Intel Foundry: Google and Nvidia choose TSMC alternative

The timeline of an unexpected reversal

For years, Intel Foundry has represented Santa Clara's most controversial bet. Technological delays, operational losses, and the unforgiving comparison with TSMC had convinced many analysts that the division was destined for a drastic downsizing. However, over the course of 2026, two events have decisively overturned this narrative.

The first concerns Google. According to reports by The Decoder, the Mountain View giant has placed an order for over three million AI chips destined for Intel's production, with deliveries scheduled for 2028. The second concerns Nvidia. Jensen Huang's company is testing its next architecture, codenamed Feynman, on Intel's production lines. Thus, 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 is worth analyzing the structural reasons for this reversal, beyond individual company decisions.

TSMC: The bottleneck nobody wanted to admit

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

According to recent analyses by Gartner, _, the global semiconductor market experienced double-digit growth in 2025. This dynamic saturated TSMC's production capacity, particularly for the most advanced nodes required for AI chips. Consequently, lead times have lengthened, and costs have risen. Large tech companies have begun to seek concrete alternatives, no longer as a theoretical diversification exercise, but as an immediate operational necessity.

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

Winners, losers, and in-between positions

Reading this scenario requires a distinction between the different players in the supply chain.

Intel is the most evident beneficiary. The Foundry division is securing top-tier orders, regaining technological credibility, and benefiting from 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 It 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 in the medium term: if Intel and Samsung manage to close the technological gap, market concentration will be reduced. In particular, Intel's 18A node is the decisive test bench for the next two years.

Samsung Foundry it is in an intermediate position. Similar to Intel, it is trying to attract AI customers by diversifying its offerings. However, Samsung has also experienced difficulties with wafer yields on the most advanced nodes. Therefore, the direct comparison with Intel for Google and Nvidia's orders will be an important indicator to monitor in 2027.

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

SHM Studio Reading: Supply Chain as a Strategic Variable

We of SHM Studio We are following these developments not out of academic interest, but for a practical reason. Italian companies that adopt AI solutions — from Automated digital marketing predictive analytics, from platforms Advanced SEO to content generation tools—depend indirectly on the availability of AI chips in the data centers of large cloud providers.

When the semiconductor supply chain gets bogged down, inference costs rise, APIs slow down, and SaaS providers revise their development plans. Consequently, diversifying production 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 considering investments in AI solutions, this scenario suggests an important consideration. The choice of cloud provider—and its dependence on specific chip manufacturers—becomes an additional evaluation criterion beyond just features and prices. In summary, the geopolitics of semiconductors enters the checklist for technology purchasing decisions.

Feynman Architecture: What's at Stake for Nvidia

Nvidia's test at Intel Foundry deserves a separate discussion. The Feynman architecture represents the generation after Blackwell chips, which are currently at the center of global AI demand. According to industry sources cited by Wired, Nvidia is exploring a multi-foundry strategy to reduce its reliance on a single manufacturer.

This approach has relevant 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 manufacturing monopoly.

For companies developing or integrating AI solutions, including those that rely on platforms such as those we use in our activities of Google Ads campaigns e LinkedIn campaign, greater availability of Nvidia GPUs at more stable prices represents a tangible benefit.

The construction site is still open: what can go wrong

It would be unwise to read these developments as a done deal for Intel. There are concrete risks that warrant attention.

The first concerns production yields. 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 with advanced nodes calls for caution.

The second risk is temporal. Google's deliveries are scheduled for 2028. Thus, there is an almost two-year horizon during which much can change. TSMC could expand its production capacity. Samsung could resolve its yield issues. New players — such as ASML with its alternative customers — 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 further explore how these dynamics influence strategies web development e content marketing AI-oriented, our blog post regular updates.

Next Moves: What to Monitor in the Next 18 Months

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

• Intel Node 18A QualificationThe moment Nvidia officially announces the qualification—or failure—of the Feynman test on Intel Foundry will be a significant market event.
• TSMC Capacity ExpansionThe new factories in Arizona and Japan will progressively come online. Their actual capacity on advanced nodes will determine how much room remains for Intel.
• AI API Pricingan indirect indicator but accessible to any SME. If the access costs for AI models on major cloud providers start to fall, it is likely that the pressure on the supply chain is easing.
• Announcements from other hyperscalersIf Microsoft and Amazon were to follow Google in relying on Intel Foundry, the signal would become systemic and no longer episodic.

For Italian companies that want to structure a solid digital strategy, independent of the fluctuations of the global technological supply chain, the starting point remains a clear assessment of their own needs. The page SHM Studio contacts is available for an initial, no-obligation meeting.