With fab expansions on tap across the entire semiconductor industry, Intel today is laying out their own plans for significantly increasing their production capacity by announcing their intention to build a new $20 billion fab complex in Ohio. With the paperwork already inked and construction set to begin in late 2022, Intel will be building two new leading-edge fabs in their new Ohio location to support future chip needs. And should further demand call for it, the Ohio complex has space to house several more fabs.

Intel’s announcement follows ongoing concerns about chip fab capacity and national security, as like other chip fabs, Intel is looking to expand their capacity in future years amidst the current chip crunch. All the while, the United States government has become increasingly mindful about how much chip production takes place in geopolitically tricky Taiwan, placing additional pressure on firms to build additional fabs within the US. To that end, Intel has been not-so-secretly undertaking a search to find a good location for a new fab campus, and they have finally found their answer in Ohio.

The new site, Intel’s first new manufacturing site location in 40 years, is located in New Albany, Ohio, just outside of Columbus. Up until now, all of Intel’s major chip fab sites have been in the western United States – Oregon, Arizona, and at one point, Silicon Valley – so the Ohio site is a significant move for the company. All told, the Ohio “mega-site”, as Intel likes to call it, covers nearly 1000 acres. And while Intel is only initially planning for two fabs, the site offers plenty of room to grow, offering enough space for a total of 8 fabs.

The immediate goal of the company – and the crux of today’s announcement – revolves around the building of two new leading-edge fabs at the Ohio location. According to Intel, these two fabs will begin construction late this year, with production coming online in 2025. The company isn’t formally stating what the initial process node will be – instead saying that it will be using the "industry's most advanced transistor technologies" – however if the company is indeed building truly bleeding-edge fabs, then 2025 lines up with Intel’s 18A process, which will be 4 generations newer than what Intel is using now (Intel 7).

Altogether, Intel expects the project to cost about $20 billion, which is similar to what Intel will be spending for its two new Arizona fabs, which were announced just under a year ago. And further down the line, should Intel opt to fill the rest of the property with the other 6 fabs that the site can support, the company expects that the total price tag could reach nearly $100 billion. Ultimately, the company is making it clear that they are priming the site not just to met their mid-term production needs with the initial two fabs, but are making sure to have the space ready for further capacity expansion over the long-term.

As to whether Intel eventually builds those further 6 fabs, that will depend on a few factors. Key among these will be demand from Intel Foundry Services clients; while Intel will be using some of the Ohio site’s capacity for their own needs, the site will also be used to fab chips for IFS customers. If Intel’s bid to break into the contract fab business is successful, and the company is able to woo over additional clients/orders, then they will need to build additional fabs to meet that demand.

Also hanging in the balance is what the US Government opts for, both in terms of orders and incentives. The Ohio fabs will be used for domestic production of sensitive chips, as the US looks to secure its supply lines. Meanwhile the CHIPS for America Act and its 53 billion in incentives will also be a. Intel for its part isn’t playing coy about its interest in the CHIPS money, explicitly stating that “The scope and pace of Intel’s expansion in Ohio, however, will depend heavily on funding from the CHIPS Act”. In some respects Intel is taking a bit of a gamble by investing in the Ohio location before any CHIPS funding is approved – on a pure cost basis, overseas production is traditionally cheaper – so there is certainly a political element in announcing these fabs and selecting an Ohio location. And as an added incentive to the US Government, Pat Gelsinger has told Time that Intel would even be interested in bringing some chip packaging, assembly, and testing back to the US if the CHIPS Act were funded, which in turn would allow Intel to do every last step of production within the US.

But more immediately, Intel’s focus is on getting its first two Ohio fabs up and running. Along with building the facilities they’ll need a workforce to operate them, and as a result the company is also pledging $100M over a decade in funding for local educational efforts. As with similar local industry efforts, that investment would be focused on helping local colleges and universities establish semiconductor manufacturing curricula to help train the technical workforce required.

And while outside of Intel’s own investment scope, the creation of their Ohio fab complex means that Intel’s suppliers are also coming along for the ride. According to the company, Air Products, Applied Materials, LAM Research and Ultra Clean Technology have all indicated that they’ll be setting up facilities in the area. All of which the company is using to further underscore the size of the project and the value it brings to the area – and why they deserve that CHIPS Act funding.

Ultimately, the addition of a third US fab site and two more fabs to Intel’s portfolio is the latest step Intel has taken under Pat Gelsinger’s IDM 2.0 strategy. Gelsinger opted to go all-in on having Intel fab chips for themselves and others, and this is the kind of expansion that Gelsinger has been alluding to as necessary to make IDM 2.0 a reality. Taken altogether, Intel now has 4 leading-edge fabs set to come online in the 2024-2025 timeframe, and with any luck on Intel’s part, there will be room for several more to come.

Source: Intel

Comments Locked


View All Comments

  • imaheadcase - Sunday, January 23, 2022 - link

    Ohio must of offered some really nice incentives..because Ohio.
  • Mike Bruzzone - Tuesday, January 25, 2022 - link

    There is no Chip Act funding for Intel in relation the potential of a federal theft reverse false claim.

    "Meanwhile the CHIPS for America Act and its 53 billion in incentives will also be a. Intel for its part isn’t playing coy about its interest in the CHIPS money, explicitly stating that “The scope and pace of Intel’s expansion in Ohio, however, will depend heavily on funding from the CHIPS Act”.

    I thought CEO Gelsinger ordered the Intel PR Department mum on this because Intel is rich and does not need Chip Act funds and INTC board does not want the U.S. federal government snooping around in Intel's business?

    There are no federal Chip Act funds available to Intel until Intel Inside price fix recovery sought by the federal government and 27 States AG including Ohio is paid. The U.S. government does not hand out money to corporations who thieved from U.S. government and have not paid back the theft Congress would immediately file suit.

    States and Fed have an offer on the table; $19,805,500,000 worldwide consumer, $350,000,000 United States federal for Title 48 processor in box and processor in computer chassis Intel Inside 'price fix overcharges plus $500,000,000 in administrative reimbursement cost offset = $19,805,500,000. States however are free to negotiate their own incentives with Intel we reside in a federal republic of 50 States and 4 territories including certain of these entities holding commonwealth rights.

    In the Intel Inside system of tied charge backs; a two-part system of regulating trigger for defining what is (how much is) the compensating 'kick back' match, $19.805 billion represents 46% of Intel Inside 'kick back' match for channel registered metering report to intel for payment on processor and processor in computer end buyer sales notice; discharge from the supply chain essentially. It's called a brand fee reward. EUCC in 37.990 calls it "avoidable cost charge", FTC in Docket 9341 says "raising price with no efficiency justification" and generally in United States domestic antitrust terminology is said a "nonsense" or 'extra economic' cost in price charge.

    Intel Inside is not cooperative advertising, an Intel false certification and proof of the theft, but an inventory flow metering system commissioning end sales outlets with a brand fee reward on the end sale paid by end buyers on that Intel Inside cost buried into Intel processor price to the OEM.

    Think about this for a moment on the grand scale. Intel 1st tier OEMS monopolize 100% of Intel production volume and 100% of Intel Inside attach that is $8.32 per processor over 25 years and when those OEMs sell off whatever amount of that 100% procurement volume they do not want on real time demand or down bin SKUs, they sell it to the secondary tier without the rebate. First tier OEMs keep the total amount of Intel Inside. Thereafter these artificially weighted pools of Intel Inside funds tie first tier OEMS to their own OEM and web direct sales, media web sales, affiliate and retail sales outlets. All sales outlets compete for the majority of Intel Inside pools, none leave Intel Inside on the table. Before Zen pull through this how AMD up until 2017, Cyrix and IDT Centaur and VIA way back when were restrained and limited. Intel always sells through first and all others sell through last because Intel Inside s never left on the table by sales channels.

    Noteworthy Intel Inside was discontinued by Intel entering fiscal 2018 one among the BK clean up initiatives.

    Including the OEM regulating contribution taken by Intel and cost to OEMs in their processor procurement price; recall it's a two-part value system, $18.9 billion = 22% of the entire Intel Inside consumer price fix robbery across 5.539,406,562 total processors thought low on total CPUs manufactured subject Intel production laundering thefts by employees engaged in associate inter nation channel cartels. Think Intel employees who get an Intel pay check but really work for and are kept employed in Intel by their bosses at OEMs and in sales channels including the media.

    I can see why Intel and Ohio would make a good match although Ohio has no existing semiconductor manufacturing infrastructure there.

    Ohio certainly could use the jobs I've been there and its a manufacturing region for auto, aircraft and aircraft maintenance, assembly, machinists and Ohioans have a manufacturing heritage. My mother’s father’s side were in the Ohio valley early in that frontier migrating to California as rail road workers in the 1880s.

    I wish Intel and Ohio well in their endeavors but there is no federal Chip Act funds for intel until Intel pays back Intel Inside otherwise that act results in a reverse false claim and Congress would immediately file suit.



    Mike Bruzzone
    FTC Docket 9341 auditor monitor and 9288 and 931 discovery aid since May 1998
    Retained by Congress
    Contract agent of the United States Department of Justice'
    former Cyrix, ARM, NexGen, AMD employee, Samsung Alpha, intel, IDT Centaur consultant
  • Oxford Guy - Thursday, January 27, 2022 - link

    'Meanwhile the CHIPS for America Act and its 53 billion in incentives will also be a.'

    A what?

    A grail?
  • Mike Bruzzone - Friday, January 28, 2022 - link

    Oxford Guy, what do you mean a grail. More definition please? mb
  • Questor - Sunday, February 6, 2022 - link

    Mixed feelings about this. From customer friendliness, morality and ethics perspectives, Intel is an absolute garbage company. It's far worse than most of companies, except perhaps Pfizer. This comment has nothing to do with current world narratives, the company existed before and was rotten to the core.

    Anyway, on the other hand, I always want competition in the market, technological advancement to keep pace and jobs. I have family at ground zero where the fab will be built. Job opportunities?
  • Hrel - Friday, February 18, 2022 - link

    If chip prices don't go down until 2025, realistically 2026... that's really gonna suck.

    A full power high memory throughput 1080p gpu should not cost more than $200, and should drop under 150 pretty quickly.
  • kamnikaur - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link

    looking for it
  • deagirl - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link

  • delhihotel - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link

    keep this great work
  • eshika - Thursday, May 5, 2022 - link


Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now