[HN Gopher] Intel could return to Apple computers in 2027
___________________________________________________________________
Intel could return to Apple computers in 2027
Author : DamnInteresting
Score : 100 points
Date : 2025-12-01 18:46 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| [dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46080424
| bhouston wrote:
| I think a lot missed it because of Thanksgiving in the US.
| awestroke wrote:
| Well I sure hope not. I'll never buy a mac with an Intel
| processor again
| Analemma_ wrote:
| They're talking about Intel fabbing Apple Silicon chips, not
| going back to x86.
| 725686 wrote:
| The very first sentence of the article: "Will Apple turn to
| Intel for production of its M-series chips in 2027? " So it is
| not returning to Intel architecture.
| Findecanor wrote:
| Perhaps the headline should have been changed when the post
| was made here.
| kotaKat wrote:
| "Intel-manufactured Apple Silicon could return to Apple's
| computers in 2027"
| downrightmike wrote:
| Dirt cheap M1's?
| kotaKat wrote:
| M1's already dead, A18 Pro's where it's at for that.
| g8oz wrote:
| A18 Pro is iOS only though, not Mac.
| sertsa wrote:
| Lots of rumors about a new Macbook with a Axx chip in the
| pipe.
| giobox wrote:
| The budget MacBook due next year is widely rumored to
| adopt the A18 Pro CPU.
|
| > https://www.macrumors.com/2025/06/30/new-macbook-
| with-a18-ch...
| Tagbert wrote:
| Or people should read beyond the headline before commenting
| morshu9001 wrote:
| Maybe they did and just really hate Intel fab
| bhouston wrote:
| Returning as a US on shore manufacturer of Apple designed chips,
| and apparently not the leading edge ones. This feels like making
| Trump happy while Apple keeps full control.
| simpsond wrote:
| Getting foundry services off the ground requires starting
| somewhere. Apple is hedging. I don't see it as a bad thing for
| Intel.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _don't see it as a bad thing for Intel_
|
| Isn't this a ringing success for their strategy of separating
| chip design from fabrication?
| bluGill wrote:
| Not clear - design depends on what can be fabricated. If
| you do both you get options to talk in the middle of design
| for both. Maybe, who knows.
| reverserdev wrote:
| Fabrication also depends on what is designed, no? There
| is a coupling between the two?
| bluGill wrote:
| Not in most cases. Apple, AMD, and most other chip makers
| lack a fab. The design what the fabs can make, but they
| don't have much input into the fabs. Someone makes a fab,
| and you make something it can made.
|
| 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)
| monocasa wrote:
| Maybe, it's unclear at the moment.
|
| 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.
| kergonath wrote:
| > the chance that Intel gets a boat load of profit out of
| it is very small
|
| 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.
| silisili wrote:
| I'm kinda surprised this deal seems to be 18A still. While
| progress, 14A is what really matters, as Intel has more or less
| been threatening to just give up if they don't get a large 14A
| commitment(unless that's changed recently).
|
| Though, if this goes well, it stands to reason Apple may be
| that needed commitment.
| vessenes wrote:
| As of August, 18A yield was reportedly in the 10% range. I
| would be surprised if anybody committed to 14A purchases
| right now.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Dual sourcing keeps prices low.
| bluGill wrote:
| This might make Trump happy, but more importantly it makes the
| military happy. No military leader with any intelligence is
| happy with so much critical for war supply chain being in China
| or Taiwan - the two are showing signs of going to war with each
| other in the future. (it may not happen, but there are enough
| signs military and political leaders should worry). Military
| leaders are not just the US, leaders in Europe are happy too -
| they may not trust the US but the US is still at least a second
| option (and Trump is 79: he is statistically unlikely to live
| much longer)
| jsheard wrote:
| The funniest outcome would be Apple throwing so much money at
| Intel Foundry that they end up monopolizing the leading-edge
| nodes, like they do at TSMC, leaving the rest of Intel to fight
| for scraps on their own production lines. I guess Intel also uses
| TSMC now but... yeah, as mentioned.
| phkahler wrote:
| At that point Intel would be a highly successful foundry
| business! Then they could make very high performance RISC-V
| cores and offer them to foundry customers who need CPU. No need
| for legacy x86 at that point.
| pqtyw wrote:
| > Intel would be a highly successful foundry business
|
| > very high performance RISC-V cores
|
| Just need some unicorns on rainbows to with both of those.
| bigyabai wrote:
| Both are objectively true, though. IFS would finally stand
| on it's own legs with a customer at Apple's scale, and
| Intel has the required IP and know-how to provide a stopgap
| RISC chip to embedded and datacenter customers that Apple
| usually ignores.
|
| 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.
| schainks wrote:
| Apple did this before with Samsung, I can totally see them
| doing this to Intel.
| dmitrygr wrote:
| Typically Apple offers to pay a large percent of R&D cost in
| return for a year of exclusivity. I do not know why they'd not
| do the same here.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| I think the costs in the contract when Intel don't deliver the
| volume and yields will effectively mean Apple ends up owning the
| remains of the company.
| GenerWork wrote:
| That would be an interesting play. Acquire a chip design and
| foundry company all because they couldn't meet the purposely
| stringent deadline, and then use their expertise and assets to
| produce AI chips for yourself.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| Yeah they will just ruthlessly hire all the TSMC people they
| already have relationships with.
| xnx wrote:
| Source: https://x.com/mingchikuo/status/1994422001952555318
| echelon_musk wrote:
| If Intel make the CPUs in the USA are they going to be shipped to
| China for final assembly?
| tantalor wrote:
| Why not? A single Boeing 747-8F could carry 10M-50M chips in a
| single trip.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| The value of that airplane would be astronomical. I would
| split it up into dozens of flights just to reduce risk if one
| of them had a mechanical problem.
| dylan604 wrote:
| They said 747, not 737MAX, so the risk isn't as high /s
|
| Then again, if it were A320s, they'd be at risk of solar
| flares, so best go by ship I think
| HansHamster wrote:
| Should be fine as long as the chips have ECC
| dylan604 wrote:
| not the new chips. the A320 itself crashing while losing
| all of the loot onboard
| bhouston wrote:
| I'm going to call it now, the next big heist movie is going
| to be about hijacking a plane/container full of AI chips
| valued at >$1B.
| throwaway31131 wrote:
| Maybe valued at >$1B, but who do you sell it to?
| pavlov wrote:
| China of course...
| Y_Y wrote:
| You fly around the world running uncensored llms
| piker wrote:
| https://clip.cafe/the-departed-2006/our-target-a-major-
| trans...
| KronisLV wrote:
| With the way things are going: a plane carrying RAM chips.
| robotnikman wrote:
| There have already been heists of trucks carrying GPU's, I
| could see something like this happening.
| Bad_CRC wrote:
| Fast & Furious: Quantum Drift.
|
| I'm in.
| wil421 wrote:
| No, they send them back to china to put them in the retail box.
| throwaway31131 wrote:
| Packaging is something Intel does very well and they have
| facilities is the USA. The rumor is many companies might do
| final assembly with Intel.
|
| https://www.eetimes.com/intels-embarrassment-of-riches-advan...
| hedgehog wrote:
| I think packaging is still mostly Penang (Malaysia).
| poemxo wrote:
| I trust TSMC more than Intel, and I can't help but wonder if this
| is related https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46045236
| ajross wrote:
| If one executive hire was all it took to steal a whole process
| node, TSMC could never have built the lead it has (nor Intel
| the lead it had in previous decades).
|
| Semiconductor manufacturing is an exercise in blood, tears and
| careful note taking, not Magic Secrets.
| mosura wrote:
| The most obvious thing would be Intel making security processor
| modules. Get the supply chain for those onshore, from the US
| point of view.
|
| Doesn't require the absolute latest processes.
| ggm wrote:
| I think this is a very astute comment.
|
| 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.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| You are probably referring to NXP (formerly Philips) and
| Infineon (formerly Siemens), both of which have produced
| crypto processors, smartcards (including SIMs) and other
| secure elements for a really long time. Infineon is/was
| actually a really common supplier for the little 20-pin
| TPM/LPC modules.
| ggm wrote:
| Yes i think you're right. The nexus of sim, smart card and
| tpm seems strong. I e used thales and Luna (now also
| thales) HSM which are in hypothesis glamorous, but
| ultimately remarkably pedestrian secure devices. I wonder
| if they include logic from these companies. Supply chain
| behind FIPS120 class stuff would be an interesting story.
| Bengalilol wrote:
| It was Gemplus. The backstory about how CIA and NSA got
| control over it is fascinating.
|
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemalto#Gemplus>
| michaelt wrote:
| If TSMC is compromised, getting the security processor made in
| the US won't help.
|
| The CPU enforces the security boundary between web pages, apps,
| the OS, the hypervisor and so on. If you control that, you
| control everything.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Apple has more than enough resources to sample check chip
| deliveries for being manipulated.
| duskwuff wrote:
| What, in your mind, is a "security processor module"? As far as
| I'm aware, there is no such entity in Apple systems; security
| functionality is on the same die as the CPU/GPU. (Which is a
| good thing; it means that communications between the CPU and
| that security processor cannot easily be intercepted or
| interfered with.)
| astrange wrote:
| There is a "secure element" which contains eSIM and NFC and
| is a separate chip. I believe NXP makes them but don't know.
| But there's plenty of other chips like power management.
| m463 wrote:
| I always heard of the T2 chip.
| valleyer wrote:
| Those don't exist in ARM Macs.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Those were binned Apple A series chips.
|
| They used some of parts of it like the secure enclave, SSD
| controller and hardware disk encryption.
| dagmx wrote:
| T2 is no longer a thing since the Apple Silicon chips.
| Apple moved their support chips into the main SoC.
| umanwizard wrote:
| Semi-clickbait headline: as others have pointed out, this is just
| about who fabs the Apple-designed chips, not a contemplated
| return to x86. Still pretty interesting if true; would be cool to
| see Apple diversify from TSMC. I'm rooting for Intel!
| oofbey wrote:
| TSMC's dominance is bad for the entire industry. Everybody is
| better off having alternatives - everybody except TSMC.
| mproud wrote:
| At best, it's Intel outside
| spoaceman7777 wrote:
| Yeah, this is pure clickbait. And it's barely even new "news"
| anyway. Apple has been actively testing Intel's 18A process,
| and has been in talks with Samsung as well.
|
| 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.)
| BonoboIO wrote:
| Has intel caught up to TSMC? I highly doubt that they can
| manufacture that high end chips.
| oofbey wrote:
| Pretty sure the answer is "No" - Intel is still pretty far
| behind TSMC on the high-end. But the old metric of "transistor
| size" measured in nanometers isn't a good indicator any more.
| The marketing numbers don't reflect reality in ways I don't
| understand.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| This link has much more information:
|
| > 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.
| rubyn00bie wrote:
| Yeah, I remember hearing NVidia did the same thing via Moore's
| Law is Dead podcast. At this point it seems incredibly unlikely
| Intel will unseat TSMC anytime soon. TSMC has proven time and
| time again it is the only fab capable of producing leading edge
| nodes at the capacity and quality required by the likes of
| Apple, NVidia, and AMD. It also has substantially deeper
| pockets than Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.
|
| 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.
| storus wrote:
| Didn't that "good enough" strategy fail with Global
| Foundries? They "good enoughed" themselves to irrelevance.
| criddell wrote:
| Apple likes to own the core components of the stuff they
| sell. How surprising would it be for Apple to buy Intel's
| factories and hire away some of TSMC's top scientists and
| engineers?
| bigyabai wrote:
| Very surprising. It would be an unprecedented amount of
| responsibility for Apple to subsume when they could let the
| fed nationalize it and save a few billion dollars for a
| rainy day.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| Apple doesn't buy its manufacturing partners.
|
| 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.
| stinkbeetle wrote:
| > TSMC has proven time and time again it is the only fab
| capable of producing leading edge nodes at the capacity and
| quality [...]. It also has substantially deeper pockets than
| Intel to continue to invest in staying number one.
|
| 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.
| GeekyBear wrote:
| To be fair, Intel is finally making the major manufacturing
| equipment investments needed to catch up.
|
| 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...
| Aperocky wrote:
| > chips built on their process node were materially worse
|
| 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?
| hedgehog wrote:
| Most likely: Same design, marketed as the same chip. Might
| see differences in power consumption and thermals but not in
| a way that will affect normal users. Apple has relatively few
| designs that they use across different products so that would
| further mask differences. If the Intel-fabbed variant of a
| chip ran 5% hotter but Apple put it into Apple TV then
| basically nobody would notice or care.
| mproud wrote:
| More like Intel outside
| mikey_p wrote:
| I really wish they would scale back up and finish the fab in Ohio
| and bring it online sooner rather than later.
| meindnoch wrote:
| Smart move. The geopolitical clock is ticking for TSMC.
| bigyabai wrote:
| TSMC is geographically decentralized, nowadays.
| diamond559 wrote:
| Dear leader bought Intel, Tim Apple needs to appease dear leader
| to avoid tariffs. 2+2
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-01 23:01 UTC)