Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel is dying and we can’t save it

sithsiri.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 268 posts

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#151

Post by AtlasBarfed »

usefulcat wrote: post #88
ChrisIsTaken wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple did poach a few of Intel's better architects and killed Intel's smartphone ambitions. But the damage occured two decades before that. Intel is dying because they should have entered the foundry business in the early 90's. Process was always their forte, they were never good at the CPU architecture design anyway as iAPX/i860/Itanium amply demonstrated. Instead they blew $100B getting into antivirus, network secu…

I'm curious about how Apple "killed Intel's smartphone ambitions"? Otellini on the iPhone: "We ended up not winning it or passing on it, depending on how you want to view it." "At the end of the day, there was a chip that they were interested in that they wanted to pay a certain price for and not a nickel more and that price was below our forecasted cost. I couldn't see it. It wasn't one of these things you can make…

"And in hindsight, the forecasted cost was wrong and the volume was 100x what anyone thought."

And in hindsight, he was a moron, unqualified to lead an engineering company.

When people point to MBAs ruining Intel. Point to that statement.

You could invest in emerging markets.

Or rearrange financial statements deck chairs to hit your stock options and roll your eyes at the nerds.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#152

Post by ahepp »

WanderPanda wrote: post #91
tw04 wrote: post #84

Let's all just come to a common agreement: there's no planet on which the US military allows Intel to die. Period. End of story. Having a US based company with fabrication facilities on US soil is vital to national security and will be for the entirety of my lifetime and likely my grandchildren's lifetime (if I ever have any). For all the bluster of the investors wanting to chop Intel up: they will find a swift and f…

This kind of protectionism will only worsen Intels efficiency and will drain taxpayers pockets. Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government tried to micromanage and horribly failed in the mid/long run?

I don't see micromanagement, I see them getting giant R&D grants and contracts to fulfil US army strategic objectives. A fab owned by US nationals, on US soil, with processes that aren't obsolete.

I think that's an important objective. I'm not sure what other way there is to fulfil it, other than spend even more taxpayer money funding greenfield US chip industry

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#154

Post by PartiallyTyped »

tw04 wrote: post #99
WanderPanda wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This kind of protectionism will only worsen Intels efficiency and will drain taxpayers pockets. Why can’t people learn from all the instances where a government tried to micromanage and horribly failed in the mid/long run?

Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies. It's easy to say "that's dumb" - but what's your alternative? If it includes "just buy CPUs from insert foreign entity " - that's a nonstarter for myriad reasons.

> Who said anything about micromanaging? I simply said the government both won't let Intel fail, and won't let their assets be sold off to foreign companies.

Internal information on stuff we don't know about, especially apropos of ring -1 (or even lower if that's even possible), will never leave US soil.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#155

Post by ahepp »

0xy wrote: post #123
tw04 wrote: post #84

Let's all just come to a common agreement: there's no planet on which the US military allows Intel to die. Period. End of story. Having a US based company with fabrication facilities on US soil is vital to national security and will be for the entirety of my lifetime and likely my grandchildren's lifetime (if I ever have any). For all the bluster of the investors wanting to chop Intel up: they will find a swift and f…

If they're propping Intel up as their last bastion of chip superiority they've already lost. The US knows they need to defend Taiwan with the full weight of their military resources. This means war in the event of an invasion or takeover. If the US loses influence over Taiwan and subsequently TSMC, they've lost. In this phase of global geopolitics, whoever controls the chips has the influence. You can't do anything w…

How important is it, strategically, to have the most advanced process tech? As far as I know, military tech tends to lag commercial significantly.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#157

Post by lightgreen »

Never listen to people who write doomsday predictions on Medium. If they are so smart, they should go buy stock options against the company, they quickly become enormously rich.

Money talks, bullshit walks.

Intel stocks show Intel is doing fine. Which means people who are accountable for their predictions, do not consider Intel dying.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#158

Post by iphorde »

Sucks. Politics created a horrible company. Yay diversity!

You have people in positions that shouldn't be there.

For instance, Ann Kelleher is an idiot. She will not get Intel to 7nm.

Period.

She has the position because she is a woman. When you point out her mistakes, deficiencies, you get fired.

How about hiring a woman that knows what she is doing? Lisa Su seems to know what she is doing.

No. Not Intel. Let's promote solely because she is a woman, then spend every 6 weeks celebrating her promotion, the diversity, and how woke we are.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#159

Post by Decade »

Nacdor wrote: post #54

Does AMD really dominate the gaming market? I was still under the impression that AMD is what you buy when you're on a budget and Intel is what you get if you care about gaming performance. I just did a quick search and it looks like most people are still saying single core performance is better on Intel chips?

In addition, NVIDIA is the GPU to get for gaming, not AMD. NVIDIA and AMD trade blows in terms of price for performance throughout the product range, but there are no scenarios where the fastest AMD is decidedly faster than the fastest NVIDIA, and there are many scenarios where the NVIDIA is faster than the AMD. The NVIDIA software is also possibly less aggravating than the AMD software (for Windows games, not necessarily Linux games). If you want to video-stream your game, then NVIDIA beats AMD silly.

But for casuals, the PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One series, and Xbox Series X all use AMD APUs.

Re: Intel is dying and we can’t save it

#160

Post by Decade »

coliveira wrote: post #113
dathinab wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how dependent high end computing is on TSMC (Amd, Apple, Nvidea, + more) it's quite unlikely to be a viable strategy. But given how messed up & fragmented the EU military is if the US stops military support for Taiwan china will likely directly declare War and Attack. (To be precise there is no EU military, just that of all members which makes it fragmented and in many cases is their military isn't in the best…

> china will likely directly declare War and Attack. This is the American dream. But no, China is not that stupid. Sure, they want Taiwan back, but they will not declare war and create global instability right in their backyard. Only stupid people would do this, and the Chinese are not stupid. They are in a marathon. They see the goal in 30, 50, 100 years. They will not give this gift to the American government.

We thought the US was not stupid, and then we elected Trump.

Never underestimate emotional motivations.

P.S., not saying that China will attack Taiwan, just not ruling it out.

Post reply on HN