intel

Demand for Intel’s processors is apparently there, but the supply is not

18a, core ultra series 3, intel, intel 18a, panther lake, Tech / Mike M. / January 23, 2026

Yields are currently improving by 7 or 8 percent every month, according to Intel. But that could be building on pretty low initial yields—reporting from last summer suggested that just 10 percent of the chips coming off of the 18A production lines were meeting Intel’s requirements at the time. Intel predicts that its supply will have ramped up enough within the next few months to help alleviate shortages.

“I do believe that the first quarter is the trough,” said Zinsner. “We will improve supply in the second quarter.”

Intel is selling everything it can make

When Intel can start making enough chips to meet its demand, it ought to help brighten the company’s earnings reports.

“We delivered [our Q4 2025] results despite supply constraints, which meaningfully limited our ability to capture all of the strengths in our underwriting markets,” said Tan. “We are working aggressively to address this and better support our customers’ needs going forward.”

Intel has been signaling for a while now that it was selling essentially all of the chips it could get its hands on. Intel investor relations VP John Pitzer said last month that Intel would be selling more of both its Lunar Lake and Arrow Lake Core Ultra Series 2 chips for consumers, as well as its Granite Rapids chips for data centers, if it could get more of them.

As Intel seeks to improve its position in the short term, the company also says that it’s still making progress on its future manufacturing nodes, including different versions of the 18A process and the upcoming 14A process. Intel is working to engage “potential external customers” who would use the 14A process to make their own chips. If these third parties decide to use Intel’s manufacturing facilities, Intel expects to know about it “starting in the second half of this year and extending into the first half of 2027,” and then it expects to build out manufacturing capacity based on the number of external customers it finds.

On the chip design side, Intel also expects to have its first next-generation Nova Lake chips ready “at the end of 2026.” We don’t know much about Nova Lake yet, but it should be Intel’s next architecture to cover both desktop and laptop processors, while Panther Lake chips are intended mainly for laptops. At least part of the chip will also be manufactured using the 18A process.

Demand for Intel’s processors is apparently there, but the supply is not Read More »

Big Tech basically took Trump’s unpredictable trade war lying down

AMD, Apple, bytedance, china, Donald Trump, Features, intel, NVIDIA, Policy, reciprocal tariffs, tariffs, tiktok, trade war / Paul Patrick / December 29, 2025

From Apple gifting a gold statue to the US taking a stake in Intel.

Credit: Aurich Lawson | Getty Images

As the first year of Donald Trump’s chaotic trade war winds down, the tech industry is stuck scratching its head, with no practical way to anticipate what twists and turns to expect in 2026.

Tech companies may have already grown numb to Trump’s unpredictable moves. Back in February, Trump warned Americans to expect “a little pain” after he issued executive orders imposing 10–25 percent tariffs on imports from America’s biggest trading partners, including Canada, China, and Mexico. Immediately, industry associations sounded the alarm, warning that the costs of consumer tech could increase significantly. By April, Trump had ordered tariffs on all US trade partners to correct claimed trade deficits, using odd math that critics suspected came from a chatbot. (Those tariffs bizarrely targeted uninhabited islands that exported nothing and were populated by penguins.)

Costs of tariffs only got higher as the year wore on. But the tech industry has done very little to push back against them. Instead, some of the biggest companies made their own surprising moves after Trump’s trade war put them in deeply uncomfortable positions.

Apple gives Trump a gold statue instead of US-made iPhone

Right from the jump in February, Apple got backed into a corner after Trump threatened a “flat” 60 percent tariff on all Chinese imports, which experts said could have substantially taxed Apple’s business. Moving to appease Trump, Apple promised to invest $500 billion in the US in hopes of avoiding tariffs, but that didn’t take the pressure off for long.

By April, Apple stood by and said nothing as Trump promised the company would make “made in the USA” iPhones. Analysts suggested such a goal was “impossible,” calling the idea “impossible at worst and highly expensive at best.”

Apple’s silence did not spare the company Trump’s scrutiny. The next month, Trump threatened Apple with a 25 percent tariff on any iPhones sold in the US that were not manufactured in America. Experts were baffled by the threat, which appeared to be the first time a US company was threatened directly with tariffs.

Typically, tariffs are imposed on a country or category of goods, like smartphones. It remains unclear if it would even be legal to levy a tariff on an individual company like Apple, but Trump never tested those waters. Instead, Trump stopped demanding the American-made iPhone and withdrew other tariff threats after he was apparently lulled into submission by a gold statue that Apple gifted him in August. The engraved glass disc featured an Apple logo and Tim Cook’s signature above a “Made in USA” stamp, celebrating Donald Trump for his “Apple American Manufacturing Program.”

Trump’s wild deals shake down chipmakers

Around the same time that Trump eased pressure on Apple, he turned his attention to Intel. On social media in August, Trump ordered Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to “resign immediately,” claiming he was “highly conflicted.” In response, Tan did not resign but instead met with Trump and struck a deal that gave the US a 10 percent stake in Intel. Online, Trump bragged that he let Tan “keep his job” while hyping the deal—which The New York Times described as one of the “largest government interventions in a US company since the rescue of the auto industry after the 2008 financial crisis.”

But unlike the auto industry, Intel didn’t need the money. And rather than helping an ailing company survive a tough spot, the deal risked disrupting Intel’s finances in ways that spooked shareholders. It was therefore a relief to no one when Intel detailed everything that could go wrong in an SEC filing, including the possible dilution of investors’ stock due to discounting US shares and other risks of dilution, if certain terms of the deal kick in at some point in the future.

The company also warned of potential lawsuits challenging the legality of the deal, which Intel fears could come from third parties, the US government, or foreign governments. Most ominous, Intel admitted there was no way to predict what other risks may come, both in the short-term and long-term.

Of course, Intel wasn’t the only company Trump sought to control, and not every company caved. He tried to strong-arm the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) in September into moving half its chip manufacturing into the US, but TSMC firmly rejected his demand. And in October, when Trump began eyeing stakes in quantum computing firms, several companies were open to negotiating, but with no deals immediately struck, it was hard to ascertain how seriously they were entertaining Trump’s talks.

Trump struck another particularly wild deal the same month as the Intel agreement. That deal found chipmakers Nvidia and AMD agreeing to give 15 percent of revenue to the US from sales to China of advanced computer chips that could be used to fuel frontier AI. By December, Nvidia’s deal only drew more scrutiny, as the chipmaker agreed to give the US an even bigger cut—25 percent—of sales of its second most advanced AI chips, the H200.

Again, experts were confused, noting that export curbs on Nvidia’s H20 chips, for example, were imposed to prevent US technology thefts, maintain US tech dominance, and protect US national security. Those chips are six times less powerful than the H200. To them, it appeared that the Trump administration was taking payments to overlook risks without a clear understanding of how that might give China a leg-up in the AI race. It also did not appear to be legal, since export licenses cannot be sold under existing federal law, but government lawyers have supposedly been researching a new policy that would allow the US to collect the fees.

Trump finally closed TikTok deal

As the end of 2025 nears, the tech company likely sweating Trump’s impulses most may be TikTok owner ByteDance. In October, Trump confirmed that China agreed to a deal that allows the US to take majority ownership of TikTok and license the TikTok algorithm to build a US version of the app.

Trump has been trying to close this deal all year, while ByteDance remained largely quiet. Prior to the start of Trump’s term, the company had expressed resistance to selling TikTok to US owners, and as recently as January, a ByteDance board member floated the idea that Trump could save TikTok without forcing a sale. But China’s approval was needed to proceed with the sale, and near the end of December, ByteDance finally agreed to close the deal, paving the way for Trump’s hand-picked investors to take control in 2026.

It’s unclear how TikTok may change under US control, perhaps shedding users if US owners cave to Trump’s suggestion that he’d like to see the app go “100 percent MAGA” under his hand-picked US owners. It’s possible that the US version of the app could be glitchy, too.

Whether Trump’s deal actually complies with a US law requiring that ByteDance divest control of TikTok or else face a US ban has yet to be seen. Lawmaker scrutiny and possible legal challenges are expected in 2026, likely leaving both TikTok users and ByteDance on the edge of their seats waiting to see how the globally cherished short video app may change.

Trump may owe $1 trillion in tariff refunds

The TikTok deal was once viewed as a meaningful bargaining chip during Trump’s tensest negotiations with China, which has quickly emerged as America’s fiercest rival in the AI race and Trump’s biggest target in his trade war.

But as closing the deal remained elusive for most of the year, analysts suggested that Trump grew “desperate” to end tit-for-tat retaliations that he started, while China appeared more resilient to US curbs than the US was to China’s.

In one obvious example, many Americans’ first tariff pains came when Trump ended a duty-free exemption in February for low-value packages imported from cheap online retailers, like Shein and Temu. Unable to quickly adapt to the policy change, USPS abruptly stopped accepting all inbound packages from Hong Kong and China. After a chaotic 24 hours, USPS started slowly processing parcels again while promising Americans that it would work with customs to “implement an efficient collection mechanism for the new China tariffs to ensure the least disruption to package delivery.”

Trump has several legal tools to impose tariffs, but the most controversial path appears to be his favorite. The Supreme Court is currently weighing whether the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) grants a US president unilateral authority to impose tariffs.

Seizing this authority, Trump imposed so-called “reciprocal tariffs” at whim, the Consumer Technology Association and the Chamber of Commerce told the Supreme Court in a friend-of-the-court brief in which they urged the justices to end the “perfect storm of uncertainty.”

Unlike other paths that would limit how quickly Trump could shift tariff rates or how high the tariff rate could go, under IEEPA, Trump has imposed tariff rates as high as 125 percent. Deferring to Trump will cost US businesses, CTA and CoC warned. CTA CEO Gary Shapiro estimated that Trump has changed these tariff rates 100 times since his trade war began, affecting $223 billion of US exports.

Meanwhile, one of Trump’s biggest stated goals of his trade war—forcing more manufacturing into the US—is utterly failing, many outlets have reported.

Likely due to US companies seeking more stable supply chains, “reshoring progress is nowhere to be seen,” Fortune reported in November. That month, a dismal Bureau of Labor Statistics released a jobs report that an expert summarized as showing that the “US is losing blue-collar jobs for the first time since the pandemic.”

A month earlier, the nonpartisan policy group the Center for American Progress drew on government labor data to conclude that US employers cut 12,000 manufacturing jobs in August, and payrolls for manufacturing jobs had decreased by 42,000 since April.

As tech companies take tech tariffs on the chin, perhaps out of fears that rattling Trump could impact lucrative government contracts, other US companies have taken Trump to court. Most recently, Costco became one of the biggest corporations to sue Trump to ensure that US businesses get refunded if Trump loses the Supreme Court case, Bloomberg reported. Other recognizable companies like Revlon and Kawasaki have also sued, but small businesses have largely driven opposition to Trump’s tariffs, Bloomberg noted.

Should the Supreme Court side with businesses—analysts predict favorable odds—the US could owe up to $1 trillion in refunds. Dozens of economists told SCOTUS that Trump simply doesn’t understand why having trade deficits with certain countries isn’t a threat to US dominance, pointing out that the US “has been running a persistent surplus in trade in services for decades” precisely because the US “has the dominant technology sector in the world.”

Justices seem skeptical that IEEPA grants Trump the authority, ordinarily reserved for Congress, to impose taxes. However, during oral arguments, Justice Amy Coney Barrett fretted that undoing Trump’s tariffs could be “messy.” Countering that, small businesses have argued that it’s possible for Customs and Border Patrol to set up automatic refunds.

While waiting for the SCOTUS verdict (now expected in January), the CTA ended the year by advising tech companies to keep their receipts in case refunds require requests for tariffs line by line—potentially complicated by tariff rates changing so drastically and so often.

Biggest tariff nightmare may come in 2026

Looking into 2026, tech companies cannot breathe a sigh of relief even if the SCOTUS ruling swings their way, though. Under a separate, legally viable authority, Trump has threatened to impose tariffs on semiconductors and any products containing them, a move the semiconductor industry fears could cost $1 billion.

And if Trump continues imposing tariffs on materials used in popular tech products, the CTA told Ars in September that potential “tariff stacking” could become the industry’s biggest nightmare. Should that occur, US manufacturers could end up double-, triple-, or possibly even quadruple-taxed on products that may contain materials subject to individual tariffs, like semiconductors, polysilicon, or copper.

Predicting tariff costs could become so challenging that companies will have no choice but to raise prices, the CTA warned. That could threaten US tech competitiveness if, possibly over the long term, companies lose significant sales on their most popular products.

For many badly bruised by the first year of tariffs, it’s hard to see how tariffs could ever become a winning strategy for US tech dominance, as Trump has long claimed. And Americans continue to feel more than “a little pain,” as Trump forecasted, causing many to shift their views on the president.

Americans banding together to oppose tariffs could help prevent the worst possible outcomes. With prices already rising on certain goods in the US, the president reversed some tariffs as his approval ratings hit record lows. But so far, Big Tech hasn’t shown much interest in joining the fight, instead throwing money at the problem by making generous donations to things like Trump’s inaugural fund or his ballroom.

A bright light for the tech industry could be the midterm elections, which could pressure Trump to ease off aggressive tariff regimes, but that’s not a given. Trump allies have previously noted that the president typically responds to pushback on tariffs by doubling down. And one of Trump’s on-again-off-again allies, Elon Musk, noted in December in an interview that Trump ignored his warnings that tariffs would drive manufacturing out of the US.

“The president has made it clear he loves tariffs,” Musk said.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Big Tech basically took Trump’s unpredictable trade war lying down Read More »

Riot Games is making an anti-cheat change that could be rough on older PCs

AMD, anti-cheat, gaming, intel, Riot games, Tech, valorant, Vanguard / Tim Belzer / December 19, 2025

But Riot says it’s considering rolling the BIOS requirement out to all players in Valorant‘s highest competitive ranking tiers (Ascendant, Immortal, and Radiant), where there’s more to be gained from working around the anti-cheat software. And Riot anti-cheat analyst Mohamed Al-Sharifi says the same restrictions could be turned on for League of Legends, though they aren’t currently. If users are blocked from playing by Vanguard, they’ll need to download and install the latest BIOS update for their motherboard before they’ll be allowed to launch the game.

Newer PCs are getting patched; older PCs might not be

An AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D in a motherboard with a 500-series chipset. It’s unclear whether these somewhat older systems need a patch or will get one. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The vulnerability is known to affect four of the largest PC motherboard makers: ASRock, Asus, Gigabyte, and MSI. All four have released updates for at least some of their newer motherboards, while other boards have updates coming later. According to the vulnerability note, it’s unclear whether systems from OEMs like Dell, Lenovo, Acer, or HP are affected.

ASRock’s security bulletin about the issue says it affects Intel boards based on the 500-, 600-, 700-, and 800-series chipsets; MSI only lists the 600- and 700-series chipsets. Asus is also missing the 800-series, but says the vulnerability affects boards based on even older 400-series Intel chipsets; Gigabyte, meanwhile, covers 600-through-800-series Intel chipsets, but is also the only vendor to mention patches for AMD’s 600- and 800-series chipsets (any motherboard with an AM5 socket, in short).

Collectively, all of these chipsets cover Intel’s 10th-generation Core processors and newer, and AMD Ryzen 7000 series and newer.

What’s unclear is whether the boards and chipsets that go unmentioned by each vendor aren’t getting a patch because they don’t need a patch, if they will be patched but they just aren’t being mentioned, or if they aren’t getting a patch at all. The bulletins at least suggest that 400- and 500-series Intel chipsets and 600- and 800-series AMD chipsets could be affected, but not all vendors have promised patches for them.

Riot Games is making an anti-cheat change that could be rough on older PCs Read More »

RAM and SSD prices are still climbing—here’s our best advice for PC builders

AMD, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Tech / Mike M. / December 18, 2025

I would avoid building a PC right now, but if you can’t, here’s our best advice.

The 16GB version of AMD’s Radeon RX 9060 XT. It’s one of the products to come out of a bad year for PC building. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

The first few months of 2025 were full of graphics card reviews where we generally came away impressed with performance and completely at a loss on availability and pricing. The testing in these reviews is useful regardless, but when it came to extra buying advice, the best we could do was to compare Nvidia’s imaginary pricing to AMD’s imaginary pricing and wait for availability to improve.

Now, as the year winds down, we’re facing price spikes for memory and storage that are unlike anything I’ve seen in two decades of pricing out PC parts. Pricing for most RAM kits has increased dramatically since this summer, driven by overwhelming demand for these parts in AI data centers. Depending on what you’re building, it’s now very possible that the memory could be the single most expensive component you buy; things are even worse now than they were the last time we compared prices a few weeks ago.

Component	Aug. 2025 price	Nov. 2025 price	Dec. 2025 price
Patriot Viper Venom 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR-6000	$49	$110	$189
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 500GB	$45	$69	$102*
Silicon Power 16GB (2 x 8GB) DDR4-3200	$34	$89	$104
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 1TB	$64	$111	$135*
Team T-Force Vulcan 32GB DDR5-6000	$82	$310	$341
Western Digital WD Blue SN5000 2TB	$115	$154	$190*
Western Digital WD Black SN7100 2TB	$130	$175	$210
Team Delta RGB 64GB (2 x 32GB) DDR5-6400	$190	$700	$800

Some SSDs are getting to the point where they’re twice as expensive as they were this summer (for this comparison, I’ve swapped the newer WD Blue SN5100 pricing in for the SN5000, since the drive is both newer and slightly cheaper as of this writing). Some RAM kits, meanwhile, are around four times as expensive as they were in August. Yeesh.

And as bad as things are, the outlook for the immediate future isn’t great. Memory manufacturer Micron—which is pulling its Crucial-branded RAM and storage products from the market entirely in part because of these shortages—predicted in a recent earnings call that supply constraints would “persist beyond calendar 2026.” Kingston executives believe prices will continue to rise through next year. PR representatives at GPU manufacturer Sapphire believe prices will “stabilize,” albeit at a higher level than people might like.

I didn’t know it when I was writing the last update to our system guide in mid-August, but it turns out that I was writing it during 2025’s PC Building Equinox, the all-too-narrow stretch of time where 1080p and 1440p GPUs had fallen to more-or-less MSRP but RAM and storage prices hadn’t yet spiked.

All in all, it has been yet another annus horribilis for gaming-PC builders, and at this point it seems like the 2020s will just end up being a bad decade for PC building. Not only have we had to deal with everything from pandemic-fueled shortages to tariffs to the current AI-related crunch, but we’ve also been given pretty underwhelming upgrades for both GPUs and CPUs.

It should be a golden age for the gaming PC

It’s really too bad that building or buying a gaming PC is such an annoying and expensive proposition, because in a lot of ways there has never been a better time to be a PC gamer.

It used to be that PC ports of popular console games would come years later or never at all, but these days PC players get games at around the same time as console players, too. Sony, of all companies, has become much better about releasing its games to PC players. And Microsoft seems to be signaling more and more convergence between the Xbox and the PC, to the extent that it is communicating any kind of coherent Xbox strategy at all. The console wars are cooling down, and the PC has been one of the main beneficiaries.

That wider game availability is also coming at a time when PC software is getting more flexible and interesting. Traditional Windows-based gaming builds still dominate, of course, and Windows remains the path of least resistance for PC buyers and builders. But Valve’s work on SteamOS and the Proton compatibility software has brought a wide swath of PC games to Linux, and SteamOS itself is enabling a simpler and more console-like PC gaming experience for handheld PCs as well as TV-connected desktop computers. And that work is now boomeranging back around to Windows, which is gradually rolling out its own pared-down gamepad-centric frontend.

If you’ve already got a decent gaming PC, you’re feeling pretty good about all of this—as long as the games you want to play don’t have Mario or Pikachu in them, your PC is all you really need. It’s also not a completely awful time to be upgrading a build you already have, as long as you already have at least 16GB of RAM—if you’re thinking about a GPU upgrade, doing it now before the RAM price spikes can start impacting graphics card pricing is probably a smart move.

If you don’t already have a decent gaming PC and you can buy a whole PlayStation 5 for the cost of some 32GB DDR5 RAM kits, well, it’s hard to look past the downsides no matter how good the upsides are. But it doesn’t mean we can’t try.

What if you want to buy something anyway?

As (relatively) old as they are, midrange Core i5 chips from Intel’s 12th-, 13th-, and 14th-generation Core CPU lineups are still solid choices for budget-to-midrange PC builds. And they work with DDR4, which isn’t *quite* as pricey as DDR5 right now. Credit: Andrew Cunningham

Say those upsides are still appealing to you, and you want to build something today. How should you approach this terrible, volatile RAM market?

I won’t do a full update to August’s system guide right now, both because it feels futile to try and recommend individual RAM kits or SSD with prices and stock levels being as volatile as they are, and because aside from RAM and storage I actually wouldn’t change any of these recommendations all that much (with the caveat that Intel’s Core i5-13400F seems to be getting harder to find; consider an i5-12400F or i5-12600KF instead). So, starting from those builds, here’s the advice I would try to give to PC-curious friends:

DDR4 is faring better than DDR5. Prices for all kinds of RAM have gone up recently, but DDR4 pricing hasn’t gotten quite as bad as DDR5 pricing. That’s of no help to you if you’re trying to build something around a newer Ryzen chip and a socket AM5 motherboard, since those parts require DDR5. But if you’re trying to build a more budget-focused system around one of Intel’s 12th-, 13th-, or 14th-generation CPUs, a decent name brand 32GB DDR4-3200 kit comes in around half the price of a similar 32GB DDR5-6000 kit. Pricing isn’t great, but it’s still possible to build something respectable for under $1,000.

Newegg bundles might help. I’m normally not wild about these kinds of component bundles; even if they appear to be a good deal, they’re often a way for Newegg or other retailers to get rid of things they don’t want by pairing them with things people do want. You also have to deal with less flexibility—you can’t always pick exactly the parts you’d want under ideal circumstances. But if you’re already buying a CPU and a motherboard, it might be worth digging through the available deals just to see if you can get a good price on something workable.

Don’t overbuy (or consider under-buying). Under normal circumstances, anyone advising you on a PC build should be recommending matched pairs of RAM sticks with reasonable speeds and ample capacities (DDR4-3200 remains a good sweet spot, as does DDR5-6000 or DDR5-6400). Matched sticks are capable of dual-channel operation, boosting memory bandwidth and squeezing a bit more performance out of your system. And getting 32GB of RAM means comfortably running any game currently in existence, with a good amount of room to grow.

But desperate times call for desperate measures. Slower DDR5 speeds like DDR5-5200 can come in a fair bit cheaper than DDR5-6000 or DDR5-6400, in exchange for a tiny speed hit that’s going to be hard to notice outside of benchmarks. You might even consider buying a single 16GB stick of DDR5, and buying it a partner at some point later when prices have calmed down a bit. You’ll leave a tiny bit of performance on the table, and a small handful of games want more than 16GB of system RAM. But you’ll have something that boots, and the GPU is still going to determine how well most games run.

Don’t forget that non-binary DDR5 exists. DDR5 sticks come in some in-betweener capacities that weren’t possible with DDR4, which means that companies sell it in 24GB and 48GB sticks, not just 16/32/64. And these kits can be a very slightly better deal than the binary memory kits right now; this 48GB Crucial DDR5-6000 kit is going for $470 right now, or $9.79 per gigabyte, compared to about $340 for a similar 32GB kit ($10.63 per GB) or $640 for a 64GB kit ($10 per GB). It’s not much, but if you truly do need a lot of RAM, it’s worth looking into.

Consider pre-built systems. A quick glance at Dell’s Alienware lineup and Lenovo’s Legion lineup makes it clear that these towers still aren’t particularly price-competitive with similarly specced self-built PCs. This was true before there was a RAM shortage, and it’s true now. But for certain kinds of PCs, particularly budget PCs, it can still make more sense to buy than to build.

For example, when I wrote about the self-built “Steam Machine” I’ve been using for a few months now, I mentioned some Ryzen-based mini desktops on Amazon. I later tested this one from Aoostar as part of a wider-ranging SteamOS-vs-Windows performance comparison. Whether you’re comfortable with these no-name mini PCs is something you’ll have to decide for yourself, but that’s a fully functional PC with 32GB of DDR5, a 1TB SSD, a workable integrated GPU, and a Windows license for $500. You’d spend nearly $500 just to buy the RAM kit and the SSD with today’s component prices; for basic 1080p gaming you could do a lot worse.

Andrew is a Senior Technology Reporter at Ars Technica, with a focus on consumer tech including computer hardware and in-depth reviews of operating systems like Windows and macOS. Andrew lives in Philadelphia and co-hosts a weekly book podcast called Overdue.

RAM and SSD prices are still climbing—here’s our best advice for PC builders Read More »

Ukrainians sue US chip firms for powering Russian drones, missiles

AMD, Drones, intel, missiles, Policy, russia, Russian invasion of Ukraine, Texas Instruments, Ukraine / Tim Belzer / December 12, 2025

Dozens of Ukrainian civilians filed a series of lawsuits in Texas this week, accusing some of the biggest US chip firms of negligently failing to track chips that evaded export curbs. Those chips were ultimately used to power Russian and Iranian weapon systems, causing wrongful deaths last year.

Their complaints alleged that for years, Texas Instruments (TI), AMD, and Intel have ignored public reporting, government warnings, and shareholder pressure to do more to track final destinations of chips and shut down shady distribution channels diverting chips to sanctioned actors in Russia and Iran.

Putting profits over human lives, tech firms continued using “high-risk” channels, Ukrainian civilians’ legal team alleged in a press statement, without ever strengthening controls.

All that intermediaries who placed bulk online orders had to do to satisfy chip firms was check a box confirming that the shipment wouldn’t be sent to sanctioned countries, lead attorney Mikal Watts told reporters at a press conference on Wednesday, according to the Kyiv Independent.

“There are export lists,” Watts said. “We know exactly what requires a license and what doesn’t. And companies know who they’re selling to. But instead, they rely on a checkbox that says, ‘I’m not shipping to Putin.’ That’s it. No enforcement. No accountability.”

As chip firms allegedly looked the other way, innocent civilians faced five attacks, detailed in the lawsuits, that used weapons containing their chips. That includes one of the deadliest attacks in Kyiv, where Ukraine’s largest children’s hospital was targeted in July 2024. Some civilians suing were survivors seriously injured in attacks, while others lost loved ones and experienced emotional trauma.

Russia would not be able to hit their targets without chips supplied by US firms, the lawsuits alleged. Considered the brain of weapon systems, including drones, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, the chips help enable Russia’s war against Ukrainian civilians, they alleged.

Ukrainians sue US chip firms for powering Russian drones, missiles Read More »

SteamOS vs. Windows on dedicated GPUs: It’s complicated, but Windows has an edge

AMD, AMD Ryzen, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Radeon, steamos, Tech, Windows, Windows 11, windows 11 25h2 / Kris Guyer / December 5, 2025

Other results vary from game to game and from GPU to GPU. Borderlands 3, for example, performs quite a bit better on Windows than on SteamOS across all of our tested GPUs, sometimes by as much as 20 or 30 percent (with smaller gaps here and there). As a game from 2019 with no ray-tracing effects, it still runs serviceably on SteamOS across the board, but it was the game we tested that favored Windows the most consistently.

In both Forza Horizon 5 and Cyberpunk 2077, with ray-tracing effects enabled, you also see a consistent advantage for Windows across the 16GB dedicated GPUs, usually somewhere in the 15 to 20 percent range.

To Valve’s credit, there were also many games we tested where Windows and SteamOS performance was functionally tied. Cyberpunk without ray-tracing, Returnal when not hitting the 7600’s 8GB RAM limit, and Assassin’s Creed Valhalla were sometimes actually tied between Windows and SteamOS, or they differed by low-single-digit percentages that you could chalk up to the margin of error.

Now look at the results from the integrated GPUs, the Radeon 780M and RX 8060S. These are pretty different GPUs from one another—the 8060S has more than three times the compute units of the 780M, and it’s working with a higher-speed pool of soldered-down LPDDR5X-8000 rather than two poky DDR5-5600 SODIMMs.

But Borderlands aside, SteamOS actually did quite a bit better on these GPUs relative to Windows. In both Forza and Cyberpunk with ray-tracing enabled, SteamOS slightly beats Windows on the 780M, and mostly closes the performance gap on the 8060S. For the games where Windows and SteamOS essentially tied on the dedicated GPUs, SteamOS has a small but consistent lead over Windows in average frame rates.

SteamOS vs. Windows on dedicated GPUs: It’s complicated, but Windows has an edge Read More »

Testing shows why the Steam Machine’s 8GB of graphics RAM could be a problem

AMD, gaming, intel, NVIDIA, steam deck, steam machine, steamos, Tech / Kris Guyer / December 2, 2025

By Valve’s admission, its upcoming Steam Machine desktop isn’t swinging for the fences with its graphical performance. The specs promise decent 1080p-to-1440p performance in most games, with 4K occasionally reachable with assistance from FSR upscaling—about what you’d expect from a box with a modern midrange graphics card in it.

But there’s one spec that has caused some concern among Ars staffers and others with their eyes on the Steam Machine: The GPU comes with just 8GB of dedicated graphics RAM, an amount that is steadily becoming more of a bottleneck for midrange GPUs like AMD’s Radeon RX 7060 and 9060, or Nvidia’s GeForce RTX 4060 or 5060.

In our reviews of these GPUs, we’ve already run into some games where the RAM ceiling limits performance in Windows, especially at 1440p. But we’ve been doing more extensive testing of various GPUs with SteamOS, and we can confirm that in current betas, 8GB GPUs struggle even more on SteamOS than they do running the same games at the same settings in Windows 11.

The good news is that Valve is working on solutions, and having a stable platform like the Steam Machine to aim for should help improve things for other hardware with similar configurations. The bad news is there’s plenty of work left to do.

The numbers

We’ve tested an array of dedicated and integrated Radeon GPUs under SteamOS and Windows, and we’ll share more extensive results in another article soon (along with broader SteamOS-vs-Windows observations). But for our purposes here, the two GPUs that highlight the issues most effectively are the 8GB Radeon RX 7600 and the 16GB Radeon RX 7600 XT.

These dedicated GPUs have the benefit of being nearly identical to what Valve plans to ship in the Steam Machine—32 compute units (CUs) instead of Valve’s 28, but the same RDNA3 architecture. They’re also, most importantly for our purposes, pretty similar to each other—the same physical GPU die, just with slightly higher clock speeds and more RAM for the 7600 XT than for the regular 7600.

Testing shows why the Steam Machine’s 8GB of graphics RAM could be a problem Read More »

GPU prices are coming to earth just as RAM costs shoot into the stratosphere

AMD, gaming, intel, NAND, NVIDIA, RAM, SSDs, Tech / Paul Patrick / November 25, 2025

It’s not just PC builders

PC and phone manufacturers—and makers of components that use memory chips, like GPUs—mostly haven’t hiked prices yet. These companies buy components in large quantities, and they typically do so ahead of time, dulling the impact of the increases in the short-term. The kinds of price increases we see, and what costs are passed on to consumers, will vary from company to company.

Bloomberg reports that Lenovo is “stockpiling memory and other critical components” to get it through 2026 without issues and that the company “will aim to avoid passing on rising costs to its customers in the current quarter.” Apple may also be in a good position to weather the shortage; analysts at Morgan Stanley and Bernstein Research believe that Apple has already laid claim to the RAM that it needs and that its healthy profit margins will allow it to absorb the increases better than most.

Framework on the other hand, a smaller company known best for its repairable and upgradeable laptop designs, says “it is likely we will need to increase memory pricing soon” to reflect price increases from its suppliers. The company has also stopped selling standalone RAM kits in its online store in an effort to fight scalpers who are trying to capitalize on the shortages.

Tom’s Hardware reports that AMD has told its partners that it expects to raise GPU prices by about 10 percent starting next year and that Nvidia may have canceled a planned RTX 50-series Super launch entirely because of shortages and price increases (the main draw of this Super refresh, according to the rumor mill, would have a bump from 2GB GDDR7 chips to 3GB chips, boosting memory capacities across the lineup by 50 percent).

GPU prices are coming to earth just as RAM costs shoot into the stratosphere Read More »

Nvidia, Intel to co-develop “multiple generations” of chips as part of $5 billion deal

gaming, intel, NVIDIA, Tech / Mike M. / September 18, 2025

Intel once considered buying Nvidia outright, but its fortunes have shifted.

In a major collaboration that would have been hard to imagine just a few years ago, Nvidia announced today that it was buying a total of $5 billion in Intel stock, giving Intel’s competitor ownership of roughly 4 percent of the company. In addition to the investment, the two companies said that they would be co-developing “multiple generations of custom data center and PC products.”

“The companies will focus on seamlessly connecting NVIDIA and Intel architectures using NVIDIA NVLink,” reads Nvidia’s press release, “integrating the strengths of NVIDIA’s AI and accelerated computing with Intel’s leading CPU technologies and x86 ecosystem to deliver cutting-edge solutions for customers.”

Rather than combining the two companies’ technologies, the data center chips will apparently be custom x86 chips that Intel builds to Nvidia’s specifications. Nvidia will “integrate [the CPUs] into its AI infrastructure platforms and offer [them] to the market.”

On the consumer side, Intel plans to build x86 SoCs that integrate both Intel CPUs and Nvidia RTX GPU chiplets—Intel’s current products use graphics chiplets based on its own Arc products. More tightly integrated chips could make for smaller gaming laptops, and could give Nvidia a way to get into handheld gaming PCs like the Steam Deck or ROG Xbox Ally.

It takes a while to design, test, and mass-produce new processor designs, so it will likely be a couple of years before we see any of the fruits of this collaboration. But even the announcement highlights just how far the balance of power between the two companies has shifted in the last few years.

A dramatic reversal

Back in 2005, Intel considered buying Nvidia outright for “as much as $20 billion,” according to The New York Times. At the time, Nvidia was known almost exclusively for its GeForce consumer graphics chips, and Intel was nearing the launch of its Core and Core 2 chips, which would manage to win Apple’s business and set it up for a decade of near-total dominance in consumer PCs and servers.

But in recent years, Nvidia’s income and market capitalization have soared on the strength of its data center chips, which have powered most of the AI features that tech companies have been racing to build into their products for years now. And Intel’s recent struggles are well-documented—it has struggled for years now to improve its chip manufacturing capabilities at the same pace as competitors like TSMC, and a yearslong effort to convince other chip designers to use Intel’s factories to build their chips has yielded one ousted CEO and not much else.

The two companies’ announcement comes one day after China banned the sale of Nvidia’s AI chips, including products that Nvidia had designed specifically for China to get around US-imposed performance-based export controls. China is pushing domestic chipmakers like Huawei and Cambricon to put out their own AI accelerators to compete with Nvidia’s.

Correlation isn’t causation, and it’s unlikely that Intel and Nvidia could have thrown together a $5 billion deal and product collaboration in the space of less than 24 hours. But Nvidia could be looking to prop up US-based chip manufacturing as a counterweight to China’s actions.

There are domestic political considerations for Nvidia, too. The Trump administration announced plans to take a 10 percent stake in Intel last month, and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang has worked to curry favor with the Trump administration by making appearances at $1 million-per-plate dinners at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago golf course and promising to invest billions in US-based data centers.

Although the US government’s investment in Intel hasn’t gotten it seats on the company’s board, the investment comes with possible significant downsides for Intel, including disruptions to the company’s business outside the US and limiting its eligibility for future government grants. Trump and his administration could also decide to alter the deal for any or no reason—Trump was calling for Tan’s resignation for alleged Chinese Communist Party ties just days before deciding to invest in the company instead. Investing in a sometime-competitor may be a small price for Nvidia and Huang to pay if it means avoiding the administration’s ire.

Outstanding questions abound

Combining Intel CPUs and Nvidia GPUs makes a lot of sense, for certain kinds of products—the two companies’ chips already coexist in millions of gaming desktops and laptops. Being able to make custom SoCs that combine Intel’s and Nvidia’s technology could make for smaller and more power-efficient gaming PCs. It could also provide a counterbalance to AMD, whose willingness to build semi-custom x86-based SoCs has earned the company most of the emerging market for Steam Deck-esque handheld gaming PCs, plus multiple generations of PlayStation and Xbox console hardware.

But there are more than a few places where Intel’s and Nvidia’s products compete, and at this early date, it’s unclear what will happen to the areas of overlap.

Future Intel CPUs could use an Nvidia-designed graphics chiplet instead of one of Intel’s GPUs. Credit: Intel

For example, Intel has been developing its own graphics products for decades—historically, these have mostly been lower-performance integrated GPUs whose only job is to connect to a couple of monitors and encode and decode video, but more recent Arc-branded dedicated graphics cards and integrated GPUs have been more of a direct challenge to some of Nvidia’s lower-end products.

Intel told Ars that the company “will continue to have GPU product offerings,” which means that it will likely continue developing Arc and its underlying Intel Xe GPU architecture. But that could mean that Intel will focus on low-end, low-power GPUs and leave higher-end products to Nvidia. Intel has been happy to discard money-losing side projects in recent years, and dedicated Arc GPUs have struggled to make much of a dent in the GPU market.

On the software side, Intel has been pushing its own oneAPI graphics compute stack as an alternative to Nvidia’s CUDA and AMD’s ROCm, and has provided code to help migrate CUDA projects to oneAPI. And there’s a whole range of plausible outcomes here: Nvidia allowing Intel GPUs to run CUDA code, either directly or through some kind of translation layer; Nvidia contributing to oneAPI, which is an open source platform; or oneAPI fading away entirely.

On Nvidia’s side, we’ve already mentioned that the company offers some Arm-based CPUs—these are available in the Project DIGITS AI computer, Nvidia’s automotive products, or the Nintendo Switch and Switch 2. But rumors have indicated for some time now that Nvidia is working with MediaTek to create Arm-based chips for Windows PCs, which would compete not just with Intel and AMD’s x86 chips but also Qualcomm’s Snapdragon X-series processors. Will Nvidia continue to push forward on this project, or will it leave this as-yet-unannounced chip unannounced, to shore up its new investment in the x86 instruction set?

Finally, there’s the question of where these chips will be built. Nvidia’s current chips are manufactured mostly at TSMC, though it has used Samsung’s factories as recently as the RTX 3000 series. Intel also uses TSMC to build some chips, including its current top-end laptop and desktop processors, but it uses its own factories to build its server chips, and plans to bring its next-generation consumer chips back in-house.

Will Nvidia start to manufacture some of its chips on Intel’s 18A manufacturing process, or another process on Intel’s roadmap? Will the combined Intel and Nvidia chips be manufactured by Intel, or will they be built externally at TSMC, or using some combination of the two? (Nvidia has already said that Intel’s SoCs will integrate Nvidia GPU chiplets, so it’s likely that Intel will continue using its Foveros packaging technology to combine multiple bits of silicon into a single chip.)

A vote of confidence from Nvidia would be a big shot in the arm for Intel’s foundry, which has reportedly struggled to find major customers—but it’s hard to see Nvidia doing it if Intel’s manufacturing processes can’t compete with TSMC’s on performance or power consumption, or if Intel can’t manufacture chips in the volumes that Nvidia would need.

We’ve posed all of these questions to both Intel and Nvidia. This early, it’s unlikely that either company wants to commit to any plans other than the broad, vague collaborations that were part of this morning’s announcement. But we’ll update this article if we can shake any other details loose. Both Nvidia and Intel CEOs Huang and Tan will also be giving a joint press conference at 1 pm ET today, where they may discuss the answers to these and other questions.

Nvidia, Intel to co-develop “multiple generations” of chips as part of $5 billion deal Read More »

Intel details everything that could go wrong with US taking a 10% stake

chipmaker, Chips Act, chips grants, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductor / Rejus Almole / August 27, 2025

Intel warns investors to brace for losses and uncertainties.

Some investors are not happy that Intel agreed to sell the US a 10 percent stake in the company after Donald Trump attacked Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan with a demand to resign.

After Intel accepted the deal at a meeting with the president, it alarmed some investors when Trump boasted that his pressure campaign worked, claiming Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job, and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

“It sets a bad precedent if the president can just take 10 percent of a company by threatening the CEO,” James McRitchie, a private investor and shareholder activist in California who owns Intel shares, told Reuters. To McRitchie, Tan accepting the deal effectively sent the message that “we love Trump, we don’t want 10 percent of our company taken away.”

McRitchie wasn’t the only shareholder who raised an eyebrow. Kristin Hull, chief investment officer of a California-based activist firm called Nia Impact Capital—which manages shares in Intel for its clients—told Reuters she has “more questions than confidence” about how the deal will benefit investors. To her, the deal seems to blur some lines “between where is the government and where is the private sector.”

As Reuters explains, Intel agreed to convert $11.1 billion in CHIPS funding and other grants “into a 9.9 percent equity stake in Intel.”

Some early supporters of the agreement—including tech giants like Microsoft and Trump critics like Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—have praised the deal as allowing the US to profit off billions in CHIPS grants that Intel was awarded under the Biden administration. After pushing for the deal, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick criticized Joe Biden for giving away CHIPS funding “for free,” while praising Trump for turning the CHIPS Act grants into “equity for the Trump administration” and “for the American people.”

But to critics of the deal, it seems weird for the US to swoop in and take stake in a company that doesn’t need government assistance. The only recent precedent was the US temporarily taking stake in key companies considered vital to the economy that risked going under during the 2008 financial crisis.

Compare that to the Intel deal, where Tan has made it clear that Intel, while struggling to compete with rivals, “didn’t need the money,” Reuters noted—largely due to SoftBank purchasing $2 billion in Intel shares in the days prior to the US agreement being reached. Instead, the US is incentivized to take the stake to help further Trump’s mission to quickly build up a domestic chip manufacturing supply chain that can keep the US a global technology leader at the forefront of AI innovation.

Investors told Reuters that it’s unusual for the US to take this much control over a company that’s not in crisis, noting that “this level of tractability was not usually associated with relations between businesses and Washington.”

Intel did not immediately respond to Ars’ request to comment on investors’ concerns, but a spokesperson told Reuters that Intel’s board has already approved the deal. In a press release, the company emphasized that “the government’s investment in Intel will be a passive ownership, with no Board representation or other governance or information rights. The government also agrees to vote with the Company’s Board of Directors on matters requiring shareholder approval, with limited exceptions.”

Intel reveals why investors should be spooked

The Trump administration has also stressed that the US stake in Intel does not give the Commerce Department any board seats or any voting or governance rights in Intel. Instead, the terms stipulate that the Commerce Department must “support the board on director nominees and proposals,” an Intel securities filing said.

However, the US can vote “as it wishes,” Intel reported, and experts suggested to Reuters that regulations may be needed to “limit government opportunities for abuses such as insider trading.” That could reassure investors somewhat, Rich Weiss, a senior vice president and chief investment officer of multi-asset strategies for American Century Investments, told Reuters. Without such laws, Weiss noted that “in an unchecked scenario of government direct investing, trading in those companies could be much riskier for investors.”

It also seems possible that the US could influence Intel’s decisions without the government explicitly taking voting control, experts suggested. “Several investors and representatives” told Reuters that the US could impact major decisions regarding things like layoffs or business shifts into foreign markets. At a certain point, Intel may be stuck choosing between corporate and national interests, Robert McCormick, executive director of the Council of Institutional Investors, told Reuters.

“A government stake in an otherwise private entity potentially creates a conflict between what’s right for the company and what’s right for the country,” McCormick suggested.

Further, Intel becoming partly state-controlled risks disrupting Intel’s non-US business, subjecting the company to “additional regulations, obligations or restrictions, such as foreign subsidy laws or otherwise, in other countries,” Intel’s filing said.

In the filing, Intel confirmed directly to investors that they have good cause to be spooked by the US stake. Offering a bulleted list, the company outlined “a number of risks and uncertainties” that could “adversely impact” shareholders due to “the US Government’s ownership of significant equity interests in the company.”

Perhaps most alarming in the short term, Intel admitted that the deal will dilute investors’ stock due to the discounted shares issued to Trump. And their shares could suffer additional dilutions if certain terms of the deal are “triggered” or “exercised,” Intel noted.

In the long term, investors were told that the US stake may limit the company’s eligibility for future federal grants while leaving Intel shareholders dwelling in the uncertainty of knowing that terms of the deal could be voided or changed over time, as federal administration and congressional priorities shift.

Additionally, Intel forecasted potential legal challenges over the deal, which Intel anticipates could come from both third parties and the US government.

The final bullet point in Intel’s risk list could be the most ominous, though. Due to the unprecedented nature of the deal, Intel fears there’s no way to anticipate myriad other challenges the deal may trigger.

“It is difficult to foresee all the potential consequences,” Intel’s filing said. “Among other things, there could be adverse reactions, immediately or over time, from investors, employees, customers, suppliers, other business or commercial partners, foreign governments or competitors. There may also be litigation related to the transaction or otherwise and increased public or political scrutiny with respect to the Company.”

Meanwhile, it’s hard to see what Intel truly gains from the deal other than maybe getting Trump off its back for a bit. A Fitch Ratings research note reported that “the deal does not improve Intel’s BBB credit rating, which sits just above junk status” and “does not fundamentally improve customer demand for Intel chips” despite providing “more liquidity,” Reuters reported.

Intel’s filing, in addition to rattling investors, likely also serves as a warning sign to other companies who may be approached by the Trump administration to strike similar deals. So far, the administration has confirmed that the US is not eyeing a stake in Nvidia and seems unlikely to seek a stake in the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. While Lutnick has said he plans to push to make more deals, any chipmakers committing to increasing investments in the US, sources told the Wall Street Journal, will supposedly be spared from pressure to make a similar deal.

Ashley is a senior policy reporter for Ars Technica, dedicated to tracking social impacts of emerging policies and new technologies. She is a Chicago-based journalist with 20 years of experience.

Intel details everything that could go wrong with US taking a 10% stake Read More »

Trump says US will take 10% stake in Intel because CEO wants to “keep his job”

Chips Act, Donald Trump, intel, Policy, semiconductors, TSMC / Rejus Almole / August 23, 2025

Intel has agreed to sell the US a 10 percent stake in the company, Donald Trump announced at a news conference Friday.

The US stake is worth $10 billion, Trump said, confirming that the deal was inked following his talks with Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan.

Trump had previously called for Tan to resign, accusing the CEO of having “concerning” ties to the Chinese Communist Party. During their meeting, the president claimed that Tan “walked in wanting to keep his job and he ended up giving us $10 billion for the United States.”

“I said, ‘I think it would be good having the United States as your partner.’ He agreed, and they’ve agreed to do it,” Trump said. “And I think it’s a great deal for them.”

Sources have suggested that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick pushed the idea of the US buying large stakes in various chipmakers like Intel in exchange for access to CHIPS Act funding that had already been approved. Earlier this week, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) got behind the plan, noting that “if microchip companies make a profit from the generous grants they receive from the federal government, the taxpayers of America have a right to a reasonable return on that investment.”

However, Trump apparently doesn’t plan to seek a stake in every company that the US has awarded CHIPS funding to. Instead, he likely plans to only approach chipmakers that won’t commit to increasing their investments in the US. For example, a government official, speaking anonymously, told The Wall Street Journal Friday that “the administration isn’t looking to own equity in companies like TSMC that are increasing their investments” in the US.

Trump says US will take 10% stake in Intel because CEO wants to “keep his job” Read More »

Trump confirms US is seeking 10% stake in Intel. Bernie Sanders approves.

bernie sanders, Chips Act, Donald Trump, intel, Joe Biden, Micron, Policy, samsung, TSMC / Mike M. / August 21, 2025

Trump plan salvages CHIPS Act he vowed to kill

While chipmakers wait for more clarity, Lutnick has suggested that Trump—who campaigned on killing the CHIPS Act—has found a way to salvage the legislation that Joe Biden viewed as his lasting legacy. It seems possible that the plan arose after Trump realized how hard it would be to ax the legislation completely, with grants already finalized (but most not disbursed).

“The Biden administration literally was giving Intel money for free and giving TSMC money for free, and all these companies just giving the money for free, and Donald Trump turned it into saying, ‘Hey, we want equity for the money. If we’re going to give you the money, we want a piece of the action for the American taxpayer,'” Lutnick said.

“It’s not governance, we’re just converting what was a grant under Biden into equity for the Trump administration, for the American people,” Lutnick told CNBC.

Further, US firms could potentially benefit from any potential arrangements. For Intel, the “highly unusual” deal that Trump is mulling now could help the struggling chipmaker compete with its biggest rivals, including Nvidia, Samsung, and TSMC, BBC noted.

Vincent Fernando, founder of the investment consultancy Zero One, told the BBC that taking a stake in Intel “makes sense, given the company’s key role in producing semiconductors in the US,” which is a major Trump priority.

But as Intel likely explores the potential downsides of accepting such a deal, other companies applying for federal grants may already be alarmed by Trump’s move. Fernando suggested that Trump’s deals to take ownership stake in US firms—which economics professor Kevin J. Fox said only previously occurred during the global financial crisis—could add “uncertainty for any company who is already part of a federal grant program or considering one.”

Fox also agreed that the Intel deal could deter other companies from accepting federal grants, while possibly making it harder for Intel to run its business “effectively.”

Trump confirms US is seeking 10% stake in Intel. Bernie Sanders approves. Read More »