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

161–170 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#161

Post by JonChesterfield »

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…

Hell no, I don't want the Intel management structures coming over here. Qualcomm is welcome to them.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#164

Post by KETHERCORTEX »

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…

> If A-tel (Amd-inTEL) can not sell to the EU the merger will not happen.

What the EU gonna do then? Stop buying computers? Perform rapid continental ARM transition for mythical amount of money?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#165

Post by JonChesterfield »

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.

Apple is the obvious one. Essentially the only place with both the capital to do it and the extreme vertical integration enthusiasm. AMD hopefully still remembers running a fab.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#166

Post by tokioyoyo »

bluGill wrote: post #81
mepian wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They’ll need to dump a lot more money than $8B to Intel to compete in all fronts of manufacturing with China, and focus on it for a decade. Those time horizons are politically impossible, since next elections are less than 4 years away. That being said, competition is good.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#167

Post by Cumpiler69 »

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?

Because Intel, AMD, etc have offices in EU and China, for sales, distribution and also R&D. If you intend to operate in those markets you need to comply with local regulations.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#168

Post by mnau »

paulpan wrote: post #148
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.

Agree with OP that Intel was probably too deep into its downward spiral. While it seems Pat tried to make changes, including expanding into GPUs, it either wasn't enough or too much for the Intel board. Splitting Intel is necessary but probably infeasible at this point in the game. Simple fact is that Intel Foundry Services has nothing to offer against the likes of TSMC and Samsung - perhaps only cheaper prices and e…

He failed on GPU. The product was substandard.

That means either he knew and allowed it to happen, which is bad, or he didn't know and allowed GPU division to squander the resources, which is even worse. Either way, it was an adventure Intel couldn't afford.

There is a similar story in other areas.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#169

Post by adra »

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?

The same reason as anything else. If the merger goes ahead with opposition from foreign markets, those markets can impose import tariffs or outright bans. Smaller markets may be ones these combined companies are willing to piss off, but not Europe. Their opposition is defacto a deal killer.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#170

Post by Octoth0rpe »

xbar wrote: post #153
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…

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…

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

I think you're off by 20 years on this. In the 80s and early 90s we had reasonable competition from 68k, powerpc, and arm on desktops; and tons of competition in the server space (mips, sparc, power, alpha, pa-risc, edit: and vax!). It wasn't till the early 2000s that both the desktop/server space coalesced around x86.

Post reply on HN