Agreed, and I also think Intel's BoD also needs to get PG to stop the silly explanations / excuses, embarrassing cheer leading and overplaying achievements, competitor / partner predecessor dissing, playing musical chairs with his staff, and re-telling history to please his ego, and act like the mature and highly professional CEO Intel needs.
"Intel Years From Success in Foundry Business, Analysts Say" “The yields are just really bad,” Bernstein Research senior analyst Stacy Rasgon told EE
- Thread starter hskuo
- Start date
Artificer60
Well-known member
Your assumption is incorrect. There is another Intel component in Meteor Lake processor, the Foveros interconnect between the chiplets.
That's what alluded to here, from TechPowerUp:Your assumption is incorrect. There is another Intel component in Meteor Lake processor, the Foveros interconnect between the chiplets.
More specifically, Intel has been facing some yield and/or back-end production issues with its Meteor Lake platform, resulting in a negative impact on Intel's margins when producing the chip.
Last edited:
This TechPowerUp article came from Patrick Moorhead's comments on his conversation with Pat Gelsinger. They were included this AnandTech article: https://www.anandtech.com/show/2149...amp-as-meteor-lake-chips-were-in-short-supply also pasted below.
Alongside Intel’s weak Q2 2024 earnings report and the announcement of $10 billion in spending cuts and layoffs for 2025, the company is also disclosing some new information about their chip deliveries over the first half of the year. A brief report, posted on X by analyst Patrick Moorhead and citing a conversation with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger, revealed that Intel encountered a major production bottleneck on Meteor Lake earlier this year. The issue was significant enough to drive intel to take the extraordinary and costly step of accelerating their Ireland fab ramp-up in order to improve chip capacity.
It appears that there were yield/throughput issues on Meteor Lake, negatively impacting gross margins. When you have to get the product to your customers, and you have wafers to burn, you run it hot. I heard from OEMs that they needed more MTL, but it wasn't bone dry. You have to run hot lots in that case, or else your customers will be impacted. I didn't have this one on my dance card.
-Patrick Moorhead
In a separate tweet posted several hours later, Moorhead then clarified that the yield issues mentioned in his first tweet were his interpretation of the matter, rather than something Pat Gelsinger had told him directly.
For the record, Pat didn’t tell me l that there were yield issues. This was *my* interpretation. But when your COGS are cited for a specific product are rising in a big, big way, with MTL, you *have* to surmise either yield or back end throughout issues that can be very expensive.
-Patrick Moorhead
Decoding Moorhead’s dense tweets, fundamentally, Moorhead is questioning why Intel's Cost of Goods Sold (COGS) – how much the company's chips cost to produce – were on the rise with the launch of Meteor Lake. The analyst surmised that yields and/or some other unexpected production bottleneck must be the case, as these are the typical issues that drive up chip COGS on a short-term basis like Intel has been experiencing.
And, judging from Intel's earnings call that took place after the initial tweet, Moorhead was right to an extent. Referencing the increased COGS, Intel CFO David Zinsner noted that Intel opted to ramp up its high-volume production in Ireland faster than initially planned. This increased Intel's capacity for Intel 4 (and Intel 3) capacity, but doing so also increased their costs, as wafers out of Ireland cost more in the near term.
The largest impact was caused by an accelerated ramp of our AI PC product. In addition to exceeding expectations on Q2 Core Ultra shipments, we made the decision to accelerate transition of Intel 4 and 3 wafers from our development fab in Oregon to our high volume facility in Ireland, where wafer costs are higher in the near term.
-Intel CFO David Zinsner (Intel Q2'24 Earnings Call)
Between Moorhead's report that OEMs have been receiving fewer Meteor Lake chips than they could use, and Intel's announcement that they accelerated the Ireland fab ramp-up, this is the first significant disclosure that Meteor Lake chips were, at least at some point, in unexpectedly short supply. Which in turn required Intel to take unexpected and extraordinary steps in order to improve chip production, at the cost of lower short-term profit margins and higher COGS.
The first of Intel's high-volume manufacturing (HVM) fabs to be equipped for the Intel 4 and Intel 3 processes, Fab 34 in Ireland is a critical element to Intel's cutting-edge product plans over the next couple years. Intel was not initially planning on relying so much on Fab 34 this soon – instead using their Oregon development fabs to do more of their Intel 4 & Intel 3 fabrication – but the company opted to ramp up at a faster pace. The benefit to Intel is that they get more fab capacity sooner, but it means they're incurring around $1 billion in costs now of what would have otherwise been spread out over further quarters during a more gradual ramp-up.
The net result was that, while Intel took a margin hit, it also allowed them to supply more Meteor Lake chips than they otherwise would have, even beating their own previous projections for Q2 shipments. Overall, Intel reported in their Q2 earnings that they’ve shipped 15 million “AI PC” chips since Meteor Lake’s launch, though the company doesn't break down how many of those were in Q2 versus Q1 and Q4'23. Still, according to Moorhead, this was fewer chips than OEMs would have liked to have, and they would have taken more chips if they were available.
COGS and Ireland ramp-ups aside, Moorhead also posits that some of Intel's capacity boost came from running “hot lots” of Meteor Lake – high priority wafer batches that get moved to the front of the line in order to be processed as soon as possible (or as reasonably close as is practical). Hot lots are typically used to get highly-demanded chips produced quickly, getting them through a fab sooner than the normal process would take. As a business tool, hot lots are a fact of life of chip production, but they’re undesirable because in most cases they cause disruptions to other wafers that are waiting their turn to be processed.
If true, running hot lots of Meteor Lake would be a significant development given the potential disruptions. At the same time, however, the situation with Meteor Lake is somewhat particular, as the Intel 4 process used for Meteor Lake’s compute tile (the only active tile made at Intel) is not offered to external foundry customers, or even used by other Intel CPUs (Xeon 6s all use Intel 3). So hot lots of Meteor Lake would have few other wafers to even jump ahead of for EUV tooling (Intel would certainly not put them ahead of high-margin Xeon products), while it's unclear how this would cascade down to any tools shared with Intel 7.
Intel, for their part, did not comment on Meteor Lake chip yields or hot lots in their earnings call.
In any case, Intel at this point is looking to turn around their troubled fortunes in the second half of this year. The company’s next-gen client SoC for mobile, Lunar Lake, is set to launch on September 3rd. And notably, both of its active tiles are being built by TSMC. So Lunar Lake would be spared from any Intel logic fab bottlenecks, though it still has to go through Intel’s facilities for assembly using their Foveros technology. And there remains the thorny issue of higher production costs altogether, since Intel is paying for what's effectively the fully outsourced production of a Core CPU.
What an amazing statement. I've never seen an industry analyst, especially one of Moorhead's stature, fall on his sword like that.
MKWVentures
Moderator
His whole report out was kinda wierd. I think he combined what Pat said with what others said with speculation and made an opinion.
The fact is that the costs came in surprisingly high and Pat said something about customer requests and hot lots. My model (PAT DID NOT TELL ME THIS
) is that Fab 34 ramp and Intel3 Intel4 output is currently very expensive. Regardless of the reasons, and the fact that it was predictable, the investors were not happy to see INCREASED foundry losses with the ramp of new technologies.I suspect (PAT DID NOT TELL ME
) we will see impacts to other new technology and fab ramps, (perhaps containing them to D1X for a while) to prevent additional losses. I hope Intel will publicly report out the details on these over the next couple months.I wonder if Moorhead's access to Pat will be reduced. His initial tweet was pretty unprofessional.
jorgequinonez
Member
That's how some people have characterized it or that Intel 3 is at best like a half-node).