Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-reports-third-quarter-2025-financial-results.23875/
        )

    [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] => 2030770
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

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

Intel Reports Third-Quarter 2025 Financial Results

Daniel Nenni

Daniel Nenni

Admin
Staff member
Intel-Lip-Bu-Tan.jpg


Intel reported better-than-expected financial results for the third quarter of 2025, signaling progress in its ongoing turnaround. Revenue reached $13.7 billion, exceeding analyst expectations of roughly $13.1 billion and marking a modest 3% year-over-year increase. Adjusted earnings came in at $0.23 per share, significantly above the consensus forecast of about $0.02, reflecting stronger operational execution and cost discipline.

Intel’s gains were driven by improving demand across its client computing and data center segments, along with early contributions from its AI-focused products. The company also benefited from restructuring efforts aimed at streamlining operations and cutting expenses. However, Intel maintained a cautious tone for the remainder of the year, guiding fourth-quarter revenue between $12.8 billion and $13.8 billion.

Gross margins showed gradual improvement, though they remain below historical norms as Intel continues heavy investments in its foundry business and advanced process technologies. Investors responded positively to the earnings beat, with shares rising about 8% after the announcement. The results suggest Intel’s multi-year turnaround plan is beginning to show traction.

"Our Q3 results reflect improved execution and steady progress against our strategic priorities,” said Lip-Bu Tan, Intel CEO. “AI is accelerating demand for compute and creating attractive opportunities across our portfolio, including our core x86 platforms, new efforts in purpose-built ASICs and accelerators, and foundry services. Intel’s industry-leading CPUs and ecosystem, along with our unique U.S.-based leading-edge logic manufacturing and R&D, position us well to capitalize on these trends over time.”

“We took meaningful steps this quarter to strengthen our balance sheet, including accelerated funding from the U.S. Government and investments by NVIDIA and SoftBank Group that increase our operational flexibility and demonstrate the critical role we play in the ecosystem,” said David Zinsner, Intel CFO. “Our stronger than expected Q3 results mark our fourth consecutive quarter of improved execution and reflect the underlying strength of our core markets. Current demand is outpacing supply, a trend we expect will persist into 2026.”

www.intc.com

Intel Reports Third-Quarter 2025 Financial Results

www.intc.com www.intc.com
 
Some interesting comments on 18A and when it becomes competitive.

No one has asked the question I recommended "is 18A ramp helping or hurting margins in 2026?" DZ answered it anyway.

Luckily the majority of Intel revenue comes from 10 and 7 (and TSMC).
 
tomatoma said:
Intel is losing
Click to expand...

This isn't very optimistic for 18A short term - they're saying that yields will only be "good margin" in 2027, with a small chance at the end of 2026.

It's definitely a signal (to me at least), that N2 yields will be ahead of Intel 18A in 2H 2026.

I'm personally curious - is it the GAAFET, BSPD, or something else causing a slower than expected ramp.

(Note - I'm assuming this quote is from Intel at the investor call today).
 
Stacy Rasgon: Dave, I wanna follow-up on two things on 18A. I thought I heard you say, number one, that yields would not be in a great place at least until the end of next year. And then I thought I also heard you say that you were not gonna be adding a lot of 18A capacity next year. Did I hear those wrong?

Dave Zinsner's Answer: On 18A, we're still at our infancy. And what I'm saying is relative to the CapEx plan, it's not like we're gonna incrementally add supply for 18A next year. But yes, of course, we're going to be ramping the volume over the course of next year. I wouldn't say 18A yields are in a bad place. I mean, they're where we want them to be at this point. We had a goal for the end of the year, and they're gonna hit that goal. But to be fully accretive in terms of the cost structure of 18A, we need the yields to be better. That's like every process. That's what happens, and it's going to take all of next year, I think, to really get to a place where that's the case.
Click to expand...
 
Three thoughts on 18A:

1. These yield and margin comments are basically what folks here have been saying; it’s good enough to ship products, but not good enough to rapidly move products onto it without enormous margin issues.
2. This isn’t news; they’re saying the CapEx plan and volume ramp for 18A is going to plan. There’s no better nor worse news here.
3. Intel Foundry is still no TSMC; N2 will ramp in huge volume with good margins from the start in 2H26 and 18A will be no competition for it.

There’s a long road ahead for Foundry, and I await further news on 18AP and customer wafer agreements. No news on the reported MSFT Maia 3 deal…
 
Right, so taking this at face value (it's directly from Intel), the key questions that occur to me are:

1. How does this 18A yield ramp compare to the ramp on the nearest equivalent TSMC process ?
2. Do we expect the 2nm yield ramp to be significantly faster than that for 18A ? If so, why and with what confidence level.

My sense is that the 18A yield ramp is slow (and slower than TSMC). But I could be wrong, so I'd like to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about here.
 
Brady said:
Three thoughts on 18A:

1. These yield and margin comments are basically what folks here have been saying; it’s good enough to ship products, but not good enough to rapidly move products onto it without enormous margin issues.
2. This isn’t news; they’re saying the CapEx plan and volume ramp for 18A is going to plan. There’s no better nor worse news here.
3. Intel Foundry is still no TSMC; N2 will ramp in huge volume with good margins from the start in 2H26 and 18A will be no competition for it.

There’s a long road ahead for Foundry, and I await further news on 18AP and customer wafer agreements. No news on the reported MSFT Maia 3 deal…
Click to expand...
exactly

And Intels most successful and profitable products are 10 and 7. And Intel mentioned the effect of 18A on Intels Margins..... (I am pretty sure DZ is getting beat up this morning).

LBT: "What part of 'Shut the &$#% Up' didnt you understand???"
DZ: "Next time I will just say 'we are happy with the progress on 18A and 14A is going to be spec-tacular'"

18A is technically a very advanced and good process. the Finances are not good due to low volume and high cost (the "Intel problem"). The volumes in 2026 and even 2027 are low.
 
Last edited:
tooLongInEDA said:
Right, so taking this at face value (it's directly from Intel), the key questions that occur to me are:

1. How does this 18A yield ramp compare to the ramp on the nearest equivalent TSMC process ?
2. Do we expect the 2nm yield ramp to be significantly faster than that for 18A ? If so, why and with what confidence level.

My sense is that the 18A yield ramp is slow (and slower than TSMC). But I could be wrong, so I'd like to hear from someone who knows what they're talking about here.
Click to expand...
I probably don't qualify as someone who knows what they are talking about, but I'll share my impression anyway. :)

I suspect that Intel's yield ramp is quite a bit slower than TSMC. And I believe that is a byproduct of their previous business model. When you are going to hit peak output in 3-4 years and shut the process down within 5-7 years you want to get the product out the door as soon as it is good enough to make money. That's what Intel has done for decades. And I think that issue is reflected in the 18A PDK where Intel's PDKs weren't as mature as TSMCs for a given milepost (0.5, 1.0). Intel was willing to accept the additional churn of process changes because being first to market was so important.

TSMC's business model (and Intel foundry going forward) requires them to have far process stability when they start running client silicon. So they have developed a different approach to get yield up and stabilize the process as quickly as possible. Intel is learning how to do that and 18A is the first real process they have to learn from. So I'm not surprised there are more than a few bumps in the road. 14A will be our first chance to see if Intel has learned those lessons and it isn't as far away as you might think. To the best of my knowledge PDK 05. is due out somewhere in the Dec'25 - Jan'26 time frame. If Intel has learned from 18A it should be locked down much more than 18A was.
 
MKWVentures said:
18A is technically a very advanced and good process. the Finances are not good due to low volume and high cost (the "Intel problem"). The volumes in 2026 and even 2027 are low.
Click to expand...
which is not true Intel finances are in part due to Outsourcing as well they don't have any products on their own node part of improvement in DC margin is due to GNR being good and is on a Intel Node can't say that about their offering in client as everything except packing is outsourced.
MKWVentures said:
And Intels most successful and profitable products are 10 and 7. And Intel mentioned the effect of 18A on Intels Margins..... (I am pretty sure DZ is getting beat up this morning).
Click to expand...
It's a 2019 Node at this point of time so it's not really unexpected but it kills their margin on foundry side cause it being too poor in terms of cost
 
MKWVentures said:
18A is technically a very advanced and good process. the Finances are not good due to low volume and high cost (the "Intel problem"). The volumes in 2026 and even 2027 are low.
Click to expand...

This is not just an Intel problem, it is a foundry problem for fabs that do not have the volumes TSMC does. Samsung has been plagued with yield ramp problems ever since 14nm.
 
siliconbruh999 said:
which is not true Intel finances are in part due to Outsourcing as well they don't have any products on their own node part of improvement in DC margin is due to GNR being good and is on a Intel Node can't say that about their offering in client as everything except packing is outsourced.

It's a 2019 Node at this point of time so it's not really unexpected but it kills their margin on foundry side cause it being too poor in terms of cost
Click to expand...
I think you need to re-read the transcript. Corporate margins increased with increasing outsourcing this quarter 10 and 7 have the highest margins.

18A is a headwind on margins in 2026 per Intel. If IFS charged a high price for 18A, then IFS margins will be higher but product group margins are lower due to yield.

Reminder Most Intel Volume is 10 and 7. What percentage of Intel DC sales do you think are GR/SF in Q3
 
MKWVentures said:
I think you need to re-read the transcript. Corporate margins increased with increasing outsourcing this quarter 10 and 7 have the highest margins.
Click to expand...
They also raised price on Intel 7/10 CPUs
MKWVentures said:
18A is a headwind on margins in 2026 per Intel. If IFS charged a high price for 18A, then IFS margins will be higher but product group margins are lower due to yield.
Click to expand...
What IFS charges Intel Products can be made up it's basically having a cheat code and you can distribute it any way you like. I can make Foundry look profitable and Product look bad
MKWVentures said:
Reminder Most Intel Volume is 10 and 7. What percentage of Intel DC sales do you think are GR/SF in Q3
Click to expand...
I don't have the data for Q3 it's not out yet but they have increased their GNR/SRF Shipment nowhere close to Intel 7/10nm capacity. Here is the data for Q1.
14% of the CPUs were GNR/SRF
1761322928589.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top