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

191–200 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#191

Post by eigenvalue »

mythz wrote: post #29

Well their stock is already in the dumps, they can't do much worse than they already have been. Divesting from their discrete GPUs just as they were starting to become a viable value option was one of their most recent asinine decisions. No idea why they didn't try test the market with a high RAM 64GB+ card before bowing out to see how well they'd do. Nvidia's too busy printing money to add more RAM to their consumer…

It still has a market cap over over $100b. Trust me, things can absolutely get worse from here. The default state of big companies that have been deeply mismanaged for 10+ years is that they go bust and end up getting bought out for a pittance. If the fabs can't be made to work in a reasonable timeframe when they are still competitive in the marketplace, then they turn out to be giant write-offs and malinvestment only good for shielding future income from taxes.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#192

Post by hypercube33 »

hbfdhfdhadfhnfa wrote: post #4

This is not good. We already know what happened when CFO took over. It was a time when Intel totaly lost control. They are gona get bought for penies. OMG Instead of saying to AMD they will be in the rearview mirror, they should have been paranoid. Not do stupid GPUs. and destroy others where it mattered

I disagree. They need to have a dedicated GPU and iGPU they had needs to be improved or they will absolutely fail. The current path forward is an APU or more of a system on a chip with CPU, GPU, and I guess, NPU.

Their dGPU is also pretty promising, I have it on my list to get - even if not for gaming, its possibly the best media encoding / decoding card for the money to get today. The only thing holding it back for entry level or mid level gaming is the drivers - for some games, it wont matter it seems, but for others it has some growing pains but they seem to be diligently working on them with every driver release.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#193

Post by Wytwwww »

FredPret wrote: post #136
adventured wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China and the EU would never allow an Nvidia Intel merger, not under any scenario the US would find acceptable. They'll barely allow Nvidia to acquire anybody at this point, no matter how small. See recent EU response to Run:ai. Intel would be considered 100x worse.

Why would China and the EU have input on a US merger?

> Why

Well they obviously would..

Also EU has promised various significant subsidies to Intel. They obviously has fabs in Ireland and building one in Germany and perhaps even Poland..

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#194

Post by eigenvalue »

hunglee2 wrote: post #54

Gelsinger got screwed by the CHIPS Act. The promise of state backing for a US champion SC fab was taken seriously by Gelsinger, who went all-in in trying to remake Intel as TSMC 2.0. But the money turned out to be way too late and far more conditional than Gelsinger thought. This is bad news for Intel, bad news for US industrial policy

It was a big mistake to rely on Government handouts to save the company then. You never want to rely on something you have almost no control over.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#195

Post by bionhoward »

cogman10 wrote: post #114
phkahler wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> If 18a is not ready I think the best case scenario for Intel is a merger with AMD. Aside from the x86 monopoly that would create, I don't think Intel has much of value to AMD at this point other than the fabs (which aren't delivering). IMHO if Intel is failing, let them fail and others will buy the pieces in bankruptcy. This would probably benefit several other companies that could use 22nm and up fab capacity and…

Yeah, what both companies would need to be competitive in the GPU sector is a cuda killer. That's perhaps the one benefit of merging Antel can more easily standardize something.

WGSL seems like a nice standard everyone could get behind

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#197

Post by KETHERCORTEX »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #147
etempleton wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, for at least a time they would have the entire x86 market. That is not nothing. Also AMD may want to get back into the fab business. Without competition in x86 why not use Intel's fabs?

And everyone would rush to migrate away from x86. Having a sole supplier for CPUs is a bad strategy.

Yet everyone is okay with a de-facto single supplier of CUDA capable AI GPUs.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#198

Post by Wytwwww »

JonChesterfield wrote: post #165
etempleton wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What other US companies are equipped and interested in running a giant chip design/fab? NVIDIA and AMD are likely the only two candidates.

Apple is the obvious one. Essentially the only place with both the capital to do it and the extreme vertical integration enthusiasm. AMD hopefully still remembers running a fab.

The only thing that Apple might find even remotely useful are Intel's fabs. The rest of the business would have to be sold ton someone else or closed down (which would never be approved by the government).

Even then there is zero indication that Apple would ever want to do their own manufacturing.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#199

Post by Nevermark »

KeplerBoy wrote: post #96
Cumpiler69 wrote: post #62

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 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.

There's no doubt that the statement is true. Some use cases would absolutely benefit from GPUs with a boatload of VRAM, even if it's relatively slow (~500 GB/s). The market for that is just not that large, it wouldn't move the needle on Intels revenue, but then again it could get the enthusiasts onboard and get Intels CUDA alternative moving.

Disrupting a market from the bottom always looks like a small market opportunity. Initially.

But then you move up, and the incumbents have to choose to keep ceding more of their lower end or lower their margins. And it is very hard and costly for a company succeeding at the high end to do the later.

That would have been a fantastic sign Intel was getting more nimble and strategic.

And been a good fit with a come back in the low end of fabs too.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#200

Post by corimaith »

adra wrote: post #169
FredPret wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would China and the EU have input on a US merger?

The same reason as anything else. If the merger goes ahead with opposition from foreign markets, those markets can impose import tariffs or outright bans. Smaller markets may be ones these combined companies are willing to piss off, but not Europe. Their opposition is defacto a deal killer.

They literally don't any serious homegrown alternative though, they'd be effectively forfeiting the AI race
Post reply on HN