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

531–540 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#531

Post by rvba »

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #62
Workaccount2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local transformer leader. It's a true "build it and they will come" situation. Undercut the big boys with affordable on-prem AI.

>Intel just has to make a decent/mediocre GPU with 64GB+ memory at a $500 price point and they will instantly become the defacto local LLM leader Intel should have appointed people form the HN comment section as their CEO, as they clearly know more about running a giant chip design and fabrication company than the guy who worked there for 10+ years.

Many people here are very knowledgeable: they have Putnams, they are CEOs smurfing, run 300 people teams, made some software that all know (e.g. we have the Diablo 2 guy), people from hardare side, VCs..

Some are probably multi millionaires smurfing (and I dont mean cryptobros).

Do you even have a Putnam award?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#532

Post by hintymad »

alephnerd wrote: post #484
hintymad wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The CEO of a public company is a glorified cheerleader. I find this view limited. If we look at the most successful tech CEOs, they all personally drove the direction of products. Steve Jobs is an obvious example. Elon pushes the products of his companies so much that he even became a fellow of the National Academy of Engineering. Jeff Bezos was widely credited as the uber product manager in Amazon. Andrew Grove pu…

0-to-1-ing a company is different muscle from managing an established company. Revenue expectations, margins expectations, and investors are entirely different between the two. This is why most founder CEOs tend to either get booted out or choose to keep their companies private as long as possible.

Given the average shelf life of S&P companies, I assume that even an established company needs to go through 0-to-1 all the time. The aforementioned companies all reinvented themselves multiple times.

> Revenue expectations, margins expectations, and investors are entirely different between the two.

Yeah, it's hard. How the great CEOs achieve their successes are beyond me. I was just thinking that a great CEO needs to drive product changes.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#533

Post by rwmj »

klelatti wrote: post #501
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.

Hypothetically, if Qualcomm have broken their Arm licenses in a way that damages Arm’s business do you think Arm are supposed to just let them carry on? Should Arm say ‘legal action won’t look good so we’ll just let it pass’? And the fact that Qualcomm got just about everyone to endorse the acquisition ahead of announcing it but didn’t even tell Arm is a bit of a tell.

Arm's major competition is RISC-V. Qualcomm engineers have been joining the important RISC-V committees recently. If Arm beats Qualcomm in the courts, Qualcomm will switch to RISC-V, and then Arm will have won the battle but lost the war.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#534

Post by sitkack »

xxpor wrote: post #463
sitkack wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could see Broadcom picking up x86.

This is great "write a horror story in 7 words" content.

Ok, I'd like to pitch a Treehouse of Horror episode.

Part 1, combine branch predictor with the instruction trace cache to be able to detect workloads, have specific licenses for say Renderman, Oracle or CFD software.

Part 2, add a mesh network directly to the CPU, require time based signing keys to operate. Maybe every chip just has starlink included.

Part 3, In an BWM rent your seats move, the base CPU is just barely able to boot the OS, specific features can be unlocked with signed payloads. Using Shamir secrets so that Broadcom AND the cloud provider are both required for signing the feature request. One can rent AVX512, more last level cache, ECC, overclocking, underclocking.

The nice part about including radios in the CPUs directly means that updates can be applied without network connectivity and you can geofence your feature keys.

This last part we can petition the government to require as the grounds of being able to produce EAR regulated CPUs globally.

I think I'll just sell these patents to Myhrvold.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#535

Post by wyldfire »

gpapilion wrote: post #137
physicsguy wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't get a CUDA killer without the software infrastructure. Intel finally seem to have got their act together a bit with OneAPI but they've languished for years in this area.

They weren’t interested in creating an open solution. Both intel and AMD have been somewhat short sighted and looked to recreate their own cuda, and the mistrust of each other has prevented them from a solution for both of them.

OpenCL was born as a cuda-alike that could be apply to GPUs from AMD and NVIDIA, and general purpose CPUs. NVIDIA briefly embraced it (in order to woo Apple?) and then just about abandoned it to focus more on cuda. NVIDIA abandoning OpenCL meant that it just didn't thrive. Intel and AMD both embraced OpenCL. Though admittedly I don't know the more recent history of OpenCL.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#536

Post by jamesy0ung »

hn3er1q wrote: post #468
michaelt wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

On the one hand I do get the concern, on the other there’s never been a better time to be a hardware hacker. Cheap microcontrollers abound, raspberry pi etc, cheap fpgas, one can even make their own asic. So I just can’t get that worked up over pc architectures getting closed.

You can't really build a PC with parts other than x86. The only other platform you can really build from parts is Arm, with the high end Ampere server chips. Most other platforms are usually pretty highly integrated, you can't just swap parts or work on it.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#537

Post by mnau »

gondo wrote: post #479
alecco wrote: post #430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue there were many good things but not well delivered. The Optane persistent memory should've been revolutionary for databases but Intel just put it out and expected people to do all the software. I'm seeing the same thing now with Intel QAT / IAA / DSA. Only niche software support. Only AWS seems to have it and those "bare metal" machines don't even have local NVMe. About 10 years ago Intel Research was p…

> Nvidia and their amazing software stack and support for their hardware. Linus seems to disagree https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tQIdxbWhHSM

His comment has nothing to do with quality of software or quality of support, but is about dealing with NVidia. Trying to work with NVidia (as a hardware manufacturer) must have been frustrating, but that has nothing to do with quality of the software.

The video is 12 years old. A lot changed in the meantime.

AMD has open source drivers and crashes often. NVidia has (or more precisely had) closed source drivers that nearly always work.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#538

Post by Hilift »

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 Arizona 4 nm fabs are a contingency. TSMC received $6+ billion in the CHIPS and Science Act, and the fab opening is delayed until 2025 due to they don't have the local talent yet.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#539

Post by AdrianB1 »

tasuki wrote: post #493
PaulHoule wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel GFX held back the industry 10 years. If people thought Windows Vista sucked it was because Intel "supported" it by releasing integrated GPUs which could almost handle Windows Vista but not quite. The best they could do with the GFX business is a public execution. We've been hearing about terrible Intel GFX for 15 years and how they are just on the cusp of making one that is bad (not terrible). Most people who'v…

> If people thought Windows Vista sucked it was because Intel "supported" it by releasing integrated GPUs which could almost handle Windows Vista but not quite. What does an OS need a GPU for? My current laptop only has integrated Intel GPU. I'm not missing Nvidia, with its proprietary drivers, high power consumption, and corresponding extra heat and shorter battery life...

If I recall correctly, Vista was hard depending on DirectX 9a for Aero. Intel GPU parts embedded in mobile CPUs were almost, but not fully DX 9a capable, but Intel convinced Microsoft to accept it as "compatible". That created lots of problems to everyone.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#540

Post by bentcorner »

MPSFounder wrote: post #499

I worked for 3 months for Intel. I can genuinely say that there is no saving that company. Recently, they are hiring many PhDs from various US universities (particularly Indians) to try to compensate (they offer generous stocks and are hiring like crazy right now). There are two major problems I saw: lack of genuine interest in fabs (most people are there for the Intel name and then leave or in the case of Indians, t…

> Most of the talent I know is either at Apple or Facebook/Google

A relative of mine with a PhD sounds exactly like this. Worked for Intel on chip-production tech then was hired by Apple about 10 years ago, working on stuff that gets mentioned in Apple keynotes.

Post reply on HN