3 ms·
The OP makes a compelling case that Intel's foundry operations have fallen so far behind that they are no longer economically viable on their own, in the face o
by cs702 2y ago
The OP makes a compelling case that Intel's foundry operations have fallen so far behind that they are no longer economically viable on their own, in the face of current market forces, i.e., Intel's foundry business may not be able to earn a positive return on the tens of billions of dollars of capex now required to catch up with TSMC.
If the US truly views having a domestic foundry as critical to national security, the US federal government has no choice but to pay up big time to support Intel's foundry business until -- hopefully, eventually -- that business is able to compete profitably against TSMC to manufacture chips for Apple, Nvidia, AMD, etc.
Oh, how the mighty have fallen!
- cogman10 2y agoThere are a slew of foundries in the US already that aren't intel and are open to manufacturing for non-intel products. For example, Global Foundries. I just don't see what benefit at this point the US government would see investing in intel when they aren't really a whole lot better at the game at this point vs pretty much anyone else.
- wmf 2y agoIntel is a decade ahead of other US foundries.
- kazen44 2y agoAlso, unlike TSMC, which the taiwainese goverment sees as a national asset and which actually garuantees them economic co-dependence with the west and thus independance from china,t he US seems to have forgotten that having your own manufacturing capability is very important for national security.
- Panzer04 2y agoThey aren't competitive right this moment, I suppose. Is that a reason to completely give up on all of the embedded knowledge inside the Intel IFS organisation? Surely at some point you can make the argument that it's worth the investment for possible returns in the future, even if it costs a crazy amount of money right now. Trying to replicate what Intel has as another player would be even more exorbitant, presumably.