Live data from Hacker News

Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

intel.com

281–290 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#281

Here are 2 things I have noticed that seem obvious weaknesses: 1. Looking at the CyberMonday and BlackFriday deals, I see that the 12900K and 14900* series CPUs are what is being offered on the Intel side. Meanwhile AMD has released newer chips. So Intel has issues with either yield, pricing or other barriers to adoption of their latest. 2. The ARC GPUs are way behind; it seems obvious to me that a way to increase us…

For that to work, they need a software stack to compete with CUDA.

Nvidia is so far ahead that a single manufacturer won’t be able to compete for developers. Instead, the only chance the rest of the AI GPU market has is to build some portable open source thing and use it to gang up on Nvidia.

That means bigger GPU players (AMD, hyperscalers) will need to be involved.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#283

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.

They were just rebranded micron ssd’s the last time I checked.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#284
post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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).

Market share is often measured in install base.

Of a market that is dying between two growing at the edges. Mobile and server clear trump personal compute. This the markets devaluing intel.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#285

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…

True, it is just speculation. 'Any' seems to be a strong qualifier. One of the reasons I troll landscape of HN is that some of the thoughts and recommendations expressed here ended up being useful in my life. One still has to apply reason and common sense, but I would not dream of saying it has no ( any ) wisdom.

I assume you mean: 'not in isolation'. If so, that statement is true. AMD cards at the very least had parity with nvidia, so it clearly wasn't just a question of ram.

I will be honest. I am biased against nvidia so take the next paragraph for the hate speech that it is.

Nvidia got lucky. CUDA was a big bet that paid off first on crypto and now on ai. Now, we can argue how much of that bet was luck meets preparation, because the bet itself was admittedly a well educated guess.

To your point, without those two waves, nvidia would still likely be battling amd in incremental improvements so the great market timing accounts for majority of its success. I will go as far as to say that we would likely not see a rush to buy 'a100s' and 'AI accellerators' with exception of very niche applications.

Underperforming may be the key word here and it is a very broad brush. In what sense are they underperforming and which segment are they intended for? As for ram, it would be kinda silly in current environment to put a new card out with 8gb; I think we can agree on that at least.

True, but it is true for just about every aspect of life so as statements go, so it is virtually meaningless as an argument. Best one can do is argue possibilities based on what we do know about the world and the models it tends to follow.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#286
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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?

That would be a healthy, balanced and long-term-oriented approach. But those who get to the level of CEO are subjected to intense forces that select against those traits. 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.

> any C-level exec will hold on to the position for dear life until they are forced out

I don't know. Frank Slootman's retirement from Snowflake earlier this year was certainly not celebrated by any significant stakeholders. I'd imagine at some point someone like Frank realizes that they are worth more than Tim Cook, they consider that they're in their mid-60s, and they decide the remaining time they have on earth might be better spent in other ways.

Every person in the workforce, no matter how ambitious or how senior, is forced into the calculus of money and power vs. good years remaining. I expect the rational ones will select the balance point for themselves.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#287

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?

I think Apple Silicon has shown us that x86 doesn't have the monopoly potential it once had.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was only just today looking for low-power x86 machines to run FreePBX, which does not yet have an ARM64 port. Whilst the consumer computing space is now perfectly served by ARM and will soon be joined by RISC-V, if a widely-used piece of free and open source server software is still x86-only, you can bet that there are thousands of bespoke business solutions that are locked to the ISA. A monopoly would hasten migra…

The fact that C++ development has been effectively hijacked by the "no ABI breakage, ever"/backwards compatibility at all costs crowd certainly speaks to this. https://herecomesthemoon.net/2024/11/two-factions-of-cpp/ There are a lot of pre-compiled binaries floating about that are depended on by lots of enterprise software whose source code is long gone, and these are effectively locked to x86_64 chips until the cos…

They had ABI breakage when C++11 support was implemented in GCC 5 and that was extremely painful. Honestly, I still wish that they had avoided it.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#289

Here are 2 things I have noticed that seem obvious weaknesses: 1. Looking at the CyberMonday and BlackFriday deals, I see that the 12900K and 14900* series CPUs are what is being offered on the Intel side. Meanwhile AMD has released newer chips. So Intel has issues with either yield, pricing or other barriers to adoption of their latest. 2. The ARC GPUs are way behind; it seems obvious to me that a way to increase us…

> pricing or other barriers to adoption of their latest.

They are just not very good? There is basically no point in buying the current gen equivalent 14900K with current pricing (the only real advantage is lower power usage).

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#290
A few years, Pat said Intel had internally rebuilt their "Grovian execution Engine". I found those words empty, a far cry from Andy Grove's hard decision to dump memory in favor of microprocessors. Andy Grove's decisions made Intel, Intel, not "execution".

It's unfortunate the situation is beyond almost anyone's grasp but I wonder if Pat should have talked less, and done more.

Post reply on HN