Wouldn't GlobalFoundries (HQ in New York and supposedly on the "Trusted Foundry" list) have made more sense, since they fabricate chips for multiple different companies, where as Intel only makes them for Intel?
Boosts a competitor, opens up fab capacity for all and moves the needle on the intentions behind the CHIPS act, all at once.
GlobalFoudaries is receiving $1.5B from the CHIPS act. While it might have made sense to try to help them catch up to the competition a decade ago, today we just want to have any domestic capability comparable to TSMC in case China decides to invade Taiwan. Intel and TSMC will be able to get there much more quickly than GlobalFoundaries can. Furthermore, Intel is opening up their Fab to outside customers.
100% right. GF is no longer gunning for leading-edge nodes. They've made their niche in mature nodes for low-power chips and emerging memories (FeFETS, MRAM, RRAM, etc). If you want to get leading edge nodes on American soil, Intel is the best bet.
Correction: Intel has had a Foundry business since 2010 or 2011. Then CEO Paul Otellini pushed hard for it, but had a lot of opposition internally. It then languished after he left until Pat took over.
It never died. It was always there. Pat's just fulfilling the vision Paul had.
You're right on that one, I perhaps should have more accurately said: "Revive". I will say though that the scope of Paul's vision for an Intel foundry didn't shine a light against IFS. There wasn't the same push for increased capacity. More so excess capacity would be given to select customers, and they might maybe increase capacity for big customers like Apple (who were with Samsung at the time rather than TSMC).
It's funny as a side note that their big foundry announcement at the time was making chips for Altera before the merger, and now Altera is parting ways with Intel after 8 years. Time flies.
Boosts a competitor, opens up fab capacity for all and moves the needle on the intentions behind the CHIPS act, all at once.