[flagged]
The market already figured out that it doesn't want leading edge manufacturing in the US.
Politicians and the military disagree though. They can place plenty of pressure on the market to change the market's mind if they care to.
Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
81–90 of 777 posts
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. There are a lot of strategic shifts Intel could do but their timeline to paying off at the scale Intel needs is very long. What I see is a bunch of endeavours that get killed off too quickly because they were not paying off fast enough and this creates mistrust in th…
>I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. With this logic, Apple should have also stayed with making Macs when it had financial troubles in in 1999, since that's its focus, not venture into making stupid stuff like Mp3 players and phones, everyone knows that's the core focus of Sony and Nokia who will rules…
[deleted]
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#83[flagged]
I have a sizeable bet that government spending will be higher after the term is up. I am not at all worried about losing the bet.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Not do stupid GPUs Hard disagree here x100. Investing in GPUs in the time when Nvidia and AMD started to gouge the market is actually the best decision Intel did in recent times. It's the piece of semiconductor with some of the highest margins in the business and they already own a lot of the patents and IP building blocks to make it happen. The only stupid thing they did was not getting into GPUs earlier so they wo…
I think the issue is that Intel has a culture and focus. It is cpus. It is a large company and this is where the revenue comes from and it has momentum. There are a lot of strategic shifts Intel could do but their timeline to paying off at the scale Intel needs is very long. What I see is a bunch of endeavours that get killed off too quickly because they were not paying off fast enough and this creates mistrust in th…
I’d argue that focus is what Intel fundamentally lacks. Or any kind of real vision.
If they had focused more on mobile CPUs, GPUs, or especially GPGPUs a decade ago, they could have more product diversity now to hold them over.
Instead, they dipped their toes into a new market every few years and then ran away screaming when they realized how difficult and it would be to gain market share.
If they had any actual vision, they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets.
They should have listened to their customers and market forces instead of trying to force x86 down everyone’s throats.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#85The market seems to think this is great news. I disagree strongly here, but I can see why traders and potentially the board thought this was the right move. A lot of hate for Pat Gelsinger on Reddit and YouTube from armchair experts who don't really grasp the situation Intel were in or what was needed to turn the ship around, so if he was pushed it seems like it might be to pacify the (not particularly informed) YouT…
Both of the Co-CEOs have a finance background. I think that is rather telling. They are trying to appeal to Wallstreet and potentially have people that are equipped to manage an M&A deal.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#86I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. Intel's stock is jumping at this announcement, but I look at it as a bad signal for Intel 18a. If 18a was looking to be a smash hit then I don't think Pat gets retired. If 18a is a success then it is an even more short-sighted decision by the board. What this likely means is two-fold: 1. Intel 18a is being delayed further and/or t…
Why would the US govt allow a merge with AMD?
Sure they won't allow Intel to be bought by a foreign company, but surely everyone would much rather see Intel being bought by literally any other company than AMD and Nvidia.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#87Difficult to see how this is anything other than a failure. I had high hopes when Gelsinger returned, but it seems that BK had done too much damage and Gelsinger didn't really get a grip on things. One of the things I heard that really highlighted the failure of this recovery was that BK had let Intel balloon in all sorts of ways that needed to be pared back and refocused, but head count under Gelsinger didn't just s…
Oh, yes. They spent too many years as the obvious #1, with a license to print money...when, longer-term, staying there required that Intel remain top-of-league in two profoundly difficult and fast-moving technologies (10e9+-transistor CPU design, and manufacturing such chips). Meanwhile, the natural rot of any large org - people getting promoted for their ladder-climbing skills, and making decisions for their own short-term benefit - were slow eating away at Intel's ability to stay at the top of those leagues.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#88Gelsinger seemed well connected to Washington / the democratic administration in particular and the CHIPS act seemed to be designed to save/bail out Intel.
Perhaps this is a fall out from the election.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#89Gelsinger retires before Intel Foundry spin is ready. This means trouble.
Intel invested tens of billions into A20 and A18 nodes, but it has not paid off yet. News about yield seemed promising. Massive investments have been made. If somebody buys Intel foundries now, they pay one dollar and take debt + subsidies. Intel can write off the debt but don't get potential rewards.
Foundry is the most interesting part of Intel. It's where everything is happening despite all the risk.
Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that was so stupid of them to not see into the future and predict AI.
I'm not sure you needed to predict AI. GPUs exist because CPUs just aren't fast enough. Whether or not people are going to start making GPU-only computers is debatable (although there has clearly been a lot of CPU+GPU single chips).
What a frankly weird oversimplification? GPUs don't exist because CPUs aren't fast enough. GPUs exist because CPUs aren't parallel enough. And to achieve that parallelism, they sacrifice massive amounts of performance to get it.
A GPU-only computer would be absolutely horrendous to use. It'd be incredibly slow and unresponsive as GPUs just absolutely suck at running single-threaded code or branchy code.