Intel to co-develop and manufacture Fortinet's next-gen firewall ASIC on Intel 4 — node gets its first named external customer ⁠56%

By Luke James⁠33%

7/21/2026, 6:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 18.6% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 812 faulty-reasoning hits from 494 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠56% (9,775 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 55.30% of the article peer group.

Intel and Fortinet have announced a strategic collaboration to develop the Fortinet Security Processor 6 (SP6), the next generation of the custom silicon behind Fortinet's FortiGate firewalls. 
Intel will contribute chip design, advanced packaging, and manufacturing to the SP6 program, making Fortinet the first cybersecurity vendor named as an Intel silicon customer. 
Intel told Tom's Hardware that SP6 will be built on Intel 4, the EUV process the company has so far used only for its own products, making Fortinet both the first cybersecurity vendor named as an Intel silicon customer and the first named external customer for the node. 
However, the announcement specifies no production timeline, and it comes in the same Q3-Q4 2026 window in which CEO Lip-Bu Tan said the company expects commitments from multiple foundry customers. 
SP6 will draw on what the companies described as Intel's expertise in disaggregated semiconductor design and advanced packaging tailored for both AI-enabled and cost-sensitive applications. 
That points to a chiplet-based part, which would be a departure from the current SP5, a monolithic 7nm Arm-based SoC that Fortinet launched in 2023 for its entry-level and mid-range FortiGate appliances. 
The deal will help Fortinet "accelerate and strengthen our ASIC strategy," said Ken Xie, founder, chairman, and CEO of Fortinet, in the announcement. 
Intel 4 was the company's first process node to use EUV lithography and entered high-volume manufacturing at Fab 34 in Ireland in September 2023, where it produces the compute tile for Meteor Lake-based Core Ultra chips. 
The node didn't appear among the processes Intel listed for external foundry customers in its fiscal year 2024 annual report, which named 18A, Intel 3, Intel 7, Intel 16, and a 12nm process co-developed with UMC. 
Intel said the SP6 work reflects plans it laid out for Intel 4 several years ago, including support for custom networking ASIC workloads. 
Microsoft agreed in early 2024 to build an unnamed custom chip on Intel's 1.8nm-class 18A node, a deal that reportedly covers a next-generation Maia AI processor . 
That announcement followed a similar pattern, with no product details, node variant, or timeline at signing and specifics emerging over the following 18 months. 
Intel CFO David Zinsner said in March that the company was fielding inbound interest in 18A-P from prospective foundry customers as yields improved, and Tan told CNBC in May that foundry commitments were expected in the second half of 2026. 
Fortinet does bring real volume, though, if not marquee volume. 
IDC ranked Fortinet first in firewall appliances shipped as of early 2023, with a 48% unit share. 
The company ships its own ASICs across its entry-level and high-end FortiGate ranges, and SP6 extends a silicon program now in its sixth generation. 
Neither company committed to work beyond SP6, though the release described the agreement as a starting point, with further collaboration on chip technology and manufacturing under discussion. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%Luke James: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 3.8%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 2.8%Tom's Hardware: 2.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Luke James: 4.5%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Availability Heuristic12.8%This article: 4.9%Luke James: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.9%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.9%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Luke James: 6.4%Tom's Hardware: 9.2%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.4%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Luke James: 4.8%Tom's Hardware: 6.0%Optimism Bias6.5%This article: 11.5%Luke James: 1.6%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Pessimism Bias11.5%This article: 2.0%Luke James: 5.8%Tom's Hardware: 6.5%Negativity Bias2.0%This article: 4.7%Luke James: 2.7%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Luke James: 1.8%Tom's Hardware: 2.8%Halo Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.3%Luke James: 2.8%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%Recency Bias10.3%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.9%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.6%Luke James: 7.4%Tom's Hardware: 5.4%Appeal to Authority18.6%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.3%Luke James: 4.4%Tom's Hardware: 6.1%Hasty Generalization11.3%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.6%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 3.0%Tom's Hardware: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.7%Tom's Hardware: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 1.1%Tom's Hardware: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.1%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.2%Luke James: 2.3%Tom's Hardware: 3.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.2%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.2%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.3%Tom's Hardware: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.1%Luke James: 4.0%Tom's Hardware: 2.4%Unattributed Quote10.1%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.8%Tom's Hardware: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 7.1%Luke James: 2.8%Tom's Hardware: 7.1%Biased Writer Voice7.1%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.5%Tom's Hardware: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Luke James: 0.0%Tom's Hardware: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.8%Luke James: 1.2%Tom's Hardware: 3.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.8%

494 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech360writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageIntel • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageKen Xie • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageIntel • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Zinsner • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Intel

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words53% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +60.7 ptsWriter: 6.9%Intel: 67.6%67.6%Biased Writer Voice-9.7 ptsWriter: 9.7%Intel: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Intel: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.