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...

[jeremyj_83]

This is what happens when you put a bean counter in charge of a company that should be run by an engineer.

Far too many US companies have CEO's from the marketing department. Compare that to Germany where most CEO's are from R&D. It isn't surprising that AMD's resurgence came about when they hired Lisa Su an engineer to be CEO.

 

[jeremyj_83]

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.

It takes about 4 years to bring out a new chip. Intel half attempted to do this with their hybrid design, but it hasn't done enough yet.

 

[redgarl]

Yeah, he pretty much seems hell bent on prepping the company for dismantling, or a private equity takeover pump and dump.

I didn't catch this one, but your hunch might be right. What is for sure is the fabs are now over. Intel will not get significant customers because they cannot package chips any close to their competition.

 

[redgarl]

This is what happens when you put a bean counter in charge of a company that should be run by an engineer.

Well, he did a master in nuclear engineering and a Bachelor in physics.

 

[abufrejoval]

This is what happens when you put a bean counter in charge of a company that should be run by an engineer.

As a moderator, you should be more moderate...

Intel was a huge ship. And when you run a Titanic, it doesn't matter if you have a bean counter or an engineer currently at the helm, because you can spin the wheel as fast as you want, that won't make the ship turn faster.

Decisions long past can determine your fate, basic assumptions about the design, the number of life boats etc. were made long before the iceberg even calved.

And the engineer didn't help, did he?

Could he have avoided the 10nm fab issues? Should Intel have become an open fab at 45nm or any other point?
Should he have stayed at VMware to avoid that other disaster?
Or should Hock Tan/Broadcomm have taken over Intel years ago?

The answers certainly aren't as easy as you make them.

 

[TerryLaze]

I didn't catch this one, but your hunch might be right. What is for sure is the fabs are now over. Intel will not get significant customers because they cannot package chips any close to their competition.

Chips don't have to be packaged by the one producing them, the whole point of the intel fabs is to use industry standards.
Also what do you mean by this: "because they cannot package chips any close to their competition." ? Do you mean volume? quality? geographically?

 

[jeremyj_83]

Well, he did a master in nuclear engineering and a Bachelor in physics.

Yes he is an engineer but nuclear engineering has nothing to do with (AFAIK) anything Intel has in their portfolio of products. Lisa Su on the other hand has her degree in electrical engineering with computer chip design being part of it. Sure they are both engineers but one has direct experience in the field for which she is CEO of a company and the other doesn't.

 

[danny009]

Intel needs to admit a lot of things, like alot, like destroying and abusing consumers with overpriced CPUs for YEARS.

 

[logainofhades]

Yes he is an engineer but nuclear engineering has nothing to do with (AFAIK) anything Intel has in their portfolio of products. Lisa Su on the other hand has her degree in electrical engineering with computer chip design being part of it. Sure they are both engineers but one has direct experience in the field for which she is CEO of a company and the other doesn't.

Yes I have had managers that knew nothing about what they were supposed to be in charge of. It's not an enjoyable experience.

 

[DS426]

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.

My sentiment. I realize that Intel is trying to be much more honest and upfront about issues that could impact investors (filing SEC reports demonstrates this), which I commend them for. Still, this is something that should be kept internal to Intel, not expressed publicly.

At this point, I'm also thinking the writing is on the wall that IFS will have to retract back such that they aren't developing and manufacturing on leading-edge nodes. I sincerely wish that TSMC and Samsung had the competition, but it doesn't seem realistic at this point. Heck, even Samsung is kind of struggling right now on leading-edge nodes and customer contracts, something that was unfathomable just seven or eight years ago.

IMO, Intel could and should still focus on advanced nodes as there's plenty of market capacity for this and decent margin, just not leading-edge.

 

[baboma]

>I realize that Intel is trying to be much more honest and upfront about issues that could impact investors (filing SEC reports demonstrates this), which I commend them for. Still, this is something that should be kept internal to Intel, not expressed publicly.

Intel isn't being nice. It's the law. Publicly-traded companies have to disclose all possible significant risks and scenarios in their 10-Qs and 10-Ks to comply with SEC regulations. Not getting customer interest in 14A, and how Intel would respond, is certainly a risk, albeit a very unlikely one.

>I'm also thinking the writing is on the wall that IFS will have to retract back such that they aren't developing and manufacturing on leading-edge nodes.

No need for the gloom-and-doom. That's what happens when you take clickbait junk as gospel--you get a skewed perspective on reality. Tan did not say 14A would be deep-sixed, only that he would work with customers to get their input (and buy-in) BEFORE committing to a build-out. No one wants a repeat of what happened with 18A.

Somebody posted link to the Ian Cutress report earlier. Go read that.

 

[TerryLaze]

No one wants a repeat of what happened with 18A.

We have no idea what happened to 18A...
Just a report that intel might stop promoting it.
That could mean anything, maybe they already got enough customers for it or they might cancel it.
Until they tell us which one happened we will not know.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

The only way I can see this turning around for Intel (as a manufacturing company) is if this is a bid to get the US government to bail them out in a big way. But I don't think even that would work, as the problems appear to be systemic with Intel's foundry side. Basically, the government would have to agree to pour tens of billions per year into the problem to keep leading edge manufacturing by Intel in the US. It would be shocking to actually see that happen — whether you think it's a good idea or bad, I just can imagine there will be enough consensus among the various political factions to make that happen over the long term.

Mind you, I personally think putting $50 billion per year into leading edge silicon manufacturing in the US would be a far better way to spend tax dollars than much of what seems to happen. I just don't believe you'd ever get legislation to make such a move happen that wouldn't end up with a ton of bloat, pork fat, etc. Politicians just can't help themselves.

 

[DS426]

That stupid anti-woke agenda is no more than a political spin from the right wing. Anyone stating business problems are due to DEI are just a bunch of cultist with a political agenda.

Really? Business problems can happen from pretty much literally anything. You might not want to hear it, but silencing a conversation is pretty anti-Free Speech and controlling in nature. Not hiring necessarily the best person for the job can create issues. It's a real concern with the FAA today. You might not accept it, but people's lives are at stake, so I'll at least consider any possibility, especially when there's no better explanation.

Instead, any critics are categorically described as politically-motivated and cultists. Name-calling is a great way to make your argument...

Come on folks, let's get back to the topic. The post that mentioned this by @jg.millirem was just suggesting that Intel had some kind of cultural or mindset problem, just mentioning DEI as a possibility.

>I realize that Intel is trying to be much more honest and upfront about issues that could impact investors (filing SEC reports demonstrates this), which I commend them for. Still, this is something that should be kept internal to Intel, not expressed publicly.

Intel isn't being nice. It's the law. Publicly-traded companies have to disclose all possible significant risks and scenarios in their 10-Qs and 10-Ks to comply with SEC regulations. Not getting customer interest in 14A, and how Intel would respond, is certainly a risk, albeit a very unlikely one.

>I'm also thinking the writing is on the wall that IFS will have to retract back such that they aren't developing and manufacturing on leading-edge nodes.

No need for the gloom-and-doom. That's what happens when you take clickbait junk as gospel--you get a skewed perspective on reality. Tan did not say 14A would be deep-sixed, only that he would work with customers to get their input (and buy-in) BEFORE committing to a build-out. No one wants a repeat of what happened with 18A.

Somebody posted link to the Ian Cutress report earlier. Go read that.

Intel is in a class-action lawsuit for misleading investors leading up to their stock value cratering, plus in separate smaller ones. It might be the law, but Intel might have not have followed the law; thus, I'm comparatively saying that they appear to be less optimistic and more transparent about issues now.

What happened with 18A?

If 18A has a major problem, why wouldn't we be cynical at best and realistic at worst about 14A and IFS' future on leading-edge nodes?

No need for gloom-and-doom? Sure, this is a clickbaity article, and it's a speculative one -- thus, we're speculating here. IF Intel doesn't get sufficient orders for 14A, that IS a problem, isn't it?

 

[DS426]

The only way I can see this turning around for Intel (as a manufacturing company) is if this is a bid to get the US government to bail them out in a big way. But I don't think even that would work, as the problems appear to be systemic with Intel's foundry side. Basically, the government would have to agree to pour tens of billions per year into the problem to keep leading edge manufacturing by Intel in the US. It would be shocking to actually see that happen — whether you think it's a good idea or bad, I just can imagine there will be enough consensus among the various political factions to make that happen over the long term.

Mind you, I personally think putting $50 billion per year into leading edge silicon manufacturing in the US would be a far better way to spend tax dollars than much of what seems to happen. I just don't believe you'd ever get legislation to make such a move happen that wouldn't end up with a ton of bloat, pork fat, etc. Politicians just can't help themselves.

I agree. Until Intel really marries up with Uncle Sam (not a measly $3 Bn order) by wooing enough of Congress and a little more buy-in from whoever the sitting POTUS is, I think they're going to be running on fumes. The big beautiful bill already passed, so it's a miss for this fiscal year. Lol and yep, it would be a better spend of tax dollars IMO, even though some of it would effectively just be pork fat (just an inescapable fact when government is large and the relationship between Congress and the private sector).

 

[magbarn]

The only way I can see this turning around for Intel (as a manufacturing company) is if this is a bid to get the US government to bail them out in a big way. But I don't think even that would work, as the problems appear to be systemic with Intel's foundry side. Basically, the government would have to agree to pour tens of billions per year into the problem to keep leading edge manufacturing by Intel in the US. It would be shocking to actually see that happen — whether you think it's a good idea or bad, I just can imagine there will be enough consensus among the various political factions to make that happen over the long term.

Mind you, I personally think putting $50 billion per year into leading edge silicon manufacturing in the US would be a far better way to spend tax dollars than much of what seems to happen. I just don't believe you'd ever get legislation to make such a move happen that wouldn't end up with a ton of bloat, pork fat, etc. Politicians just can't help themselves.

I would rather see the US dump $50 billion into maintaining the latest process node than spending on another aircraft carrier and/or new fighter jet. The Chinese are dumping billions in order to catch up to TSMC. The worst case scenario would be TSMC and China being the only capable countries/companies that can make leading edge nodes.

 

[atomicWAR]

One foundry to rule them all

The very last thing we should want. We need competition not consolidation or the consumers lose.

 

[vanadiel007]

Intel should go back to basics and spin off everything else. Let's see some good 300A that can run like a much more expensive 450A with a good motherboard and a few tweaks.

Let's put the fun back in owning a CPU.

 

[Loadedaxe]

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.

That’s fair in theory, but it oversimplifies where Intel is right now. Intel’s 14A node isn't just a minor tweak, it’s part of a complete architectural and manufacturing overhaul. AMD has had a lead in efficiency for years largely because of TSMC’s mature nodes like N5 and N4, while Intel has struggled with its process roadmap for a decade.

Now with 14A (Intel’s first angstrom-class node), they’re aiming for parity, or even a lead in both performance per watt and transistor density. But that’s a huge technical leap, not just “focusing on lower power” or adding some AI cores. If Intel pulls it off, it could be game changing, but the stakes are higher than just coasting through the next couple gens.

Also, AMD isn't standing still. Zen 5 and future Zen 6 are also AI-capable and likely to use even more efficient TSMC nodes (like N3 or 2nm). So Intel has to actually leap ahead, not just catch up.

Intel probably won't crush AMD or TSMC with 14A, but it could mark the start of a real comeback, especially if they execute on their new "5 nodes in 4 years" plan. The next 2 to 3 years will determine if Intel Foundry Services actually becomes a viable TSMC competitor.

It will not be easy for Intel

 

[redgarl]

Yes he is an engineer but nuclear engineering has nothing to do with (AFAIK) anything Intel has in their portfolio of products. Lisa Su on the other hand has her degree in electrical engineering with computer chip design being part of it. Sure they are both engineers but one has direct experience in the field for which she is CEO of a company and the other doesn't.

Sure, but he is not a bean counter. He is a science guy to. He was the CEO of CADENCE, the company responsible for Electrical Engineering software to create electronics and chips.

He is no Bob Swan, and even there, Bob was probably the best CEO Intel had in the last 10 years. He was not a clown and wanted to focus on preventing the competition from gaining ground in the server market.

Pat went Nuclear and decided to rival TSMC in chip manufacturing to gain government subsidize, which was the last nail in the coffin.

The matter of fact is not that Lisa is an engineer or a Ph.D. in chips, it is just that she just a terrific CEO. One of the few that can do what she did with AMD.

 

[TerryLaze]

The only way I can see this turning around for Intel

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/intels-foundry-future-depends-securing-customer-next-gen-chipmaking-tech-2025-07-25/

Context is everything:
(and something completely missing from tom's )

In a post-earnings conference call, Tan said on Thursday that he is focused on working with customers to ensure 14A is a success and that tight collaboration with external customers is something that was absent from the company's 18A, which is set to go into high-volume production later this year.

Tan said bringing those prospective customers in and gaining their feedback during 14A's development has already made it more promising than 18A.
"That gave me a lot more confidence that this time, we have customers (that) are engaging early enough in the inception" of 14A, Tan said. "We learn from our mistakes, and we can learn quicker and then get a better result."

 

[redgarl]

Chips don't have to be packaged by the one producing them, the whole point of the intel fabs is to use industry standards.
Also what do you mean by this: "because they cannot package chips any close to their competition." ? Do you mean volume? quality? geographically?

Sorry pal, didn't you missed what Jensen said when doing a speech at TSMC? He said doing what they are doing is impossible without TSMC because of packaging.

This is especially true for high end chips, which 18a and 14a are aiming for. It requires packaging ironically, Intel is trying to offer nodes, but with lacking packaging features, resulting in limitation for monolithic design, or being packaged somewhere else unless designing chips with Intel solution.

All of AMD designs are chiplets, beside some monolithic APUs and GPUs. Nvidia is going the same path. Apple is gluing chips to. That's the reason why CoWoS was literally the reason of TSMC dominance, and now they are getting even further to the point that Intel will not be able to compete with TSMC next iteration of packaging solutions.

 

[hotaru251]

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.

if Intel knew how to do it they wouldnt of kept pushing power and have the whole 13/14th gen issue.
Their newest lineup are cut back on power and that is exactly why they are not an improvement. It'll take a efw yrs for them to actually get back as a competitor as AMD was similar they went from no competition to meeting and then surpassing.
Intel just has to suffer for a while in meantime (and hopefully company straight up tells investors to trust em for long term gain or they lose everything)

 

[redgarl]

Really? Business problems can happen from pretty much literally anything. You might not want to hear it, but silencing a conversation is pretty anti-Free Speech and controlling in nature. Not hiring necessarily the best person for the job can create issues. It's a real concern with the FAA today. You might not accept it, but people's lives are at stake, so I'll at least consider any possibility, especially when there's no better explanation.

Instead, any critics are categorically described as politically-motivated and cultists. Name-calling is a great way to make your argument...

Come on folks, let's get back to the topic. The post that mentioned this by @jg.millirem was just suggesting that Intel had some kind of cultural or mindset problem, just mentioning DEI as a possibility.

Intel is in a class-action lawsuit for misleading investors leading up to their stock value cratering, plus in separate smaller ones. It might be the law, but Intel might have not have followed the law; thus, I'm comparatively saying that they appear to be less optimistic and more transparent about issues now.

The problem at Intel was due to their business model and the competition kicking their butt. Without the money to maintain their monopoly tactics, their business model became impossible to maintain. It is their strategic decision that sunk them, not their demographic. The factor that you are mentioning is irrelevant to the current situation and simply a spur at a political agenda revendicated by a small fringe of the community based on nothing but speculation.

I called it and was the one making sure that people understood that Intel issues are linked to their business decisions.

 

[TerryLaze]

Sorry pal, didn't you missed what Jensen said when doing a speech at TSMC? He said doing what they are doing is impossible without TSMC because of packaging.

This is especially true for high end chips, which 18a and 14a are aiming for. It requires packaging ironically, Intel is trying to offer nodes, but with lacking packaging features, resulting in limitation for monolithic design, or being packaged somewhere else unless designing chips with Intel solution.

All of AMD designs are chiplets, beside some monolithic APUs and GPUs. Nvidia is going the same path. Apple is gluing chips to. That's the reason why CoWoS was literally the reason of TSMC dominance, and now they are getting even further to the point that Intel will not be able to compete with TSMC next iteration of packaging solutions.

Intel packaged arrow lake themselves although they where chiplet based and made by tsmc....