Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads

[Tigerick]

As Hot Chips 34 starting this week, Intel will unveil technical information of upcoming Meteor Lake (MTL) and Arrow Lake (ARL), new generation platform after Raptor Lake. Both MTL and ARL represent new direction which Intel will move to multiple chiplets and combine as one SoC platform.

MTL also represents new compute tile that based on Intel 4 process which is based on EUV lithography, a first from Intel. Intel expects to ship MTL mobile SoC in 2023.

ARL will come after MTL so Intel should be shipping it in 2024, that is what Intel roadmap is telling us. ARL compute tile will be manufactured by Intel 20A process, a first from Intel to use GAA transistors called RibbonFET.





Intel Core Ultra 100 - Meteor Lake



As mentioned by Tomshardware, TSMC will manufacture the I/O, SoC, and GPU tiles. That means Intel will manufacture only the CPU and Foveros tiles. (Notably, Intel calls the I/O tile an 'I/O Expander,' hence the IOE moniker.)

 

[maddie]

For Intel that cost is always going to be less than paying TSMC for 18A even vs N3 lol
An Example let N3 cost 19K (50% margin for tsmc included) from TSMC but 18A cost like 22-23K(35-40% margin) 25K for N2 ( I wil not believe 30K it is ridiculous price a 25-30% price increase seems likely vs N3) .
The thing is they are paying margin to themselves it's like making an item for 100 and asking 140 for it and paying 140 to yourself
Sidenote TSMC N3 wafer price 19-20K N2 interpolated by increasing it by 25-30% 18A calculated based on Intel slide of cost between N3/N2

I might agree with you if you're taking the pure operating cost of producing a wafer and neglecting all the other costs. R & D, equipment depreciation, etc. These are volume dependent for a per wafer share.

Even the operating cost might be a disadvantage to Intel. Remember when the ex-Chairman of TSMC claimed a 30% cost increase in producing wafers in Texas vs Taiwan. Wages, etc.

TSMC has admitted that the initial margins are low to zero for a new process as they depreciate capital expenses aggressively early in a node. Intel cannot approach such volumes anytime soon. I don't think it's really as you describe.

 

[OneEng2]

I might agree with you if you're taking the pure operating cost of producing a wafer and neglecting all the other costs. R & D, equipment depreciation, etc. These are volume dependent for a per wafer share.

Even the operating cost might be a disadvantage to Intel. Remember when the ex-Chairman of TSMC claimed a 30% cost increase in producing wafers in Texas vs Taiwan. Wages, etc.

TSMC has admitted that the initial margins are low to zero for a new process as they depreciate capital expenses aggressively early in a node. Intel cannot approach such volumes anytime soon. I don't think it's really as you describe.

Exactly.

I keep posting this line, but it bears repeating: Intel paid about 10bn USD for their 18A development. That is about the price of a US Navy Ford class aircraft carrier. They are losing tens of billions of dollars (16bn last qtr) every quarter.

What they are doing can not continue. It is financial suicide.

 

[GTracing]

Exactly.

I keep posting this line, but it bears repeating: Intel paid about 10bn USD for their 18A development. That is about the price of a US Navy Ford class aircraft carrier. They are losing tens of billions of dollars (16bn last qtr) every quarter.

What they are doing can not continue. It is financial suicide.

They had a loss of 1.6 billion dollars in Q2 2024, not 16 billion.

 

[511]

Is it really?

Not in short term ofc but in the longer term yes

18A development is estimated at around 10bn USD. That is just NRE.

Having a fabrication plant? Having headcount to run the plant? Materials to run and maintain the plant? Management to run the plant? etc, etc, etc.

AMD (and many others) are making very good money without a fab of their own (and without paying for all that overhead). Intel still has ~70% of the market and has ASP's about equal to AMD's. Why isn't Intel's profit 3x that of AMD (since they sell 3x more product)?

In a board meeting, the proof is in the pudding. You either make the numbers, or you don't. It is quite difficult to make an argument that your ideas "worked" because it was a technical success..... or that you are paying less per wafer doing it your way.... or that you are gaining market share. If you aren't making a profit (and in specific if your competitor that sells 3x less than you IS making a profit) you are in trouble.

You would think that the "gaining market share" would get you something, but the answer is just that selling more at a LOSS is just losing more, so who cares?

As I have said, Intel's problems will not be fixed even if 18A works very well. They have got to become much more lean and efficient than they are now in order to make money.

Good luck running fab than as for lean and efficient i agree their products needs improvement cause node perf improvement are going to be much smaller now so 18A will be viable for long term

 

[511]

Also what about billions in share buy back are they not waste of money ?

 

[Hulk]

CEO's have the same problem as politicians. Delayed gratification. Real positive change often requires sacrifice up front and then the payoff later. If the board or the people don't see immediate positive effects they move on to somebody else. A CEO or politician can "raid the bank" for a quick sugar high to get good looks in the short term but it only makes things worse in the long term.

Unfortunately sometimes good decisions involve some pain up front. Intel is in a terrible cycle.

In addition, this type of "immediate results or your gone" culture leads people in charge to look for ways to cheat the system to look good or direct their efforts to simply grabbing their golden parachute on the way out. If they knew they would be there for the long term they might have more of a feeling of ownership in the company.

Of course politicians have no skin in the game and can simply print more money and leave the mess for the next person. If we keep voting them in

 

[511]

Exactly.

I keep posting this line, but it bears repeating: Intel paid about 10bn USD for their 18A development. That is about the price of a US Navy Ford class aircraft carrier. They are losing tens of billions of dollars (16bn last qtr) every quarter.

What they are doing can not continue. It is financial suicide.

You know that was due to depreciation right as for 18A R&D how do you suggest they should go about it cause killing fabs will make them another AMD which may look good in short term but in the long term it will suck.
also blame swan and kranzich for not investing money in nodes if you want long term strategy good Process and good design is key if you want short term sell fabs btw they can't easily sell it cause it's risking tax credit on $100 billion and $10.87 billion grant for these things
It is not economically viable to make fabs without goverment support and $$ same for TSMC

 

[maddie]

You know that was due to depreciation right as for 18A R&D how do you suggest they should go about it cause killing fabs will make them another AMD which may look good in short term but in the long term it will suck.

Should we short AMD?

Couldn't resist that.

 

[511]

Should we short AMD?

Couldn't resist that.

Let them go to $2 than else you are not shorting 🙂

 

[rainy]

They had a loss of 1.6 billion dollars in Q2 2024, not 16 billion.

In Q3 Intel loss was indeed 16.64 Bn:https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/net-income

 

[511]

In Q3 Intel loss was indeed 16.64 Bn:https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/net-income

That was not money loss but impairment loss

 

[rainy]

Also what about billions in share buy back are they not waste of money ?

Definitely, it's a big waste of money and Intel is quilty here as well.

 

[Hulk]

Should we short AMD?

Couldn't resist that.

AMD/Intel pair trade. Short on Intel, long on AMD.

 

[OneEng2]

They had a loss of 1.6 billion dollars in Q2 2024, not 16 billion.

That isn't how I read it. Please elaborate on why you think this to be true.

What is worse though is that I don't see this changing much (for the good) for at least 2 more years.

If I am correct about the strategic direction being wrong, then it will never turn around as Intel will be spending 15bn in 2026 to achieve the next big node transition and the merry go round continues.

CEO's have the same problem as politicians. Delayed gratification. Real positive change often requires sacrifice up front and then the payoff later. If the board or the people don't see immediate positive effects they move on to somebody else. A CEO or politician can "raid the bank" for a quick sugar high to get good looks in the short term but it only makes things worse in the long term.

Unfortunately sometimes good decisions involve some pain up front. Intel is in a terrible cycle.

In addition, this type of "immediate results or your gone" culture leads people in charge to look for ways to cheat the system to look good or direct their efforts to simply grabbing their golden parachute on the way out. If they knew they would be there for the long term they might have more of a feeling of ownership in the company.

Of course politicians have no skin in the game and can simply print more money and leave the mess for the next person. If we keep voting them in

Amen Father Hulk! .

I have seen this many times in my career, and have been a victim of it as well. I have gotten board approval for a big investment spend, only to be criticized for the next 2 years of results. Someone else is brought in to "fix the problem" and miraculously financials turn around (all short term thinking and strategy). 4 years later, everything looks like crap financially, said "replacement" is removed, I am put back in charge to "fix the fix" and the merry-go-round continues. I must admit, it is maddening.... but quite predictable after a few cycles . It does tend to make you warry of any large investment though. Even if you see great benefit and ROI in the future. Sadly, it is the nature of the beast in today's corporate world.

 

[GTracing]

That isn't how I read it. Please elaborate on why you think this to be true.

I was looking at the wrong quarter, Q3 was 16B.

 

[MoistOintment]

There is a reason their stock dropped 20% on a single day after they pretty much fail to project a downturn of that magnitude and then release massive losses out of "nowhere".

A percentage of that drop was certainly related to the announcement to cut dividends on that same call and not just financials alone.

For all of the people who like to claim "why didn't Intel cut dividends sooner" - this is part of the reason. A dividend stock that's not expected to see much growth for a few years relies heavily on dividends to maintain its value.

 

[OneEng2]

A percentage of that drop was certainly related to the announcement to cut dividends on that same call and not just financials alone.

For all of the people who like to claim "why didn't Intel cut dividends sooner" - this is part of the reason. A dividend stock that's not expected to see much growth for a few years relies heavily on dividends to maintain its value.

Plus, there is generally an entire symphony of orchestrated financial practices that are shuffled every conceivable way to show you are "still on track"..... until the house of cards falls down and suddenly ..... you really "aren't on track" at all.

Reminds me of the famous line from "I Love Lucy" .... "Lucy ..... you got some splaining to do!"

 

[MoistOintment]

What is worse though is that I don't see this changing much (for the good) for at least 2 more years.

Considering those losses include 3 years worth of deferred tax assets (~$10B), and $billions more in impairment and accelerated depreciation, I don't see how it's physically possible they could report quarterly losses this high again in the next few quarters.

 

[LightningZ71]

Ahh yes, the fun of a bad financial report. You see that you're going to miss your numbers by a large margin, you decide to take ALL of your pain pills at once. You know that you're going to get butchered by the markets anyway, so you pull in all sorts of bad news to go in one dump. Then, in following quarters, you don't have all the bad stuff hanging over you, so any improvements look better in context...

 

[MoistOintment]

Ahh yes, the fun of a bad financial report. You see that you're going to miss your numbers by a large margin, you decide to take ALL of your pain pills at once. You know that you're going to get butchered by the markets anyway, so you pull in all sorts of bad news to go in one dump. Then, in following quarters, you don't have all the bad stuff hanging over you, so any improvements look better in context...

Essentially - yes.

This doesn't make the financial report good. It means that we shouldn't expect losses this large to be the norm going forward.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Ahh yes, the fun of a bad financial report.

Intel's going "WEEEEEEE!" and trying new things, like TWO CEOs

 

[SiliconFly]

.

 

[mzocyteae]

Wccftech strikes again:

Intel Foundry Fails To Impress Once Again, 18A Process "Yield Rates' Are Reported To Be Only 10% Making Mass-Production Impossible

Intel's 18A process, a node that is said to be a "turning point" for Intel Foundry, is now being said to feature only 10% yield rates.

wccftech.com

Korean media invented new numbers for an old news:

Inside Intel, CEO Pat Gelsinger fumbled the revival of an American icon - Reuters report

Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the American industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake.

www.dispatch.com

It was 20% for broadcom (maybe big ai chips?).

 

[511]

Wrong thread

 

[Saylick]

Wccftech strikes again:

Intel Foundry Fails To Impress Once Again, 18A Process "Yield Rates' Are Reported To Be Only 10% Making Mass-Production Impossible

Intel's 18A process, a node that is said to be a "turning point" for Intel Foundry, is now being said to feature only 10% yield rates.

wccftech.com

Bleh, not even going to give those hacks a click.