That used to be the case but isn't anymore. Even for the dies made at the Intel Foundry. And presumably could fab the existing products at Intel Foundry as long as it exists.
They can't spin off the Fabs, we've mentioned this several times.
Intel was never designed with a clean break between Lab and Fab. The Fab has hard requirements for people in the Labs.
If they had two years maybe.
You are pessimistic, just wait until... er... Alder Lake is released and AMD will be in the rearview mirror and never again will they be in the windshield.His vision was the foundries will save us, yet it appears the competition is producing all of their best stuff. If you are a stockholder, how does that sit with you?
This company has a CEO that thinks invisible magical friends will help them. And worse yet, takes solace in that. Push ups Pat is a failure, and they need to can him and find a Lisa Su before they end up on the scrap pile of history.
That was harsh. I will now entertain posts that convince me I am overly pessimistic.
I remembered reading that and thinking- Don't you know what reduction of state vector/wave function collapse is? You are starting some beef you should never start. But here we are.You are pessimistic, just wait until... er... Alder Lake is released and AMD will be in the rearview mirror and never again will they be in the windshield.
Lisa Su is both Chairman and CEO to stop that nonsense right? Think she isIntel Brags of $152 Billion in Stock Buybacks Over Last 35 Years.
Intel Brags of $152 Billion in Stock Buybacks Over Last 35 Years. So Why Does It Need an $8 Billion Subsidy? | Common Dreams
What’s to stop the chip-making giant from shoveling taxpayer grants into more stock buybacks?www.commondreams.org
Is it Gelsinger's fault or the BoD? Gelsinger said he wasn't able to cut dividends and stock buybacks as quickly as he'd liked. It should have been cut IMMEDIATELY in 2021 soon as he was CEO.
I thought they gave him more control?
This is why mega corporations fail. Even if the CEO is actually capable, one hand is tied behind his back. AMD's meteoric rise was because they didn't have the bureaucratic nonsense Intel had(and still does).
The only way to change this completely is for it to completely break. And I fear this will break the company permanently too.
I will write it again. Private equity AKA vulture capitalism has its clutches in Intel. Good luck with that.
Their most profitable stuff, Xeon, is still being produced on Intel 3. The TSMC 3nm stuff for consumer was put in place years ago because they knew Intel 3 wouldnt have the capacity for Xeon and consumer. They are doing what they need to do to get by until 20A/18A become viable. Customers backing out from IFS could be for a number of reasons, not strictly performance. None of those reasons are good for Intel, though. Could be running late, could underperform, could be too expensive/yields not good enough to meet cust requirements.If rumors are true, all of their best stuff is being produced by the company they are supposed to be competing with successfully. How the hell does that work long term when your vision is the foundries will save us? Which now partially belongs to private equity. IEEE types always miss the forest for all of the trees in the way. I have never seen anything like this. I am over here like -
This will change nothing, Gelsinger is only a convenient scape goat, the mistakes were made years ago, i mean, instead of throwing 20bn $, if not more, in stock buy backs they could have bought for that amount something like 150 bleeding hedge ASML EUV scaners, and know they talk of being an all around foundry, with such short sighted decisions the writings were on the wall years before their current turmoil.
Anything that isn't public money or stock exchange money is "PE". The mom & pop gas station down the way - assuming they haven't all been wiped out in your area - is PE. The difference is, they aren't showing up with billions of dollars to buy a piece of some publicly-traded company and reshuffling assets to make a quick buck. A few sharks do that. Don't assume that every other private party is a shark.PE is the devil. I have never seen any good come out of it.
I sort-of agree. However, Gelsinger could have taken moves to spin off the fabs or do any number of the other cuts that will take place over the next 3-6 months with several years advance warning. Instead he hedged his bets on Intel 4/3 and 20a/18a in low volumes to save the company.
Anything that isn't public money or stock exchange money is "PE". The mom & pop gas station down the way - assuming they haven't all been wiped out in your area - is PE. The difference is, they aren't showing up with billions of dollars to buy a piece of some publicly-traded company and reshuffling assets to make a quick buck. A few sharks do that. Don't assume that every other private party is a shark.
Yea I noticed this too. I think this is true for IT guys as well.IEEE types always miss the forest for all of the trees in the way. I have never seen anything like this. I am over here like -
Let's take it back on-topic then.Call it what you will. You know I was talking about the sharks. However I do not wish to go OT so I'll leave it at that.
Yeah like 400% bigger in 2 years. For a market that was already global. Get real...It doesn't have to mean it if the total pie gets much bigger.
That ain't what you should have read from this chart.Let's say last year Intel made 50 dollars and Nvidia 10 dollars, and this year Intel still makes 50 dollars but Nvidia makes 100. Intel had 83% last year, but this year they only have 33%, but they've made the same amount of money.
It's not difficult to say that the Bubble Company will eventually crash back down, no.They probably do make less money going in, but it's difficult to gauge what the difference is by looking at percentages vs an exponentially growing company like Nvidia.
Intel is going DOWN when AMD is going way up and Nvidia is exploding in a bubble.Someone showed here that they went down 3% YoY in Q2 2024 vs Q2 2023 in DC, that's not remotely close to going down by 50% like they did in the chart you posted in the same time frame (going down from something like 20% to 10%).
I feel like everyone here is pointing some serious fingers without knowing all that much.So, it doesn't sound like he's a competent CEO - at least not for a company like Intel. It's a hard job and he needed to do hard things, and he didn't do them (at least not on time).
Yeah like 400% bigger in 2 years. For a market that was already global. Get real...
Why would you assume that AMD doesn't sell GPUs to DC? AMD Has stated that they'll make around 4.5 Billion USD in fiscal year 2024 from DC GPUs. Indeed, 1 Billion of their Q2 2024 DC revenue was GPUs.That ain't what you should have read from this chart.
Assuming Intel and AMD only sell CPUs to DC, they used to be 8/1. They are now 1/1 on CPUs.
Intel is a failing company, you don't need to convince me.Intel is going DOWN when AMD is going way up and Nvidia is exploding in a bubble.
That's like the boat sinking from the tide while everyone else's rides.
They are in an extremely battered ship, if the bubble hadn't fed the hyperscalers with absurd amounts of money, we'd have seen way way, wayyyyyy more than 3% loss. I'd project at around 25% at least. All the while AMD would've gained 20%.
It was clear that Intel was going down years ago, and the execs had to know it.I feel like everyone here is pointing some serious fingers without knowing all that much.
Internally, it seems Intel suffers from a culture problem. On a 50 year old company that was on top of the world, that is an incredibly difficult thing to deal with.
GPUs are the future, they had to be MORE aggressive with GPUs - not less. He should've fired Koduri and hired someone actually competent, instead of letting him stay until 2023 and even promoting him on the way. Instead they are way off schedule on both releases and performance.On the strategy front, I can't fault him. He couldn't let go of GPUs because that's the future and he would condemn Intel if he did anyway.
Gelslinger is definitely not the source of the problem/s, but he IMO just played it too safe. He had to move faster, take more risks and be more aggressive. He could have still failed, and hindsight is 20/20. However, there's a reason why Jim Keller left (albeit, a bit before Gelslinger returned), and it doesn't look like Intel took him seriously (enough). IMO, Gelslinger is just not good enough. You could argue that no CEO could do the job (which I feel is what you're mostly arguing) and it might be true - but we can only point on the one that failed to turn the ship around.On the "boss" front, it's more subtle. Perhaps he had good cause to try and avoid breakage. Perhaps sounding all the alarm bells in a company that had lost a lot of its engineers and goodwill and was getting diffed in salary returns by Nvidia or Apple and even AMD later on would've just caused all the remaining good people to leave the ship and for the rats to hold on to the seats. Perhaps he deeply underestimated the problems and just felt like the beast needed some tweaking and redirecting instead of a full blown revolution.
Whether it was weakness/meekness on his part, or underestimating the depth of the internal damage, whether it was Intel's size that turned it into a Holy Roman Empire of modern times with little lords that kept doing things their way and ignoring him, whether it was that he just couldn't do anything since the money river was already running dry and the cards had been dealt before his time and he could just preside over the slow crumbling, whether it was that every rat would've turned against him...I don't know, we'd need Intel insiders to tell us.
But I'm getting pretty sick of people going "Pat's the problem". Intel had a zillion problems. If anything, he tried fixing them. I would blame Krzanich 100 times before Pat. Even Bob Swan held the ship as well as he could and found someone to replace him that would fit better. If there's one thing I'd blame on Pat is that he held a monster under its reigns and treated it too kindly, if Intel was to die anyway, he should have roughed them up before they would just expire quietly. Seems that now it's getting out of his hands slowly.
GPUs are the future, they had to be MORE aggressive with GPUs - not less. He should've fired Koduri and hired someone actually competent, instead of letting him stay until 2023 and even promoting him on the way. Instead they are way off schedule on both releases and performance.
He either needed to be more aggressive or more pessimistic. Gelsinger exudes a certain confidence in Intel that seemed (and still seems) unwarranted.Gelslinger is definitely not the source of the problem/s, but he IMO just played it too safe. He had to move faster, take more risks and be more aggressive. He could have still failed, and hindsight is 20/20. However, there's a reason why Jim Keller left (albeit, a bit before Gelslinger returned), and it doesn't look like Intel took him seriously (enough). IMO, Gelslinger is just not good enough. You could argue that no CEO could do the job (which I feel is what you're mostly arguing) and it might be true - but we can only point on the one that failed to turn the ship around.
CPU spend isn't going anywhere, it's just getting deferred until the bubble bursts.GPUs are the future,
Anything that isn't public money or stock exchange money is "PE". The mom & pop gas station down the way - assuming they haven't all been wiped out in your area - is PE. The difference is, they aren't showing up with billions of dollars to buy a piece of some publicly-traded company and reshuffling assets to make a quick buck. A few sharks do that. Don't assume that every other private party is a shark.
Igor KavinskiWho else was available?
I think he suffered some bout with a degenerative disease because he looks emaciated (probably way before he became Intel CEO) and that may have contributed to his weakness as Intel's CEO. Upon being presented with the opportunity to lead Intel, he must've thought, "At least I'll go out being remembered as someone like Steve Jobs". Because both of them were begged to return by companies they were fired/forced to resign from.He either needed to be more aggressive or more pessimistic. Gelsinger exudes a certain confidence in Intel that seemed (and still seems) unwarranted.
You really don't think Clear Water Forest is an interesting product with potential? Lunar Lake?I hate to say it, but I think Intel WILL fail. I see no wonderful products, no real vison for products that might change that, and still the "too big a company with too many managers and not enough workers" mentality. I had hope until recently, but I will now admit, I see no other alternative than failure. I actually hope I am wrong. we NEED 2 big companies to make competition work !
The real cause for concern is the absurdly bad cashflow.
I don't think there were many choices there.More precisely, cashflow requirements to build out the fabs Intel committed itself to.
Instead of a much lower risk approach to try to upgrade their existing fabs to EUV, Intel chose high risk approach, announced 2 giga fabs (in Ohio and Germany IIRC) before the process nodes were competitive, before any foundry customers were on board.
The "lower risk" approach was never a real option.Instead of a much lower risk approach to try to upgrade their existing fabs to EUV, Intel chose high risk approach, announced 2 giga fabs (in Ohio and Germany IIRC) before the process nodes were competitive, before any foundry customers were on board.