Intel Comments on New Layoffs, Budget Cuts in Client CPU and Data Center Groups

Intel

(Image credit: Intel)

Intel responded to our queries about rumors that the company is embarking on a fresh wave of layoffs that come as a result of a new 10% budget cut to its client computing group (CCG), the division responsible for producing consumer CPUs, and its data center group (DCG). The reports come as Intel continues its company-wide belt-tightening as it grapples with the worst CPU market in 30 years.

We heard a rumor of an impending 10% budget cut last week but could not confirm the information. However, Dylan Patel of consulting firm SemiAnalysis tweeted that Intel planned to reduce its budget by 10%, resulting in "as much as" 20% layoffs in the impacted groups (CCG and DCG). We followed up with Intel, and the company issued the following statement to Tom's Hardware:

"Intel is working to accelerate its strategy while navigating a challenging macro-economic environment. We are focused on identifying cost reductions and efficiency gains through multiple initiatives, including some business and function-specific workforce reductions in areas across the company.

"We continue to invest in areas core to our business, including our U.S.-based manufacturing operations, to ensure we are well-positioned for long-term growth. These are difficult decisions, and we are committed to treating impacted employees with dignity and respect." Intel Spokesperson to Tom's Hardware.

Intel's statement confirms it is reducing its workforce in specific areas but doesn't state the number of employees impacted, or in what areas of the company. It also doesn't define the magnitude of the budget reductions. The company says it will continue investing in its chip-manufacturing operations, a common refrain in many of its statements as it has exited several businesses yet remains focused on its IDM 2.0 objectives.

Like most companies of its size, Intel's budget is used for both internal and external teams — it often contracts some functions, even chipmaking, to outside firms. As with many broad budget cuts, it's possible that some of the reduced spending will be accomplished through the curtailed use of those outside firms. As such, the magnitude of the layoffs remains to be seen and might not result in a 20% reduction in headcount in the impacted business units.

Large workforce reductions trigger reporting requirements, like WARN, in certain localities. Intel's most recent WARN notice came on May 3, 2023, when the company announced that it plans to lay off 60 more employees at its Folsom campus by the end of this month. That brings the total layoffs in Folsom to 516 over the last five months. The notice also says, "Additional separations are expected after the 30-day period beginning May 31, 2023."

For now, we're not aware of any other Intel WARN notifications. Intel's workforce reduction comes as it continues to cut costs across the company, including using methods like reducing headcount, as we saw in October of last year, reducing pay and bonuses in January, cutting its dividend, and offering furloughs to some workers.

Intel has also exited several businesses, like its server-building effortsnetworking switches5G modemsOptane Memory, Bitcoin-mining chips, drone business, and SSD storage unit.

We could see the PC market recover next quarter, as several chipmakers now predict the bottom occurred during Q1 and recovery could begin in the second quarter of the year. Regardless, Intel faces stiff competition from a host of companies across the breadth of its portfolio and it has predicted that it will trim up to $10 billion in spending by the end of 2025 as it executes its turnaround plan. 

Paul Alcorn
Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech

Paul Alcorn is the Managing Editor: News and Emerging Tech for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • Elusive Ruse
    20% of staff at client and daya center groups, I feel bad for those impacted.
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    Always sucks to hear someone is losing their job, for sure.

    But big companies like this have to regularly trim off the fat. Tis the natural order of things.
    Reply
  • Henshaw11
    jkflipflop98 said:
    Always sucks to hear someone is losing their job, for sure.

    But big companies like this have to regularly trim off the fat. Tis the natural order of things.
    It doesn’t really work like that. I had the joy (!) of working at Intel for a few years after they bought (part of) our company. Aside from the purchase being a <Mod Edit> - they bought Sw, and not the small/efficient hardware design team, and no actual IP - which puzzled many at Intel - a few years later some of us went c/o some general 10% division cuts (unintended voluntary redundancies in our small section), and a few more threw the towel in regardless of no settlement. A few years after that they closed the whole site because, as another 10% (?) reduction the site was ‘under 200’ - as a company we were never, ever, more than about 100, and that’s a good design team‘s size. A handful of guys went to the US but they spent a bucketload of money per person to achieve nothing.

    It‘s very likely this will be very crude, poorly planned, and leave a heckovalot of replication and inefficiency elsewhere, because that’s what Intel looked like from a brief period as an insider - even access to up-to-date/version controlled specifications/documentation was a constant joke...it’d be on someone’s laptop in Folsom.

    Thankfully for the folks at Altera, I think Intel largely left them alone when they were bought.
    Reply
  • jkflipflop98
    Well not every investment is a winner. Sometimes you have to realize when you got a lemon and move on.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Henshaw11 said:
    I had the joy (!) of working at Intel for a few years after they bought (part of) our company. Aside from the purchase being a <Mod Edit> - they bought Sw, and not the small/efficient hardware design team, and no actual IP - which puzzled many at Intel - a few years later some of us went c/o some general 10% division cuts (unintended voluntary redundancies in our small section), and a few more threw the towel in regardless of no settlement. A few years after that they closed the whole site because, as another 10% (?) reduction the site was ‘under 200’ - as a company we were never, ever, more than about 100, and that’s a good design team‘s size. A handful of guys went to the US but they spent a bucketload of money per person to achieve nothing.
    Intel is horrible at assimilating external companies and making a good investment on it... Look at all those AI companies, but by buying them they don't have to compete or worry about their competitors getting that competitive advantage? Maybe worth the $billions...
    Henshaw11 said:
    Thankfully for the folks at Altera, I think Intel largely left them alone when they were bought.
    I think history is proving out your sentiment, if Intel allows the newly acquired company autonomy/independence, they seem to do quite well (Mobile-eye). If they are forced to become part of Intel, they tend to get infected by the same inefficiencies and are written off as a failure in 3-5 years.
    Reply
  • Henshaw11
    cyrusfox said:
    Intel is horrible at assimilating external companies and making a good investment on it... Look at all those AI companies, but by buying them they don't have to compete or worry about their competitors getting that competitive advantage? Maybe worth the $billions...

    I think history is proving out your sentiment, if Intel allows the newly acquired company autonomy/independence, they seem to do quite well (Mobile-eye). If they are forced to become part of Intel, they tend to get infected by the same inefficiencies and are written off as a failure in 3-5 years.
    The idea was they were buying expertise - we weren’t a competitor, Intel were behind in the mobile space...the sad thing was that the guys organising the sale at our end thought they were finding a relatively good home for the teams retained. Oh well..
    Reply
  • bit_user
    cyrusfox said:
    Intel is horrible at assimilating external companies and making a good investment on it...
    I've heard this over and over and over again. Intel is like a venture capital firm with ADHD. It buys lots of companies, neglecting or dissecting most. Perhaps only about 10% really amount to anything, but if those 10% are at least 10x, then they consider the exercise worthwhile.

    There's definitely a certain logic to it, but also a lot of unnecessary chaos and destruction. In better hands, Intel could at least offload most of those acquisitions which achieve profitability, without destroying them. It would produce more value for shareholders and the broader industry. But, I guess the execs are too busy tripping over each other to back the next big winner to care about the rest.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    cyrusfox said:
    Intel is horrible at assimilating external companies and making a good investment on it... Look at all those AI companies, but by buying them they don't have to compete or worry about their competitors getting that competitive advantage? Maybe worth the $billions...

    Almost all big companies are awful at this. I've worked for a few large companies and most of theses go really poorly, especially for tech companies run by wall st. CEOs. I remember when I worked for a large industrial conglomerate, myself and 5 others tasked with doing "due diligence" on a companies technology and the feasibility of integrating it with our existing software products. We all basically said making the systems work together was at best a multi year effort, at worst a 5 year effort and didn't think the acquisition would in the end achieve something another team couldn't build in the same time frame. It didn't matter of course the CEO said, we have great people we'll make it work and executed the acquisition anyway.

    As you can imagine, years went by and the two systems were never integrated. The root cause you ask? Well the team on the existing product had commitments and did have or want to waste cycle on such a gigantic effort. On the other side the team on the existing product had commitments and did have or want to waste cycle on such a gigantic effort.

    The brilliance of the wall st. CEO didn't bother to think of having a team tasked with the integration per the recommendation, nah, just figured the teams were "smart enough" to figure it. The company ended up splitting up and the two groups sold off separately. In the 7 years they were together, the two system were never integrated.

    I've had similar experiences at other large companies, but that one was by far the worst.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    JamesJones44 said:
    We all basically said making the systems work together was at best a multi year effort, at worst a 5 year effort and didn't think the acquisition would in the end achieve something another team couldn't build in the same time frame. It didn't matter of course the CEO said, we have great people we'll make it work and executed the acquisition anyway.
    It helps explain their actions, when you consider:
    They typically have separate budgets for acquisitions and operations.
    There are people whose entire job it is to do merges & acquisitions.
    There are often executive performance targets based on doing a certain number of acquisitions per year.
    This makes them intrinsically hostile towards internally developing a capability they can just go out and buy. They might also feel the latter route is less risky, if the acquisition has a proven track record, of some sort.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    bit_user said:
    I've heard this over and over and over again. Intel is like a venture capital firm with ADHD. It buys lots of companies, neglecting or dissecting most. Perhaps only about 10% really amount to anything, but if those 10% are at least 10x, then they consider the exercise worthwhile.

    There's definitely a certain logic to it, but also a lot of unnecessary chaos and destruction. In better hands, Intel could at least offload most of those acquisitions which achieve profitability, without destroying them. It would produce more value for shareholders and the broader industry. But, I guess the execs are too busy tripping over each other to back the next big winner to care about the rest.
    I wonder how much of that is just to get their hands on new hardware and software IP, they need to make GPU and AI products (and so much more) and if a ton of startups already made a lot of the things that you need to do that and filed patents on the stuff then what are you supposed to do?!

    Also thinking about it, would a viable company sell out to a big company?
    A viable company (which can achieve profitability) can easily get loans or investors if they need money or is that not so simple?
    So buy up a company that is close to ruin keep the things you need and dissolve the rest, harsh but realistic.
    Reply