Intel could return to Apple computers in 2027
theverge.com
theverge.com
> Apple has used version 0.9.1 of process design kit (PDK) designed for Intel 18AP node. With performance, density, power, and every other metric going according to plan, Intel could become Apple's source of advanced node production in 2027... The 18A-P node enhances Intel's 18A by incorporating RibbonFET and PowerVia technologies, which offer better performance and energy efficiency. Compared to the regular 18A node, these improvements include newly designed low-threshold voltage components, optimized elements to reduce leakage, and refined ribbon width specifications, all aimed at boosting performance-per-watt metrics.
https://www.techpowerup.com/343423/intel-could-manufacture-a...
Remember that Apple previously dual sourced SOCs from both TSMC and Samsung before dropping Samsung when they fell behind and chips built on their process node were materially worse.
This is trial production, not a done deal. Intel has to deliver on their promises.
The good news for Intel is that Apple has a long history of paying up front for dedicated manufacturing lines once a manufacturing partner proves that they can hit Apple's QC metrics and price point.
I think if Intel is to stand a chance it’ll be via gaining momentum and market via “good enough” nodes and not cutting edge, essentially taking a page out of TSMCs playbook from the late 2000s and early 2010s. It needs more capital than it can raise, and time, both of which are hard to come by.
If you can make something with the quality Apple wants, they will buy you a manufacturing line in exchange for price, quality and production level guarantees.
Since Intel needs large customers for its Fab and capital investments, it would be a good deal for them even if the profit margin is much lower than they would prefer.
Before about 2016, you could have said the same about Intel. They were generally considered process technology leaders. They were > a year ahead in shipping products with their latest 14nm node. Similarly their previous 22nm node. There had been several occasions over the previous decades where manufacturers stumbled, not as spectacularly as Intel's decade of malaise, but definitely nodes scrapped level.
So, things can change quite quickly. Intel's 18A node is likely to be "better" than TSMC's current N3x nodes (it is denser and better performing on paper) and will ship before N2, putting Intel momentarily in the lead for process technology again for a quarter or so, and it was first with some technologies like BSPD (TSMC won't do that until A16). Yields are a question, and N2 will be coming out which probably re-takes the lead... but this is quite a turnaround from late 2010s situation, right?
The big thing Intel needs is a working foundry pipeline, because there is so much money in high performance silicon that's not x86 these days. It has always been thought their CPU design teams were very close to fabrication which was thought to be something of an advantage for them. It's likely that has also made their process more difficult for outsiders. They've tried and failed several times to get this going and get external design wins, and just never done well even when their manufacturing was doing really well. Including this latest effort (https://overclock3d.net/news/misc/intel-may-cancel-its-18a-l...). Still, it's not impossible, and I'm sure TSMC considers this one of its biggest risks if Intel can boot a self-sustaining foundry business.
> Before about 2016, you could have said the same about Intel.
The heights nvidia has achieved seem incidental and have depended heavily on the transformer/LLM market materializing.
Intel's in a somewhat better place today because while they continue to insist that their new fab process is just around the corner and will put their foundry back on top, they've started shipping new chips again, using TSMC where necessary.
In this case, Intel looks like a variant of the Innovators’ Dilemma. Their internal processes, systems, and culture revolve around designing and manufacturing their own chips. Moving to a customer-centric approach is a big switch in culture and I’m not surprised it’s a challenge.
They previously did stock buybacks and acquisitions of other companies that went nowhere instead of investing in the EUV manufacturing equipment TSMC used. Now they have the more advanced version of EUV in production.
> Intel has reported processing over 30,000 wafers in a single quarter using High-NA EUV exposure, achieving simplified manufacturing by reducing the required steps for a particular layer from 40 to fewer than 10,
https://www.techpowerup.com/342239/intels-advanced-packaging...
Would they be considered the same chip in the same design? Or same chip with slightly different design? Or different design altogether?
Genuinely curious because sometimes to support both Windows and Linux code would need to follow OS distinct paths in many locations even if the compiler is supposed to support cross arch, resulting in binaries that are supposed to be the same but behaves differently due to necessity. Is this the case here? Does TSMC and Samsung support different format of chip design equivalent of code?
Doesn’t require the absolute latest processes.
It reminded me that for a while all SIM everywhere seemed to come from one european chip plant, although now I say it I wonder if they were just the assembly & packaging and fabrication was offshore?
In both cases (tpm and sim) the cynic would say it's only deciding which economy owns the back-door.
The CPU enforces the security boundary between web pages, apps, the OS, the hypervisor and so on. If you control that, you control everything.
They used some of parts of it like the secure enclave, SSD controller, biometrics and hardware disk encryption.
Now days, those components are all already built into the M series chips.
> very high performance RISC-V cores
Just need some unicorns on rainbows to with both of those.
The "nightmare scenario" of Apple buying out the entirety of 14A to fabricate ARM chips is more-or-less what Pat Gelsinger spent his tenure trying to arrange.
Also x86 provides a huge moat to Intel/AMD which allows them to charge much higher prices than if they had to compete with anyone else.
Far from unicorn territory.
And we'll see them on chips soon. e.g. Tenstorrent announced Atlantis, a SoC and development platform, due 2026Q1.
If Intel becomes the leading foundry, even if their x86 chips are a little behind Apple, they'll still be ahead of AMD. Apple start shipping 3nm back in 2023. It's looking like AMD will get there in another year. If Intel becomes the leading foundry and they're 12-18 months behind Apple, that'll still put them 18-24 months ahead of AMD.
Plus, it's important to think about the symbiotic relationship between TSMC and Apple. Apple can commit to large orders which gives TSMC the ability to invest. If Intel can get that business away from AMD, it means that TSMC won't have the same ability to push the envelope. Without Apple to pay top dollar for early access, will TSMC have the ROI necessary to keep moving as fast as they have been?
I don't think Intel would be concerned about Apple getting the latest Intel Foundry nodes before x86 does. It'd be a win for investors and ultimately a win for their x86 chips too. TSMC has benefitted from being able to invest in improvements and have Apple pay top dollar for it. If TSMC loses that, it also means that AMD, Nvidia, Qualcomm, and other Intel competitors lose the ability to ride the Apple-TSMC coattails.
No? AMD is beating Intel in power and performance. It's true they will only reach 3nm for desktop next year with Zen 6, but they're beating Intel which is already at a smaller node. In essence AMD is lagging on process because they can. They're being very strategic while Intel is struggling to catch up. Zen 7 is going to be my next build, and it may be my last x86.
There are only three advanced chip manufacturers in the world (TSMC, Samsung, and Intel), so of course Apple has been in talks with all of them.
The whole story is based on a tweet from an analyst anyway. "Company that designs its own chips might use one of the three chip manufacturers in the world, based on my hunch." hmmmmmmmmm... Sounds more like someone just loaded up on Intel calls to me. (Not that the reality of the situation isn't real and obvious.)
Semiconductor manufacturing is an exercise in blood, tears and careful note taking, not Magic Secrets.
Isn't this a ringing success for their strategy of separating chip design from fabrication?
Of course things are never that neat. I have no doubt the large players have input into the fabs - we have no idea what. However the two teams are still different companies, when the fab and chip design are the same company there is the possibility of more cooperation (or less - we don't know. In the best case for both there is more when it is all internal, but we don't know if this is the best case)
Apple is known to be one of the kings of putting their suppliers over a barrel. There's a good chance this is mainly a move to negotiate a better deal with TSMC, and even if it's not, the chance that Intel gets a boat load of profit out of it is very small.
And historically when fabs have been separated from a business, it's always been in a way to shed a capital intensive albatross. In that case, they're normally loaded up with so much debt in the divorce that they were essentially never intended to succeed or continue to keep up, but instead just barely stay afloat on the already capitalized investment.
Why? TSMC seems to be doing ok. It’s worked with RAM and SSD suppliers the same way and they seem to be doing ok too. So does Foxconn. Apple has been known to subsidise leading edge nodes in exchange for priority or temporary exclusivity, and is absolutely ruthless, but it does not prevent its partners from being successful.
> And historically when fabs have been separated from a business, it's always been in a way to shed a capital intensive albatross
That is true. But there are other factors that might be worth considering. First, Apple hates being dependent on a single supplier (which is a single point of failure). Then, hedging risks related to the security situation in Taiwan makes sense. Whether it means subsidising a new TSMC plant in the West or subsidising a new Intel plant might not be that huge a difference. Finally, it might apply some gentle and friendly pressure on TSMC by threatening to shift some production to a competitor.
Whether all this makes sense or not depends on quantitative and qualitative analysis based on data we don’t really have.
Though, if this goes well, it stands to reason Apple may be that needed commitment.
Then again, if it were A320s, they'd be at risk of solar flares, so best go by ship I think
I'm in.
https://www.eetimes.com/intels-embarrassment-of-riches-advan...
https://newsroom.intel.com/intel-foundry/updates-intel-10-la...
No, your "dear leader" didn't buy intel.
You're on HN not some crappy FB group. The bar is higher around here.
> https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/30/new-macbook-with-a18-ch...