• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Question Intel spinning off FPGA unit

DrMrLordX said:
www.cnbc.com

Intel plans to IPO programmable chip unit within three years; stock rises after hours

Intel said it will continue to support its programmable chip business and will retain a majority stake after a spinout
www.cnbc.com www.cnbc.com

Wow. Looks like they're positioning themselves to spin off both the former Altera as well as IFS. What is really going on at Intel? Also kinda makes me wonder what that means for the future of FPGA integration in Xeons.
Click to expand...
Unlocking shareholder value, by selling a profitable business unit. You do you Intel.
 
I would hope that IFS is spun off as a pure-play foundry, with complete separation from Intel the design division. It just doesn't seem "fair" to me that Intel receives foundry subsidies from the US government while it is still attached to its design division.
 
Ajay said:
Unlocking shareholder value, by selling a profitable business unit. You do you Intel.
Click to expand...

I doubt it would be just that. I don't think Gelsinger would want the legacy of being the one to do that, unless either Intel's Manufacturing is really struggling (to the point of it potentially ruining the company, in which case Intel's got big problems) or he was forced to (was a requirement to get government chip subsidies).

I guess maybe if he thinks its inevitable and wants to fast track it and get ahead of things and so basically wants his legacy to look more Lisa Su and less Hector Ruiz.

Saylick said:
I would hope that IFS is spun off as a pure-play foundry, with complete separation from Intel the design division. It just doesn't seem "fair" to me that Intel receives foundry subsidies from the US government while it is still attached to its design division.
Click to expand...

In an ideal world yeah, the amount of subsidies on offer should have come with caveat about having to open a significant chunk of that manufacturing, but as far as I know that was never hinted at, and I'd guess in the US they'd have balked at it even since they'd want to rah-rah patriotism. I'm not sure AMD would've even made a fuss as I can't imagine they're interested in fabbing at Intel if simply for purely competitive reasons (aka, Intel struggling to compete with TSMC), although they'd probably be willing to do so for a partner, but then I'd guess it'd be with older gen stuff. But maybe if they were just making sure not to put all their eggs in one basket or simply out of protest and due to past Intel behavior.
 
darkswordsman17 said:
or he was forced to (was a requirement to get government chip subsidies).
Click to expand...
The Biden administration was talking about imposing some additional requirements for CHIPS funding after the fact (stuff that never appeared in the initial legislation), but spinning off business units like Altera wasn't on the list.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top