Comments on: Intel’s Chips No Longer Pay More Than Their Fair Share Of Foundry Costs

By: emerth

emerth — Wed, 24 Apr 2024 17:33:32 +0000

The paragraph long quote from Gelsinger… it is wonderful to learn Intel has not lost anything on the bafflegab metric.

Which leads us to the “Path Back to Leadership” slide. That is Intel introducing an entire new species of marketing: Visual Bafflegab.

~-+ Well done, Intel.

By: Timothy Prickett Morgan

Timothy Prickett Morgan — Mon, 08 Apr 2024 01:01:14 +0000

In reply to JayN. It is just a stinker because is is losing a huge amount of money and losses will be worst this year than last year. It is a long way to 2030, but I think Intel can get there. The politics are in its favor. And it can and will create advanced nodes and packaging that people will want. All it takes is one bad earthquake or a war with China to really upset the TSMC applecart, and even if these scenarios are relatively low in probability, they are top of mind and people are swayed by their hopes and fears as much as by statistical analysis.

By: JayN

JayN — Sun, 07 Apr 2024 02:56:42 +0000

“But we did not have a concrete sense of just how far under water the thing now known as Intel Foundry was. ”
That was PG’s decision to do 5N4Y … creating parallel research groups for several nodes. Would an independent IFS have made that decision? So, why call “stinker” on the foundry?

By: Timothy Prickett Morgan

Timothy Prickett Morgan — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 18:37:57 +0000

In reply to Chris. I meant switches and routers. I will clarify. Thanks for the catch, and of course I know about the NICs and DPUs. Just moving fast.

By: Chris

Chris — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 18:02:57 +0000

Nice summary article. One small correction, Intel does sell Ethernet networking products ( one of the largest suppliers)

By: Haz

Haz — Sat, 06 Apr 2024 01:38:13 +0000

Intel cannot fail for national security purposes and it is unlikely that sales will run Intel anytime soon, with or without Gelsinger. There will be an engineer at the helm of Intel for quite some time

By: Michael Alan Bruzzone

Michael Alan Bruzzone — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 17:25:10 +0000

See what Xeon 14 nm monopoly bridge collapse at Skylake into Cascade Lake looks like, as it occurred, q3 2017 through q4 2020 at slide 21 compared to Intel monopoly bridge structure during Gallatin and Prestonia 90 nm 2001 through 2002 shown at slide 22.

https://static.seekingalpha.com/uploads/sa_presentations/670/64670/original.pdf

For 2023 dependent Intel total volume which I have at range ‘net’ 309 million to 402 million units fixed cost per unit of production is $70 to $91 that calculated from property, plant, construction and equipment net / 8 years plus R&D for the year. Variable cost per unit is $95 to $123. All up average total cost per unit of production range $164 to $214. Chose to rely on the usual suspect’s annual volumes for Core products and Intel cost per unit of production increases. On a 50% gross margin basis Intel average price per unit then has to be $247 to $321 and anything under the lows contracted out to someone who can make a margin at less than Intel cost which is a structural variable.

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing

By: Paul Berry

Paul Berry — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 15:39:50 +0000

If all goes to plan…

By: Hubert

Hubert — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 11:51:12 +0000

Great analysis! This retro-historical delineation of the foundry’s balance sheet seems like a much better indicator of Intel past performance across its many divisions, an approach that clarifies recent decisions in my view (eg. Altera), and helps in evaluating how profitability may now evolve over time with the more independent fab.

I can imagine Intel’s High-NA-EUV bet to pan out (while TSMC stays with Low-NA-EUV litho to 2030) and generate an increasing customer base (of folks with deep pockets) for the corresponding most advanced nodes. Apple (for example) was apparently happy to reserve “all of” TSMC’s 3nm production for its latest M3, and will likely keep orienting itself towards the most cutting edge processes, whoever has them (IMHO).

By: David

David — Fri, 05 Apr 2024 11:43:12 +0000

Thank you for a non-biased look at this company’s transition. As a stockholder, the avalanche of negative articles is difficult to remain holding for 6 more years.