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

131–140 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#131

Post by etempleton »

bell-cot wrote: post #102
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…

> ...the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD... Why would AMD want a merger? They aren't a charity, and certainly don't need the distraction.

Well, for at least a time they would have the entire x86 market. That is not nothing. Also AMD may want to get back into the fab business. Without competition in x86 why not use Intel's fabs?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#132

Post by CuriousCosmic »

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #123
CuriousCosmic wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe they'll sell Intel to Northrop Grumman /hj

Boeing should buy Intel the way they bought McDonald Douglass. It's gonna be a success, trust me.

Hey I mean two negatives make a positive right? Can't possibly go any worse than it already is.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#133

Post by neverartful »

Intel has had some big failures (or missed opportunities) over the years. Just going from memory - Pentium 4 architecture, not recognizing market opportunities with ARM, Itanium, AMD beating them to 64 bits on x86, AMD beating them to chiplets and high number of PCIe lanes with EPYC, poor battery life (generally) on laptops. The innovations from Apple with Apple Silicon (ARM) and AMD with EPYC make Intel look like they're completely lost. That's before we even touch on what RISC-V might do to them. It seems like the company has a long history of complacency and hubris.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#134

Post by ghaff »

csdreamer7 wrote: post #105
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…

Pretty much fair game for speculation. The only way this is not bad for the tech industry was if he resigned due to medical or age reasons. That would not be unexpected. Doubtful that is the issue with Intel's track record. Curious when we will know if 18A is competitive or not. > If 18a is not ready I think the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD. The US Govt would probably co-sign on it for national s…

People who are presumably very well-off financially can retire a tad on the early side for all sorts of reasons or a combination thereof. Certainly he has made some significant course corrections at Intel but the most charitable thing one can say is that they will take a long time to play out. As you say, a merger with AMD seems like a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#135

Post by ethbr1 »

BirAdam wrote: post #61
rwmj wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel needed to be split in two as well, which Gelsinger only half-heartedly did. He split the company into two functions - foundry and design, but didn't take that to its logical conclusion and split up the company completely.

They legally cannot split due to the CHIPS Act.

Not entirely true. It just requires that Intel retain a 51% stake in any split foundry company.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#136

Post by FredPret »

adventured wrote: post #124
bee_rider wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

China and the EU would never allow an Nvidia Intel merger, not under any scenario the US would find acceptable. They'll barely allow Nvidia to acquire anybody at this point, no matter how small. See recent EU response to Run:ai. Intel would be considered 100x worse.

Why would China and the EU have input on a US merger?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#137

Post by gpapilion »

physicsguy wrote: post #119
cogman10 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They weren’t interested in creating an open solution. Both intel and AMD have been somewhat short sighted and looked to recreate their own cuda, and the mistrust of each other has prevented them from a solution for both of them.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#138

Post by Cumpiler69 »

A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote: post #129
Cumpiler69 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

I think you may be either misinterpreting my post or misunderstanding the sequence of events. What do you think has happened so far? Your mental model of the world may help me understanding the point you are trying to make.

I'm saying nobody can guarantee the claim of the GP I've replied to, that if Intel would have produced mediocre GPUs with 64+ GB of RAM that would have magically help them rise to the top of ML HW sales and save them.

That's just speculations from people online. I don't see any wisdom in that like you do, all I see is just a guessing game from people who think they know an industry when they don't (armchair experts to put it politely).

What made Nvidia dominant was not weak GPUs with a lot of RAM. The puzzle of their success had way more pieces that made the whole package appealing over many years, and a great timing of the market also helped. Intel making underperforming GPUs with a lot of RAM would not guarantee the same outcome at a later time in the market with an already entrenched Nvidia and a completely different landscape.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#139

Post by KeplerBoy »

etempleton wrote: post #111
KeplerBoy wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are also options like Texas Instruments or Microchip. Of course far more unlikely than either nvidia or amd, but definitely options.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#140

Post by MPSimmons »

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…

>the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD

Oh man, the risk in that is extreme. We are moving away from x86 in general, but wow, that's... a big jump in risk.

Post reply on HN