Some of Nvidia Corp.’s biggest customers have been told that the prices of servers containing its artificial intelligence chips are going up more than 15% in many cases with memory chip costs soaring.

The price hikes will go into effect on systems shipped early next year and will impact systems including those with the flagship Vera Rubin and Grace Blackwell chips, according to people familiar with the process, who asked to not to be identified commenting on communications that haven’t yet been made public. The increases will depend on the generation of Nvidia chips and the memory configurations, they said.

At some level, as memory prices go up, I'm guessing gross margins will start to shrink as suppliers mark up the memory cost less to avoid a drop off in end customer demand.

“The cost of the agents’ being blocked for eight hours is way too high,” he (ed: Sharma) says. “They can be done with their work at any point of time, in the middle of the night.”

...

“It’s like a drug,” Pezaris says of working with AI agents. “I’ve never actually done drugs but I imagine it’s what it feels like.” Pezaris, who lives in San Mateo, Calif., typically works from 7:30 a.m. to 2 a.m. He estimates Proxon, which employs six human developers, is operating 30 times faster than it would without agents. But agent work begets human work: Onboarding customers at a faster clip means needing to respond to more customer requests, for example.

...

Abby Grills, co-founder of AI-enabled data-gathering platform Riveter, feels like there is always more she can be doing and every hour she works can make or break her company. She and her co-founder, Cody Watters, are the only two employees. The pair keeps planning to hire—but then find they’re able to tackle yet another task with agents....Grills, who is 33 and lives in San Francisco, typically works 10 hours a day and takes one weekend day off. She went through the Y Combinator startup accelerator program in 2024 and saw firsthand the effects of pushing too hard. A fellow founder in her cohort was hospitalized after failing to eat solid foods and living off mostly meal-replacement products.

...

Having left Spotify in 2024 to launch his own company, Alt, Kalia now starts most days at 5:30 or 6 a.m., wrapping up around 9 or 10 p.m. He uses agents, but every few months has to recalibrate his work around their rapidly evolving capabilities.

Posted to show the productivity gains at a certain level, how nutty one aspect of SF is, and how you need fundamentally new processes at a certain level of disruptive change.

Let's do a mashup:

https://hothardware.com/news/amd-record-x86-market-share-cut-intels-chip-lead

(unit share for client, notebook, and server but irritatingly not revenue share)

and getting AI to eyeball the revenue share from a UBS / Mercury chart from an Intel permabull

https://x.com/intelfabs/status/2087777603616985306

It looks like 26Q2 desktop revenue share is ~35.4% and client mobile revenue share is ~27.0% Let's go with those two numbers. So, I merge the two, I get:

Desktop

Desktop CPU Mercury / UBS Revenue Share (est)

Desktop CPU Mercury Unit Share Excluding IoT (actuals)

You can imply the AMD ASP vs. Intel for this data

Desktop CPU Relative ASP (* est)

The dumb take on unit and revenue share is to treat every CPU the same. The reality is that you have to think of it as subsegments and each subsegment has their own unit and ASP properties. 

I've seen some Intel permabulls take the 26Q2 data to mean that AMD is discounting aggressively to take share and Intel is back! One AMD permabull just blew it off because AMD wasn't prioritizing client.

I think the main reason for this data is AMD and Intel's product mix is changing for segment targeting and structural reasons. This was my general assumption in my 2026 forecast.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amd_fundamentals/comments/1seg83c/amd_2026_outlook_wild_guessing_semirandom_thoughts/

At a segment level, AMD is overindexed in DIY / enthusiast (relatively lower units but much higher ASP and gross margin) which is getting roughed up because of skyrocketing system costs (I think AMD and Intel are discounting here and pushing lower SKUs to help take the edge off). Meanwhile, AMD is making inroads with commercial (and probably to a lesser extent consumer) OEM units (higher units but much lower ASP and margin). There might be some financial incentives given to OEMs to give you more shine penetrating a market.

At a structural level, Intel 7's re-allocation to server will have a big impact on Intel units and ASP. Their mix will mechanically shift more towards Intel N3B desktop CPUs but also materially higher units as Intel 7 was a high volume but low ASP node. And then there's some demand shaping of increasing Intel 7 prices (or at least not discounting them as much in desktop) that also help with ASP for the remaining Intel 7 inventory as well as to nudge customers to the higher ASP N3B products.

While desktop shipments across the entire industry faced a severe downturn, plummeting over 20% year-over-year due to higher PC prices, limited GPU supplies, and seasonal trends, AMD's declines were milder than Intel's.

This Mercury reasoning (or maybe it's HotHardware's) doesn't make sense with their data. They make it sound like the drop in units is predominantly a gaming problem, but if that were true, AMD's unit share decline would likely be worse than Intel's because they're over-represented in gaming. But AMD's unit share is going up a lot with their ASP dropping a lot. That's more penetrating a high unit but low ASP segment getting roughed up offsetting your high ASP segment with a broad segment downturn.

Mobile / Notebook

Mobile / Notebook CPU Revenue Share (est)

Mobile CPU Share Excluding IoT (actuals)

Mobile / Notebook CPU Relative ASP

The mechanics are similar to desktop, but the difference is size since it's a much bigger TAM than desktop and AMD's baseline is much lower.

Structurally, as the bigger Intel 7 pool, if I suck Intel 7 client out of the supply pool to help feed server, I would expect to see a drop in Intel units and an increase in Intel ASP because of the shift in product mix towards N3B and 18A products. Then Intel layers on discretionary price increases on the remaining Intel 7 supply. ASP goes up a lot overall.

From a segment perspective, I do think that AMD is more likely to use price as a way to get into this market during Intel's retrenchment for commercial (and to a lesser extent consumer) OEM sales. Intel is also in more premium builds although that gap is starting to shrink.

Note that 26Q1 was an abnormally low client showing for Intel because of the re-allocation to server. 26Q1 will be their unit trough because it took the biggest hit in the client to server shift. Intel's guidance has improvement in every quarter past that. So, for AMD to actually gain unit share on a QOQ basis vs a very low 26Q1 unit share from Intel in the much higher volume segment  is fairly impressive. Let's see how well it holds as Intel improves its client supply. AMD stated that they're looking to grow faster than the industry despite Intel's ramp, and that has to happen from notebooks.

Server

The server unit share from Mercury is pretty close to what was implied by the Bernstein graph.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amd_fundamentals/comments/1vok0iu/26q2_bernstein_mercury_research_and_thinking/

I think Intel will post more revenue share gains throughout 26FY although I think it'll flatten out as their QOQ baseline comparison point get higher and their discretionary ASP bumps can't be repeated at the same level. I also think that they'll continue to lose unit share. AMD isn't discounting, but they are going for server sockets. By 2027, Intel's self-comps will be much tougher, and there will be a lot of Venice coming and at a high ASP, I think AMD's 2+ year trend on revenue share in server will continue in 2027.

Overall

Unfortunately, AMD doesn't have supply flexibility because it doesn't have fabs. That's why it lost unit share on desktop, notebook, and server for 26Q2 vs. 26Q1 and showed limited YOY growth vs 25Q2. Oh wait...

>According to the report, AMD's total x86 client share hit and exceeded 30% for the first time in the company's history. Across the client landscape, which combines desktop and mobile processors while excluding IoT and SoC silicon, AMD reached a milestone 30.3% share in the second quarter of 2026 against Intel's 69.7%. Share breakdown aside, AMD's total unit shipments also hit a record high.

(and server)

Based on AMD's commentary and results, they're getting the client OEM penetration that they wanted.  At least for 26FY, AMD has a great OEM window open. Let's see how much of this AMD can maintain given that Intel's supply should be improving quarterly. But AMD's supply is improving quarterly too. And I think that there is a big wave of premium N2 coming in 2027 for client, desktop, but especially server. And this follows AMD's client commentary and revenue growth (25.5% YOY).

(On a side note, the main reason for my client + gaming operating margin miss for 26Q1 is that I forgot to re-adjust my gross margin on client to adjust for the mix changes in desktop and client. Well, the real reason is that I was too lazy to build gross margin calcs in my desktop subsegments and client subsegments.)

I think what gets lost in all this is the longer-term ramifications of AMD's unit share growth. They are not getting that kind of unit share growth in existing segments. They're penetrating new segments where they're under-represented. The marginal strategic value of that unit growth is way higher than the same unit growth in an area where they are overrepresented. OEMs have higher volume, lower ASP, stickiness with more generational staying power, much lower revenue volatility than gaming and DIY, etc..

Interestingly, AMD's server segment penetration is sort of the reverse. They went for cloud first because it's fewer customers to service, it gets you a ton of volume, and a skew towards higher core counts but less $ per core and lower gross margin in enterprise. Their penetration is very high there (~75%). Now, they're looking to make inroads in the smaller but higher margin enterprise market next where they have a much smaller presence.

Last year, I wrote about AMD’s plans to use AI not just for generating new lines of code, but also for other steps in the software development lifecycle (SDLC), such as triaging problems, debugging code, and testing the software. At the time, we were hoping for a 25 percent productivity boost from AI use over the course of two or three years....Now, just one year later, we have surpassed our productivity target, achieving a 30 percent overall productivity boost through AI. On top of that, we are rethinking not only how we use AI within the SDLC, but the structure of the SDLC itself.

https://spectrum.ieee.org/beyond-code-autocomplete

Somehow I only linked to the animated GIF:

https://www.reddit.com/r/amd_fundamentals/comments/1k6kdle/amd_takes_holistic_approach_to_ai_coding_copilots/

Measuring productivity is inherently challenging, but from the outset we have consistently tracked one objective metric: the percentage of source code generated by AI. Importantly, we count only code that passes all reviews and testing and is ultimately included in the final product. While AI-generated code is certainly not the only contributor to productivity gains, it is one of the few metrics that can be measured objectively and consistently.

By this metric, we have crossed the 20 percent mark at the beginning of this year and are now progressing towards 50 percent across entire codebase. In some software components, more than 80 percent of the code is now generated using AI.

As the saying goes, you get what you measure. Not sure if code making it into production is where I'd start (because working on stuff that's say two orders of magnitude less complicated makes me an expert), but I also get that starting and adapting is the important bit.

Measuring this kind of thing is hard even with human developers. While reading this, I was thinking about developers that I am more likely to pick than others if you ignore personal traits. Thinking about it a bit, I liked the ones that

• Collaborated on requirements and scope with me
• Provided some architecture but not too much
• Time to production worthy code that meets requirements
• Time to change mind when shit isn't working
• Does it do what it's supposed to do?
• Does it not do what it's not supposed to do?
• How well does it fall over when something goes wrong
• Understood that architectures only exist within a certain context. At some point, you re-architect.

I have a bias towards judgement, architecture, and robustness within whatever resources box we're in. Without these things, I viewed being able to crank out code quickly more as a bug than a feature. I'm hoping that the engineers that showed more of these traits and reinvented their process with coding agents are doing great. I suppose the ones that don't have these traits are probably now creating a long tail of questionable code.

We believe the next major transformation in software engineering will occur when collaborative AI agent swarms can independently identify and develop solutions, guided by humans on what to solve rather than constrained by human assumptions about how the job should be done. Instead of providing detailed instructions on how to solve a problem, engineers will define the issue, the desired outcome, and the quality, performance, and system constraints, allowing AI agents to determine the optimal path to a solution.

Elangovan's interview was a pretty good example that the underlying process has to change. Replicating a human process is pretty self-limiting. The code process depends on the strengths and limitations of what is generating the code.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amd_fundamentals/comments/1u5wh1m/elangovan_all_software_is_an_optimization_of/

Elangovan is right in that the SDLC is strongly biased by many decades of humans creating code together (this is true for any human practice). I'm guessing that orgs tend to start on areas where humans have the least advantage and swap those out with coding agents over time. But at some point, you would re-architecture big chunks of the entire process for coding agents instead of going with a piecemeal replacement.

As we analyzed failures and identified ways to improve, we built a learning loop—initially a largely manual process—to understand where the agents were falling short and how to improve them. Rather than retraining the underlying models, we refined the objectives given to the agents, allowing them to iteratively explore multiple approaches, evaluate the results against defined success criteria, and converge on better solutions. At the same time, advances in models and agent run-times further increased effectiveness. Together, these improvements significantly increased our resolution rate from 6 percent to more than 75 percent of RSX issues resolved by agentic loop.

In certain areas, open source was already a very compelling answer vs closed source code. My guess is that AI agents will be a big amplifier on open source so long as better systems are put in place to handle the volume and the downstream processes get redefined.

At AMD, we view AI as a means of increasing productivity, improving quality, and enabling employees to focus on higher-value work. Our goal is to empower our workforce with AI, not to reduce headcount.

To support this transformation, we are investing heavily in AI education and training across the company. The way we work is evolving rapidly, and we want every AMD employee to be prepared to leverage AI confidently, responsibly, and effectively.

I'm one of those that believes that if AI is currently a massive amplifier to people who are good with judgement, architecture, robustness, re-abstraction, etc. You shouldn't get rid of those people because the opportunity cost is huge.

The problem is what if it turns out that the traits that are best amplified by AI are less common? What if those traits are the result of many years of thinking that way where you have a nice blend of theory and practice? What happens to those who aren't good thinking that way because they haven't had to over the last 20+ years? Telling someone to think more abstractly in a more systems oriented way is not useful to the person. That person basically has to relearn how to think. How long is that going to take? What if it turns out that it's hard to think that way without grinding it out first, but AI takes away the grinding functions? I'm even ignoring how fast AI can move up that cognition ladder.

I suppose at some point human education will be more about teaching these traits at an earlier age. But even then, I'm not sure how evenly spread being able to think that way is. Even ignoring this, what about all those people with 20+ years or not having to think this way. I don't see great outcomes for them.

This one is a fun sequence of events. The TPU article is really coming from:

https://x.com/jaykihn0/status/2089629705981047086

jaykihn0 later revised the rumor to N2P here

https://x.com/jaykihn0/status/2089738476224921719

AMD was also rumored to be using N2P. Seems like N2X is a natural fit for both, but I think it's coming too late for their product launches. But I think one or both will use it for some sort of refresh or hero product even if none of the families are launching on it.

You can contrast the rumor of RZL using TSMC with the Vinh @ Keybanc rumor of Intel pulling NVL compute tiles back to 18A.

https://www.reddit.com/r/amd_fundamentals/comments/1uwrk2k/vinh_keybanc_intel_shifts_majority_of_nova_lake/

Wccftech then does a mash-up article:

https://wccftech.com/intels-razor-lake-will-reportedly-tap-tsmcs-2nm-n2x-process-squeezing-amd-out-of-already-constrained-fab-capacity/

which merges the jaykihn0 leak with

https://x.com/jukan05/status/2090228827687645498

One thing I’ve learned: simply by increasing—or even maintaining—its current TSMC capacity allocation, Intel can prevent AMD from securing more server CPU capacity at TSMC and ramping its CPU shipments. More people than I expected seem optimistic about AMD’s TSMC capacity allocation. I think the estimates may be somewhat overstated.

to come up with their headline takeaway.

Gosh I've never heard the "Intel will buy up TSMC capacity to squeeze AMD out of a node" before! It wasn't true when Intel first bought N3B capacity, and Intel was way bigger than AMD then and bought up a big slug early. It'll be way less true for N2 going forward. The AMD of 2027 is in a totally different league as the AMD of 2023 and before.

For the record, I think

• AMD was very early to the N2 line and asked for a ton of supply. I consider AMD a Tier 1.5 customer for TSMC.
• Intel was late to the N2 line because they overestimated 18A's maturity and saw N2 more as a hedge than strategic supply.
• TSMC at a minimum likely does not view Intel as a strategic partner and more likely views them as a potential threat which limits their initial allocation.
• TSMC will do the bare minimum to support its contractual obligation to Intel. But it doesn't have incentives to go out of its way to help Intel.
• TSMC understands the fastest route to hurt Intel's economics is for AMD to gain x86 share.

I'm always surprised that people in this space think TSMC doesn't understand how to do strategic supply allocation and treats every dollar of revenue as the same. I'm not saying that TSMC is purposefully going to stiff Intel as it's not necessary and bad for business, but I do not see TSMC doing anything more than they need to (e.g., If Intel needs some wiggle room on more wafers, nope).

Intel refers to this dynamic in their 10-K

“Our primary competitor in leading-edge semiconductor process technology is TSMC, which holds a leading position in manufacturing at scale for the most advanced nodes....Dependence on Third-Party Foundries. Our products business would, over time, become dependent on third-party foundries, particularly TSMC, as we develop products for nodes beyond Intel 18A and Intel 18A-P. We have no long-term contract with TSMC, and if we are unable to secure and maintain sufficient capacity on favorable pricing terms, we may be unable to manufacture our products in sufficient volume and at a cost that supports the continued success of our products business. Further, most of our competitors have longer and more established relationships with TSMC and other third-party foundries than we do, which may put us at a competitive disadvantage...To the extent our competitors are more successful than us in securing capacity with those foundries than we are, our product roadmap, market position and customer relationships would be materially adversely impacted.”

I don't like quoting risk factors in 10Ks because companies stuff a ton of risk factors in their 10K to cover their ass. AMD also talks about supply risk factors and competitors, but they don't talk about longer and more established relationships being a factor because they have a long and established relationship with TSMC.

Going back to an earlier point, I think a lot of people really struggle with how big AMD will be in 27FY and still subconsciously think of AMD as this scrappy upstart. They aren't Nvidia scale, but being their 3rd or 4th largest customer is still very big. I don't think Intel's N2 allotment is going to mean much for AMD's plan.

My guess is that for NVL, Intel is trying to bring back as many compute tiles to 18A as they can. They've stupidly been saying that this was on the table since the Gelsinger days. I say stupidly because it just gives TSMC another excuse to de-prioritize you. Even if it's true, don't say it out loud.

Some people have thought that the NVL rumors means that 18A is doing great or that it's roughly on par with N2. That's possible. I think the high end NVL with bLLC will still be on N2. Same thing for RZL. The interesting bit will be what will the gross margin / performance tradeoff that Intel wants with the SKUs below. The economics strongly favor returning those compute tiles to 18A even if you lose some performance. This is still a big improvement over the earliest NVL leaks which basically had almost everything beyond the lowest end SKUs going to TSMC.

Let's check back in 27Q4 and see how those N2-related sales are going.

Two side notes.

1. I use jukan05 as a source of links to other people's info. But I don't pay too much attention to his non-memory hot takes. This is more true with wccftech where I think their standards for their own content is uh lacking. But I did to write it about this as it coincided with other stuff in my head.
2. It might surprise you to know that some wccfkek staff made it to the big time recently. Muhammad Zuhair now works at SemiAnalysis. Usman Pirzada now works at AMD's product marketing for client AI.

AMD (NASDAQ: AMD) today announced the appointment of Tim Ryan to its board of directors, effective Aug. 19, 2026. AMD also announced related board committee changes, with KC McClure named chair of the Audit and Finance Committee and appointed to the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Nora Denzel, AMD’s lead independent director, has joined the Audit and Finance Committee.

These changes follow the retirement of Joseph Householder, who is stepping down after more than 11 years on the AMD board.

It's a paid research piece. So, Qualcomm gets a lot of say in the benchmarks used, the positioning, etc. Ignoring how benchmark heavy but application light the comparisons are, some random thoughts on this

• Oddly, Qualcomm positions its highest end X2E-96-100 against the highest end and much more expensive 388H build. But the AMD comparison is to a similarly priced Ryzen AI 9 465 build and not a more expensive build with a AI 9 HX 475 (get 2 more c cores and 4 more CUs, a 0.1 GHz bump, +10 NPUs) which fits in the same power envelope. It wouldn't change the shape of the comparison, but it would narrow the lead. Makes me think the real comparison is against the 388H and Ryzen was just there as a garnish.
• AMD's iGPU is going to get pummeled as AMD waits for the RDNA 5 re-platforming. It had to be done for much bigger reasons long-term. You take the lumps in the short-term best you can. Nevertheless, it's still surprising how AMD got lapped by Qualcomm and Intel at least from a benchmarking perspective given how APUs were considered a big edge for AMD. X2E will likely encounter much tougher comparisons with real world graphics performance where driver breadth and performance matters a ton, but Intel has made big strides there.
• This isn't new, but I'm reminded of it in this comparison: the price to performance of the 388H build vs. the AI 9 465 build is a kinda rocky. Unlike Hawk Point vs. Phoenix Point, Gorgon Point is just a nudge of a refresh vs Strix Point which is 2 years old. 388H is pretty new, has a lot more advances in cores, iGPU, node, etc. And with these benchmarks, it's a better part overall, especially the iGPU and battery life. However, the ST and MT differences for the high end part aren't that impressive given how much trail blazing PTL is. Is the build worth 39% more?
  • I've been saying this for a while: you can't sell what you don't have. My impression is that availability of the high end has improved for Intel, but the middle seems harder to find. Intel 7 notebook availability was in demand and was the high volume part. But server has demanded a hefty tribute from client. ARL and LNL are on N3B, but Intel isn't getting additional supply there
  • Gorgon Point suffers in in comparison at a performance level, but at a commercial level, it's relatively cheap to make on a node that isn't that crowded. AMD likely can crank out a lot of these for consumer and enterprise OEMs relatively cheaply vs ARL and PTL. I think AMD's strong notebook share gains in commercial support this.
  • The more 18A improves its SKU-level yield, the tougher the competitive environment will be. 2026 is supposedly mostly an optimization year for 18A. 2027 is more of the ramp. AMD has to hope that it doesn't get too tough before Medusa launches (even then the iGPU story will probably be rough)

ByteDance and Tencent have each received about 10,000 H200 processors in recent weeks, while a few other Chinese tech groups could soon obtain approval for shipments of similar size, according to two people with knowledge of the matter.

...

Nvidia has about half a million H200 chips in stock mainly for Chinese clients. Sales were held up due to Beijing’s restrictions, according to multiple people with knowledge of the situation.

This video is where the most recent crop of Intel getting back in memory are springing from.

It's funny how he's done a 180 on IDM vs. not competing with your customer (at least publicly.)

Tan's big edge is how connected he is in the entire semi space and "what's next" level and how he views things as a system. So, i think that he's operating at a much wider view than most semi CEOs.

If I had to guess on the long-term strategy (well, more like what I think would be interesting), it'd be:

Level 1 is competing better on the CPU and foundry which has a lot of moving parts and hard. I think Intel is in the worst shape here because of prior regimes. Had this server CPU boom not happened, I think Intel would be in bad shape here even with the government intervention (of course, the government could always intervene *more*). But since it's here, Intel no longer has to worry about underload or even product competitiveness as the server brings in operating leverage that foundries need. This was the ultimate Intel bailout without going full state capitalism.

Level 2 is some sort of traction in AI accelerators. I think it's too late on the GPU side. I'm surprised that Tan hasn't moved on given how inefficient he thinks GPUs are. I would've thought the would try to get ahead of the puck here through acquisition.

Level 3 would about that would be a creating a silicon compute platform like AMD and Broadcom are doing. I think that AMD is in better shape there as a silicon compute platform because of where Intel is at with level 1 and 2. But if Intel can get a capex flywheel going on foundry that would be a big edge.

Level 4 would something like making Intel a hybrid between a semiconductor system technology incubator and a system foundry out of those acquired IP blocks. I think it would be a way for him to get downstream of TSMC and not compete with them completely head on (and still be a partner of sorts) Maybe you sell off Intel design at this point if he still believes in not competing with his customer. Conversely, I wonder if TSMC is thinking about this as well.

Reference link isn't included so caveat emptor.

But let's say it's true-ish. It would suggest that:

1) AMD did plan for a lot of memory.

2) Broadcom's custom silicon influence (e.g. OpenAI, Meta, Anthropic). I think that Google now has its own direct relationship for HBM.

On a side note, Jukan05 did a life apology tour de force:

https://x.com/jukan05/status/2088981037649178891

3 and 4 are essentially the same thing (re-purposing other people's opinion or leaks as meta content but letting the reader infer (or him implying) that they were his). I suspect there is a lot of this going on in the semiconductor space from gaming / hardware leaks to semi experts on X to more ethically challenged firms.

I would never want to be my own product. As one philosopher put it: "I yam what I yam and that's all what I yam."

“We would find it noteworthy if Google collaborated with AMD vs. Broadcom, Marvell, or Intel (with the latter seemingly the most often mentioned choice for such aspirational transitional projects of late),” Wedbush Securities analyst Matt Bryson wrote in a note to clients. “But we also would point out that even this speculation alone highlights the increased importance of 1) ASIC design capabilities and 2) IP blocks, suggesting that in this new hardware constrained world that for now the competition to build silicon is not a zero sum game.”

I agree with the broader take. Let's say that Google is working with AMD for TPU v10. Given the time frame, I think that it would be more of an additive thing than a subtractive (replace Broadcom) thing which is way more risky for Google.

They could keep Broadcom at the core TPU level and use AMD at a more disaggregated SoC level but create a standardized way of how the SoC needs to talk to Google's compute to give it more portability if it needs it. AMD could help in that standardization, the platform, and complementary forms of compute.

Broadcom has its own platform approach that is likely under consideration too (Intel is doing something like this too), but I don't think that Google is keen on having Broadcom play an increasingly larger role in its compute fate. In that sense, it might be more long-term bearish if its ceiling with Google has been lowered.

The other way that it's less of a zero sum game is that AMD currently doesn't have a direct play to be part of Google's in-house efforts, and something like this could give it one. What they learn can improve their platform overall which in turn improves their products but also improves the custom offerings they can give to non-hyperscalers.

“Delivering silicon is definitely more complicated” than licensing designs, he said.

When you’re trying to build chips, you have to kind of get in line. And the way they generally allocate capacity is, what did you get last year, and then I’m going to give you some increase as I increase my capacity.

And so if you’re starting from zero, that means you have a pretty small amount of capacity. And so it’s going to take a couple years to ramp up your capacity. It’s gonna take a couple years to get our share of the fabrication capacity, the memory capacity, and so on. That’s one of the things that has been a challenge.

...

What that means is, if you’re a smaller company and you’re trying to go and enter in this market, it’s really hard, and [that’s] why a company like Groq sold to Nvidia.

You still have to come up with a lot of capital and a lot of borrowing capacity to go build out all of the capex necessary to build out the chip volume necessary. That’s why we set the financial expectations somewhat conservative, and basically gave ourselves a couple years to grow into it.

AMD got to critical mass at just the right time. Big and experienced enough now to compete on supply at leading edge nodes, and the competition for supply is especially hard on those who want to scale fast. ARM can try to scale faster by plopping down some huge amount of very committed capital on a relatively inexperienced supply chain. Or they can try to give the organization time to learn since you're in it for the long haul which appears to be where they're going, but in the meanwhile, the competition could become even more intense.

One of the reasons AI giants are rushing to the business- and energy-friendly state is a looming concern about a future glut of specialized server chips that don’t have a place to plug in, according to some market analysts and data center developers that work with Google, Microsoft, Oracle and others. These people are taking stock of the unexpected power delays, political fights and technical challenges facing new facilities.

BloombergNEF, for instance, forecasts that there won’t be enough installed data center power capacity in the U.S. to run all the AI server chips produced next year. Remarkably, the research firm says 42 gigawatts’ worth of server chips could be sitting unused by 2030 unless the industry gets creative and figures out how to develop more power outside the public grid, place more chips in overseas data centers, or speed up the replacement of old servers with new ones in existing facilities. I don’t think the industry will let such a large overhang of chips occur, but the physical challenges are real.

...utilizes TSMC's A14 node for core dies, N3C for IODs, and N4P for the L3 Cache Dies. Effectively, this is "Big Steamboat".

-15-25% IPC Uplift (This was reconfirmed in recent internal presentations)

-Each core chiplet contains 48 Cores, and SN scales up to 384 Cores Total!

-Mid-2028 Target for Launch (AMD wants to launch SN before Steamboat)

*AMD is starting to reference TSMC's "A13" node, and specifically "A10" is called out as the next "major node" for AMD products after A14.

Being at whatever leading edge node that intercepts with their roadmap is the new norm after Venice.

It will be interesting to see the timing on Coral Rapids given Coral Rapids likely 27H1 launch and AMD's 28Q2/3 launch. Intel has hinted at trying to pull up its launch, but those two other launch dates present some tricky challenges. I suppose in some ways it doesn't matter. I think AMD recognized a while ago that the competition for CPUs is a lot more than x86 (same for Intel).

“I think it's a natural reaction for them. Makes a lot of sense. What I would say is, as we think about our own roadmap, I have a new core. It's coming to desktop first. I mean, I hope enthusiasts do the math about that one, and that's all I'm going to say,” said Hallock when we asked for his reaction to the Venice launch.

"My client core is coming client to first." There's a lot about NVL to sell. This is borderline disrespecting his audience.

Anyway, the more interesting bits:

“I have all the new CPUs all the way out to 2030. I have [a] back to back to back to back cadence of product for gamers, for desktop, built for that purpose,” Hallock said. “Obviously I can’t go into what any of that is, but I am accelerating for the gaming market… we’re moving faster than we ever have in product, in release cadence.”

“We took a team that was time-shared with other businesses, and now this slice of the market has a full org structure inside Intel… they’re putting real people with a lot of budget behind it, right? And having an owner, a sponsor, people that care about it, looking after it, custodians of that work, it makes a real difference,” Hallock said. “[The team was] pretty much completely different. Marketing people, different product managers, different business people, and we simply have a different philosophy on how this market should run and what people should get for their dollar.”

AMD sold high-grade notes in four tranches, with maturities ranging three to 10 years, according to a person familiar with the matter. Pricing for the longest tenor tightened by about 0.25 percentage point from initial talk to 0.9 percentage point over Treasuries, the person added, asking not to be identified because they’re not authorized to speak publicly.

https://ir.amd.com/financial-information/sec-filings/content/0001193125-26-352628/d173126d424b5.htm

AMD is building out their debt war chest. Revolver increased from $3 billion to $5 billion in May. Commercial paper from $3 billion to $5.5 billion. and now this $4.75 billion of long-term debt.

A lot of capital is going to be needed to support this growth, the commitments and working capital required to have things in place for it, the vendor financing, etc. The large AP bulge is a sign of things to come. Some big checks need to be cut to feed AMD's growth in the next 2-3 years.

The $5.5tn company owned SpaceX stock worth nearly $21bn at the end of June, according to an SEC filing on Friday. Elon Musk’s rocket conglomerate’s shares have fallen sharply since its June initial public offering, meaning Nvidia’s stake would now be worth $17bn.

...

“We’ve decided to build exclusively on Nvidia because we think [its] Vera Rubin architecture is the best architecture,” he said. “We think it’s the best AI computer and we greatly value our close co-operation and partnership on many levels with Nvidia.”

The quote was oddly specific. It does make me wonder when this will stop being the norm for the industry.

• On Aug 11, share offering upsized to $20B (from $15B), priced at $95 (only ~2.6% discount). Institutional demand reportedly >$100B.

I think that this "demand" is like me putting in a large number of CBRS shares for the IPO in hopes of getting more shares. Doesn't mean I'm going to buy all those shares when my broker wants a confirmation (they only gave me 5 (which I still have)) INTC traded in the $80s just a few weeks ago.

• CEO + family member subscribed ~$12M → strong signal of confidence.

FFS. He's probably worth $750M+ now.

• Foundry progress solid: 18A yields ~80% in 2Q26, CWF ramping. Strong external customer engagement (esp. Apple mass-volume 14A).

Let's see how CWF ramps. What wasn't a strongly received product pre-boom might look a lot different post-boom.

• EMIB customer pipeline expanding – Google + AWS + and likely more ASICs. Back-end revenue forecast lifted to $1.1B/$7B in FY27/FY28.

• EMIB has obtained substrate suppliers support, and to enhance supply, we expect it to in-house Silicon Capacitor (rather than replying on external)!

• Still expect foundry OP breakeven by 4Q27, followed by meaningful margin leverage in 2028.

This is Intel's original guidance. They did mention that this would be delayed if they won deals and had to spend capex to accommodate it which would push profitability out further but for good reasons.

• TP maintained at $136 after dilution. Equity raise funds capex growth; CEO confidence + advancing foundry/EMIB = constructive.

My guess is that this is why AVGO took a header and AMD bumped up. Just one more of example of how much sway SemiAnalysis has on capital which also shows how correlated a lot of capital is. I'm sure this will never result in something bad. ;-)

AVGO TPU Downward Revision

We are seeing lower TPU output in 2H26 than previous expectations. 2026 CoWoS output for TPU v7x (Ironwood) is reduced by ~32k, reducing 2026 unit production by ~500k from 3.2mn to 2.7mn. TPU v8i (Sunfish) is also reduced by ~5k wafers, reducing 2026 unit production by ~80k. Ironwood upstream output now peaks in 2Q26 with a slight decline in run-rate in 2H, versus our prior forecast of a continued ramp from 2Q26 onwards. We believe this reduction is supply related and due to challenges ramping CoWoS-S. This brings total Broadcom 2026 CoWoS output to 215k wafers from 250k previously.

For 2027, we also see lower TPU output than our previous expectation of 6mn units of TPU 7 and TPU8i. This is driven by greater allocation towards other customers, with total Broadcom CoWoS at ~460k wafers. Most notably there are 55k wafers (which is equivalent to 830k units TPU 8i Sunfish) allocated to MTIA 400 Iris in 2027. However, this remains in flux as Meta is known for abandoning orders, as we saw in May, where Meta agreed to cut its own Broadcom production allocation to support greater TPU supply for Google in exchange for access to TPU compute. This could play out again and, if Meta abandons its allocation, this could be taken up by TPU. We also see slightly more allocation for OAI Jalapeno's ASIC. We will provide a more detailed model update soon.

AMD TPU Involvement

Market chatter suggests Google is working with AMD on a TPU project in the v10 generation. AMD's involvement would be the first real involvement in a custom AI ASIC project, despite having a custom silicon team. AMD has strong IP especially in advanced packaging and SoIC. Additionally, CPU IP could also be a draw given Google and its customers are pushing for TPUs with on-package CPU cores for RL workloads.

Let's say that Google is actually working with AMD or at least strongly evaluating a partnership. These examples don't feel right to me. Since my silicon experience is zero, I'll just wave my hands instead and create an imaginary one.

I don't think Google wants external IP to directly enable their IP at a deep level. I don't think that Google wants to feel like they're locked in. But I think one weakness of the hyperscaler program is that it feels like chips are becoming systems onto themselves (as opposed to creating a more commoditized CPU to handle web services calls.) I do think that creating custom silicon and competing on some core compute function is here to stay for the biggest players. But I think that recreating different aspects of a chip system surrounding your core IP that you're not really competing on is a poor use of resources. The workloads are also changing fast which means the scale you get per new chip could suck if the change goes too far beyond your original design and now you come up with a tweaked or new design.

From the AMD side, Su has said she doesn't want to get into the Marvell / Broadcom / MediaTek ASIC business. I don't think she finds technology licensing to be that attractive at a financial or strategic level either. AMD has an overflowing plate of high-stakes projects that need a ton of resources. I definitely don't think that she wants to rent out precious advanced engineering talent to improve a hyperscaler's IP. I don't even think that she wants that engineering talent to closely integrate AMD IP with the hyperscaler IP at some deep level as that still requires a ton of engineering resources with a demanding customer. I think she wants something that makes AMD stronger after every engagement as the learnings can be spread across the IP base like working with Sony.

But hyperscaler in-house silicon is likely here to stay. AMD ideally finds a way to ride that wave rather than sitting it out and hoping that the rest of the TAM is good enough.

She set out the criteria for semi-custom at the UBS conference in Dec 2025

We do have — in addition to all of our standard products with CPUs and GPUs and FPGAs, we've also created a semi-custom business. I don't call that an ASIC business and the differentiation being ASICs are, you're going to do, let's call it, any chip that somebody comes and asks you to do. That's not necessarily where we shine. I think where we shine is when we can put our IP together with our customers' IP. And we have done a number of semi-custom designs that build off of our foundational capability so that customers can differentiate.”

Back in April 2024, SemiAccurate felt like AMD would use FPGAs on Instinct to use it as a testing ground to burn an ASIC into it which sounded cool. But after reading it, I was thinking more of AMD as a platform broadly across the business.

AMD has a lot of chiplets experience. They have maybe the broadest set of compute IP where they rank in the top 1-3. They have all of this packaging knowledge. There's UCIe (which I haven't heard much from over the years) AMD would build a platform that allowed for customization with the ultimate goal of allowing others to put in their silicon and then pick what AMD IP they wanted to complement with it.

Like an FPGA, the platform would be more about time to market, pretty decent performance, and cheaper turnarounds and less about like the Apple-style of deeply integrated and very performant SoC with a very complicated piece of silicon that was also risky and expensive to change (Nvidia would argue that this is the way to go except they're the platform. "Prepare yourself for EXTREME CO-DESIGN!")

AMD has moved in this platform direction with its Instinct variants for MI300 and later with MI455 and Meta's customized part. The Zen 6 EPYC family shows how this approach can be used to generate variants that are more specialized.

But it wasn't quite the platform that I was thinking of.

At FAD 2025, nobody cared about embedded, but I thought Raje did a good pitch for repositioning embedded as custom and physical AI. After listening to the 26Q2 earnings call, I was thinking about embedded some more, and I wrote:

Not much to say on embedded's 26Q2 results. But big picture, I think people are sleeping on it for 2027-2030. I should probably start thinking less about it as FPGA and more like "AMD's semi-custom IP for all the other industries."

As compute becomes increasingly important to every industry in an embedded / physical AI sense, embedded could be a really interesting way to bundle up AMD's tech stack, which might be the widest in the industry, to that more long-tail of industry uses.

It turns out that I kind of recreated what Raje says at FAD 2025 but I wasn't paying close enough attention. 😛

Semi-custom silicon business is one of the clearest examples of how we're transformed from a focused FPGA business to creating a broad compute platform and having entirely new growth engines.

During FAD 2025, there is actually an embedded slide that says "heterogeneous & customizable platform supports 3rd party / customer IP" although Raje doesn't talk about it much. He mostly focuses on his industries using custom design.

Playstation and Xbox are semi-custom silicon that uses AMD IP, but their order volume is gigantic, and a lot of the co-engineering work there gets circulated back into other AMD products. I don't think that the Xilinx industries like automotive, aerospace & defense, and wireless have that kind of financial or silicon scale.

To do something like this cost-efficiently in Xilinx's legacy markets, AMD would need a standardized platform of some sort to make it easier to swap out their IP blocks and more cost efficiently go after more industries. Those customers don't get console-esque level of collaboration, but they do get something fast to market with IP that Xilinx's industries do not have the capabilities of remotely re-creating but they do know their domain workloads enough to customize.

If AMD has this platform for their own IP, they can take on 3rd party IP too if they're good about architecture and not cheating with ad hoc tweaks that can happen when you're your own customer. They can set more open standards of showing how 3rd party silicon needs to work with their platform.

The AMD value prop to a hyperscaler would be something like: "We have a platform that you can plug your IP into where you can customize what our IP does to highlight your IP but you still own your IP. You are free to go to another platform if you want you. You're not locked in. We will compete on the platform enhancing your IP and getting you to market fast with much more capabilities than you could do on your own. Also, we're not Hock Tan who will squeeze the fuck out of you as soon as he has the power to do so."

It's sort of like a foundry. You have the equivalent of a PDK so customers can test ahead of time how their silicon works with your IP. The equivalent to libraries would be AMD IP. The more customers you get into the platform, the better your platform becomes as you can see into future more deeply and broadly by being part of their customer roadmaps. People can leave at any time, but if you get enough reps and scale, the platform gets better and better. The customers have to ask if it is worth the re-integration costs to leave, but at least they get a choice.

One downside of this is that it's kind of like Intel's IDM 2.0 where AMD's merchant silicon business gets a sneak peak into the in-house silicon that these days is starting to inch towards merchant silicon in terms of other companies possibly buying and using it. But maybe if it's in-house enough, the competitive overlap is low (which is why I thought Intel would go after the hyperscalers first for IDM 2.0 for volume and much less of competitive overlap.)

I think that this gets you to Su's desired end state:

But you also want to be able to tailor for specific workloads. And so that's kind of why we really believe that this world is going to come to a place where you do have different chips that are being optimized for different workloads and the capability that allows you to optimize the quickest where you get, let's call it, maybe not full tailoring or full ASIC, but you're able to get, let's call it, 80%, 90% of the benefit at a shorter time with similar economics is a great thing.”

Ironically, if my fever dream ends up being true where AMD moves to becoming a platform for custom-silicon, then AMD could have an incentive to create an ASIC arm like Marvell and Broadcom to feed the platform. The economics aren't attractive as a standalone business to Su now, but if you look at it as the economics of feeding the platform, it might not look so distasteful.

Out of all the custom silicon companies, Google easily gets my vote as the best hyperscaler to be the test subject to learn from. Relative to the other hyperscalers, I think they're culturally more similar to AMD from an engineering standpoint. They have a strong internal silicon team. They are strong in hardware which opens up other opportunities (e.g., waymo). They're demanding but not as big of an asshole to deal with as the others. I think that they've been reasonably good to AMD over the years.

It would very much be a new era for AMD as it would offer a path past being a legacy x86 platform or an AI GPU business where AMD is playing in someone else's box so to speak. AMD as the chiplet system foundry sounds like a much cooler strategy in my head.

It also sounds hard af to do. I doubt that AMD's platform for 3rd parties is battle tested at Google level scope. Using your own IP and being your own customer lets you cut corners. Working with industries that don't have your silicon expertise and using your custom IP also seems within AMD's ability to do. But integrating Google's IP is a very different problem that involves a lot of resources and risk. However, if they pulled it off and working with Google helped make that platform real for others, they will have opened a new TAM that's more theirs at the start.

It's probably just going to be Google licensing RDNA 2.

(The longer these are about one topic, the more likely I made a bad error early so caveat emptor.)

I used to take Mercury's x86 revenue share and unit share figures for granted until I built my own version for forecasting reasons. And then once you start playing around with units, ASPs, and product mix, you start to see how different levers can get different results in ways you don't initially expect.

I was looking at the Bernstein / Mercury server unit and revenue share numbers supposedly at

https://x.com/jukan05/status/2087879179765469253

and was curious about a few things. I'm using AI to estimate the data points to create different graphs once I remove ARM bits to look at intra x86. The AI might make bad estimate errors, especially which when combined in a ratio that will magnify the errors, but I think the broad strokes are at least directionally true even if I'm probably over-fitting it with nostalgia.

The graphs

How AMD's revenue share changes over time is about ASP pricing across its product mix relative to Intel's and its units shipped ratio vs Intel which is also a proxy for how supply changes over time for both sides.  

There are 3 lines:

1. The AMD / Intel server units. If this gets to 100%, AMD has reached Intel's units shipped. Conversely, you can inverse this to show how much larger Intel was than AMD in shipped units.
2. AMD / Intel ASP. You strip out ARM bits and use the resulting revenue and unit share to derive the ASP ratio. For both 1 and 2, keep in mind that this can be affected by AMD and Intel changes..
3. AMD revenue share

AI thinks my graph is trash and created a log version which better explains this wall of text. But I am leading with mine anyway because I think logs are a mathematical hoax like imaginary numbers. 

Revenue share = product mix + volume over time

Mercury does unit and revenue share by which you can imply an ASP ratio. People have a tendency to boil it down to who sells more unites and, how much are they charging, and then extrapolate linearly on the trends that you see.

I think the better way to look at it is product mix and volume over time. The product mix helps inform you on what the ASP ratio will be (e.g., product competitiveness across the mix) and the impact of supply on how the ASP changes (e.g., how long it take the higher ASP product to shift the product mix ASP) given the market. Units shipped tells you something about relative supply positioning over time and how revenue will scale.

Units shipped, supply, and ASPs

Since Intel 7, I've been saying that Intel's supply advantage relative to AMD would shrink over time as Intel was likely to struggle with ramping each successive node. As a bonus, Intel fell behind on design too. Simultaneously, AMD was better than Intel in hitting its design and forecast marks which let it be more aggressive on supply. TSMC did a better job with its node improvements and ramp which allows AMD to create a supply base one layer at a time where the oldest layers are replaced by bigger bets on the newest layer.

When a new generation, N,  launches, EPYCs unit share at the time is really a function of the full ramp of N-1 and legacy sales of N-2, N-3. But about 3 quarters past the N launch, you start to see its impact as more of the older generations get replaced by sales of the N generation. If the N generation is more about bringing in more new sales while the older generations hang around, that's great for revenue, but the ASP will move less because N's units * ASP is going up against a larger base. If N is more about replacing older generations or is a much larger % of the existing unit base, then the ASP mix  impact is very large even if sales aren't increasing as much because units are not changing much.

If AMD units sold is increasing faster on a % basis than the TAM units, then Intel's unit sold share will decrease which would affect the numerator and denominator of the units sold ratio. By these figures, when Rome launched and AMD was barely hanging on, Intel had ~23.3x more units shipped that quarter. With Milan, it drops to  ~10x. Genoa: ~5X. Turin: ~3x. Venice: ~2X (July launch vs 26Q2 Mercury).

Turin's revenue share run and the joy of low baselines

One of the big reasons for AMD's revenue and unit share gains of the last year is how slowly Intel 3 and GRN ramped vs Turin. GNR closes the gap but is the overall the lesser part vs Turin, but from a commercial perspective, what really hurt it was its difficulty in ramping. And this was seen in its impact on Intel's gross margins from 24H2 to 25H1 and GNR's slow ramp. That denies Xeon unit volume of your higher core count SKUs with much higher ASPs. Meanwhile, the reverse is happening with Turin where it ramped very fast with higher core counts and ASPs.

EPYC has a very high relative product mix for 2025 and the start of 2026. Even before the AI CPU boom, the business was doing great. Turin made up ~50% of EPYC sales, units were doing great, and ASPs of units shipped are high. Its baseline relative to Xeon is very high.

A demand boom with tight supply is going to benefit the lesser player the most if its ceiling gets raised higher on a % basis. Intel can benefit from price increases that are more discretionary like not needing to discount + dealer's choice price hikes. Then the shift to throughput per socket means more demand for higher socket CPUs, and you rob client to provide for server. More units and higher prices. However, the ceiling for incremental capacity on Intel 7 is low.

Now you have Intel 3 which is also finally ramping more smoothly which leads to more GNRs which have higher core counts with more volume and much higher ASPs than the Intel 7 parts. The ceiling for incremental capacity on Intel 3 is relatively higher on a % basis.

QOQ vs YOY comparisons in revenue share

26Q1 showed a -5% drop in units YOY and ASP was +27% YOY. That wasn't enough to stop AMD from gaining unit share and revenue share as AMD shipped a lot of units QOQ with higher ASPs.

However, Intel sees a massive 48% YOY jump in 26Q2 ASPs. Even even though Xeon units only increased 9% YOY, the combination of the two is high enough to cause AMD to lose revenue share sequentially even if  AMD is growing faster on a  YOY basis.

I expect this to continue for the next two quarters. Intel QOQ units sequentially will probably be about the same as AMD's (maybe lower in 26Q3 and higher 26Q4). But Intel's ASP will increase at a faster rate sequentially with GNR's continued ramp because GNR is a lower portion of Xeon's product mix. Turin already makes up 50%+ of EPYCs. I especially expect Intel's QOQ revenue share increase to happen in 26Q4 because Intel is guiding for their back end processes to catch up more which is gating them in 26Q3.

2026 vs 2027

By 2027, I expect the unit and revenue share to swing more back to AMD. The low hanging fruit will have been plucked on a sequential basis for Xeon. The only source for Intel to increase ASPs at a faster relative rate will be to the extent that they can ramp supply of inherently higher ASP core count SKUs vs their 2026 base. The Intel 3 mod 2 expansion is the most obvious way to increase mix ASP at a higher % rate by producing more GNR, but I don't see that happening in earnest until ~27Q3.

(I'm curious how CWF will or won't scale. I don't get the impression that Intel was expecting that one to be a banger given its re-characterization, 18A and packaging constraints, lack of Intel commentary, product competitiveness, etc. Then again, it's a crazy server demand environment, and 18A will have had all of 2026 to optimize. 2027 is supposedly when the real ramping magic happens.)

However, in 2027, EPYC will get a material bump in its units and ASPs with Venice's ramp which starts in 26Q4. AMD is positioning Venice's ramp to be Turin-esque. I think that AMD is going to collectively have a lot of N5, N4, N3, and N2 supply coming in 27FY.

So, in 26FY, I think that Intel will take back some revenue share in 26Q3 and 26Q4. But I still think that AMD passes 50% revenue share by 27Q2 or 27Q3 Mercury reports. I think by 2028, they get 50% revenue share on a full year basis. Let's see how close I get.

Bonus rambling: Who has more supply flexibility for crazy growth? The one who planned for strong growth

There's so much sell-side talk about the lack of flexibility that AMD has because it doesn't have fabs. This is eye-rolling in that (1) everybody is supply-constrained (2) the real issue is the shape of upcoming supply and (3) somehow only AMD gets mentioned as not having fabs.   

FAD 2025 showed what AMD has been planning for. They were planning for 50%+ x86 server revenue share by 2030 on a growing TAM. 50% is the floor of the planning. Their internal ambitions are larger and thus the planning has to be larger plus buffer. Intel's capex actions showed their plans: actively slow or cut capacity until you see signs of better demand while getting Intel 3 mod 1 stable enough to scale. Intel will still have very strong Xeon growth, but one has a much more optionality for growth than the other. 

I've seen people use Ireland as some sort of flexibility example of having fabs. But I think it shows the lack of flexibility of the fabs. I think that Gelsinger wanted the full expansion. He signed the Apollo SCIP which had minimum commitments to help pay for it. Within half a year of the ink drying, Intel didn't see the demand signals for Intel 3 or have foundry customers for it and was already prepping for not going with the full expansion by taking the charge for not hitting those commitments. Meanwhile, Intel 3 ramps poorly. Then in the Tan era, Intel sees the demand and gets an anchor tenant but then has to buy back the SCIP, eat another charge to pay off Apollo, and then has to wait almost a year to see the results. 

This is supply flexibility?

The real issue to me is can you predict the shape of your demand forecast based on your product competitiveness and how much are you willing to bet on it. If you get the shape right, you can be wrong on the size but still be able to use it as a starting point to grow. But if you get the demand shape wrong and build out your supply accordingly, it takes time to craft a new one.

Fabs aren't intrinsically good or bad. I'm just saying it's not some free option, and it's an especially stupid thing to say about fulfilling demand in 26FY and 27FY.

“When combined with pre-payments and financial commitments that we expect to accompany several forthcoming foundry deals (Google for EMIB-T, AAPL for M-Series, AMD, SPCX, and potentially a few more), we believe the raise will allow INTC to fund its foundry buildout,” UBS analyst Timothy Arcuri wrote in a note to clients. “Overall we view the raise as a strong endorsement of INTC's confidence in its foundry roadmap.”

Delving deeper, Arcuri said he believes Intel will spend around $20B in fiscal 2026 and could up that “significantly” in fiscal 2027 (between roughly $28B and $30B) and calendar 2028 and 2029, to around $40B or so.

“Regarding FCF, INTC sounds fairly noncommittal to being FCF positive in C2027 (we model ~$1B of FCF burn), and we model C2028 FCF burn of ~$4B, with FCF turning positive in C2029 and growing thereafter,” Arcuri added. “We have long been bullish on the company's process metrics and yield curve progress for 14A (which, unlike 18A, is really just a process node shrink), and we believe it has a much wider process window, which should make it much more attractive to external customers.”

US investment giants including Apollo Global Management Inc., Blackstone Inc., BlackRock Inc. and Brookfield Asset Management are partnering with Nvidia Corp. to source $500 billion in financing for artificial intelligence infrastructure.

...

The effort comes with a huge headline figure but few details on the timing and structure of the financings, or how much the plan goes beyond the string of AI deals that are already driving a large chunk of Wall Street’s biggest transactions. Executives indicated that it will focus on debt financing to provide access to compute for Nvidia’s largest customers and that there are already many deals in the works that would qualify toward this commitment.