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

151–160 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#151

Post by alganet »

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…

Sure, let's create a monopoly around one of the most valuable commodities in the world.

What could go wrong?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#152

Post by maeil »

etempleton wrote: post #121
cogman10 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The moat of the two companies together would give the new combined company plenty of time to ramp up their fabs. I'm not convinced of this. Fabs are incredibly expensive businesses. Intel has failed to keep up and AMD spun off their fabs to use TSMC. There is also ARM knocking at the door for general computing. It's already gaining traction in previously x86 dominated markets. The model for US based fabbing has to…

They would have at least 5 years to figure it out before ARM becomes viable on desktop assuming there continues to be movement in that direction. There is so little incentive to move away from x86 right now. The latest Intel mobile processors address the efficiency issues and prove that x86 can be efficient enough for laptops. IT departments are not going to stop buying x86 processors until they absolutely are forced…

> IT departments are not going to stop buying x86 processors until they absolutely are forced to.

Plenty of them are buying Macbooks. It's definitely a small percentage of the worldwide market, but not entirely insignificant either.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#153

Post by xbar »

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…

I'd like to address the aside for completeness' sake.

An x86 monopoly in the late 80s was a thing, but not now.

Today, there are sufficient competitive chip architectures with cross-compatible operating systems and virtualization that x86 does not represent control of the computing market in a manner that should prevent such a merger: ARM licensees, including the special case of Apple Silicon, Snapdragon, NVIDIA SOCs, RISC-V...

Windows, MacOS and Linux all run competitively on multiple non-x86 architectures.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#154

Post by everfrustrated »

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #128
brokencode wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 visi…

>they could have a line of ARM CPUs now to compete with the onslaught in all major CPU markets. Disagree. Selling ARM chips with high profit margins is tough. There's too much competition from the likes of Samsung, MediaTek and until the US ban, Hi Silicon(Huawei). ARM chips are a race to the bottom in terms of price with a market dominated by companies from Asia. There's no guarantee Intel could have had a competiti…

Intel did have an ARM license at one point. The margins would have never been acceptable to Intel. Annapurna Labs / P. A Semi probably sold to Amazon / Apple respectively for the same reason.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#155

Post by fodkodrasz »

chvid wrote: post #88

Gelsinger 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.

IMO Intel is far more of a strategic asset to allow such short-sighted policy from whatever administration. The upcoming administration surely knows that, and as far as I know Intel has never made strong steps that would alienate the coming administration from them. Also getting it back on its feet is actually inline with the narrative, it is easy to give it such spin, even if some personal differences are at play, this is more important than that.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#156

Post by tokioyoyo »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #101
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.

I actually did email Deepak Patil (head of Intel Graphics division) about this around a year ago, haha. Never did get a response though. It is something that is easy to miss if you are just looking at typical business strategy and finances. A high memory consumer GPU would undercut their server GPUs, which are presumably higher margin intended golden geese. It's easy to see them chasing server markets and "gamers" be…

> It's an extremely powerful position to have every at-home AI geek's setup to be bound to using intel cards

So, incredibly small market share while your competitors already have the first-mover advantage and nailed down the ecosystem? With no data backing it up, I think, graphics cards for local LLM needs is not really on demand. Even for gaming it’s probably more attractive, but then again, that’s not even where the real money is.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#158

Post by tiahura »

FredPret wrote: post #136
adventured wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Do they want to sell pentiums in China or EU?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#159

Post by maeil »

FredPret wrote: post #136
adventured wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

If this is a rhetorical question, just make your point instead.

If not, look up e.g. Microsoft 's purchase of Activision, both US companies.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#160

Post by tiahura »

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…

last few years.

It's pretty much two decades at this point.

Post reply on HN