News Intel might cancel 14A process node development and the following nodes if it can't win a major external customer — move would cede leading-edge ma...

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Admin

Admin

Administrator
Staff member
Nov 21, 2018
26,875
1,242
44,560
The writing was on the wall with the valuation collapse and it became pretty much inevitable the second they forced Gelsinger out. The supposed investors don't want to build a company's future if it interferes with making money now.

While bad leadership certainly caused the situation that Intel found themselves in this is at best equally bad. The fabs will likely be sold off and we'll have another GloFo except I suspect there will be a lot more job losses because it would cost money to convert DUV fabs to be usable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stomx, hush now, RUSerious and 12 others
Try to think of it like this. AMD chips have used less power for a long time. If Intel changes their focus on making their current chips use less power overall and add a couple AI pieces then they should be fine for the next couple generations.
 
  • Like
Reactions: A Stoner
Intel should spin out the Foundry business at this point, it's clear that it's not a priority for Lip-Bu. Otherwise I just don't see customers having faith that Intel in its current form will be able to compete and without investment it will just die. I think the Foundry would have a better chance on their own of both drawing investment and drawing external customers. I'm not saying it would or wouldn't be successful on its own, just that I think it would have a better chance at succeeding vs what this announcement sounds like (abandonment).
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondPower and MosephV
The THW piece is a regurgitation of the WccfTech piece. As is its MO, both pander for clicks in playing up the more sensational elements of Intel's 10-Q to cater to the "Intel is d00med" peanut gallery.

Intel's latest 10-Q (the full Monty): https://www.intc.com/filings-report...0000050863-25-000109/0000050863-25-000109.pdf

Summary: https://www.stocktitan.net/news/INTC/intel-reports-second-quarter-2025-financial-c10jc8w3nntd.html

For more objective commentary, there are plenty, all of which are eminently more qualified than abovesaid clickbait. Just search "Intel Q2 earnings". Here's a nuanced take that covers both the optimist and skeptic views:

https://finance.yahoo.com/video/intel-q2-beat-companys-turnaround-211236407.html

Lip Bu Tan is making foundational changes, along with deep cuts in personnel. When faced with drastic changes, opinions will always span the gamut, because the stakes are high. Significant risk exists. IMO, risk is inevitable, as there are no easy or quick paths to turnaround.

The question is whether you as an investor (raises hand) buy into the CEO's rationale, per below. I do. I have skin in the game.

From Reuters:
=====
In a memo to employees, Tan said Intel is changing its strategy for building manufacturing capacity and now plans to build factories only when the demand for its chips is there. Previously, the company had built factories ahead of demand.

"There are no more blank checks," Tan wrote in the memo. "Every investment must make economic sense. We will build what our customers need, when they need it, and earn their trust through consistent execution."

Intel is now working to bring its so-called 18A manufacturing process, which has few external customers, to high volume. In the memo, Tan said the company plans to take a disciplined approach to investments in the next-generation 14A manufacturing process.

In its securities filings, Intel said that if it fails to find a significant external customer for 14A, it may be forced to exit the chip manufacturing business. The company said it is retaining the option to make all products that need performance beyond its 18A generation at external foundries.

Prior to Tan's tenure, Intel had committed to tens of billions of dollars of new factory construction in the U.S. and elsewhere. On Thursday, Tan wrote the company now plans to slow construction work on new factories in Ohio and halt planned factories in Poland and Germany.

Tan also said the company would consolidate chip packaging operations in Costa Rica with its other packaging operations in Vietnam and Malaysia, breaking with a longtime Intel practice of maintaining operations in separate global regions for supply-chain resiliency.

On a conference call with analysts, Tan's tone suggested he has taken charge of the company and was trying to wrest it back from what he viewed as previous missteps.
"I do not subscribe to the belief that if you build it, they will come," he said on the call. He later added that he will personally review and approve each of Intel's major chip designs.

Tan also said on the call he believes that Intel's 18A technology could generate a reasonable return on investments even if it is used only for Intel's own products. Reuters reported earlier this month that Tan is debating whether to quit offering that technology to external customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheSecondPower, ikjadoon and bolweval
thestryker said:
The cynic in me says this is working as intended.
Click to expand...
bit_user said:
Such announcements are exactly the opposite of how you instill confidence in prospective customers!

The correct approach would be:
​
"Intel remains committed to ensuring these nodes are competitive and delivered on-target."​
​

...or something like that. Threatening to cancel them could end up being a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Click to expand...
Intel's board probably has a bankruptcy
announcement plan in 2027. This is actually beneficial for them cuz there's no saving Intel now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hush now and jg.millirem
baboma said:
The question is whether you as an investor (raises hand) buy into the CEO's rationale, per below. I do. I have skin in the game.
Click to expand...
I don't buy into a thing he's doing and I also have skin in the game. He's exactly what wall street wants not what Intel as a company needs to execute. Every move he's made since being hired has been in service of dismantling the company and this is no different.

That Reuters piece you quoted has factually inaccurate information in the first paragraph so there's that.
baboma said:
The THW piece is a regurgitation of the WccfTech piece. As is its MO, both pander for clicks in playing up the more sensational elements of Intel's 10-Q to cater to the "Intel is d00med" peanut gallery.
Click to expand...
This is just your bias showing. This article is focused on the part that matters most to technology and while the headline is certainly sensational (what headline isn't these days) the article isn't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bga, hush now, Roland Of Gilead and 4 others
>I don't buy into a thing he's doing and I also have skin in the game.

As said, opinions vary. You are of course entitled to yours.

>He's exactly what wall street wants not what Intel as a company needs to execute.

Wall Street represents investors, that's me, and from yours above, also you. Each party has its respective priorities, but the end game is the same: We all want Intel to succeed, not just make numbers for the next quarter, but for an ongoing basis. It's frankly ignorant to get on your high horse and proclaim that you know better than other investors.

>Every move he's made since being hired has been in service of dismantling the company and this is no different.

If that's what you think, then your course is obvious. Divest of any Intel holding.

Tan's rationale resonates to me, as a fiscal conservative. Intel's first order of business is to stop the hemmoraging. Cut headcount to no more than is needed. Don't build factories unless you can ascertain demand. These are all sensible moves. The turnaround will take time, multiple years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: adbatista, atomicWAR, TheSecondPower and 1 other person
baboma said:
We all want Intel to succeed, not just make numbers for the next quarter, but for an ongoing basis.
Click to expand...
Based on the wall street reaction to Intel releasing foundry financials this is false (everyone should have known foundry was heavily subsidized so it losing money was no surprise). Pretty much every major publicly traded company that has died has followed the same general path: financial people get in charge of a successful company and muck it up. Then someone comes in to "improve efficiency" who ends up carving the company apart until it's nothing but a shell. What Tan is doing will likely end up making me money, but I don't believe for a second the Intel that I watched evolve over the years exists at the end of it.
baboma said:
If that's what you think, then your course is obvious. Divest of any Intel holding.
Click to expand...
If it wouldn't cost me money I'd have done so already after they forced Gelsinger out.
baboma said:
Tan's rationale resonates to me, as a fiscal conservative. Intel's first order of business is to stop the hemmoraging. Cut headcount to no more than is needed. Don't build factories unless you can ascertain demand. These are all sensible moves. The turnaround will take time, multiple years.
Click to expand...
They're cutting people they can't actually afford to lose if they plan on having a successful manufacturing business. Nothing is sensible about undermining your own business if you plan on keeping said business. They also didn't say anything about the joint DUV node with UMC, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything.

A lot of the current big money losses seem to be tied solely to restructuring.

I tend to wait for Ian's analysis which he'll probably post tomorrow, but it sure sounds like setting Intel up to dump foundry as soon as viable: https://morethanmoore.substack.com/p/intel-2025-q2-financials
 
  • Like
Reactions: bga, hush now, DS426 and 3 others
bit_user said:
Such announcements are exactly the opposite of how you instill confidence in prospective customers!

The correct approach would be:
​
"Intel remains committed to ensuring these nodes are competitive and delivered on-target."​
​

...or something like that. Threatening to cancel them could end up being a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Click to expand...
Beside that, I wonder isn't they are bonded to continue development due to the massive CHIPS act? As a foreigner I am not remotely sure about the details but when they got the funding and threatens to cancel development sounds like a breach in contract
 
  • Like
Reactions: MosephV
Oddly they couldn’t find a worse CEO and they did. The world relying on 2 fab manufacturers for our most important commodity today , and 1 tool maker is absurd. The US will have no leading edge capability, China will certainly have such capability with in next 3-5 years and the US will be out in the cold. I guess logically with TSMC building fabs in the US, is insulated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TCA_ChinChin, bga, hush now and 3 others
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom