AMD Exec Says Intel IFS is Destined to Fail

IFS
(Image credit: Intel)

A senior AMD executive has implied that the most significant strategic change implemented at Intel under the stewardship of Pat Gelsinger was misguided. Intel's newfound enthusiasm for being a contract chip manufacturer for other companies, a key part of its IFS strategy, goes against the grain for a successful modern chip design company, hinted Darren Grasby, EVP for strategic partnerships and president of AMD EMEA. Grasby's comments on Intel's strategy, highlighted by The Register, were made at the recent Canalys EMEA Forum 2023. When asked whether or not Intel's IFS strategy will succeed, AMD's exec responded "Of course not."

AMD's business has made strides in recent years, and its fortunes have enjoyed particular growth since it divested in manufacturing. It has also started to look increasingly strong compared to its Goliathan rival, with first-mover advantages in more refined semiconductor processes, pioneering multi-chip packages, and adding potent iGPUs. 

During the aforementioned forum, Grasby said that AMD's choice to go fabless was "the turning point of the company that allowed us to invest those R&D dollars into the roadmap." That implies Intel could enjoy greater success if it did the same. Grasby's key observation was that strategic R&D investments made in products end up being the ones that bring the best returns.

Failure or Passing Grade?

During questioning at the Canalys EMEA Forum 2023, Grasby delivered a direct and damning comment on AMD's biggest CPU-making rival and its current strategy. Asked whether the Intel IFS strategy will succeed, the AMD exec bluntly responded, "Of course not."

Last week, Pat Gelsinger was reportedly quite uncharacteristically humble about Intel's IFS venture, saying, "I would give us a passing grade, two and a half years into the [IFS] journey."

Intel's significant investments in production facilities at home and worldwide might look a little scary. However, it is using government funding to take some of the risk out of these massive investments.

At home and abroad, we have seen CHIPS Act-style funding grasped by Gelsinger on tour. The extra billions in backing and the will of the states involved should help make these significant industrial initiatives more likely to succeed. Moreover, news indicates that Intel has high-profile customers lined up. We've previously reported on its courting of the fourth largest chip designer, MediaTek. It also already has some prepay 18A IFS customers, and Intel-built Nvidia GPUs are looking more likely.

Mark Tyson
Freelance News Writer

Mark Tyson is a Freelance News Writer at Tom's Hardware US. He enjoys covering the full breadth of PC tech; from business and semiconductor design to products approaching the edge of reason.

  • hotaru.hino
    All I can think of is "of course an AMD exec would say this"
    Reply
  • rtoaht
    AMD is getting way too cocky with their recent success in data center. But just like Intel recovered and win back the market share in client they could potentially do the same in data center next year. AMD's market share is still way small compared to Intel. They should at least beat Intel in market share before getting this cocky.
    Reply
  • TerryLaze
    AMD's business has made strides in recent years, and its fortunes have enjoyed particular growth since it divested in manufacturing. It has also started to look increasingly strong compared to its Goliathan rival, with first-mover advantages in more refined semiconductor processes, pioneering multi-chip packages, and adding potent iGPUs.
    Reply
  • JayNor
    I saw a statement that Intel plans to quadruple their advanced packaging capacity. Intel claims that will come into play for IFS customers earlier than the wafer processing.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    If Intel wants to make IFS truly succeed, it needs to split up Intel's "Chip Design" side from the Silicon manufacturing side and be truly neutral and compete directly with TSMC and Samsung.

    By having their own "Chip Design" side, there is always going to be issues where companies can't fully trust IFS.

    Once Intel makes that hard decision, it'll have a reasonable viable road to making IFS succeed, same with Intel's Chip Design side being a Fab-less company.
    Reply
  • scottslayer
    Good job on reporting a hint from Intel's direct competitor.
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Intel is betting the farm on IFS. They have failed to capitalize on opportunities in the past and have only ever been successful in their core business (CPU). They seem to kill off everything else and per the history Darren Grasby words of imminent failure are not unfounded. Only thing different this time is Pat, will he stay on at Intel and push his vision forward to success or will it end in another sell off an further consolidations?
    Reply
  • mcmlai
    rtoaht said:
    AMD is getting way to cocky with their recent success in data center. But just like Intel recovered and win back the market share in client they could potentially do the same in data center next year. AMD's market share is still way small compared to Intel. They should at least beat Intel in market share before getting this cocky.
    Well, how is he supposed to answer that question? He does have a point. If Intel's 18A fab is ready, are they going to prioritize their own chip? or will they build Apple and Qualcomm chips first? If they prioritize their chip, Apple and Qualcomm are not going to use Intel fab. Just look at Samsung fab. They can't make their own Exynos processor and also fabricate for others.
    Reply
  • kjfatl
    Sounds like the opening round of negotiations before AMD begins using IFS as their foundry on some, or all of their designs. If AMD is not willing to seriously consider using IFS, they can expect to pay a 30% premium for TSMC's newer processes.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    I'm not sure why anyone would take what this guy is saying seriously outside of it making for salacious headlines. AMD sold off their fab business because the company hemorrhaging money and leading edge fabrication is insanely expensive. Just look at what happened to GlobalFoundries after the spinoff: ditched 7nm development, diversified into custom nodes and didn't start making money for years.

    Intel can be successful running a foundry service so long as they're able to deliver capacity. The speed at which they were able to move Intel 4 fabrication from Oregon to Ireland leads me to believe they're preparing for being able to increase capacity rapidly (relatively speaking for fabs). This go around is also the first time Intel has opened up leading edge nodes to third parties which is a big deal and indicator of how seriously they're taking it.

    Kamen Rider Blade said:
    If Intel wants to make IFS truly succeed, it needs to split up Intel's "Chip Design" side from the Silicon manufacturing side and be truly neutral and compete directly with TSMC and Samsung.

    By having their own "Chip Design" side, there is always going to be issues where companies can't fully trust IFS.

    Once Intel makes that hard decision, it'll have a reasonable viable road to making IFS succeed, same with Intel's Chip Design side being a Fab-less company.
    You realize you undermined your already foolish stance by citing Samsung right? :rolleyes:
    Reply