Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger • Hacker News Board

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#691

Post by Cumpiler69 » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 10:11 AM UTC

Workaccount2 wrote: post #509

Cumpiler69 wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People will build everything needed to run intel cards efficiently as there is currently zero options for affordable video cards with high memory. I think you're overestimating what people can and will do. Nvidia didn't succeed because it just launchend cards and let people write CUDA for them. Nvidia is where it is because it has an army of researchers and SW engineers developing the full stack from research paper…

>Nvidia is where it is because it has an army of researchers and SW engineers developing The current local model/open source model community is literally an army of SWE's and researchers. They already make tons of tooling too.

Tooling which depends on Cuda.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#692

Post by epolanski » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 10:12 AM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #523

epolanski wrote: post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Apple has the cash, culture and management to make the fabs work. But I'm just speculating.

Apple is really good in making OTHER PEOPLE'S fabs work for their purposes. Running their own manufacturing was never particularly a forté. Apple currently really enjoys being on the very latest process node. It's not a given that they could match or improve on that with their own fab (Sure, there is a lot of VLSI design and materials experience, but that does not automatically translate into a state of the art proce…

While I agree, I also think that Apple needs a new source revenue and a well executed fab one might be it.

Just speculating.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#693

Post by lupusreal » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 10:13 AM UTC

PaulHoule wrote: post #481

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…

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…

I've been playing Minecraft fine with Intel GPUs on Linux for about 15 years. Works great. If Windows can't run with these GPUs, that's simply because Windows sucks.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#694

Post by CuriousCosmic » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 10:27 AM UTC

phonon wrote: post #601

CuriousCosmic wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately rights to the x86_64 license expire on the event of transfer of either company to a new owner.

License for what? The patents have expired.

The colliquial "x86 License" is the AMD-Intel Patent cross-licensing agreement. i.e. All patents related to x86 or any extensions of the ISA are automatically cross-licensed between the companies. While in the past the ISA patent story mostly was leaning in Intel's favor, since AMD64/x86_64 really took off, ISA innovation really became a delicate stack of cards interwoven between Intel and AMD.

So if Intel sells, everyone is fucked until whoever buys can renegotiate the terms of the agreement. And if that's Nvidia, they could just sit dead on the IP and starve AMD of the bulk of their CPU revenue (which is what is keeping the company solvent). And requiring they keep the agreement they currently have would mean requiring AMD to give Nvidia a pretty detailed look at the AMD secret sauce which would increasingly push AMD into the red until they become insolvent, again leading to a Nvidia monopoly.

The US government as well as the EU will not allow that to happen so however things slice, ownership of the x86 ISA patents would not be going to Nvidia.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#695

Post by dmead » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:09 AM UTC

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…

Claiming the upcoming administration surely knows anything is a bit of a stretch.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#696

Post by mnau » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:17 AM UTC

corimaith wrote: post #684

mnau wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

China doesn't care. They are banned from buying western AI HW or making their own AI HW at TSMC/Samsung. They are pouring hundreds of billions to the semiconductor ecosystem. Huawei is trying to make establish domestic Ascend/MindSpore ecosystem, but they are limited by the SMIC process (~7nm). Amount of defects is allegedly rather high, but they are the only "official" game in town (other than smuggled NVIDIA cards…

Then the point about China trying to block a Nvidia merger doesn't really sense if they will be going their own path anyways. It would exist to try to harm Nvidia before their homegrown alternatives ramp up.

Nvidia is only one side of merger. The other is Intel. Intel does sell processors in China. Only AI is banned, not generic CPU (except HPC).

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#697

Post by bubblethink » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:34 AM UTC

JohnBooty wrote: post #422

bubblethink wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The only stupid thing they did was not getting into GPUs earlier Intel has been "getting into" GPUs for two decades now going back to Larrabee. They are just not good at it.

What is holding Intel back, there? Engineering chops? AMD and nVidia already patented too much of the good stuff? Too much existing code optimized for AMD and nVidia quirks?

The early stuff (Larabee, KNL, KNC etc.) was hamstrung by x86. Wrong architecture for the types of things GPUs are good at. Their igpus have generally been good but that's not competing in the compute segment. Then they acquired a few startups (Nervana, Habana) that didn't really work out either. And now they finally have a discrete GPU lineup that is making slow progress. We'll see.

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#698

Post by Wytwwww » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:46 AM UTC

epolanski wrote: post #347

etempleton wrote: post #64

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…

> The moat of the two companies together would give the new combined company plenty of time to ramp up their fabs. Doubt. Neither of the companies is particularly competitive on either processor or GPU architecture nor fabrication. A merger of those entities looks like nothing but a recipe for further x86 stagnation and an even quicker death for the entities involved imho. In particular I cannot see what's good in it…

> is particularly competitive on either processor or GPU architecture nor fabrication.

Who is then? Apple is of course still ahead in lower power chips. But Apple is not in the the desktop/workstation/server market and there are hardly any alternatives to AMD or Intel there.

e.g. M2 Ultra Apple's fastest "desktop" CPU is slower than the 14700K you can get for $350. Seems pretty competitive...

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#699

Post by scrlk » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:49 AM UTC

gdwatson wrote: post #382

etempleton wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People miss this. A lot of people will only buy Intel. Businesses and IT departments rarely buy AMD, not just out of brand loyalty, but because of the software and hardware features Intel deploys that are catered to the business market.

This is in large part an OEM issue. Dell or HP will definitely have an Intel version of the machine you are looking for, but AMD versions are hit and miss. I think this is partly because big OEMs doubt (used to doubt?) AMD’s ability to consistently deliver product in the kind of volume they need. Partly it’s because of Intel’s historically anticompetitive business practices.

Hasn't changed, there was an article back in September saying that the relationship between AMD and laptop OEMs is rocky:

> Multiple reports, citing sources at laptop OEMs, have covered what is said to be poor support, chip supply, and communication from AMD with its laptop partners, leading to generally poor execution. Chip consultancy firm AC Analysis says AMD's shift of focus to AI and data centers has led to a "'Cold War ice age' in relationships with OEMs," leading to a loss of trust from its partners.

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/amds-laptop-oems-...

Re: Intel announces retirement of Pat Gelsinger

#700

Post by Wytwwww » Tue, Dec 03, 2024, 11:50 AM UTC

echoangle wrote: post #566

kgeist wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wars involving the US in the 21st century: War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) US intervention in Yemen (2002–present) Iraq War (2003–2011) US intervention in the War in North-West Pakistan (2004–2018) Second US Intervention in the Somali Civil War (2007–present) Operation Ocean Shield (2009–2016) Intervention in Libya (2011) Operation Observant Compass (2011–2017) US military intervention in Niger (2013–2024) US-led inte…

Yeah, so if you’re a Russian company, you shouldn’t outsource to the US. Or what are you trying to tell us?

Well obviously? I mean you'd be entirely screwed because of the sanctions.

Then again Yandex kind of pulled it off.