Intel will spend $14 billion on manufacturing its new chips at TSMC: Report

Intel Meteor Lake Graphics presentation slide deck
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel will allegedly place $4 billion worth of orders with TSMC in 2024 to fab 3nm CPU tiles, per a report from semiconductor analyst Andrew Lu (via eeNews). 2025 will also see a large number of Intel chips produced at TSMC, with orders totaling $10 billion. Lunar Lake is allegedly Intel's first processor to have its CPU cores fabbed at an external foundry, and Lu believes Intel will become increasingly dependent on TSMC in the future.

TSMC's 3nm node is the company's latest, and right now, it's primarily known for being the process that powers Apple's latest M3 and A17 processors. However, the analyst claims Intel will become TSMC's second-largest 3nm customer, displacing AMD, while Apple remains the largest. By the end of 2024, the analyst claims Intel will have 15,000 3nm wafers per month coming in from TSMC, and that figure will increase to 30,000 in 2025.

Related CPU Deals

TOC

(Image credit: Tom's Hardware)

Ryzen 7 7800X3D: now $358
Intel Core i5-13600KF: now $249
Ryzen 9 7950X3D: now $579

Those figures might seem strange considering the order values: 15,000 wafers per month in 2024 is worth $14 billion, while double the wafers would only be worth $10 billion in 2025. Assuming the figures are indeed accurate, it could be down to declining prices for 3nm wafers over time. Nodes tend to get cheaper over time due to higher yields stemming from process maturity, so Intel's ability to order more for less might not be contradictory.

Lu claims that there's no going back for Intel and that the company will rely heavily on TSMC's foundries in the future. There are apparently many financial and economic benefits for Intel to work with TSMC, but perhaps the most obvious advantage is increased production capacity. Intel's production capabilities are massive but perhaps not massive enough to support the company's CPUs, GPUs, and third-party manufacturing. That's why Intel has outsourced lower-value portions of its production to external foundries for years. 

Intel's increased reliance on TSMC isn't new, though. Arc Alchemist GPUs are fabbed at TSMC, Ponte Vecchio uses TSMC-made chips, and Meteor Lake employs TSMC's 5nm and 6nm nodes for three of its four tiles. It's also rumored that upcoming Battlemage and Celestial GPUs will be fabbed at TSMC, and upcoming tile CPUs will presumably continue using at least some TSMC-fabbed tiles.

Intel has outsourced part of its production to external foundries for decades, and the benefits outweigh the negatives. Additionally, the company is in a better technological position than when it struggled to get 10nm chips out the door. If Intel had allowed itself to produce its CPUs at TSMC back then, then perhaps it wouldn't have lost as much market share to AMD as it has in recent years.

Matthew Connatser

Matthew Connatser is a freelancing writer for Tom's Hardware US. He writes articles about CPUs, GPUs, SSDs, and computers in general.

  • -Fran-
    So... The baker is saying they'll be using the oven of the bakery across the street to make their stuff and tell other people to still use their ovens to bake their stuff?

    Bad analogy, but you get the point XD

    Welp. Good luck with your foundry, Intel.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    I don't think anyone is going to complain about having more fab space. Either it drives prices down or it keeps them roughly where they are while meeting ever increasing demands.

    AMD was switching to Samsung for GPUs, am I remembering that right?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    -Fran- said:
    So... The baker is saying they'll be using the oven of the bakery across the street to make their stuff and tell other people to still use their ovens to bake their stuff?

    Bad analogy, but you get the point XD

    Welp. Good luck with your foundry, Intel.
    When we first learned of their plans to fab GPU dies & tiles at TSMC, there was a claim that TSMC's node was more suitable for GPUs than Intel's. Something about the blend of clock speed, power, density, etc. that it's tuned for.

    If true, it might still be the case that Intel's foundry is tuning their nodes for CPUs.
    Reply
  • dlheliski
    The EE times article says *4* billion in 2024, not 14 billion. And 10 billion in 2025. From the article:

    Lu reportedly issued a note to clients saying that Intel will order US$4 billion of 3nm chips for its Lunar Lake personal computer processor from TSMC in 2024. This will be followed by orders worth US$10 billion in 2025.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    -Fran- said:
    So... The baker is saying they'll be using the oven of the bakery across the street to make their stuff and tell other people to still use their ovens to bake their stuff?

    Bad analogy, but you get the point XD

    Welp. Good luck with your foundry, Intel.

    Regards.
    Why do you think that intel is making so many new fabs in the first place?!
    And TSMC as well for that matter.
    They are currently maxing out their production and need to use external fabs on top of their own.
    With the margins for electronics having been destroyed, going for higher volume is the only way to keep making money.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    TerryLaze said:
    Why do you think that intel is making so many new fabs in the first place?!
    And TSMC as well for that matter.
    They are currently maxing out their production and need to use external fabs on top of their own.
    With the margins for electronics having been destroyed, going for higher volume is the only way to keep making money.
    To waste taxpayers' money while everyone is afraid of "big bad red" in the USA and their allied friends?

    Heh. Half joking, half serious, for sure.

    Demand for electronics is definitely going up and it would be a fool's errand to argue otherwise. I just question the "bleeding edge" part of the story. Or I should say nitpick.

    A simpler reading would be that Intel just doesn't want everything being fabbed internally and that's it.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • Eximo
    -Fran- said:
    A simpler reading would be that Intel just doesn't want everything being fabbed internally and that's it.

    Probably more to do with margins and image. If they reserve their own fabs for large AI chips and ASICs for other companies, good for business. The average person won't know the Intel laptop/desktop chip they buy isn't manufactured by Intel so they get to stay in the public consciousness.
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    Eximo said:
    Probably more to do with margins and image. If they reserve their own fabs for large AI chips and ASICs for other companies, good for business. The average person won't know the Intel laptop/desktop chip they buy isn't manufactured by Intel so they get to stay in the public consciousness.
    True. It's also a good source of income when you don't need the things you are fabbing outside.

    In other words: everything being fabbed outside for Intel must imply they're not "business critical" to their plans. Or so I'd imagine.

    Regards.
    Reply
  • JarredWaltonGPU
    dlheliski said:
    The EE times article says *4* billion in 2024, not 14 billion. And 10 billion in 2025. From the article:

    Lu reportedly issued a note to clients saying that Intel will order US$4 billion of 3nm chips for its Lunar Lake personal computer processor from TSMC in 2024. This will be followed by orders worth US$10 billion in 2025.
    It's been updated, thanks.
    Reply
  • The Historical Fidelity
    bit_user said:
    When we first learned of their plans to fab GPU dies & tiles at TSMC, there was a claim that TSMC's node was more suitable for GPUs than Intel's. Something about the blend of clock speed, power, density, etc. that it's tuned for.

    If true, it might still be the case that Intel's foundry is tuning their nodes for CPUs.
    The tuning part I believe is correct. In fact, I’ve heard alleged testimony about Intel’s Fab division (before being spun off into IFS) as being beholden and second class to Intel’s CPU design teams. Specifically, forcing the Fab team to rework a fully taped out process node’s design rules to overcome lazy and inferior CPU design work, demanding the Fab team find ways to improve the CPU team design’s inherent power consumption problems instead of via architecture design, allegedly throwing the Fab team under the bus for things in released products that should have been caught by the CPU design validation team, etc.

    Basically, it seems like Intel’s bleeding edge process nodes were tweaked for CPU designs and nothing else and over time re-worked as legacy nodes to be used for micro-controller, WiFi, etc. production. I will need to reach out to my friend and ask if things have changed since IFS. It would make sense that Intel 4, 3, 20A, 18A, etc. have generic design rules so they can fit the most design use cases.
    Reply