News U.S. Govt pushes Nvidia and Apple to use Intel's foundries — Department of Commerce Secretary Raimondo makes appeal for US-based chip production

[Admin]

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger expressed his frustrations about American tech companies' use of TSMC for their chip requirements during a meeting with Secretary Raimondo. The latter then encouraged investors in private sessions to use American foundries for their chip-making needs.

U.S. Govt pushes Nvidia and Apple to use Intel's foundries — Department of Commerce Secretary Raimondo makes appeal for US-based chip production : Read more

 

[Marlin1975]

And if I was Nvidia or Apple I tell them why would we use intel when intel does not even use intel?
Intels newest chip will be made at TSMC. Even intel knows it can't make cutting edge chips anymore.

 

[watzupken]

“Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger expressed frustration with America’s reliance on TSMC to produce advanced chips”

Pat forgot he is also using TSMC for his chips. Who is he frustrated with? Himself? So if yield is poor, why would companies use Intel foundry.

 

[rluker5]

At least this article noticed that Intel has yet to receive payment of anything from that Chips act from around 3 years ago. But because of misinformation spreading journalists like this author it is common knowledge that Intel has already received tens of billions of dollars.

Also "common knowledge" are the misconceptions that all Intel 13th and 14th gen chips are failing, low volt instability=high volt degradation, and Intel CPUs generally use 320w all of the time.

This article is trying to spread another one: "Because of this, Intel is reportedly considering spinning off its manufacturing " is per one possibly short selling analyst and should not be portrayed as mainstream fact as it is not.

The bias held by the author in some of these articles apparently completely justifies spreading misinformation. Are you more or less informed after reading them?

 

[rluker5]

“Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger expressed frustration with America’s reliance on TSMC to produce advanced chips”

Pat forgot he is also using TSMC for his chips. Who is he frustrated with? Himself? So if yield is poor, why would companies use Intel foundry.

He is for some. So are you saying that no use of TSMC by any American chipmaker should be allowed?

 

[bigdragon]

Why would Apple or AMD -- companies that also produce processors -- want to let Intel have access to their trade secrets and processor designs? Pat doesn't seem to recognize that the very customers he wants at Intel's fabs are also competitors who know of Intel's anti-competitive practices from the past. Diversifying away from TSMC makes sense given the geopolitical climate, but running into the arms of a competitor who has been known to use underhanded tactics is not smart.

 

[rtoaht]

And if I was Nvidia or Apple I tell them why would we use intel when intel does not even use intel?
Intels newest chip will be made at TSMC. Even intel knows it can't make cutting edge chips anymore.

Then add tariffs on foreign subsidized chips. Taiwanese, Korean, Japanese, and of course Chinese governments have been subsidizing their domestic chip production for decades. It is time for the US to match their subsidies with CHIPS act and then add tariffs on foreign subsidized chips.

 

[DS426]

And if I was Nvidia or Apple I tell them why would we use intel when intel does not even use intel?
Intels newest chip will be made at TSMC. Even intel knows it can't make cutting edge chips anymore.

Lots of absolutes here. "Intel does not even use Intel" -- Intel does, it just depends on the timing of chip releases, what part of a CPU package you're talking about (remember tiles?), and availability of advanced node production, e.g. Intel 18A won't be production ready for the 200 series chips but will be available someday, so CPU logic could and likely would come back in-house.
"Even intel knows it can't make cutting edge chips anymore" -- again, 18A and beyond. Sure, there's a big loss of confidence as of recently, but until IFS fails to deliver on the upcoming nodes, both parties are still in the running.

Beyond all of the rhetoric one way or another on Intel and IFS's business and products performance, we really do need another advanced node player in the game. TSMC has already talked about raising prices recently and especially charging more when customers specify "I want these chips made in the U.S. fabs." That pricing policy alone would in turn increase IFS' competitiveness.

 

[MacZ24]

"Think of the security/privacy" is the "think of the children" of tech.

When Microsoft says you need new CPUs for its new OS, what it really means is "think of the Intel".

 

[Marlin1975]

Lots of absolutes here. "Intel does not even use Intel" -- Intel does, it just depends on the timing of chip releases, what part of a CPU package you're talking about (remember tiles?), and availability of advanced node production, e.g. Intel 18A won't be production ready for the 200 series chips but will be available someday, so CPU logic could and likely would come back in-house.
"Even intel knows it can't make cutting edge chips anymore" -- again, 18A and beyond. Sure, there's a big loss of confidence as of recently, but until IFS fails to deliver on the upcoming nodes, both parties are still in the running.

Beyond all of the rhetoric one way or another on Intel and IFS's business and products performance, we really do need another advanced node player in the game. TSMC has already talked about raising prices recently and especially charging more when customers specify "I want these chips made in the U.S. fabs." That pricing policy alone would in turn increase IFS' competitiveness.

"someday..." Intel has been saying that for years now and is using TSMC instead.

And "18a" is also having issues. Intel says its ok but 3rd parties have said its not ready yet on all the samples they have received.

I don't care what intel says, I care what they can do. And right now they are using a outside vendor for their newest chips instead of their own. Does not get any clearer where they are at and what they think of their own manufacturing abilities.

 

[rluker5]

Why would Apple or AMD -- companies that also produce processors -- want to let Intel have access to their trade secrets and processor designs? Pat doesn't seem to recognize that the very customers he wants at Intel's fabs are also competitors who know of Intel's anti-competitive practices from the past. Diversifying away from TSMC makes sense given the geopolitical climate, but running into the arms of a competitor who has been known to use underhanded tactics is not smart.

AMD is the one that reverse engineered Intel's chips when they were fabbing them, then made and sold them as AMD chips.

Intel has never done anything like this. AMD has patents on their designs. The components themselves I.E transistors, sram, etc are off the shelf bits. Intel is not allowed to just violate their patents and steal their designs.

 

[rluker5]

Then add tariffs on foreign subsidized chips. Taiwanese, Korean, Japanese, and of course Chinese governments have been subsidizing their domestic chip production for decades. It is time for the US to match their subsidies with CHIPS act and then add tariffs on foreign subsidized chips.

That can include Intel chips fabbed by TSMC.

 

[Gururu]

Every government should push its manufacturers to use its own nation's goods. Not sure why everyone got wedgies.

 

[umeng2002_2]

The main issue is the danger to the economy if something should happen to Taiwan. Look at what COVID did to the chip sector. Chips made in your own country wouldn't be impacted as much.

 

[ThomasKinsley]

Yeah, imagine Apple's next chip fabbed by Intel. lol

 

[rluker5]

The main issue is the danger to the economy if something should happen to Taiwan. Look at what COVID did to the chip sector. Chips made in your own country wouldn't be impacted as much.

There is also the issue of how much would be lost in defending that economic interest should a conflict arise. With the scales involved it is cheaper to hold on to a plan b with a local modern fab company.

 

[vanadiel007]

It's rich coming from a Company that has outsourced for years and years to a point where indeed the USA cannot make chips anymore.

Now they are complaining other large US companies are outsourcing their stuff also and want it to come back to their fabs, with most recent Intel fabs being in Malaysia, Germany, Poland.

Very rich...

 

[vanadiel007]

Every government should push its manufacturers to use its own nation's goods. Not sure why everyone got wedgies.

They don't because that would mean Companies cannot really outsource anymore to Mexico et all.
It's all about profits, not about supporting anything.

But as soon as financial problems start, these companies want the government to bail them out.
It's always the same story...

 

[nookoool]

Maybe time to split intel into independent design and fab? This would at least alleviate using a competitor's fab and also force the fab to be focus on fab tech and competition.

 

[Eximo]

Yeah, imagine Apple's next chip fabbed by Intel. lol

The thing is I totally can. Intel based apple products wasn't all that long ago. As Intel I would see landing Apple as a fab customer to be a goal to have.

Apple has segregated themselves away from x86, so while they are a competitor, they aren't directly one. Making Apple silicon at Intel wouldn't really change the market at all. Intel doesn't do much in the way of ARM to consumers, after all. Though they are promising some ARM server chips on 18A here soon.

 

[NinoPino]

AMD is the one that reverse engineered Intel's chips when they were fabbing them, then made and sold them as AMD chips.

We are talking of the 80s, 8086, 286 or 386 ? Absolutely irrelevant nowadays.

Intel has never done anything like this.

Intel never did anything wrong versus AMD. Sure.

AMD has patents on their designs.

This affermation is a nonsense. If they was able to patent it, it must be something invented by AMD.

 

[Eximo]

AMD did indeed start out manufacturing licensed Intel products. That was when they still had fabs of their own and volume was needed as the x86 market was exploding.

AMD did reverse engineer Intel's early x86 processors, but they didn't actually steal anything. They just made a 286 compatible processor and launched as a competitor. Basically, they looked at how it needed to be done, and designed their own silicon to do it. Any overlap was simply the result of them being made to the same purpose. They weren't perfect, and in many cases over the next several generations weren't as performative as Intel chips.

They also did similar with MMX and other Intel innovations so they could maintain that compatibility. AVX would be another, more recent example where AMD had to follow suite.

Some lawsuits did happen when infringement was perceived and they basically agreed to cross license x86 for amd64. Intel can't break with AMD and AMD can't break with Intel or neither can make useful x64 chips any longer.

Intel licensed Nvidia and AMD GPU tech to make their integrated graphics as well. And Intel is just now getting away from that with Xe cores.

I want to add that we also had Cyrix and Via making consumer x86 products back then.

 

[thestryker]

Intel never did anything wrong versus AMD. Sure.

They're referring to the technical side of things not the blatantly illegal business practices which happened in the early 00s.

And "18a" is also having issues. Intel says its ok but 3rd parties have said its not ready yet on all the samples they have received.

No some unnamed sources claimed to a news outlet this was the case.

 

[thestryker]

The problem with US based foundries is that they rarely have the scale available. This isn't going to change in the near term and I'd be surprised if leading edge volume capacity was ready before the end of 2026. The financial bros running Intel gambled on the company's future by not adopting EUV despite being one of the companies investing in getting it done.

The one place Intel does have a distinct advantage right now is in packaging, but I doubt that's very lucrative without the fabrication to go along with it. They'd have to convince potential customers to use their packaging technology and design around it rather than TSMC's.

 

[redgarl]

With what happened with 13th and 14th gen?

Hell no...