Ex-Intel CEO Craig Barrett suggests the company should ‘fire the board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years’

Amid continued debate and discussion around Intel’s future after a dismal 2024, ex Intel CEO Craig Barrett has added his voice to the fray.

In an opinion piece for Fortune, the former head honcho argues that suggestions from former board members to split Intel’s chip design and foundry business would result in a loss in momentum for the company, and that “a far better move might be to fire the Intel board and rehire Pat Gelsinger to finish the job he has aptly handled over the past few years.”

Barrett suggests that the reason Intel’s foundry business has struggled in recent years is a lack of competitive technology compared to Taiwanese chip manufacturing giant TSMC (via Tom’s Hardware). But now 18A seems ready for the big time, he strongly disagrees with the argument that Intel should be broken up.

“Intel is back—from a technology point of view” Barrett argues. “They are still struggling to attract independent chip designers, but they have the technology and manufacturing know-how to compete with the likes of TSMC. So, if Intel is back from a technology standpoint, what is the advantage of splitting up a company with 100,000-plus employees spread over several continents?

“The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry.

“So, let’s stop talking about breaking up Intel as the only solution. Instead let’s talk about Intel eating into TSMC’s current high-end foundry business on the basis of Intel’s technology resurgence.”

Intel recently declared that its 18A process node was “ready for customer projects” with the tape outs for new chip designs beginning in the first half of 2025. In terms of Intel’s own output on the new node, the company says that its Panther Lake laptop chips are still on track to be released later this year, although its planned Nova Lake desktop CPUs are rumoured to be part 18A, part TSMC affairs.

According to Barrett, 18A’s production readiness is a key part of Intel’s future, and splitting the company would eat into the progress made under Gelsinger’s leadership before his retirement last year:

“I ran Intel with 100,000-plus employees, and I think I know the challenges if Intel were to be split up. If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.

“It takes years to develop a new semiconductor manufacturing technology and ramp it into volume production. Intel is about to regain its leadership in this area, and the dumbest idea around is to stall that from happening by slicing the company into pieces.”

Rumours persist that both TSMC and Broadcom may currently be eyeing up a takeover of Intel’s foundry business, and while suggestions of an Intel split in twain by either an executive decision or US government insistence continue, no action appears forthcoming at time of writing.

Intel appears to exist in an existential limbo, and while plenty of ex-employees and analysts have been keen to comment on the perceived reasons behind Intel’s recent troubles, a former CEO throwing his hat into the ring and suggesting Gelsinger’s reinstatement (and a firing of the board) feels like it might have more weight than most.

As for what happens next? Your guess is as good as mine. What to do with a problem like Intel remains an open question at this point, but Barrett’s comments certainly seem to add an extra dose of tabasco sauce into what has already become a very complicated soup.