351–360 of 777 posts
Pat returned as CEO in 2021. I don't think that 3 years is enough time to clean out the internal rot that has led Intel to where it is today and a lot of problems have been in motion for a while. Short-term this might be better for Intel but this move lacks long term vision. Intel also just got a big hand-out from the government that would've kept them moving in the right direction regardless of what CEO is leading t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I work on this stuff for Intel At least for Intel, that is just not true. Intel's DPC++ is as open as it gets. It implements a Khronos standard (SYCL), most of the development is happening in public on GitHub, it's permissively licensed, it has a viable backend infrastructure (with implementations for both CUDA and HIP). There's also now a UXL foundation with the goal of creating an "open standard acceler…
Actual links to the github would be much appreciated, as well a half-page tuto on how to get this up an running on a simple Linux+Intel setup.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
China is not ahead. Still they are capable of mass-producing somewhat capable chips, with good enough yields for strategic projects.
Also they can mass produce now outdated designs, which are still good enough for "office use" to provide continuity of the government bureaucracy's operation.
China has less advanced nodes where it can produce for industrial applications.
They have the potential to eventually get ahead, but now a total embargo you only slow them down, but not cripple them. This situation is acceptable for any state as a temporary measure until reorganizing efforts.
Also Intel is still producing better stuff then the chineese can. It is still ahead. And as I detailed above, I think it would need to fall behind way more to loose its strategic nature.
Also capacities in Taiwan and in South-Korea are very fragile from a strategic perspective, even if they are/were more advanced than what Intel has.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Looks like your post is talking about two things -- corporate purchased laptops and AWS instances, which are quite different. About corporate laptops, do you have evidence to show that companies are switching to Macbooks from HP/Dell/ThinkPads?
> corporate purchased laptops and AWS instances, which are quite different. They are similar. Particularly because developing on a corporate hardware with an ARM processor is a surefire way to figure out if the software you write will have issues with ARM in AWS. That's pretty much the entire reason x86 took off in the server market in the first place. > About corporate laptops, do you have evidence to show that comp…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of people on this thread are underestimating how much of a hold Intel has on the chips industry. In my experience, Intel is synonymous with computer chip for the average person. Most people wouldn't be able to tell you what AMD does differently, they'd just say they're a knockoff Intel. Technologically, both companies are neck and neck. But for the average person, it's not even close.
Marketing campaigns only go so far. They’ve been riding the “Intel Inside” slogan for 25 years. In the mean time, AMD/ARM already won phones, table and game consoles. Server purchasing decisions aren’t made by everyday people. Intel’s roadmap in that space slipped year for year for at least 10 of the last 15 years. That leaves Intel with the fraction of the non-mac laptop market that’s made up of people that haven’t…
Don't forget laptops. Intel has been terrible on laptops due to their lack of efficiency. AMD has been wiping the floor with them for years now.
2024 is the first year that Intel has released a laptop chip that can compete in efficiency. I hope Intel continues to invest in this category and remain neck and neck with AMD if we have any hope of having Windows laptops with decent battery lide.
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…
Friends that work at intel said gelsinger and the board have done EVERYTHING wrong in the past four years. From blowing key customer accounts to borderline malfeasance with payouts. It’s also the board that needs to go too for enabling. The merger with amd sounds like the right path.
Gelsinger retires before Intel Foundry spin is ready. This means trouble. Intel invested tens of billions into A20 and A18 nodes, but it has not paid off yet. News about yield seemed promising. Massive investments have been made. If somebody buys Intel foundries now, they pay one dollar and take debt + subsidies. Intel can write off the debt but don't get potential rewards. Foundry is the most interesting part of Int…
> Massive investments have been made. If somebody buys Intel foundries now, they pay one dollar and take debt + subsidies. Intel can write off the debt but don't get potential rewards. You are describing the start of the Vulture capitalist playbook for short term profits and dividents right there, take subsidies and loans and sell everything to pay dividents (or rent back to yourself via a shell company) then let the…
> Don't know how it works here but it sure sounds like it.
Thank you for being honest and saying that you are describing how things you don't understand sound for you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why would you want this kind of increased monopolization? That is, CPU companies also owning the GPU market?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are already packages that let people run CUDA programs unmodified on other GPUs: see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40970560 For whatever reason, people just delete these tools from their minds, then claim Nvidia still has a monopoly on CUDA.
There's already a panoply of CUDA alternatives, and even several CUDA-to-non-Nvidia-GPU alternatives (which aren't supported by the hardware vendors and are in some sense riskier). To my knowledge (this isn't really my space), many of the higher-level frameworks already support these CUDA alternatives. And yet still the popcorn gallery says "there no [realistic] alternative to CUDA." Methinks the real issue is that C…
It certainly seems like there's a "nobody ever got fired for buying nvidia" dynamic going on. We've seen this mentality repeatedly in other areas of the industry: that's why the phrase is a snowclone.
Eventually, someone is going to use non-nvidia GPU accelerators and get a big enough cost or performance win that industry attitudes will change.