Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

Post by 7speter » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 6:44 PM UTC

dv_dt wrote: post #314

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…

If a breakup is in the works for Intel, merger of the foundry side with Global Foundries would make more sense than AMD. Intel's foundries, even in the state they're in would likely be a step up for GF. And given the political sensitiveness, GF already has DoD contracts for producing chips.

Post by wtallis » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

hedora wrote: post #240

Wytwwww wrote: post #216

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.

Post by paulpan » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 6:48 PM UTC

Aromasin wrote: post #112

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…

Agreed. My career at Intel coincided with Pat's, although I jumped ship a little earlier. Admittedly this means I probably have a little bias, but based on my hundreds of conversations with Intel vets I do think his business strategy was the right decision. He came on board a company years behind on process, packaging, and architecture technology after years of mismanagement by a largely nontechnical staff, which fav…

Post by 7speter » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 6:51 PM UTC

paulpan wrote: post #242

mnau wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He failed on GPU. The product was substandard. That means either he knew and allowed it to happen, which is bad, or he didn't know and allowed GPU division to squander the resources, which is even worse. Either way, it was an adventure Intel couldn't afford. There is a similar story in other areas.

Disagree on "failed on GPU" as it depends on the goal. Sure Intel GPUs are inferior to both Nvidia and AMD flagship offerings, but they're competitive at a price-to-performance ratio. I'd argue for a 1st gen product, it was quite successful at opening up the market and enabling for cross-selling opportunities with its CPUs. That all said, I suspect the original intent was to fabricate the GPUs on IFS instead of TSMC…

Post by nine_k » Mon, Dec 02, 2024, 6:52 PM UTC

paxys wrote: post #418

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 compa…