Intel's Fab 52 is bigger and better equipped than TSMC's Arizona facilities — Intel's production volume dwarfs TSMC's operations in the U.S.

Intel's Fab 52 semiconductor manufacturing plant in Chandler, Arizona.
Intel's Fab 52 semiconductor manufacturing plant in Chandler, Arizona. (Image credit: Intel)

Intel is trying to catch up with TSMC in terms of process technologies and advanced global production capacity, but when it comes to the U.S., the chip giant remains unrivalled. Intel's Fab 52 is more advanced than TSMC's current Fab 21 phase 1 and upcoming Fab 21 phase 2 facilities and its production capacity is comparable to both modules combined, according to a report by CNBC.

At present, Fab 52 is equipped with four ASML Twinscan NXE Low-NA EUV lithography systems (as observed by @IntelProMUltra), including at least one NXE:3800E — ASML's most advanced Low-NA EUV machine that borrows wafer handler, faster wafer stages, and light source from next-generation High-NA EUV tools and therefore can process up to 220 wafers per hour at a 30 mJ/cm^2 dose. The plant also has three NXE:3600D systems, which can process 160 wafers per hour at a 30 mJ/cm^2 dose.

In total, there will be at least 15 EUV scanners at Intel's Silicon Desert campus in Ocotillo, Arizona. However, we can only wonder how many of them will be High-NA EUV lithography tools and how many will be installed in the upcoming Fab 62. In any case, the words 'at least' imply that Intel has enough space to install more than 15 EUV lithography machines at its Arizona facilities.

When compared to TSMC's Fab 21 phase 1 (which produces chips on the company's N4 and N5 process technologies), Intel's Fab 52 can make chips on considerably more advanced nodes (down to 1.8nm-class and beyond), and it can process two times more wafers per month. In fact, given that TSMC tends to build fab modules with production capacity of around 20,000 WSPM, even when TSMC completes its N3-capable Fab 21 phase 2, Intel's Fab 52 will remain on par or even a bit ahead of TSMC's facilities in Arizona when all three are fully ramped.

In fact, given that Intel's 18A production node is considerably more sophisticated than TSMC's N4 or N4P, the straightforward comparison of production capacities is not completely accurate, as Intel's fab has to do more work to create the node (even using the more advanced Twinscan NXE:3800B).

There is a caveat regarding Intel's Fab 52 ramp schedule, however. At present, it is ramping up production of Intel's Panther Lake processors using 18A technology, which is still in an early stage of its yield curve. Intel expects 18A yields to reach world-class levels in early 2027. Before then, Intel will not increase CPU production on this node beyond a certain level, so the fab will not be fully utilized initially, and some portion of its production capacity will remain unused. By contrast, TSMC ramps chip production using proven process technologies in the U.S., enabling rapid ramp-up and a quick increase in fab utilization to near 100%.

*Note that there are more than four weeks in an average month, so the maximum capacity of Intel's Fab 52 when fully ramped can be higher than 40,000 WSPM, depending on factors like planned maintenance and unplanned downtime.

Google Preferred Source

Follow 3DTested on Google News, or add us as a preferred source, to get our latest news, analysis, & reviews in your feeds.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer
  • Gururu
    I worry about the state of U.S. Born and educated engineers being able to see this through as a competitive enterprise. If we stop bringing in foreigners to do our intellectual work are we screwed?
    Reply
  • cyrusfox
    Gururu said:
    I worry about the state of U.S. Born and educated engineers being able to see this through as a competitive enterprise. If we stop bringing in foreigners to do our intellectual work are we screwed?
    There is no shortage of intellectual capability among U.S.-born and educated engineers, nor among those already in the workforce. The key contribution H‑1B brings, as it’s currently implemented, is wage stagnation and poorer working conditions by creating a quasi‑indentured class of workers whose ability to stay in the U.S. Depends on keeping the same job, even if they’re underpaid or abused.

    Hopefully Intel has truly returned to being an engineering‑first company built on meritocracy, with competitive compensation and fair conditions for all engineers, and not one driven by representative quotas.
    Reply
  • TechieTwo
    "Intel's Fab 52 is bigger and better equipped than TSMC's Arizona facilities..." And they still can't get their act together.
    Reply
  • phead128
    Yet Intel outsources over 40% of its chips to TSMC.....

    Intel can't even master low-NA EUV, giving it high-NA EUV won't make a difference because they are simply incompetent.
    Reply
  • acadia11
    It’s not a technology problem. Intel has the technology, they are just fine on EUV as well and are the first to High-NA … it’s a process problem and always has been. Intel is built for Intel and they are only now correcting their ability to be a partner foundry. Even having the same ASML machine doesn’t mean you have e the same implementation and can just mix and match a TSMC node with and Intel node … they are only now starting to have TSMC process capability and ability to design appropriately as a partner foundry. They rely on TSMC for some chips because they were late to transition from DUV to EUV learning their lesson they are first in high NA EUV. But will they get the client support and do they have the process capability be a partner will determine if they will succeed. But tech wise they are right there with TSMC and now ahead on high NA.
    Reply
  • LordVile
    But who will use them when they’re so far behind TSMC?
    Reply
  • SkyBill40
    Bigger doesn't always equate to better. If it were, this wouldn't even be a story. And better equipped? For what? It would seem that they're better equipped for failure and falling behind at this point, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. TSMC has been eating their lunch for a while now.
    Reply
  • Dustyboy1492
    Lot's of haters coping. Good luck Intel.
    Reply
  • hotaru251
    Intel's production volume dwarfs TSMC's operations in the U.S.

    I mean as intel has 90% of its stuff in states I sure would hope so...

    This is like intel putting one up in SK and saying tsmc dwarfs intel's there.... Obviously.

    Dustyboy1492 said:
    Lot's of haters coping.
    More like being realistic.

    Most people WANT intel to be good again (beneficial for everyone) just Intel's got a shaky track record so people are wary.
    Reply
  • sygreenblum
    Well, I hope they succeed as more competition is always good.

    One thing to point out though, the statement "Intel's 18A production node is considerably more sophisticated than TSMC's N4 or N4P" is not a fair comparison. I'm sure it is, as TSMC N4 is a 4 year old node. They moved to 3nm for leading customers 2 years ago, with 2nm coming out late next year 2026. 2nm is the node Intel 18A will be competing with not a 4 year old half-step process.
    Reply