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

341–350 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#341

Post by jpalawaga »

mastax wrote: post #311
Wytwwww wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Intel needed to be split in two as well Wouldn't that just pretty much guarantee that the foundry business would fail since Intel wouldn't have any incentives to shift most of their manufacturing to TSMC? The same thing happened with AMD/Global Foundries..

AMD has a big wafer supply agreement with GlobalFoundries, and has since the spinoff. It was exclusive until the seventh WSA in 2019 which allowed AMD to purchase 7nm and beyond from other suppliers (without paying penalties) which was the only reasonable resolution after GloFo cancelled their 7nm fab (which may have been the best thing to happen to AMD). But AMD increased their GloFo orders in May and December 2021…

right. so glofo couldn't keep up abandoned the bleeding edge. what's the evidence that intel foundaries, divorced from design, wouldn't suffer the same fate?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#342

Post by windexh8er »

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…

Nope.

Look at what Pat did to VMware. He's doing the exact same thing at Intel. He came in, muddied the waters by hiring way too many people to do way too many things and none of them got done appropriately. Pat is a huge part of the problem.

I had the unfortunate pleasure of watching him not understand, at all, VMware's core competency. It was a nightmare of misunderstanding and waste in that company under his leadership.

Intel turned into even more of a laughing stock under Gelsinger. I say: good riddance. He burned time, capital and people at both VMware and Intel. He's a cancer as a CEO.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#343

Post by bluGill »

tokioyoyo wrote: post #166
bluGill wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a number of things they are doing other than direct money. Buy American acts, sanctions (and other taxes/deductions). Even the threat to do something that isn't done is a powerful tool.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#345

Post by bcantrill »

I am amazed -- stunned -- how many people here seem to think that Gelsinger was the right person for the job, but wronged by the people who pre-dated him (BK?!) or the CHIPS act (?!) or other conditions somehow out of his control.

Gelsinger was -- emphatically -- the wrong person for the job: someone who had been at Intel during its glory days and who obviously believed in his heart that he -- and he alone! -- could return the company to its past. That people fed into this messianic complex by viewing him as "the return of the engineer" was further problematic. To be clear: when Gelsinger arrived in 2021, the company was in deep crisis. It needed a leader who could restore it to technical leadership, but could do so by making some tough changes (namely, the immediate elimination of the dividend and a very significant reduction in head count). In contrast, what Gelsinger did was the worst of all paths: allowed for a dividend to be paid out for far (FAR!) too long and never got into into really cutting the middle management undergrowth. Worst of all, things that WERE innovative at Intel (e.g., Tofino) were sloppily killed, destroying the trust that Intel desperately needs if it is to survive.

No one should count Intel out (AMD's resurrection shows what's possible here!), but Intel under Gelsinger was an unmitigated disaster -- and a predictable one.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#346

Post by ar_lan »

jhickok wrote: post #204
guardian5x wrote: post #157

[flagged]

I would be surprised if he made any official decisions based on his faith.

It’s odd to me someone would come in here and blame his Christianity over every other problem Intel has had before and during his tenure.

Edit: Ah, not their first time. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40704262

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#347

Post by epolanski »

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…

> The moat of the two companies together would give the new combined company plenty of time to ramp up their fabs.

Doubt.

Neither of the companies is particularly competitive on either processor or GPU architecture nor fabrication.

A merger of those entities looks like nothing but a recipe for further x86 stagnation and an even quicker death for the entities involved imho.

In particular I cannot see what's good in it for AMD. The fabs have no use/clear path forward. Their processors/gpu either match our outmatch the Intel offering.

A Broadcom/Apple takeover of Intel sounds much more reasonable.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#348

Post by nunez »

bcantrill wrote: post #345

I am amazed -- stunned -- how many people here seem to think that Gelsinger was the right person for the job, but wronged by the people who pre-dated him (BK?!) or the CHIPS act (?!) or other conditions somehow out of his control. Gelsinger was -- emphatically -- the wrong person for the job: someone who had been at Intel during its glory days and who obviously believed in his heart that he -- and he alone! -- could…

Interestingly, people were bullish about Gelsinger at VMware too. Many still talk about the glory days with him at the helm despite decisions that IMO significantly harmed the company

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#349

Post by fancyfredbot »

riskable wrote: post #231
fancyfredbot wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't divesting from discrete GPUs. The Battlemage launch is tomorrow.

Gelsinger doesn't think there will be any demand at all for GPUs in the near future! > "Gelsinger said the market will have less demand for dedicated graphics cards in the future." From: https://www.techspot.com/news/105407-intel-not-repeat-lunar-... He may have been talking about something like, "all GPU stuff will just be integrated into the CPU" but I highly doubt that's realistic. Nvidia's latest chip die size is…

He said less demand. He didn't say there would be no demand. Importantly he didn't say intel was divesting discrete GPUs. Perhaps even more importantly they demonstrably aren't divesting.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#350

Post by equestria »

dzdt wrote: post #325
quotemstr wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And which of these have the level of support that would let a company put a multi-million dollar project on top of?

We have trillions of dollars riding on one-person open-source projects. This is not the barrier for "serious businesses" that it used to be.
Post reply on HN