Discussion Intel's past, present and future

[johnsonwax]

Intel is still IDM their operating Model has changed substantially pre gelsinger the fab has good future as well if they stop screwing around with the PDKs

Intel has a credibility problem on the foundry business. Apple doesn't see them as a good partner, and I don't know if that's managed to change. And if there is going to be adverse political interference at a time when they are financially shaky, will a commitment today with delivery in 3 years still have a company there in 3 years to deliver on it? And the tariff whipsaw is a related set of problems. I've mentioned my son's company (they're in the semiconductor industry) and they're all in on moving manufacturing out because they can't get a contract written because nobody has any f'ing clue what costs are gong to be. At least outside the US they can write contracts with manufacturers outside the US without that uncertainty.

 

[511]

Intel has a credibility problem on the foundry business.

That's true and it doesn't have to be apple they need sustainable volume anyone will do

 

[dangerman1337]

That's true and it doesn't have to be apple they need sustainable volume anyone will do

True but who? Is any of the three "likely" to take a punt being Qualcomm, Nvidia or Broadcom with a significant order to make 14A and onwards go ahead?

My just wish is IFS or another split USFS or whatever is able to continue until CFET era.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Craig's 10 point plan to save Intel: https://www.aol.com/finance/exclusive-former-intel-ceo-craig-230624250.html

 

[johnsonwax]

That's true and it doesn't have to be apple they need sustainable volume anyone will do

Exactly. And this is the sort of thing that the feds can help with. For one, they can financially backstop that first set of customers. If the feds believe in Intel, that won't cost them anything. They can also do a regulatory move and for example say 'all new model cell phones sold in the US must have US made radios starting in this year'. We already have sanctions against telecom equipment made in China, so this isn't completely out in the weeds. Radios aren't a leading node component, but they're no more than 2 generations back. That can either help uplift a GF or Micron or provide a reliable revenue stream to Intel. The whole US auto industry is pretty reliant on regulatory gatekeeping to keep production in the country so that's hardly a new approach and pretty much every phone sold in the US has either an Apple or Qualcomm radio in it, so it's feasible.

 

[igor_kavinski]

How once-iconic Intel fell into a 20-year decline

Its CEO is under fire. It has lost its edge. And it’s still the only U.S. company with the know-how to make leading-edge chips in America.

fortune.com

Now suppose Tan were to step down as CEO. “Who wants that job?” asks Stacy Rasgon, a longtime tech analyst at Bernstein. He observes in a recent note that Tan “doesn’t ‘need’ to run Intel (he’s very wealthy and has a lot of other things to occupy his time) … He clearly wants to do what is best for Intel.” But it’s unclear if resigning would be good or bad for the company, “especially with Trump’s crosshairs on his back.” Rasgon, speaking to Fortune, asks, “How do you attract somebody else into that spot?”

Yup. If someone replaces Tan, I don't expect that person to do anything other than to collect paychecks and run Intel into the ground and then go, "oops!".

 

[jpiniero]

Yup. If someone replaces Tan, I don't expect that person to do anything other than to collect paychecks and run Intel into the ground and then go, "oops!".

That's pretty much what Tan is doing now...

 

[Saylick]

Craig's 10 point plan to save Intel: https://www.aol.com/finance/exclusive-former-intel-ceo-craig-230624250.html

Can be summarized as follows:

- Intel to US Government, other fabless chip designers, pretty much anyone who has money

 

[Saylick]

Yup. If someone replaces Tan, I don't expect that person to do anything other than to collect paychecks and run Intel into the ground and then go, "oops!".

*raises hand for Intel CEO position*

Not gonna lie, I'd willingly sign up for the position just to collect that golden parachute.

 

[igor_kavinski]

*raises hand for Intel CEO position*

Not gonna lie, I'd willingly sign up for the position just to collect that golden parachute.

I would butt-bump you in a heartbeat if I were standing next to you and lock you in a closet or somewhere. Sorry. I want my working Tejas prototype.

 

[marees]

Craig's 10 point plan to save Intel: https://www.aol.com/finance/exclusive-former-intel-ceo-craig-230624250.html

Is he the next CeO

Does he have Trump's ear ?

 

[Doug S]

Try not to talk about Trump challenge! Woops we already failed.

In a sane world, the US president would almost never come up in a tech forum because he would be largely irrelevant to the decisions tech companies are making. Instead he's not only something they have to take heavily into account, now he thinks he has the right to make decisions for them.

It is difficult to stop talking about the elephant in the room when the elephant is stomping around madly without a plan and everyone needs to keep moving around to avoid getting crushed.

 

[dangerman1337]

In a sane world, the US president would almost never come up in a tech forum because he would be largely irrelevant to the decisions tech companies are making. Instead he's not only something they have to take heavily into account, now he thinks he has the right to make decisions for them.

It is difficult to stop talking about the elephant in the room when the elephant is stomping around madly without a plan and everyone needs to keep moving around to avoid getting crushed.

To be fair the Biden Admin + Dem Congress few years ago did pass CHIPs with some GOP Senators so the previous POTUS was relevant. But the manner The Donald is doing things... yeah.

 

[OneEng2]

If we lose Intel we won't have a choice, will we? It's not a sign of national strength to lose sovereignty in that way. Similar arguments can be made around most of the DOD infrastructure, ship building, rare earths, etc. Similar concerns have been had about Boeing as they aren't in as dire straits as Intel, but seem to be suffering from some similar problems, mainly a primary competitor (Airbus) with significant government interventionist support.

Note, my prior comment regarding more government intervention isn't just directed at government taking a more direct stake in the success of key national industries, but also defanging the investor class through bans on stock buybacks, significant increases on income and wealth redistribution and the like. If these companies can stop doing so much dumb sh*t to appease investors and return to a focus on long term strength that would also have substantial benefits. That's more of what Boeings problem has been, and Intels $152B in share buybacks is cash they now desperately need (I mean, that's 3x what Congress allocated in the CHIPS act). TSMC doesn't materially waste money on that.

I agree with your insight. We (voters and politicians) have been selling the U.S. out for decades (IP, raw materials, manufacturing capabilities, you name it). Perhaps this is the end result of an overly capitalistic policy?

Perhaps the way things are in the USA reward short term thinking?

At any rate, I agree. The ability to craft our own leading edge chips is critical to our national interest. Sadly, I am unsure if the average voter sees it that way. Let's hope I am wrong.

They've finally ripped off that old business model and now we have to see what they can do with one which is more realistic to the market. They're likely going to be fine on the design side, they still have a lot going for them there and the path forward is pretty straightforward, it's the foundry side thats the big question.

As to TSMC financial support, yeah, I don't like how that whole thing played out. It might have been necessary for other reasons (if China were to invade Taiwan, the US would be wise to be seen as the preferred place for their talent to decamp to, and that might be a wise investment) but I think a less erratic and more comprehensive set of policies could have achieved similar goals over time.

They appear to be doing so; however, it has taken a huge toll. AMD once had a similar issue .... remember .... "Real men have fabs"?

I would actually be an advocate for the wholesale governmental take over of IFS in order to keep it safe within the USA. Still, it doesn't even need to go that far. If the US would use its huge wealth to strategically subsidize certain business and products, it would pay huge returns.

Not so unlike the GI bill did after WWII. What a strange turn we have today with the political right being in power that our universities are scorned and defunded.

In a sane world, the US president would almost never come up in a tech forum because he would be largely irrelevant to the decisions tech companies are making.

LOL. I run a tech division. I have been doing this kind of work for quite some time. This is the FIRST time in my entire long career that I am on a FIRST NAME BASIS with my Customs Broker (His name is Ernest btw ).

Most of my career, product strategy has been determined by market research, and determining the best strengths and worst weaknesses within the company. Making partnerships and acquisitions where there were weaknesses, and bolstering products that could utilize the strengths.

I have spent so much time planning around politics in the last few years. I have had so many "I need a drink when I get home" days in the last few years.

I can conclusively say we no longer live in a "sane world".

FYI: There are several court cases working their way through the system that are challenging the President's ability to unilaterally impose tariffs. Unfortunately for me, it looks like the earliest this will be decided (and this is with the assumption that it will be up to SCOTUS in the end) will be around June 2026, but as late as June 2027.

In the end, all I can do is to make our product manufacturing as portable as possible .... then try to roll with the punches better than the competition does. I've got to tell you, that really sucks.

 

[RnR_au]

Donald J. Trump: "I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howar...

I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring...

trumpstruth.org

 

[511]

View attachment 128633

Donald J. Trump: "I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howar...

I met with Mr. Lip-Bu Tan, of Intel, along with Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Bessent. The meeting was a very interesting one. His success and rise is an amazing story. Mr. Tan and my Cabinet members are going to spend time together, and bring...

trumpstruth.org

Are we back ?

 

[RnR_au]

Are we back ?

Trump will make it all right again.

Make the past 10 years look like a bad dream.

Intel's Golden Age is nigh!

/s

 

[511]

I forget to put /s in my post

 

[igor_kavinski]

Now if trump doesn't suffer a short term memory loss and forget LBT's history he just learned about, hopefully Intel can get to a good place.

 

[511]

Now if trump doesn't suffer a short term memory loss and forget LBT's history he just learned about, hopefully Intel can get to a good place.

Mission Impossible 69

 

[DrMrLordX]

Did I ever say it was a guarantee? Don't strawman.

You kinda did. That's certainly how it came across.

My point is that the US is leaving Intel to the whims of a market that has a lot of national intervention tipping the scales. That's all.

You should be quite pleased to see that that isn't (necessarily) happening. There's a push for TSMC to get involved, and now Barrett is encouraging the Feds to force American semiconductor firms into an Intel-centric consortium (making it Intel-centric is probably the worst part about this plan). One way or the other, Intel and/or IFS will be getting some kind of bailout. Probably.

@fastandfurious6
Can we not play the "capitalism bad" card in here? Capitalism has produced roaring successes like Apple, AMD, TSMC, etc. We can't blame capitalism for Intel's failures.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Someone commented:

2017: "AMD's CPU dies are glued together" - Intel
2025: "We can't afford glue" - Intel

Priceless. Just 8 years of AMD using the Zen hammer consistently to crack the head of the 800 pound gorilla wide open and now it's looking like it will need to beg for medical treatment.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Another comment:

As someone who works at an intel campus can confirm, the company is mostly cooked. 25% layoffs devastated all areas; eliminating 20+ yrs senior techs the buyout was too good, can't blame them. Attrition + the 2nd round of layoffs gutted areas so hard they just kept bleeding people, truly some areas are just running on life support; machines can't get fixed cause there's no one there etc. Ain't looking so good.

 

[511]

Someone commented:

2017: "AMD's CPU dies are glued together" - Intel
2025: "We can't afford glue" - Intel

Priceless. Just 8 years of AMD using the Zen hammer consistently to crack the head of the 800 pound gorilla wide open and now it's looking like it will need to beg for medical treatment.

People without knowing Intel used the glue before AMD and Intel cooked themselves

 

[511]

Another comment:

Man I am hearing both things there are some teams had too much bloat some were too thin and stretched. LBT doesn't like bloated team.
The one thing is certain Talent is being bled.