241–250 of 777 posts
AMD is gaining ground on x86 without the burden of fab, and Apple has demonstrated that desktop ARM is viable. Nvidia is showing the world that GPUs can handle parallel computing better.
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.
Sure Intel GPUs are inferior to both Nvidia and AMD flagship offerings, but they're competitive at a price-to-performance ratio. I'd argue for a 1st gen product, it was quite successful at opening up the market and enabling for cross-selling opportunities with its CPUs.
That all said, I suspect the original intent was to fabricate the GPUs on IFS instead of TSMC in order to soak up idle capacity. But plans changed along the way (for likely performance reasons) and added to the IFS's poor perception.
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…
>I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. He's also 63. Has plenty of money to survive the rest of his life. Has eight grandchildren. There's so much more to life than business. What's to say he doesn't want to simply enjoy life with more connection and community to loved ones around him?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 t…
But since they obviously apply just as well to Intel itself, it is a poor reason to dismiss other’s ideas.
—
> What made Nvidia dominant was not weak GPUs with a lot of RAM.
Intel doesn’t have the luxury of repeating NVidia’s path in GPUs. NVidia didn’t have to compete with an already existing NVidia-like incumbent.
That requires no speculation.
—
Competing with an incumbent via an underserved low end, then moving up market, is called disruption.
It is a very effective strategy since (1) underserved markets may be small but are are immediately profitable, and (2) subsequent upward growth is very hard for the incumbent to defend against. The incumbent would have to lower their margins, and hammer their own market value.
And it would fit with Intel’s need to grow their foundry business from the low end up too.
They should take every low-end underserved market they can find. Those are good cards to play for ambitious startups and comebacks.
And the insane demand for both GPUs and chip making is increasing the number of such markets.
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.
They chose to outsource the development of their core products to a country like Russia to save costs. How was that outside of their control? It's not like it was the most stable or reliable country to do business in even before 2022...
Pretty much missing out on AI completely was and is a problem for Intel.
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…
What's this based on? Surely the proportion of desktops that need to be more powerful than anything Apple is doing on ARM is very small. And surely Apple isn't 5 years ahead?
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…
>I feel like this is a mistake. Pat's strategy is aggressive but what the company needs. He's also 63. Has plenty of money to survive the rest of his life. Has eight grandchildren. There's so much more to life than business. What's to say he doesn't want to simply enjoy life with more connection and community to loved ones around him?
I don’t know much about this guy but it’s reasonable to assume that any C-level exec will hold on to the position for dear life until they are forced out.
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
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For example, could "Intel A" continue to own the foundries, split off "Intel B" as the owner of the product lines, and then do some rebranding shenanigans so that the CPUs are still branded as "Intel"?