51–60 of 137 posts
Intel had over 130,000 employees as of a couple of months ago. 15% layoffs is nearly 20,000 people.
I am surprised, the stock didnt improve. Typically, markets like layoffs.
This sounds worryingly like “sales are down, cut costs to maintain profitability to spike our stock numbers” and not enough focus on what I believe is actually wrong, which is that they can’t seem to reliably make competitive processors in a stiff market. Anyone else feel like this is bean counters at Intel playing the wrong game? I personally feel like leadership at Intel lost the plot almost a decade ago.
Financial reports are going to be exactly that, focused on the numbers and appearing to investors to be maximising their value. You want to carry a perception that you are focusing on the positives and the innovations being carries forward, as opposed to mulling over what "might be wrong". All companies go through ups and downs, but you do not want your financial report to have a theme of these are the things that are wrong.
US. Total economic collapse. Hard landing.
This is the beginning of the end. We really had the chance to make something beautiful with this country, but the 1% bought and sold it into the ground.
Half our politicians aren't even trying to keep it running anymore.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
10 years from now, when the downfall of Intel is being taught at business schools, what are going to be the big takeways and now-obvious mistakes?
Don't run your own fab? It makes business sense but I don't know if I like that answer. What if everyone did that? Should everyone just use TSMC? That's stupid IMO.
The US leadership fucked the dog and decided cheap labor was more important than national security or a functioning economy.
Everything is gone, it has been shipped overseas.
Intel had over 130,000 employees as of a couple of months ago. 15% layoffs is nearly 20,000 people.
I am surprised, the stock didnt improve. Typically, markets like layoffs.
This sounds worryingly like “sales are down, cut costs to maintain profitability to spike our stock numbers” and not enough focus on what I believe is actually wrong, which is that they can’t seem to reliably make competitive processors in a stiff market. Anyone else feel like this is bean counters at Intel playing the wrong game? I personally feel like leadership at Intel lost the plot almost a decade ago.
Leadership changed back to an engineer with the return of Pat Gelsinger in 2021. I’d give him a couple more years. It takes time to turn around a big ship like Intel.
Then they got worse.
Intel had over 130,000 employees as of a couple of months ago. 15% layoffs is nearly 20,000 people.
The ‘flagged dead’ comment is right on. Intel has been a bloated bureaucracy for a long time now and things need to get tightened up for it to continue.
>Fire 80% of them. Twitter had probably more talent per capita than Intel. If they can fire 80% most companies should.
$152 billion in stock buybacks. We don't have an economy anymore, we are just handing money to the ultra-wealthy. US. Total economic collapse. Hard landing. This is the beginning of the end. We really had the chance to make something beautiful with this country, but the 1% bought and sold it into the ground. Half our politicians aren't even trying to keep it running anymore.
A good friend of mine is the son of a former hedgefund manager... who told me in 2018 "owning real gold is foolish;" in 2024, he's recently told me about his expanding gold collection.
I have made even more returns on silver/BTC, but anything "real" is probably durable enough to last for (hopefully at least) another decade of keep kicking the can down the road...
Quoting my favorite family member of The Silent Generation (pre WW2 birth), "Nobody wants to be the last one at the party, because then you have to help clean up all the mess!"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't screw up? Sage advice! I agree they are mismanaged but it also takes luck to stay in the lead. I hope for a comeback too. My amateur worthless opinion is that Intel is struggling now but at least they have fabs. The fabless companies are going to be fucked in the long term- the fabs they contract to are all on shifting geopolitical sands!
"but it also takes luck to stay in the lead." It's not luck if they were riding momentum that slowed because they shifted away from proper R&D. The fabless companies had nothing but R&D to live on and the costs of outsourcing the fab means the capital costs could be amortized over more customers (meaning intel should have probably split in two). Intel's fabs are a generation behind and now they're capital constrained…
Can you elaborate on this?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s still far from clear that ARM for Windows will be going anywhere. And Intel is trying to increase ISA diversification with their foundry business.
I've seen reviews of the latest 13 inch Dell XPS and it's both more powerful and less energy hungry than the M3 in a MacBook air. It uses the Snapdragon Elite X ARM cpu. It also blows the latest mobile i7 ultra 155H on the same XPS 13 in performance while lasting almost 20 hours (compared to Intel's 6). The comparisons are made on software that runs on both (Geekbench, handbrake) but it's clear that there is a huge m…
60w peak power consumption for a literal single thread. 35w average.
https://old.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1efcst2/ai_370_vs...
https://www.notebookcheck.net/AMD-Zen-5-Strix-Point-CPU-anal...
We simply aren’t going to see x86 get to the subjective “apple experience” of a laptop that runs equally well on or off battery, with day-long life during interactive low-intensity usage, until x86 vendors can get their single-thread power consumption under control. Platform power is part of it (although external-monitor tests minimize most of the usual factors) but x86 simply isn’t competitive in performance terms unless it’s boosting excessively high in power terms. At least not right now.
I know Keller said it only matters 20% or so, but… right now we are objectively in a world where x86 is using ~triple the power in 1T workloads. The x86 is fine when it can exploit SMT and the workloads are heavily numeric/vector oriented, they simply aren’t very good at single-threaded workloads where there is no SMT to fill their pipeline bubbles.
And yes, race to sleep is all well and good. But apple can race to sleep on 1/3 the power. Apple can also have an icache and all that other crap too (m1 has an icache six times as big as its x86 competitors). At the end of the day the x86 results are still objectively poorer by literally several powers of 2. But Keller said everything is equally good therefore the evidence can be casually dismissed.
Even the much happier computerbase numbers only put this at 20w core power (and they’re using sensors, not actual measurements of course). And that still is power you have to pay on those laptops, even if it’s “platform power” - like, ok, so the defense of x86 here is that x86’s finest champion is spending more on platform power than the apple laptop uses at the wall for the whole laptop… by a factor of 50%. It then uses another 2x multiple of the apple laptop to do just the computation work.
That’s the bright side argument about x86.