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

411–420 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#411

Post by nxobject »

cedws wrote: post #402
kjellsbells wrote: post #78

Sad to see Gelsinger go, but despite the churn, I don't think Intel is doomed. At worst, per their most recent Q3 results, I see $150Bn in assets and $4Bn in outstanding stock, and I see the US Gov (both incoming and outgoing) gearing up for a long war against China where Intel would be an asset of national importance. My back of envelope calculation says Intel should be about $35 a share (150/4). If they stumble whe…

Interested in your opinion, since TSMC has fabs in the US now, are Intel still relevant even in the context of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

I imagine it takes a lot behind the scenes - especially priceless professional experience concentrated at HQ - to know how to set up new sites, set the future direction at all levels of the organization/timeframes, etc. etc. etc. What happens to the fabs long-term if leadership from Taiwan is decapitated?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#413

Post by michaelt »

tadfisher wrote: post #374
layer8 wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

X86 is more than just the ISA. What’s at stake is the relatively open PC architecture and hardware ecosystem. It was a fluke of history that made it happen, and it would be sad to lose it.

PCI-e is the culmination of that ecosystem, and like PCI before it, is available on all architectures to anyone who pays PCI-SIG.

PCIe is great, yes.

Sadly with the rise of laptops with soldered-in-everything, and the popularity of android/iphone/tablet devices, I share some of layer8's worries about the future of the relatively open PC architecture and hardware ecosystem.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#414

Post by bluGill »

kllrnohj wrote: post #384
dagmx wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The terms of that license was specific to what they can do. ARM is claiming it doesn't cover some of the things they are doing.

I'm not enough of a lawyer to figure out who is right.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#415

Post by steveBK123 »

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…

One argument I've hard in favor of the split is this: If you are AMD/NVDA/other top player, do you want to send your IP to an Intel owned fab for production?

At least in theory, a fully independent, split/spun out standalone fab removes this concern.

That said - what does Intel have to offer the top players here? Their fabs are being state of the art. And what's the standalone value of post-spin fabless Intel if their chip designs are as behind as their fabs?

This certainly presents a conundrum for US policy since we need fabs domestically for national security reasons, but the domestically owned ones are behind.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#416

Post by bee_rider »

tpm wrote: post #144
bee_rider wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another nice thing—it looked like Intel was lagging AMD in PCIe lane counts, until somewhat recently. I suspect selling GPUs has put them in the headspace of thinking of PCIe lanes as a real figure of merit.

AMD AM5 are also not great at having enough PCIe lanes, hence at most one connected PCIe5 x16 GPU, if you need more it's x8 for 2 GPUs and so on, and that's before we connect fast M2 storage, fast USB4 slots etc. If you need more PCIe lanes, you have to buy a Threadripper or Epyc and that's easily 10 times the price for the whole system.

Yeah. Theadripper/Epyc is what I’m thinking of—it isn’t obvious (to me at least) if it was just a coincidence of the chiplet strategy or what, if so it is an odd coincidence. The company that makes both CPUs and GPUs has ended up with data center CPUs that are a great match for the era where we really want data center CPUs that can host a ton of GPUs, haha.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#417

Post by noahbp »

cedws wrote: post #402
kjellsbells wrote: post #78

Sad to see Gelsinger go, but despite the churn, I don't think Intel is doomed. At worst, per their most recent Q3 results, I see $150Bn in assets and $4Bn in outstanding stock, and I see the US Gov (both incoming and outgoing) gearing up for a long war against China where Intel would be an asset of national importance. My back of envelope calculation says Intel should be about $35 a share (150/4). If they stumble whe…

Interested in your opinion, since TSMC has fabs in the US now, are Intel still relevant even in the context of a Chinese invasion of Taiwan?

TSMC's US fabs cannot produce enough to replace all that they produce in Taiwan, nor are the US fabs producing a leading-edge node.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#418

Post by paxys »

The CEO of a public company is a glorified cheerleader. Doing the right things is half the job, convincing people you are doing the right things is the other half. Considering Intel's share price dropped 61% under Gelsinger's tenure, no matter the work he did towards the first half, it's pretty clear he thoroughly failed at the second. They desperately need someone who will drive back investor confidence in the company, and fast.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#419

Post by paxys »

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…

> and the company is only now starting to turn the wheel

How is it starting to turn the wheel?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#420

Post by eYrKEC2 »

readyplayernull wrote: post #262

Break their fabs up, make one of those focus on GPUs, another on NPUs, so FPGAs, and robotics. Some will die some will yield new "Intel's."

TSMC handles AMD chips and NVidia chips. Why do you think Intel needs a special fab _for_ GPUs? It's the same lithography process.
Post reply on HN