Intel Foundry: Google and Nvidia choose TSMC alternative

The timeline of an unexpected reversal

For years, Intel Foundry has been the most controversial bet of the Santa Clara group. Technological delays, operating losses, and the unsparing comparison with TSMC had convinced many analysts that the division was destined for a drastic downsizing. However, during 2026, two events completely flipped this narrative on its head.

The first involves Google. According to reports by The Decoder , the Mountain View giant has placed an order for over three million AI chips to be produced by Intel, with deliveries scheduled for 2028. The second involves Nvidia. Jensen Huang's company is testing its next architecture, codenamed Feynman, on Intel's production lines. So, within a few months, the two most influential players in the global AI ecosystem have chosen to bet on a supplier that seemed out of the game.

Following these announcements, the market reacted with interest. Therefore, it's worth taking a look at the structural reasons behind this turnaround, beyond individual company decisions.

TSMC: the bottleneck no one wanted to admit

TSMC currently produces the dominant share of advanced chips globally. This concentration has worked well for years. However, the exponential growth of AI demand has turned a competitive advantage into a systemic risk.

According to recent analysis by Gartner , the global semiconductor market saw double-digit growth in 2025. This dynamic has saturated TSMC's production capacities, especially on the most advanced nodes required for AI chips. Consequently, waiting times have lengthened and costs have risen. Large tech companies have started looking for concrete alternatives, no longer as a theoretical diversification exercise, but as an immediate operational necessity.

Intel, despite recent difficulties, has physical factories in the United States and Europe. Furthermore, it benefits from incentives provided by the American CHIPS Act. Therefore, for Google and Nvidia, relying on Intel also means reducing geopolitical exposure linked to production concentration in Taiwan.

Winners, losers and middle grounds

Reading this scenario requires distinguishing between the various players in the supply chain.

Intel is the most obvious beneficiary. The Foundry division gains top-tier orders, renewed technological credibility, and a positive narrative after years of criticism. However, the path remains challenging. Intel's process technology still needs to demonstrate industrial-scale reliability for the most complex AI chips. Therefore, the recovery is real but not yet consolidated.

TSMC does not lose its dominant position in the short term. On the contrary, the demand it receives remains higher than its production capacity. The risk for TSMC is medium-term: if Intel and Samsung manage to close the technological gap, market concentration will decrease. In particular, Intel's 18A node is the decisive test for the next two years.

Samsung Foundry is in a middle ground position. Much like Intel, it is trying to attract AI clients by diversifying its lineup. However, Samsung has also faced issues with wafer yields on its more advanced nodes. Therefore, going head-to-head with Intel for orders from Google and Nvidia will be a key metric to watch in 2027.

End customers — cloud companies, SaaS platforms, AI infrastructure providers — benefit from increased production availability and a potential reduction in prices in the medium term. This translates into lower costs for accessing AI computational power, with positive effects also on the digital tools available for Italian SMEs.

SHM Studio's perspective: the supply chain as a strategic variable

We at SHM Studio we follow these developments not out of academic interest, but for a practical reason. Italian companies adopting AI solutions — from automated digital marketing to predictive analysis, from platforms of Advanced SEO content generation tools — they depend indirectly on the availability of AI chips in the data centers of major cloud providers.

When the semiconductor supply chain gets jammed, inference costs go up, APIs slow down, and SaaS providers revise their development plans. Consequently, production diversification among Intel, TSMC, and Samsung is not news reserved for Wall Street analysts. It's a variable that influences the technological roadmap of any company that has integrated AI into its processes.

Furthermore, for Italian SMEs evaluating investments in AI solutions , this scenario suggests an important consideration. The choice of cloud provider — and its reliance on specific chipmakers — becomes an extra evaluation criterion alongside just features and pricing. In short, semiconductor geopolitics is now on the tech buying decision checklist.

Feynman Architecture: what is at stake for Nvidia

Nvidia's test on Intel Foundry deserves a closer look. The Feynman architecture represents the generation following the Blackwell chips, which are currently at the heart of global AI demand. According to industry sources cited by Wired , Nvidia is exploring a multi-foundry strategy to reduce dependence on a single manufacturer.

This approach has significant technical implications. Designing a chip that can be produced by multiple foundries requires a flexible architecture and a longer qualification process. However, the benefits in terms of supply chain resilience justify the investment. Therefore, if Feynman were to be qualified on Intel Foundry, it would be a definitive signal that the AI chip market is no longer a de facto production monopoly.

For companies developing or integrating AI solutions, including those relying on platforms like the ones we use in our google ads campaigns and LinkedIn campaigns , greater availability of Nvidia GPUs at more stable prices represents a concrete benefit.

The still open construction site: what can go wrong

It would be unwise to view these developments as a guaranteed win for Intel. There are real risks that deserve attention.

The first concerns production yield. Intel must demonstrate that its 18A process is capable of producing complex AI chips with acceptable defect rates on an industrial scale. The ongoing tests with Nvidia are precisely aimed at this verification. Despite this, Intel's historical track record on advanced nodes calls for caution.

The second risk is temporal. Google deliveries are scheduled for 2028. Therefore, there is a horizon of nearly two years in which a lot can change. TSMC could expand its production capacity. Samsung could resolve its yield issues. New players—like ASML with its alternative clients—could shift the balance.

The third element concerns costs. Intel Foundry must be competitive not only technologically but also economically. If the cost per wafer remains higher than TSMC's, diversification will come at a price that customers will have to decide if it's worth paying.

To delve deeper into how these dynamics influence the strategies of web development and content marketing AI-oriented, our Blog publishes regular updates.

Next moves: what to monitor over the next 18 months

For those following these developments with an operational interest, there are a few key indicators to keep an eye on.

• Intel 18A node qualification : the moment when Nvidia officially announces the qualification — or failure — of the Feynman test on Intel Foundry will be a major market event.
• TSMC capacity expansion : the new factories in Arizona and Japan will gradually start production. Their actual capacity on advanced nodes will determine how much room is left for Intel.
• AI API Pricing : an indirect indicator but accessible to any SME. If the access costs to AI models on major cloud providers start to drop, it is likely that the pressure on the supply chain is easing.
• Announcements from other hyperscalers : if Microsoft or Amazon were to follow Google in relying on Intel Foundry, the signal would become systemic rather than episodic.

For Italian companies looking to build a solid digital strategy, independent of global tech supply chain fluctuations, the starting point remains a clear assessment of their needs. The page SHM Studio contacts is available for a first no-obligation comparison.