The Taiwanese giant TSMC is about to mark a symbolic milestone in recent semiconductor history: surpassing Intel in employee numbers. For decades, the American company was not only a technological benchmark but also the largest firm in the sector by size, combining product design, in-house manufacturing, and technological development that have become industry standards. However, after several years of workforce reductions at Intel and sustained expansion at TSMC, the leadership in “headcount” could change hands for the first time.
The most recent snapshot places Intel with 85,100 employees after a cycle of adjustments and layoffs, while TSMC finished 2024 with 83,825 workers. The gap is small, and if TSMC’s hiring and industrial expansion pace continues, this lead could be confirmed with upcoming annual company data, at a time when chip demand—driven by data centers and AI—pressures the entire supply chain.
Two business models that aren’t measured the same way
The potential overtaking has a strong media component, but it’s important to interpret it with nuance. The comparison is not “apples to apples.” Intel remains one of the few major players operating as an IDM (integrated device manufacturer): designing processors, developing process technology, manufacturing in its own facilities, and maintaining packaging operations across several countries. This type of structure requires profiles and teams that many “fabless” companies (like AMD or NVIDIA), which design chips but outsource manufacturing, do not have.
TSMC, on the other hand, is the world’s largest foundry. It doesn’t sell its own processors directly to end-users; instead, it sells manufacturing capacity, process nodes, and advanced packaging services to an ecosystem of clients including leading mobile, HPC, and AI acceleration companies. Practically, its workforce reflects the size of a manufacturing empire: factories, process engineering, operations, and large-scale logistics.
Therefore, a change in employee numbers doesn’t necessarily mean one company is “stronger” than the other, but it does illustrate a trend: the industry’s center of gravity has shifted toward manufacturing capacity and advanced packaging, exactly when AI is turning computing infrastructure into a strategic issue.
Intel’s contraction versus TSMC’s expansion
Intel’s figure—85,100 employees—comes after years of adjustments that have reduced its size. The company remains enormous in absolute terms, but the cut contrasts with a period when other industry players hired aggressively to meet the demand surge related to cloud and AI. Additionally, internal market discussions have shifted toward metrics such as revenue per employee and operational efficiency, especially in companies with traditionally heavier structures.
Meanwhile, TSMC continues deploying investments and production expansions across multiple fronts: new facilities, capacity increases, and advancements in packaging. This move is not just a business gamble but a direct response to the industry’s bottleneck, where access to cutting-edge manufacturing capacity has become a decisive factor for product roadmaps.
R&D race: high expenditures but rising pressures
Another indicator reflecting both companies’ moment is investment in research and development. Even after cutbacks, Intel allocated $13.8 billion to R&D, highlighting the many fronts it maintains: process nodes, product platforms, software, validation, standards, and cross-cutting technologies. The implicit message is clear: to compete against AMD and NVIDIA in products, and against TSMC in manufacturing, Intel needs to sustain a huge innovation engine.
But this reality clashes with a more demanding financial and operational context. After layoffs and reorganizing multiple projects, the market expects R&D spending might be reduced again. The sector’s lingering question is: if Intel cuts its R&D investment too much, will it be able to stay relevant technologically in the second half of the decade, both in products and processes?
Simultaneously, TSMC doesn’t compete in end products but fiercely in manufacturing and packaging technology, which today largely determines chip performance, power consumption, and economic viability for AI chips. In other words: TSMC’s R&D concentrates on “how” chips are made, while Intel must also focus on “what” is being manufactured.
A shift with geopolitical and supply chain implications
Beyond symbolism, the potential workforce overtaking has an industrial reading: the world is paying—literally—for capacity. Growing demand for AI accelerators has pulled along the entire data center ecosystem (CPUs, networking, storage, memory), increasing the importance of manufacturing plants and advanced packaging. Within this landscape, TSMC has become almost a structural piece of global tech roadmaps.
For Intel, the situation is more complex: its historical identity is tied to controlling the entire supply chain, but today’s market penalizes delays in process nodes and rewards frictionless execution. The company still benefits from experience, standards, and accumulated technology, but its challenge is to regain speed without sacrificing long-term investment capacity. In this balance, more than just employee figures are at stake: its role in the next era of computing hangs in the balance.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why is it important that TSMC can surpass Intel in employee numbers?
Because it reflects the increasing importance of manufacturing and advanced packaging in the AI era, where industrial capacity is as critical as chip design.
Can we directly compare Intel and TSMC by workforce?
Not entirely. Intel combines design, manufacturing, and standards development; TSMC is a foundry focused on manufacturing and services for third parties. They are different models with different staffing needs.
How does the rise of AI relate to this trend change?
AI is driving the construction of data centers and increasing chip demand, accelerating factory expansions and advanced packaging. This favors industrial-focused companies like TSMC.
Does Intel’s R&D spending guarantee future competitiveness?
Not on its own. High R&D indicates technological ambition, but competitiveness also depends on execution: timelines, node performance, manufacturing capacity, and commercial success of platforms.
via: tomshardware