[bcrl]

The US military will never be the "biggest customer" of a fab. The only true volume products the military needs are bullets.

For reference, Intel CPU sales are on the order of 50 million units per year. As a comparison, Apple is selling on the order of 232 million iPhones per year. This is why missing the entire mobile market has hurt Intel, and there's no way the US military is buying more than 232 million of anything other than bullets (and maybe paper products).

The subsidies being paid to Intel and other manufacturers aren't a substitute for volume manufacturing of semiconductors. The more volume you can push through a fab, the more information you can collect and use to understand how to tune the process. Without the kind of volume that TSMC is pushing through its fabs, Intel doesn't have a way of getting the data it needs to tune its fabs. Less data on the process means that it's harder to develop and tune the next generation process. This means that the longer the negative aspects keep feeding into the next iteration, the harder it becomes to pull out of the negative feedback cycle.

Intel needs volume, and if it doesn't find something to run through their fabs in the hundreds of millions of units, then things can only get worse for Intel.

[jarbus]

Good point, We'll just have to see, I suppose. I'm really curious how far Intel will get before they fail, if they do indeed fail. Given the current demand for cutting edge chips and TSMC's risky monopoly, I know a lot of people are hoping they somehow pull through

[bcrl]

I think that Intel being split up into separate design and manufacturing firms might well be the optimal path forward. It is quite clear that AMD did the right thing when it spun out Global Foundaries 15 years ago. Were Intel to do so, the urgency of winning customers to survive might well give the manufacturing business the clarity of purpose and drive needed to do what needs to be done. Plus the new board of directors would not be able to allow the ship to continue drifting.