News Intel CEO Argues for Largest Slice of $52bn US CHIPS Act Pie

[Admin]

Intel should get the biggest slice of CHIPS Act funding as it conducts its R&D in the US, reckons CEO Pat Gelsinger.

Intel CEO Argues for Largest Slice of $52bn US CHIPS Act Pie : Read more

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

No, Intel needs to do more with less.

Competition is good, Intel needs to operate with less.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

I'm not a fan of the CHIPS act, but... Pat's argument seems logical to me.

 

[georgebaker437]

Great idea! Let's give more money to the people who shipped the industry to the Third World for a few decimals of profit on the quarterlies and big bonuses for talentless MBA's. All while laying off the engineers who create the tech which created the industry and tying their hand with ridiculous "Do Not Compete" nonsense, making many of them unemployable.

 

[NeoMorpheus]

No my dear Pat.

If anything, Intel shouldnt get a penny and instead be forced to use all the money that your beloved company made via illegal ways, like bribing Dell to keep AMD away.

 

[bit_user]

I do get his points about the trade restrictions that have hurt Intel since the CHIPS act was passed, but if part of his rationale is where the R&D happens, well he should've had his lobbyists put something about that in the bill.
: P

I'm being only partially facetious, here.

Anyway, from the US Government's perspective, the ideal outcome is to have a US semiconductor industry with multiple competitive players. And the funding was allocated to serve the interests of the country and the tax payers, not a corporation and its investors. So, although it might be nice to have some additional R&D tax credits, the money is best spent more broadly, and not going predominantly to one or two players.

 

[mac_angel]

none of them should be getting money. When they, and their 'investors' are making billions in profit each year, they should NOT be getting more money from any government.

 

[bit_user]

Great idea! Let's give more money to the people who shipped the industry to the Third World for a few decimals of profit on the quarterlies and big bonuses for talentless MBA's. All while laying off the engineers who create the tech which created the industry and tying their hand with ridiculous "Do Not Compete" nonsense, making many of them unemployable.

The CHIPS bill has some strings attached to the funding, including that recipients can't build any new fabs in China (and I think at least certain other countries?) for some years afterwards. Also, there's a clawback clause for windfall profits, as well as restrictions that they have to actually spend the money on fabs and can't effectively pass it through to their investors.

For this type of legislation, it actually seems above par.

none of them should be getting money. When they, and their 'investors' are making billions in profit each year, they should NOT be getting more money from any government.

You have to balance that righteous indignation against the very real possibility that Taiwan will go "offline", in 2027 or so. The US will need enough capacity that there's not an epic chip shortage, at that time, that makes the one from a few years ago look like a walk in the park.

The right solution to excessive corporate profits is something else. And it should apply to more than just a few chip makers.

 

[DavidLejdar]

Does that mean he wants less public money in Germany (as Intel is in Europe as TSMC is in the U.S.) ?

Or would it then be all like: "Oh noes, violation of free market principles, and stuff.", when some would get an advantage just for being locals ?

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

TSMC getting taxpayer money and then bringing over hundreds of workers from Taiwan is ridiculous.

TSMC is now literally cutting pay of workers who are part of any union and replacing them with Taiwanese workers.

This benefits no one in the US and it costs US taxpayers billions of $.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

Great idea! Let's give more money to the people who shipped the industry to the Third World for a few decimals of profit on the quarterlies and big bonuses for talentless MBA's.

Almost all of Intel's fab capacity is located in the US.

Intel fabs:

D1B	U.S.	300mm, Development
RB1	U.S.	300mm, Development
D1C	U.S.	300mm, Development
RP1	U.S.	300mm, Research
D1D	U.S.	300mm, Development
D1X	U.S.	300mm, Development
Fab 11X	U.S.	300mm, 45 nm/32 nm, Packaging
Fab 12	U.S.	300mm, 22 nm/14 nm/10 nm
Fab 22	U.S.	300mm, 22 nm/14 nm/10 nm
Fab 24	Ireland	300mm, 14 nm
Fab 28a	Israel	300mm, 22 nm
Fab 28	Israel	300mm, 22nm/14nm/10nm
Fab 38	Israel	300mm, 22 nm
Fab 32	U.S.	300mm, 22 nm/14 nm/10 nm
Fab 34	Ireland	300mm, Intel 4
Fab 42	U.S.	300mm, 10 nm/5 nm (2024)
Fab 52	U.S.	300mm, Intel 20A
Fab 62	U.S.	300mm, Intel 20A;
Fab 27	U.S.	300mm, 5 nm
SC2	U.S.	Intel Mask Operations
Pelican	Malaysia	300mm, Packaging
Fab 29	Germany

​

 

[Ron F]

It does makes sense, for Intel. However, I guess the Act aims to attract foreign companies to install their plants in the US. Perhaps a different program should address US companies.

 

[gatorsdontsweat]

Didn't Intel layoff thousands of people and cut pay and benefits basically across the board right after the CHIPS act passed last year?

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

The CHIPS bill has some strings attached to the funding, including that recipients can't build any new fabs in China (and I think at least certain other countries?)

Except TSMC and Samsung are actually upgrading and expanding their China factories.

What the US government says, and what is actually going on, are very different things. The idea that TSMC or Samsung care what the US government says is very wishful thinking, both TSMC and Samsung have been expanding their presence in mainland China for years.

 

[bit_user]

Didn't Intel layoff thousands of people and cut pay and benefits basically across the board right after the CHIPS act passed last year?

Yes, because it also happened to coincide with one of their worst quarters in decades. The CHIPS money hasn't even been apportioned yet, or else they wouldn't still be fighting over it. So, the timing is purely a coincidence.

 

[graham006]

No, Intel needs to do more with less.

Competition is good, Intel needs to operate with less.

Why? Where is your well reasoned argument? Relative cost for Taiwan is much less than US even when factoring PPP. So I would argue Intel should get more.

 

[graham006]

Except TSMC and Samsung are actually upgrading and expanding their China factories.

What the US government says, and what is actually going on, are very different things. The idea that TSMC or Samsung care what the US government says is very wishful thinking, both TSMC and Samsung have been expanding their presence in mainland China for years.

Wrong. The US has gotten agreements from Germany and Netherlands to abide by export controls of advanced lithography machinesm. Without these machines neither Samsung nor TSMC can expand their advanced nodes to China.

 

[graham006]

Great idea! Let's give more money to the people who shipped the industry to the Third World for a few decimals of profit on the quarterlies and big bonuses for talentless MBA's. All while laying off the engineers who create the tech which created the industry and tying their hand with ridiculous "Do Not Compete" nonsense, making many of them unemployable.

Poorly reasoned arguments. One, did Intel ship jobs to the Third world? No. Most of Intel fabs are in the US, Ireland and Israel. All companies make people sign non compete contracts. Hell I worked for a large veterinary practice at one point and they made me sign a non compete when I got a significant promotion. These are essentially not enforceable anyway.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Why? Where is your well reasoned argument? Relative cost for Taiwan is much less than US even when factoring PPP. So I would argue Intel should get more.

Given all of Intel's criminal past, nope, they should get less.

They're convicted monopolists, you can't trust them.

They need to split Intel's chip design & manufacturing arm into seperate companies before they should get a single cent.

 

[graham006]

Given all of Intel's criminal past, nope, they should get less.

They're convicted monopolists, you can't trust them.

They need to split Intel's chip design & manufacturing arm into seperate companies before they should get a single cent.

You do know what the word criminal means right? When was Intel found guilty of criminal charges. Civil sure... Criminal I don't know of it.

 

[rluker5]

From what I've read, the 52 billion Intel is talking about it for "Some $52.7 billion is for semiconductor manufacturing, R&D, and workforce development" in the US to strengthen the US semiconductor industry.

Intel is right in the middle of that. Texas Instruments, Tower, Onsemi, and some smaller and less local ones are in there as well, but to a lesser extent, individually. AMD does design, but is doing a lot of outsourcing like this: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/a...loru, India, already in 2023, reports Reuters. They also don't do a lot of research focused on fabs AFAIK.

It seems like Intel should be getting the largest single part, but other US based companies that are making capital improvements to their fabs, doing research on chip fabrication and train local people to work in those fabs should get some as well. Foreign based companies can get subsidies from their governments. With a limited budget it is best to focus on what will most benefit the US with US taxpayer funds .

On a side note, does anybody know if my Raptor Lake chips are fabbed in Oregon? Just curious and have had trouble finding the answer.

 

[PlaneInTheSky]

Wrong. The US has gotten agreements from Germany and Netherlands to abide by export controls of advanced lithography machinesm. Without these machines neither Samsung nor TSMC can expand their advanced nodes to China.

TSMC and Samsung are expanding in China right now. You can make 7nm without EUV.

And like I already said. What the US government says in front of the camera ... and actually does...are 2 completely different things.

Look at the data.

TSMC got the blessing of the US government to expand their operations in China just a few months ago.

In fact this whole "decoupling from China" story by the US administration, is completely contradictory to what is actually going on. Trade with China has never been higher, including in high-end technology.

 

[TerryLaze]

No, Intel needs to do more with less.

Competition is good, Intel needs to operate with less.

Competition is terrible because the company that has more money just buys out the smaller company or just causes them to go bankrupt until only one is left, that's why the FTC is fighting so hard to keep competition from happening by not allowing big buyouts and by protecting small companies by not allowing big companies to sell products for too cheap.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Competition is terrible because the company that has more money just buys out the smaller company or just causes them to go bankrupt until only one is left, that's why the FTC is fighting so hard to keep competition from happening by not allowing big buyouts and by protecting small companies by not allowing big companies to sell products for too cheap.

And that is why you need "MASSIVE Regulation" on what a company can do, especially if they are in a market dominant position that is monopolistic.

If they are in a "Dominant Position with significant or Monopolistic" market share, they shouldn't be allowed to lower prices to cause a competitors to go bankrupt by selling for too cheap or below cost; fine the company until they operate above board or the government should shut them down and break them up.

They shouldn't be allowed to buy anybody out or buy into any other industries.

They should be required to pay fair wages to their workers and make sure c-suite salary is regulated relative to their mainline worker.

 

[TerryLaze]

And that is why you need "MASSIVE Regulation" on what a company can do, especially if they are in a market dominant position that is monopolistic.

If they are in a "Dominant Position with significant or Monopolistic" market share, they shouldn't be allowed to lower prices to cause a competitors to go bankrupt by selling for too cheap or below cost; fine the company until they operate above board or the government should shut them down and break them up.

They shouldn't be allowed to buy anybody out or buy into any other industries.

They should be required to pay fair wages to their workers and make sure c-suite salary is regulated relative to their mainline worker.

So we both agree, competition is terrible, yet at the start you said that it's good.