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

111–120 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#111

Post by etempleton »

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.

What other US companies are equipped and interested in running a giant chip design/fab? NVIDIA and AMD are likely the only two candidates.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#112

Post by Aromasin »

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…

Agreed. My career at Intel coincided with Pat's, although I jumped ship a little earlier. Admittedly this means I probably have a little bias, but based on my hundreds of conversations with Intel vets I do think his business strategy was the right decision. He came on board a company years behind on process, packaging, and architecture technology after years of mismanagement by a largely nontechnical staff, which favoured buybacks and acquisitions over core business practice.

He had two routes with the capital available following a cash injection from COVID-19 and the rapid digitization of the workplace - compete with AMD/NVIDIA, or compete with TSMC/Samsung. The only sensible option that would capture the kind of capital needed to turn the ship around would be to become a company critical to the national security of the US, during a time of geopolitical stability, onshoring chip manufacture and receiving support from the government in doing so. He could either compete with competitors at home or those abroad, but not both simultaneously. The thesis makes sense; you've lost the advantage to NVIDIA/AMD, so pivot to become a partner rather than a rival.

I don't think it's a coincidence that just a week after Intel finally received the grant from the government, he announced his departure. The CHIPS act was a seminal moment in his career. It makes sense he'd want to see that through till completion. He's 63; now is as good a time as ever to hand over the reins, in this case to a very capable duo of MJ and Zisner (who were always two of the most impressive EVPs of the bunch in my book).

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#113

Post by Cumpiler69 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #93
Cumpiler69 wrote: post #62

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 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 t…

>but there is some wisdom to that post.

That's just speculation. There's no guarantee that would have happened. Nobody has a crystal ball to guarantee that as the outcome.

It's like saying if someone would have killed Hitler as a baby, that would have prevented WW2.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#114

Post by cogman10 »

phkahler wrote: post #94
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…

Yeah, what both companies would need to be competitive in the GPU sector is a cuda killer. That's perhaps the one benefit of merging Antel can more easily standardize something.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#115

Post by dagmx »

rwmj wrote: post #80
kllrnohj wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> where ARM is also increasingly making inroads with more efficient designs that deliver comparable performance. ARM isn't doing any such thing. Apple & Qualcomm are, though. ARM itself if anything looks weak. Their mobile cores have stagnated, their laptop attempts complete failures, and while there's hints of life in data center it also seems mediocre overall.

Don't forget their "brilliant" strategy of suing their own customers.

Being a customer shouldn’t protect a company from lawsuits. ARM feels they have merit here , just like Qualcomm did when they sued Apple. It’s not that rare in the corporate setting to have suits between companies with otherwise amicable relationships.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#116

Post by raverbashing »

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.

That would be a hard call

One of the reasons where Intel "let" AMD compete in the x86 space is US Gov requirements for being able to source chips from two vendors at least

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#117

Post by fancyfredbot »

mythz wrote: post #29

Well their stock is already in the dumps, they can't do much worse than they already have been. Divesting from their discrete GPUs just as they were starting to become a viable value option was one of their most recent asinine decisions. No idea why they didn't try test the market with a high RAM 64GB+ card before bowing out to see how well they'd do. Nvidia's too busy printing money to add more RAM to their consumer…

They aren't divesting from discrete GPUs. The Battlemage launch is tomorrow.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#118

Post by phkahler »

Has Intel ever made a production chip using their own EUV process? They keep moving the goal post so they'll be state of the art when they get there - currently aiming for "18A" with high NA using the absolute latest equipment from ASML. But I don't think they've demonstrated mastery of EUV at any node yet.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#119

Post by physicsguy »

cogman10 wrote: post #114
phkahler wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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…

Yeah, what both companies would need to be competitive in the GPU sector is a cuda killer. That's perhaps the one benefit of merging Antel can more easily standardize something.

You don't get a CUDA killer without the software infrastructure.

Intel finally seem to have got their act together a bit with OneAPI but they've languished for years in this area.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#120

Post by ksec »

I am perhaps one of Pat's biggest fan. Was in tears when I knew he is back at Intel [1];

>"Notable absent from that list is he fired Pat Gelsinger. Please just bring him back as CEO." - 2012 on HN, when Paul Otellini Retired.

>"The only one who may have a slim chance to completely transform Intel is Pat Gelsinger, if Andy Grove saved Intel last time, it will be his apprentice to save Intel again. Unfortunately given what Intel has done to Pat during his last tenure, I am not sure if he is willing to pick up the job, especially the board's Chairman is Bryant, not sure how well they go together. But we know Pat still loves Intel, and I know a lot of us miss Pat." [2] - June, 2018

I am sad to read this. As I wrote [2] only a few hours ago about how the $8B from Chip ACT is barely anything if US / Intel wants to compete with TSMC.

Unfortunately there were lot of things that didn't go to plan. Or from my reading of it was out of his control. Cutting Dividends was a No No from Board until late. Big Cut of headcount wasn't allowed until too late. Basically he was tasked to turn the ship around rapidly, not allow to rock the ship too much all while it has leaky water at the bottom. And I will again, like I have already wrote in [1], point the finger at the board.

My reading of this is that it is a little too late to save Intel, both as foundry and chip making. Having Pat "retired" would likely mean the board is now planning to sell Intel off since Pat would likely be the biggest opponents to this idea.

At less than $100B I am sure there are plenty of interested buyers for various part of Intel. Broadcomm could be one. Qualcomm or may be even AMD. I am just not sure who will take the Foundry or if the Foundry will be a separate entity.

I dont want Pat and Intel to end like this. But the world is unforgiving and cruel. I have been watching TSMC grow and cheer leading them in 2010 before 99.99% of the internet even heard of its name and I know their game far too well. So I know competing against TSMC is a task that is borderline impossible in many aspect. But I would still wanted to see Pat bring Intel back to leading edge again. The once almightily Intel.....

Farewell and Goodbye Pat. Thank You for everything you have done.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25765443

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42293541

Post reply on HN