed the ship during the first 50 years: https://www.chiphistory.org/intel-ceo-history

As per shareholder theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine), companies exist to make shareholders/Wall Street happy. That approach is not good for long term technology goals but in the US context, Lip-Bu does not owe employees anything. If firing all US based employees, moving design exclusively to Israel and India and shutting down the fabs is the right thing for shareholders, then Lip-Bu is obliged to do that as per Milton Friedman.

 

[benb]

To hist78 post above about TSMC Arizona leaders experience levels. The TSMC leaders of today developed over decades of stable employment with TSMC. Much of that time in Taiwan, obviously, but some could have come from Wafertech in Washington. TSMC has always had more of a Marines approach—the few, the proud. Intel for 2 decades has treated its employees the way a farmer treats crops; turning over every so often, planting a crop, rinse and repeat.

The business results affect personnel decisions, with bad results resulting in reductions in force; but equally, personnel churn results in poor business outcomes due to a winning level of performance due to mega-experienced decades-old hands, which exists at TSMC, but less existent at Intel due to frequent harvests over decades.

I’ll add a third criteria for whether Intel survives. If Intel can operate with 60-80K employees, while running the fabs and designing the chips, it’ll probably be enabled by a new class of contractor, which I think is the secret of TSMC’s success—independent organizations closely linked to TSMC like Markettech International Corp (MIC)—but Intel will need to undergo a trust revolution to turn over fab operations to MIC or EMD or Veolia or similar organizations.

 

[Daniel Nenni]

As per shareholder theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine), companies exist to make shareholders/Wall Street happy. That approach is not good for long term technology goals but in the US context, Lip-Bu does not owe employees anything. If firing all US based employees, moving design exclusively to Israel and India and shutting down the fabs is the right thing for shareholders, then Lip-Bu is obliged to do that as per Milton Friedman.

I have always heard the term stakeholders which includes more than shareholders.

BK was the worst CEO I have ever met. Lip-Bu is one of the best, just wait and see. Intel haters are going to end up hating themselves, absolutely.

I'm wondering how many employees Intel will have at the end of the year. 90k? More or less? I'm trying to figure out the over/under.

 

[user nl]

I'm sure some days there will be many books and many academic studies written about the present issues around Intel and the transformation it is going through.

In every (local) business case, the global conditions and geopolitical situation are different. Within the Dutch/global history there is the business case of "Royal Dutch Philips" and its transformations.

See eg here:
nice technological visual overview of 130 years innovation https://www.philips.com/a-w/about/our-history.html
corporate history with list of CEOs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips#Corporate_affairs

A key period of decline was 1980-2000 when Philips went almost bankrupt in the nighties, with key CEO Timmer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philips#1980s–2000s:_Decline
In the 1980s, Philips's profit margin dropped below 1 percent, and in 1990 the company lost more than US$2 billion (biggest corporate loss in Dutch history). Troubles for the company continued into the 1990s as its status as a leading electronics company was swiftly lost.[28] In 1985, Philips was the largest founding investor in TSMC[29] which was established as a joint venture between Philips, the Taiwan government and other private investors.

In 1990, the newly appointed CEO, Jan Timmer, decided to sell off all businesses that dealt with computers which meant the end of Philips Data Systems as well as other computer activities. In 1991, the businesses were acquired by Digital Equipment Corporation.[30] In 1991, the company's name was changed from N.V. Philips Gloeilampenfabrieken to Philips Electronics N.V.[31] At the same time, North American Philips was formally dissolved, and a new corporate division was formed in the US with the name Philips Electronics North America Corp.[32]

Only in 2018 Timmer wrote his own book reflecting on his (CEO)-Philips period. A very interesting interview with him about all the global forces and the geopolitical environment during his time that also affected his decisions as CEO:
https://oralhistoryeu-nl.translate...._sl=nl&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

Will be very interesting to see how after CEO PG now LBT sails the Intel-ship on the global oceans and where LBT envisions his first harbor.

 

[siliconbruh999]

I have always heard the term stakeholders which includes more than shareholders.

BK was the worst CEO I have ever met. Lip-Bu is one of the best, just wait and see. Intel haters are going to end up hating themselves, absolutely.

I'm wondering how many employees Intel will have at the end of the year. 90k? More or less? I'm trying to figure out the over/under.

I am hearing many good people leaving Intel for Nvidia/Apple due to the chaos in past 4 Months.

They tried to do 5N in 4Y instead we got 4 CEOs in 4 Months .

Starting from December Pat retires
2 CO-CEO In December
Lip Bu Tan in March

 

[Artificer60]

As per shareholder theory (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedman_doctrine), companies exist to make shareholders/Wall Street happy. That approach is not good for long term technology goals but in the US context, Lip-Bu does not owe employees anything. If firing all US based employees, moving design exclusively to Israel and India and shutting down the fabs is the right thing for shareholders, then Lip-Bu is obliged to do that as per Milton Friedman.

IMO this is why American business is broken, but it doesn't have to be that way.

In 2022, Nvidia’s stock dropped by 66%, many tech companies were laying off employees. However, Nvidia refused to do layoffs even when every other major companies were doing so. They have also never forced employees to come to the office. They continued with remote work. Their attitude seems to be when you expect people to perform for you, it’s also your job to care for and support them equally.

Now you can argue the issue was the market conditions and not an inherent flaw in the corporate structure, but the fact is Nvidia is a publicly traded company and they chose to make a long term decision despite pressure from Wall Street. And they have been reaped the rewards of taking the long view.