Former Intel CEO Craig Barrett has come out swinging against Intel’s current board of directors, openly criticizing their proposal to split the company into smaller divisions and sell parts of the business to TSMC. In a strongly worded opinion piece published in Fortune, Barrett dismissed the idea as the “dumbest idea around”, arguing that it would undo the progress Intel has made under former CEO Pat Gelsinger.
Instead, Barrett suggests an entirely different solution—firing the current board members and bringing Gelsinger back to complete his mission. According to Barrett, Gelsinger’s leadership was instrumental in Intel regaining technological parity with TSMC at the 2nm node after years of stagnation. Breaking up the company at this critical moment, he argues, would be a major setback for Intel’s long-term success.
Gelsinger’s Leadership Was a Turning Point
Barrett makes a compelling case for why Gelsinger should be reinstated. He credits Gelsinger with reviving Intel’s technology development team, pushing cutting-edge advancements like backside power delivery and high NA EUV lithography, and bringing Intel’s 18A process node up to speed.
“Pat Gelsinger did a great job at resuscitating the technology development team,” Barrett wrote. He believes that Gelsinger’s strategy was starting to pay off, and that removing him was a short-sighted decision driven by board members who lack deep knowledge of the semiconductor industry.
Instead of breaking Intel into smaller entities, Barrett suggests that a better move would be to fire the board members and allow Gelsinger to finish what he started.
Harsh Criticism for Intel’s Board
Barrett does not hold back in his criticism of Intel’s board, calling them “well-meaning but off-target” decision-makers who lack the expertise needed to guide a company competing in the fiercely competitive semiconductor industry.
He sarcastically describes them as “two academics and two former government bureaucrats – just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry.” According to Barrett, the board has played a direct role in Intel’s struggles over the past decade, making misguided decisions that have slowed the company’s progress.
By removing Gelsinger, Barrett argues, the board has jeopardized Intel’s momentum at a critical time, just as the company was reasserting itself as a global leader in semiconductor manufacturing.
Why Splitting Intel Would Be a Mistake
Intel’s 18A process node is widely regarded as a key component in its recovery strategy, enabling it to compete directly with TSMC and Samsung. Barrett warns that breaking the company up now would introduce unnecessary complications at a time when Intel is finally gaining back its technological edge.
Rather than dismantling the company, he suggests Intel should focus on:
- Providing excellent customer service
- Offering fair pricing
- Ensuring guaranteed manufacturing capacity
- Maintaining a clear separation between its design teams and foundry customers
While Barrett supports the idea of Intel splitting into a separate chip design firm and foundry, he is strongly against selling the foundry. He believes that Intel must retain control over its own manufacturing capabilities to compete at the highest level.
One of Barrett’s strongest arguments against Intel’s breakup plan is that it oversimplifies the realities of the semiconductor industry.
He points out that developing new semiconductor manufacturing technology is an incredibly complex and time-consuming process, often taking years of research, testing, and scaling before it reaches 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,” Barrett declared. He believes that Intel is on the verge of a major comeback, and disrupting that progress would be a massive strategic error.
Barrett’s message is clear: Intel should not be broken up, and the board should be held accountable for poor decision-making. Instead, he calls for a radical restructuring of Intel’s leadership, with Pat Gelsinger reinstated to complete the turnaround he started.
While Intel’s current leadership seems committed to exploring a breakup, Barrett’s argument highlights a deep divide between industry veterans and corporate decision-makers. Whether Intel follows Barrett’s advice or continues down its current path remains to be seen—but his words reflect the concerns of many who believe Intel’s future is at stake.
