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

271–280 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#271

Post by quotemstr »

cogman10 wrote: post #114
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…

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.

There are already packages that let people run CUDA programs unmodified on other GPUs: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40970560

For whatever reason, people just delete these tools from their minds, then claim Nvidia still has a monopoly on CUDA.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#273

Post by layer8 »

hedora wrote: post #234
menaerus wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

For PC’s that can’t be right. For overall consumer, Windows is at 25.75%, Linux is 1.43% and MacOS is at 5.53%. Ignoring ChromeOS, and assuming 100% of windows and linux is x86 (decreasingly true - the only win11 I’ve ever seen is an arm VM on my mac) and 100% of Mac is arm (it will be moving forward), that puts arm at 20% of the PC market. Interpolation from your numbers puts intel at 64% (with a ceiling of 80% of P…

There is a common usage of “PC” that excludes Macs, Chromebooks, and the like. It means the x86-based PC platform descendant from IBM PC compatibles, with BIOS and all.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#274

Post by hedora »

KETHERCORTEX wrote: post #197
KeplerBoy wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And everyone would rush to migrate away from x86. Having a sole supplier for CPUs is a bad strategy.

Yet everyone is okay with a de-facto single supplier of CUDA capable AI GPUs.

This is only true if “everyone” excludes all of the hyperscalers and the client device manufacturers.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#275

Post by centiromi »

Does Nvidia use Intel foundry? No.

Does Apple use Intel foundry? No.

The two largest fabless companies in the world never used, and have no plans to use Intel foundries.

"Intel foundry" as a service is a fiction, and will remain so. Intel can't get others to use their weird custom software tooling.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#276

Post by etempleton »

esskay wrote: post #149
etempleton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other US companies are equipped and interested in running a giant chip design/fab? NVIDIA and AMD are likely the only two candidates.

I do not at all think it will happen, nor does it make any sense at all but the rumours of Apple seemingly being interested in buying out Intel dont seem to be going away. I can see them wanting certain parts of the business (GPU mainly) but on a whole it doesn't make a lot of sense. I don't see Intel as a single entity being valuable to any US business really. You're essentially buying last years fall line, theres v…

Apple is interesting. They certainly have the money and I think the idea of fabricating their own chips appeals to Apple, but at then end of the day I don't really think it makes sense. Apple won't want to fab for others or design chips for others.

The only way it happens is if it is kept separate kind of like the Beats acquisition. Apple lends some chip designs to Intel and Apple starts fabricating their chips on Intel fabs, but otherwise the companies operate independently.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#277

Post by RandyOrion »

From a customer's perspective: NO, I don't like the BIG-little core architecture of CPUs on desktop platforms, and I don't enjoy the quality issues of the 13-14th gen CPUs; I also don't like the lack of software support for middling performing GPUs. I used to like intel's SSD, but the division was sold.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#278

Post by moh_maya »

mrweasel wrote: post #125
highwaylights wrote: post #45

The market seems to think this is great news. I disagree strongly here, but I can see why traders and potentially the board thought this was the right move. A lot of hate for Pat Gelsinger on Reddit and YouTube from armchair experts who don't really grasp the situation Intel were in or what was needed to turn the ship around, so if he was pushed it seems like it might be to pacify the (not particularly informed) YouT…

The market isn't really the greatest indicator of anything. Gelsinger has spend three years trying to turn Intel around and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel. It will be at least another three years before we see any results. The market doesn't have a three year patience, three months maybe. I hold no opinion on Pat Gelsinger, but changing the CEO in the middle of ensuring that Intel remains relevant…

IIRC, Lisa Su and her team took nearly decade to orchestrate the turn-around at AMD, and they are still a distant second player in GPUs. Expecting Pat Gelsinger to turn around Intel (or any company in an industry with such long development and tech lead times), and replacing him in 3 years - given that he is an engineer with extensive domain and leadership experience - seems - reactive, as opposed to thoughtful and directed.

Wonder if they will approach Lisa Su to take the job now :D

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#279

Post by kgeist »

Wytwwww wrote: post #245
dralley wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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...

Russia is reliable when it comes to software engineering. I've met a few guys from Intel Russia, bright folks. The politics, though...

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#280

Post by mort96 »

Wytwwww wrote: post #269
mort96 wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the "x86 monopoly" was meant to refere to how only Intel and AMD are legally allowed to make x86 chips due to patents. X86 is currently a duopoly, and if Intel and AMD were to merge, that would become a monopoly.

Didn't AMD start making x86 chips in 1982?

That seems correct from some quick Wikipedia reading, but I don't understand what it has to do with anything?
Post reply on HN