Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

intel.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#91

Post by ckozlowski »

etempleton wrote: post #64

I 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…

Given the push of ARM designs into the desktop and server space, that monopoly doesn't seem to me as much of a danger as it might have a decade ago. I imagine any anti-competitive behavior in x86 would only accelerate that trend. Not that monopolies shouldn't be a concern at all, but my thought is that it's not quite that large of a danger.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#92

Post by CuriousCosmic »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #86
etempleton wrote: post #64

I 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.

Maybe they'll sell Intel to Northrop Grumman /hj

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#93

Post by A4ET8a8uTh0 »

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #62
Workaccount2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local transformer leader. It's a true "build it and they will come" situation. Undercut the big boys with affordable on-prem AI.

>Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local LLM leader Intel should have appointed people form the HN comment section as their CEO, as they clearly know more about running a giant chip design and fabrication company than the guy who worked there for 10+ years.

You are jesting, but there is some wisdom to that post. No reasonable person is suggesting global company changes direction on the basis of one post on the internet, but the advice provided is not without merit. Surely, a company of that size can do some research to see if it is a viable path. In fact, if it does anything right, it should have people like that ready to do appropriate analysis.

I have my thoughts on the matter and cautiously welcomed their move to GPUs ( though admittedly on the basis that we -- consumers -- need more than amd/nvidia duopoly in that space; so I am not exactly unbiased ).

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#94

Post by phkahler »

etempleton wrote: post #64

I 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…

>> If 18a is not ready I think the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD.

Aside from the x86 monopoly that would create, I don't think Intel has much of value to AMD at this point other than the fabs (which aren't delivering). IMHO if Intel is failing, let them fail and others will buy the pieces in bankruptcy. This would probably benefit several other companies that could use 22nm and up fab capacity and someone could even pick up the x86 and graphics businesses.

BTW I think at this point the graphics business is more valuable. Even though Intel is in 3rd place there are many players in the SoC world that can use a good GPU. You can build a SoC with Intel, ARM, or RISC-V but they all need a GPU.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#95

Post by leoc »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #49
this_user wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have made too many bad choices, and everyone else has been eating their lunch for the last few years. They are a non-factor in the mobile space where ARM architectures dominate. They are a non-factor in the GPU market where NVDA dominates ahead of AMD. They were focused heavily on data centres and desktop/laptop CPUs where ARM is also increasingly making inroads with more efficient designs that deliver comparabl…

The US government wants then making SOTA semiconductors. Biden wanted it and I highly suspect Trump will want it too.

I have to wonder if part of this is Intel wanting a Trumpier CEO so it can retain the favour of the US government, while Trump associates Gelsinger with the CHIPS act which he reflexively hates as a Biden thing.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#96

Post by KeplerBoy »

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #62
Workaccount2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local transformer leader. It's a true "build it and they will come" situation. Undercut the big boys with affordable on-prem AI.

>Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local LLM leader Intel should have appointed people form the HN comment section as their CEO, as they clearly know more about running a giant chip design and fabrication company than the guy who worked there for 10+ years.

There's no doubt that the statement is true. Some use cases would absolutely benefit from GPUs with a boatload of VRAM, even if it's relatively slow (~500 GB/s).

The market for that is just not that large, it wouldn't move the needle on Intels revenue, but then again it could get the enthusiasts onboard and get Intels CUDA alternative moving.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#97

Post by dragontamer »

rsanek wrote: post #68
highwaylights wrote: post #45

The 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…

why would the board care about "pacifying the YouTube/gamer community"? seems like a very unlikely reason for a CEO to be fired.

If anything, the streams are reversed.

I'd expect Intel marketing and Public Relations to be paying YouTube Influencers to have a particular opinion, the one most favorable to the board.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#98

Post by chang1 »

627467 wrote: post #63

These large troubled incumbents seems to have infinite lives to linger on towards a slow death path destroying value in their journey. Like Boeing, why does intel hangs around taking up space, opportunities, resources, one failed attempt after another failed attempt instead of making space for newer ideas, organizations? at this point is so clear these public companies are just milking the moat their predecessors bui…

Reminds me of Jobs quoting Gil Amelio at D5[1]:

> Gil was a nice guy, but he had a saying. He said, 'Apple is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, leaking water, and my job is to get the ship pointed in the right direction.'

[1]: https://youtu.be/wvhW8cp15tk?t=1263

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#99

Post by bee_rider »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #86
etempleton wrote: post #64

I 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.

Nvidia makes a lot more sense than AMD; it is better for the market (preserving some competition in x86), and at least Intel does something Nvidia doesn’t.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#100

Post by kranke155 »

this_user wrote: post #33
LittleTimothy wrote: post #11

Difficult 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…

They have made too many bad choices, and everyone else has been eating their lunch for the last few years. They are a non-factor in the mobile space where ARM architectures dominate. They are a non-factor in the GPU market where NVDA dominates ahead of AMD. They were focused heavily on data centres and desktop/laptop CPUs where ARM is also increasingly making inroads with more efficient designs that deliver comparabl…

Apple saw the writing on the wall and bailed years ago, built their own chips and denied them a large customer.

It’s a really bad sign when a customer decides it can out innovate you by internally copying your entire business and production line.

Post reply on HN