Gelsinger is out

Topic

New Reply

On December 2, Intel Announced that long-time Intel engineer and CEO since 2021 Patrick (“Pat”) Gelsinger had retired from the company, effective Dece
[See the full post at: Gelsinger is out]

3 users thanked author for this post.

a, Norio, Susan Bradley

Reply | Quote

Replies

No idea what that means of course but just hoping Intel gets their act together!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

a wrote:

No idea what that means

Frankly, neither do I. I’m not sure anyone does. However, Intel stock was up slightly on the news.

1 user thanked author for this post.

a

Reply | Quote

a wrote:

just hoping Intel gets their act together!

I don’t think they will.
Intel will be on the shelf for sale in no time.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

“On December 2, Intel Announced that long-time Intel engineer and CEO since 2021 Patrick (“Pat”) Gelsinger had retired from the company, effective December 1, 1024.”

Emphasis added.  Intel hasn’t invented time travel yet. 🙂

You may want to fix the typo.

 

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

EricB wrote:

You may want to fix the typo.

Well, that’s embarrassing. Fixed.

Reply | Quote

Alex5723 wrote:

a wrote:

just hoping Intel gets their act together!

I don’t think they will.
Intel will be on the shelf for sale in no time.

I disagree. I think it’s too easy to throw things in the trash. But, we’ll see!!!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Alex5723

Reply | Quote

a wrote:

I think it’s too easy to throw things in the trash

There are already some companies circling, like vultures, Intel’s soon to be corpse.

Reply | Quote

Hey! Life goes on!!!

Reply | Quote

PR curveball IMO
Outstanding direction/ work was done, highlighted and rewarded with a golden handshake. Do intel have something undisclosed to the public domain that likely ties in with the specifications for Windows 12?
Wintel hasn’t died..nor is it likely to

Windows - commercial by definition and now function...

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

Is it not always the case like when a sprots team is playing badly they fire the coach. Same goes for a company that performs poorly they find a way to remove the CEO. Intel has a multi pronged issues going on within the company. Many questions about the path of chip designs, the reliability issues, the competion creating more efficient ARM based chips. The CHIPS act not actually coming through with finacing as promised. Neither Intel or AMD is moving the bar much these days. I hope Pat has a enjoyable retirement and let someone else try and right the ship before it sinks.

Reply | Quote

John wrote:

The CHIPS act not actually coming through with financing as promised.

There was a glitch. Intel was originally promised $8.5 billion, but funding was delayed. On November 26, its award was finalized at $7.86 billion. Intel simultaneously paused construction on some European fabs, so all this is a plus for Intel’s cash flow. What that should do is allow completion of fabs in Chandler, AZ and New Albany, OH, thus prioritizing manufacturing on American soil.

Reply | Quote

Microfix wrote:

Wintel hasn’t died..nor is it likely to

Three years ago, I would have agreed with you. Now I’m not so sure – the landscape has changed a lot. WinArm is an actual thing.

Reply | Quote

Will Fastie wrote:

WinArm is an actual thing.

Isn’t WinArm also known as Wintorola?  😉

1 user thanked author for this post.

Will Fastie

Reply | Quote

The last report I saw, the news of this change of leadership prompted a 5% jump in stock value — or five points, I forget which — but either way it shows the market was in sync with seeing a need for a change.

I don’t follow the details about why, since the corporate aspects of the tech industry, and the rest of the economy as well if I’m to be honest, so I can’t say anything about that part of the news. I know my limitations when it comes to understanding the “corporate” part of the corporate world. Even though I worked at Ashton-Tate, Nantucket, Computer Associates and Toshiba, I still find that part of the industry mind-numbing.

//Steve//

PS: THIS is where I was trying to reply! I accidentally put this in the “Texting” article’s discussion. Insufficient caffeine. Sorry.

Reply | Quote

It may be that the most important question that Intel needs to answer is who they consider to be their primary competitors, and where they want to invest their resources.  They may be overextended in trying to compete with everybody.

AMD seems to have caught up (and even passed) Intel in the X86 space, and also have a lead in graphics processing.  They might be the most like Intel in breadth of focus, but it seems to be that we’ve reached a plateau in just how much growth is left for X86.  And recently, there is announcement of cooperation between the two in the X86 ecosystem: https://www.amd.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2024-10-15-intel-and-amd-form-x86-ecosystem-advisory-group-to-accelerate.html  To me, that has the feel that both are trying to defend X86 against the growth of ARM.

Qualcomm is now the primary builder of ARM, and with AI demands, it seems that there will likely be a market shift to ARM-based systems that Intel is going to have problems matching, with its limitations in graphics.

nVidia has the luxury of being able to focus on graphics, without having to spend as much effort supporting a wider ecosystem.

TSMC’s fab capacities are impressive, but they’re mostly not trying to design, so much as build other designs.  There’s lots of money to be made there, but TSMC is more of a follower than a leader.

One thing that I think we could see is the possibility of Intel divesting one or more of its units.  Allow each unit to focus on what it does best, without trying to account for what the others are doing.

This is actually what happened with Motorola a couple of decades ago. Even if Motorola chose to keep their name on the cell phone side of things (and no longer exists, except as a brand name), as far as I can tell, the spin-off companies, NSX and ONSemiconductor, seem to continue as viable entities.

With Intel, it could happen that if they don’t make that kind of decision, and decide that they want to keep the full breadth of the company as-is (and merely tweaking incrementally) then a couple of years into the future, they’ll likely be changing out the incoming CEO, and where the current problems persist, only that they’re more difficult to do something about.  And Intel continuing to experience declining relevance.

Reply | Quote