If we’re demanding that the US have its own foundry company, why not start from a blank sheet? Instead of committing the cardinal engineering error of writing a solution (Intel) into the spec instead of a requirement (we want our own foundry), create a new company. After all, isn’t that what the US does best ? And give the US government a stake if it’s putting up funding – a real, financial stake and not one in micromanaging employment policies. Split the foundry completely off from Intel and get rid of the current conflict of interest with Intel’s product groups. Recall some lessons from the SIA about industry collaboration and pull in talent from other companies. What you end up with may be 80 or 90% from Intel, but it needs to be a fresh start.
It’s often argued that Intel’s product and design groups gain some unique advantage from having close collaboration with Intel’s fabs or that they wouldn’t be competitive without this link. That certainly held in the past, but is far from certain today. Some claim Intel’s design teams are world class and others that they aren’t. Looking from outside with no direct knowledge, it all seems rather confusing and contradictory. Yet we know that for over 40 years Intel have reliably designed and produced some of the most complex, fastest chips seen. We’ve also seen AMD survive and thrive moving from internal fabs to TSMC. So what are we worried about here?
If you think Intel foundry shouldn’t be split off, just remember this: the risk that Intel becomes a follower, second best in everything it does. Intel will be behind TSMC in foundry, nVidia in AI and arguably AMD in x86. Is that what we really want for Intel – to be everyone’s favorite second source?
By all means have a US national foundry champion. Just do it properly. And don’t call it Intel. Let the Intel product group focus and return to its historic excellence. Shoehorning today’s Intel into the IDM 2.0 model won’t help Intel survive. And it won’t ultimately help the US.