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

381–390 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#381

Post by bluGill »

burnte wrote: post #207
xbar wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to address the aside for completeness' sake. An x86 monopoly in the late 80s was a thing, but not now. Today, there are sufficient competitive chip architectures with cross-compatible operating systems and virtualization that x86 does not represent control of the computing market in a manner that should prevent such a merger: ARM licensees, including the special case of Apple Silicon, Snapdragon, NVIDIA SOCs…

> An x86 monopoly in the late 80s was a thing, but not now. Incorrect, we have an even greater lack of x86 vendors now than we did in the 80s. In the 80s you had Intel, and they licensed to AMD, Harris, NEC, TI, Chips & Technologies, and in the 90s we had IBM, Cyrix, VIA, National Semi, NexGen, and for a hot minute Transmeta. Even more smaller vendors. Today making mass market x86 chips we have: Intel, AMD, and a han…

I believe in the 80s all those vendors were making the same intel design in their own fab. I don't think any of them did the design on their own. In the 90s some of them had their own designs.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#382

Post by gdwatson »

etempleton wrote: post #228
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.

People miss this. A lot of people will only buy Intel. Businesses and IT departments rarely buy AMD, not just out of brand loyalty, but because of the software and hardware features Intel deploys that are catered to the business market.

This is in large part an OEM issue. Dell or HP will definitely have an Intel version of the machine you are looking for, but AMD versions are hit and miss.

I think this is partly because big OEMs doubt (used to doubt?) AMD’s ability to consistently deliver product in the kind of volume they need. Partly it’s because of Intel’s historically anticompetitive business practices.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#383

Post by [deleted] »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #380
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…

> I think the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD I think a merger with Nvidia would be more likely given the antitrust issues that a merger with AMD would bring up.

[deleted]

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#384

Post by kllrnohj »

dagmx wrote: post #335
rwmj wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The optics can still be terrible. Qualcomm (or more accurately, Nuvia, the company they acquired) produced some stunning chips with almost unheard of battery life for a laptop, and Arm are suing them to use their own inferior designs. They even tried to have end user laptops recalled and destroyed! There's no world where this looks good for Arm.

There’s a very clear bias and idolization in this comment of yours which is based on a misunderstanding of the case at hand. ARM aren’t trying to force Qualcomm to use ARMs cores. They’re trying to force them to update the licensing royalties to make up for the (as ARM sees it) licensing term violations of Nuvia who had a design license for specific use cases. The part you reference (using ARM designs) is the fallbac…

Qualcomm already had a design license prior to the acquisition of Nuvia. They were doing custom cores back in the original Kryo days which were an in-house custom ARMv8.0-A design.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#386

Post by bluGill »

Wytwwww wrote: post #328
mort96 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, but xbar's interpretation of the phrase "x86 monopoly" is clearly the x86 architecture having a monopoly in the instruction set market. Under that interpretation, I don't really think it's relevant how many companies made x86 chips. I don't think xbar is necessarily wrong, I just think they're interpreting words to mean something they weren't intended so they're not making an effective argument

Did x86 have a monopoly in the 80s to begin with? If there is any period when that was true it would be the 2000s or early 2010s. > intended so they're not making an effective argument To be fair I'm really struggling to somehow connect the "x86 monopoly in the late 80s" with the remainder of their comment (which certainly makes sense).

x86 didn't have a monopoly, but IBM PC clones were clearly what everyone was talking about and there the monopoly existed. There are lots of different also ran processors, some with good market share in some niche, but overall x86 was clearly on the volume winners track by 1985.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#387

Post by jpadkins »

mnau wrote: post #220
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.

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.

CEO stands for Chief Executive Officer.

a chief executive officer, the highest-ranking person in a company or other institution, ultimately responsible for making managerial decisions.

Maybe you mean COO?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#388

Post by [deleted] »

J_Shelby_J wrote: post #317
pbalcer wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclaimer: I work on this stuff for Intel At least for Intel, that is just not true. Intel's DPC++ is as open as it gets. It implements a Khronos standard (SYCL), most of the development is happening in public on GitHub, it's permissively licensed, it has a viable backend infrastructure (with implementations for both CUDA and HIP). There's also now a UXL foundation with the goal of creating an "open standard acceler…

Neat. Now release 48gb GPUs to the hobbyist devs and we’ll use intel for LLMs!

[deleted]

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#389

Post by orenlindsey »

hedora wrote: post #213
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.

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…

Remember, most people don't care as much as you or I. If they're going to buy a laptop to do taxes or web browsing or something, they will probably be mentally biased towards an Intel-based chip. Because it's been marketed for so long, AMD comparatively seems like a super new brand.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#390

Post by B1FF_PSUVM »

baq wrote: post #370
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…

let's not pretend BK did any good for the company though, you sound like he did an ok job

I had forgotten who "BK" was , so I dove into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel

"On May 2, 2013, Executive Vice President and COO Brian Krzanich was elected as Intel's sixth CEO [...]"

The next paragraph is ominous ...

'As of May 2013, Intel's board of directors consists of Andy Bryant, John Donahoe, Frank Yeary, Ambassador Charlene Barshefsky, Susan Decker, Reed Hundt, Paul Otellini, James Plummer, David Pottruck, and David Yoffie and Creative director will.i.am. The board was described by former Financial Times journalist Tom Foremski as "an exemplary example of corporate governance of the highest order" and received a rating of ten from GovernanceMetrics International, a form of recognition that has only been awarded to twenty-one other corporate boards worldwide.'

Post reply on HN