Intel outlines plan to break free from TSMC manufacturing — 70% of Panther Lake at Intel fabs, Nova Lake almost entirely in-house

Intel
(Image credit: Intel)

Intel's next-generation Panther Lake (via SeekingAlpha) processors will contain 70% in-house silicon, positively affecting the company's margins. However, with Nova Lake CPUs due in 2026, even more silicon will be made internally, which means this one will bring in even more profits for Intel. But there is a slight catch.

"In Panther Lake, some tiles would be external, but the majority of the millimeter square in the package are back internal," said Pat Gelsinger, chief executive of Intel, at the earnings conference call with analysts and investors. "It is more 70% plus of the silicon area is back in-house. So, the majority of Panther Lake wafer capacity by a good margin is coming back inside for Intel."

All tiles of Intel's current-gen flagship Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake processors for desktops and laptops are made by TSMC and then assembled and packaged by Intel using its Foveros 3D packaging technology. This severely impacts profit margins, as TSMC has its profit margin to earn, and Intel must stay competitive with AMD and other rivals in terms of pricing so it cannot pass TSMC's margin on to customers. 

Another factor that hit Intel's margins with Lunar Lake was on-package memory, as it required procurement and handling and made packaging more expensive. As more of Intel's designs are created internally, the company's margins are set to improve.

With Panther Lake, Intel will make the CPU's main compute tile using its 18A process technology. However, Gelsinger did say that some Nova Lake SKUs will be produced at TSMC.

"With Nova Lake, we definitely have some SKUs that we are looking at continuing to leverage externally, but the large majority of Nova Lake and more of the additional tiles have come back in-house as well," the chief executive of Intel said.

This means that while specific Nova Lake models will contain more than 70% silicon made at Intel, others will use more elsewhere. Therefore, some SKUs will have a higher margin for Intel, and others will feature a lower margin for Intel.

"We still have some flexibility in the Nova Lake product, but the large majority of that is committed to the Intel Product or Intel Foundry," said the head of Intel. "So overall, we are absolutely executing on the bringing wafers home strategy that we have laid out."

Also, he emphasized that if an external process technology can greatly benefit a certain product, Intel might select it for this product in the future. So, going forward, we will continue to see Intel products made by TSMC.

"TSMC has been a great partner," said Gelsinger. "Clearly, Lunar Lake has demonstrated the strength of the partnership and one that we will use selectively in our product lines for the future."

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • bit_user
    The real test will be whether they're willing to delay or cancel products planned to be made on their own nodes, when they have the option of just fabbing them at TSMC.
    Reply
  • mac_angel
    I thought they just started using them a couple of years ago, if that.
    Intel really needs to figure out what the they are doing.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    mac_angel said:
    I thought they just started using them a couple of years ago, if that.
    At first, it was just with Xe (Alchemist) dGPUs.

    Then, about a year ago, Meteor Lake took it another step, with everything but the CPU tile and the base layer made on TSMC nodes (the IOE and SOC tile were made on N6, while the iGPU tile was made on N5).
    https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intels-meteor-lake-begins-production-launches-this-year-on-intel-4-process
    Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake are now made entirely by TSMC, except for the base layer that interconnects everything.

    So far, I think all of the tiles in Intel server CPUs are made by Intel.
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    WTF are they being Wishy/Washy?

    Go 100% "ALL-IN" on making every piece of silicon in-house.

    There is ZERO Excuse to "NOT DO SO" when you have fabs sitting idle.

    Figure out which tiles or chips need to be made, and what can be made with what you have.

    That's the job of Intel's Design side having it's own "Fabs".

    You're hurting your own company if you don't use your own capacity.

    Look what happened with Meteor Lake & Lunar Lake.

    You were slower, a train wreck, and still paided TSMC.

    It's a Double Whammy. You failed to beat all your competitors, and you still left Fabs idle.

    If you use your own fabs, even if you don't beat your competitors, you don't incur the "Idle Fab" penalty.

    Then it's up to marketing to sell the rest of the existing volume to all your customers.
    Reply
  • systemBuilder_49
    If the designs were good there would be no problem with earning enough margin to give both tsmc and Intel a nice profit. If intel would like to earn margins on their designs - have they considered making good designs? Because their current designs put them in fourth place in CPU efficiency...

    I think it Kamen Rider Blade doesn't understand semiconductors. To have the most advanced process node factory you have to have dominance in many markets - more than just CPUs and 1% of GPUs. You need to dominate maybe CPUs GPUs cell phones and data center NPUs. The fabs cost $15B - $30B so you need to serve multiple markets to make money

    Intel hasn't earned enough money to actually run the most advanced fabs in the world. For 20 years they have been haphazardly buying design companies outside of CPUs and then failing to grow those companies and then shutting them down.

    So you can't just say ”Intel has the Fab they should use it!”. The Fab eats money like there is no tomorrow (like 5m+ per day shut down or $15m once you start production) and it takes hundreds of millions of investment to figure out how to build chips reliably after you've bought all the equipment and Intel lost $13.6 billion dollars last quarter which is one of the largest losses of any USA company in history!

    Intel doesn't currently have a competitive working fab. They have the 18A fab but they haven't figured out how to make it work reliably yet. They made sample chips and gave them to Broadcom and Broadcom came back and said, "these are <Mod Edit> and we're going with TSMC" so they lost an early customer on 18A.

    I would also like to point out that Pat gelsinger is a liar. He said they would do five process nodes in 4 years and the previous one 20a was skipped and now the final fifth one is 18a and it doesn't work and so he's done three process nodes in 4 years and will never achieve more than 4x. Pretty soon it will be 5 years for 3 nodes at end of Q2 2025 if 18a isn't in volume production by then ......
    Reply
  • bit_user
    systemBuilder_49 said:
    If the designs were good there would be no problem with earning enough margin to give both the tsmc and Intel a nice profit.
    This is an interesting point. AMD can clearly make competitive CPUs, while paying TSMC - why not Intel? Is it because Intel made its cores too big, under the assumption they'd be fabbed internally? Then, when Intel actually has to pay the market rate for silicon, we find out why AMD's cores have traditionally been smaller?
    Reply
  • -Fran-
    There's a lot of things I can read between the lines here, but I'll keep them to myself for now and see how this progresses in the months ahead.

    One immediate knee-jerk reaction I had is: "don't bite the hand that feeds you".

    Regards.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    bit_user said:
    So far, I think all of the tiles in Intel server CPUs are made by Intel.
    The GNR IO tiles are Intel 7. I haven't seen anything specific said about SRF but it's a safe bet they're in house as well.
    bit_user said:
    This is an interesting point. AMD can clearly make competitive CPUs, while paying TSMC - why not Intel? Is it because Intel made its cores too big, under the assumption they'd be fabbed internally? Then, when Intel actually has to pay the market rate for silicon, we find out why AMD's cores have traditionally been smaller?
    I'm not sure we can really make any reliable conclusions when AMD's using a node that is significantly cheaper for the majority of their products.
    Reply
  • Lucky_SLS
    ^ does it matter when the said CPU competes favourably against a CPU fabbed on a smaller node?
    Reply
  • bit_user
    thestryker said:
    I'm not sure we can really make any reliable conclusions when AMD's using a node that is significantly cheaper for the majority of their products.
    If Zen 5 had more transistors than Intel and AMD were using a cheaper node, you might have a point.

    As best I can tell, each Zen 5 core is 4.85 mm². The Lion Cove P-cores in Lunar Lake are estimated at 4.53 mm². I found a density estimate for N4P of 117.78 MTr/mm², but I didn't find one for N3B from the same place, and that important since the number bakes in a certain ratio of different cell types. So, I can't make comparable transistor count estimates, but I'm sure N3B is more than 7% denser than N4P.

    Therefore, I stand by my claim that Zen 5 cores are cheaper than Lion Cove.
    Reply