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

211–220 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#211

Post by inteligent »

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…

He did not get Larrabee flying but yeah it was after him that intel did not put the effort into what was needed.

Nonetheless his comment on nvidia being lucky was everything than a smart comment.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#212

Post by timschmidt »

mnau wrote: post #168
paulpan wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> He failed on GPU. The product was substandard.

I will never understand this line of reasoning. Why would anyone expect an initial offering to match or best similar offerings from the industry leader? Isn't it understood that leadership requires several revisions to get right?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#213

Post by hedora »

orenlindsey wrote: post #173
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…

A lot of people on this thread are underestimating how much of a hold Intel has on the chips industry. In my experience, Intel is synonymous with computer chip for the average person. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you what AMD does differently, they'd just say they're a knockoff Intel. Technologically, both companies are neck and neck. But for the average person, it's not even close.

Marketing campaigns only go so far. They’ve been riding the “Intel Inside” slogan for 25 years.

In the mean time, AMD/ARM already won phones, table and game consoles.

Server purchasing decisions aren’t made by everyday people. Intel’s roadmap in that space slipped year for year for at least 10 of the last 15 years.

That leaves Intel with the fraction of the non-mac laptop market that’s made up of people that haven’t been paying attention for the last ten years, and don’t ask anyone who has.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#214

Post by csdreamer7 »

KETHERCORTEX wrote: post #164
csdreamer7 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> What the EU gonna do then?

Seize or terminate their patents and copyrights. Issue arrest warrants for criminal evasion. Compulsory licensing of x86 to a European design firm immunized by EU law.

> Perform rapid continental ARM transition

Yes.

Windows is on ARM. Apple is on ARM. AWS and Ampere make decent ARM servers. You have decent x86 user-space compatibility on ARM laptops. That is all users want.

I doubt it will cost 'mythical amounts of money'. Most users use a web browser and an office suite. I doubt they will know a difference for a while.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#215

Post by tonyhart7 »

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…

US government wouldn't let intel down, this is matter of national security (only grown semiconductor fabs left on US soil) and edge of US tech dominance

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#216

Post by Wytwwww »

menaerus wrote: post #206
orenlindsey wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of people on this thread are underestimating how much of a hold Intel has on the chips industry. In my experience, Intel is synonymous with computer chip for the average person. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you what AMD does differently, they'd just say they're a knockoff Intel. Technologically, both companies are neck and neck. But for the average person, it's not even close.

Last report I read it was ~80% (Intel) vs ~20% (AMD) for PC market. And ~75% (Intel) vs ~25% (AMD) for data center servers.

> And ~75% (Intel) vs ~25% (AMD) for data center servers.

IIRC their data center CPU revenue was about even this quarter so this is a bit deceptive (i.e. you can buy 1 large CPU instead of several cheaper ones).

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#217

Post by n144q »

cogman10 wrote: post #145
etempleton wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> There is so little incentive to move away from x86 right now. > IT departments are not going to stop buying x86 processors until they absolutely are forced to. IT departments are buying arm laptops, Apple's. And there is an incentive to switch, cost. If you are in AWS, you can save a pretty penny by adopting graviton processors. Further, the only thing stopping handhelds from being arm machines is poor x86 emulatio…

Looks like your post is talking about two things -- corporate purchased laptops and AWS instances, which are quite different.

About corporate laptops, do you have evidence to show that companies are switching to Macbooks from HP/Dell/ThinkPads?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#218

Post by DebtDeflation »

paulpan wrote: post #178
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…

Certainly feels like preempting news that Intel 18A is delayed. Restoring Intel's foundry lead starting with 18A was central to Pat's vision and he essentially staked his job on it. 18A is supposed to enter production next year but recent rumors is that it's broken.

The original "5 Nodes in 4 Years" roadmap released in mid 2021 had 18A entering production 2H 2024. So it's already "delayed". The updated roadmap has it coming in Q3 2025 but I don't think anyone ever believed that. This after 20A was canceled, Intel 4 is only used for the Compute Tile in Meteor Lake, Intel 3 only ever made it into a couple of server chips, and Intel 7 was just renamed 10nm.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#219

Post by [deleted] »

bhouston wrote: post #172
Cumpiler69 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> 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 Yes, without proprietary technology, margins are slim. But Qualcomm has somewhat succeeded in this area anyhow. I guess they took the ARM base but innovated on top of it in order to command higher margins.

[deleted]

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#220

Post by mnau »

dralley wrote: post #188
mnau wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's worth mentioning that IIRC the team responsible for the Arc GPU drivers was located in Russia, and after the invasion of Ukraine they had to deal with relocating the entire team to the EU and lost several engineers in the process. The drivers were the primary reason for the absolute failure of Arc. Intel deserves a lot of blame but they also got hit by some really shit circumstances outside of their control.

He was CEO. Chief executing officer. It's literally his job to execute, i.e. fix that stuff/ensure it doesn't happen. Get them out of Russia, poach new devs, have a backup team, delay the product (i.e. no HVM until good drivers are in sight). That's literally his job.

This only reinforces my previous point. He had good ideas, but couldn't execute.

Post reply on HN