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

331–340 of 777 posts

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#331

Post by jayd16 »

kranke155 wrote: post #100
this_user wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have made too many bad choices, and everyone else has been eating their lunch for the last few years. They are a non-factor in the mobile space where ARM architectures dominate. They are a non-factor in the GPU market where NVDA dominates ahead of AMD. They were focused heavily on data centres and desktop/laptop CPUs where ARM is also increasingly making inroads with more efficient designs that deliver comparabl…

Apple saw the writing on the wall and bailed years ago, built their own chips and denied them a large customer. It’s a really bad sign when a customer decides it can out innovate you by internally copying your entire business and production line.

They haven't made their own fabs. Not yet, anyway.

And historically, wasn't this juts an extension of their fight with Samsung in the mobile space more than a rejection of Intel?

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#332

Post by bryanlarsen »

Wytwwww wrote: post #216
menaerus wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last report I read it was ~80% (Intel) vs ~20% (AMD) for PC market. And ~75% (Intel) vs ~25% (AMD) for data center servers.

> 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).

Data center revenue is not just CPU. It includes MI300 et al. So that's why data center revenue can be roughly equivalent between AMD & Intel while CPU revenue is still predominantly Intel.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#333

Post by twoodfin »

LittleTimothy wrote: post #11

Difficult to see how this is anything other than a failure. I had high hopes when Gelsinger returned, but it seems that BK had done too much damage and Gelsinger didn't really get a grip on things. One of the things I heard that really highlighted the failure of this recovery was that BK had let Intel balloon in all sorts of ways that needed to be pared back and refocused, but head count under Gelsinger didn't just s…

They really need to clear house in a spectacular way but I'm not sure who could even do that at this point.

An alien from Vega looking at our constellation of tech companies and their leadership might point at an obvious answer…

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#335

Post by dagmx »

rwmj wrote: post #295
dagmx wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a customer shouldn’t protect a company from lawsuits. ARM feels they have merit here , just like Qualcomm did when they sued Apple. It’s not that rare in the corporate setting to have suits between companies with otherwise amicable relationships.

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.

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 fallback if Qualcomm lose their design license.

The destruction of the chips is standard practice to request in cases of license and IP infringement .

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#336

Post by chvid »

fodkodrasz wrote: post #155
chvid wrote: post #88

Gelsinger seemed well connected to Washington / the democratic administration in particular and the CHIPS act seemed to be designed to save/bail out Intel. Perhaps this is a fall out from the election.

IMO Intel is far more of a strategic asset to allow such short-sighted policy from whatever administration. The upcoming administration surely knows that, and as far as I know Intel has never made strong steps that would alienate the coming administration from them. Also getting it back on its feet is actually inline with the narrative, it is easy to give it such spin, even if some personal differences are at play, t…

It is strategically important for the US to be ahead in technology; however Intel is no longer ahead and is not really the strategic asset it used to be.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#337

Post by lotsofpulp »

rvba wrote: post #304
maeil wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IT departments are not going to stop buying x86 processors until they absolutely are forced to. Plenty of them are buying Macbooks. It's definitely a small percentage of the worldwide market, but not entirely insignificant either.

If you need to use Excel at work, you need x86 since Excel for Mac is a gutted toy (MS wants your company yo buy / subscribe to windows too). And google sheets in my opinion is not good for complicated stuff - the constant lag..

I would bet 95%+ of people who use Excel are not affected by any difference between Excel for macOS versus Windows.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#338

Post by scrlk »

phkahler wrote: post #118

Has Intel ever made a production chip using their own EUV process? They keep moving the goal post so they'll be state of the art when they get there - currently aiming for "18A" with high NA using the absolute latest equipment from ASML. But I don't think they've demonstrated mastery of EUV at any node yet.

Yes, Intel 4 is in HVM and used for Meteor Lake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_Lake#Process_technology

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#339

Post by mnau »

timschmidt wrote: post #318
mnau wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, poor multi billion company. We should buy its product with poor value, just to make it feel better. Intel had money and decades of integrated GPU experience. Any new entrant to the market must justify the value to the buyer. Intel didn't. He could sell them cheap to try to make a position in the market, though I think that would be a poor strategy (didn't have financials to make it work).

I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't calling for people to purchase a sub-par product, rather for management and investors to be less fickle and ADHD when it comes to engineering efforts one should reasonably expect to take several product cycles. Honestly, even with their iGPU experience, Arc was a pretty impressive first dGPU since the i740. The pace of their driver improvement and their linux support have both b…

> I don't care if they have to do the development at a loss for half a dozen cycles,

And here is the problem. You are discussing a dream scenario with unlimited money. This thread is about how CEO of Intel has retired/was kicked out (far more likely) for business failures.

In real world, Intel was in a bad shape (see margins, stock price ect) and couldn't afford to squander resources. Intel couldn't commit and thus it should adjust strategy. It didn't. Money was wasted that Intel couldn't afford to waste.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#340

Post by toast0 »

esskay wrote: post #150
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?

They dont need to merge with intel to get the entire x86 market, they'll be getting that anyway if Intel folds. Even if Intel gets bought out, it'll be in pieces. Nobody wants to enter the x86 market, but there may be smaller segmenrs of the business that can help an ARM based business, or someone looking to get into GPU's.

> Nobody wants to enter the x86 market

If the ISA patent licenses opened up, that might not be the case. When the topic comes up, it's more about Intel shutting down license transfers, so naturally companies have avoided x86.

Post reply on HN