You should see the ads here in the states right now. They are trying to make you believe that your Intel powered device (most likely laptop as they show it) can do your job for you.
Agree. The "strategy" of throwing caution to the wind, ignoring past history, and plunging foward without thought of how deep the financial hole would get before it started filling in was his downfall.Pat's primary job was to stop the bleeding. Once the company had become stable, he could do whatever he wished. Instead, he started this 5N4Y nonsense that led to immense pressure on everyone at Intel and that showed up as their messed up launches and buggy hardware. He was supposed to be their messiah but instead he left the company in an extremely precarious position. The dude really had no vision to fix things in the short term.
I guess he didn't care about the money else he would've stayed and just said yes to whatever the board wanted. I bet his thinking in "accepting" retirement went like, "Hmmpphhh...let's see what miracles they come up with in my absence!". Now Intel really needs to appoint a new CEO with a successful track record ASAP to get their stock price up . Else, their outlook is pretty grim.
I think even the most wildly technically successful progress would not have resulted in avoiding the huge financial hole and lack of ROI for a number of years (way more than the company could reasonably bear).Their only hope to not be busted up and sold off as a variety of smaller companies was Pats plan working. Was pulling for it to work, but busting up is coming.
As pointed out, it is a joke. If you have a 1mm2 die, then even an appreciable defect rate (like D0 = .5) still gives you silly high yields.𝐼𝑎𝑛 𝐶𝑢𝑡𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠 reports without citing any sources:
"Intel test chip yield on 18A is 99%. 🤷♂️"
View attachment 112777
The plot thickens.
Yep!This is probably a sarcastic post. Look at the size of those dies, lol. They are like 1mmx1mm. Yield will be drastically better vs a 10mmx10mm die, obviously.
I wanted to quote this as it pretty much checks every issue box i had with intel since 2019:A very interesting read (seriously, the blogger has credentials!)
Why Gelsinger was wrong for Intel | The Observation Deck
By all accounts, Pat Gelsinger is affable, technically sharp, hard-working, and decent. Those who have worked for him praise him as a singularly good manager. In January 2021, when Gelsinger was abruptly named the CEO of Intel, this is more or less all I knew of him — and I found myself urgently...bcantrill.dtrace.org
I can't say i agree entirely, but the history there is very interesting
As we got deeper with Tofino, we did, however have a single, substantial reservation: we didn’t trust Intel to not kill it.Intel has a long, long (long!) track record of fostering innovation outside of its mainstayx86 product — and then killing it.
Intel’s strategic mistakes were (in my opinion) symptomatic of an acute cultural problem: the company still carried with it the inheritedarrogance from an earlier age.A concrete manifestation of the company’s arrogance is that it didn’t listen:it didn’t listen to its own people (and therefore struggled to correct course even when the rank-and-file knew that the trajectory is wrong)and it didn’t listen to its customers (and therefore built the wrong things for new markets — or missed out on those markets entirely).Intel needed a leader that could confront this cultural problem directly — who could work to undo an accretion of generations of entitlement — butif Gelsinger’s narrative for himself was any indicator, it felt like he would instead be feeding the company’s worst impulses aboutits own exceptionalism.
The concern that Gelsinger would be reliving his past more than navigating Intel’s future wasn’t exactly put to rest when, shortly after his arrival, Intel launched its cringy-as-hellanti-Apple"Go PC" ad campaign.(It tells you everything you need to know that Inteldeleted the Go PC ads, but thenforgot about Canada.) Fortunately for future historians of corporate dreck, the cringiest of these ads wasimmortalized whenMarques Brownlee and David Imel absolutely ripped it apart. "Go PC" was an embodiment of the arrogancethat I feared came from the top; how could anyone think that Intel’s biggest problem in 2021 was competing against… the Mac?! They knew that AMDalso made x86 parts, right?! The whole campaign frankly felt juvenile, as if they were trying to just deride Apple for their decision tobuild their own silicon.
And this gets to Gelsinger’s first real, unequivocal mistake: he didn’t eliminate Intel’s dividend.
Tofino was clearly living on borrowed time, and we were disappointed (though frankly not that surprised) when we were notified earlier this year that Tofino was being formally killed. It’s a credit to the Tofino team (or what was left of it at that point) that they continued to be very direct with us; this was (clearly) a decision that they disagreed with, and they were especially apologetic for the sloppy manner in which the end-of-life was being handled (which made a mockery of Intel’s own process for end-of-life management).
In the end, for all of the decisions that we made at Oxide — out of all of the companies and parts that we bet on, out of all the partners that we had sent RFD 68 Partnership as Shared Values to — only one had walked away from us, and it was the largest and best capitalized partner, who had repeatedly told us that they would not do exactly what they in fact did. How can Intel ever expected to be trusted when they treat partners this way?
While he has his fair share of issues the board was never held accountable First BK/Swan and now Pat.Cantrill agrees with @jur that Pat should have stopped dividends much sooner and ran things like they were embattled. Pat's arrogance and hubris are undeniable. He sees himself the hero. Cantrill observes how the culture at Intel has to change or else. He makes another point I as a consumer share; How are we supposed to trust Intel again? "How can Intel ever expected to be trusted when they treat partners this way?" Change partner for consumer and that's is exactly my stance.
Simping for Pat is a bad look.
You won't get me to buy the narrative that CEO's are scapegoats. He made a bad situation worse; that's all on him. I am left wondering if he is personally paying for this image management I am seeing. Dude is certainly far enough up his own ass to do it.The old board members just used the last two to scapegoat
Pretty fatal mistake. He could've churned out GPUs on Intel 7 and flooded the market, even introducing dual GPU cards or had his GPU teams develop their own version of SLI. Raytracing performance could have doubled or even quadrupled that way.he missed the GPU in his Fab strategy
Ok than would you buy that the board is incompetent as well?You won't get me to buy the narrative that CEO's are scapegoats. He made a bad situation worse; that's all on him. I am left wondering if he is personally paying for this image management I am seeing. Dude is certainly far enough up his own ass to do it.
Thanks, I hate it. I hope that tech stays dead. SLI and Xfire can suck it for gaming. TAP was just referencing Xfire frame time issues in the latest GN vid about Gandalf.develop their own version of SLI.
Well the good part is that without that we almost certainly wouldn't have AMD by now and possibly also no ARM resurgence (iPhone stuff).I feel sorry for Pat that he lost the CEO race to Otellini in the past and that is probably when the current Intel rot began. However, trying to be a kind rather than ruthless CEO is what led to his termination. He should have forced out any political players in the first year and brought technical excellence back to the ranks. Instead of cleaning house, he went about wasting his time on fab related nonsense.
Intel Foundry will need $36.5B just for wafer fab equipment in the next 3 years. Fab shells and other expenses would add another $15-20B+. Intel doesn’t have the cash flow to support this due to the product group’s failings, even with CHIPS Act subsidies.
Man, that $36 billion sure would be handy now ...Swan’s Intel spent as much on stock buybacks as it did capital expenditures on fabs over his tenure: more than $36 billion towards buybacks versus $38 billion in Capex.
Yeah but they didn't have AI back then. Maybe the issue could be solved or mitigated enough to make it feasible now.Thanks, I hate it. I hope that tech stays dead. SLI and Xfire can suck it for gaming. TAP was just referencing Xfire frame time issues in the latest GN vid about Gandalf.
What difference does it make? Other than to keep trying to rehab Pat's image for unknown reasons? Why do any of you care about the reputation or rememberance of his golden parachute possessing ass anyways?Ok then would you buy that the board is incompetent as well?
No I don't care for pat i am talking about next CEO they will invite CEO he won't do as board would like he gets fired while board themselves don't have the experience Board needs a reorg as well to save Intel otherwise it will be a endless cycle btw i have heard the reason for his firing which is over spending in Fab buisnessWhat difference does it make? Other than to keep trying to rehab Pat's image for unknown reasons? Why do any of you care about the reputation or rememberance of his golden parachute possessing ass anyways?
Didn't they just bring two highly credentialed members in?No I don't care for pat i am talking about next CEO they will invite CEO he won't do as board would like while board themselves don't have the experience Board needs a reorg as well to save Intel
Yes but just now why is the main culprit Frank Yeary is at the board he is at their since 2009 why don't we get his replacement and some others as well if you firing fire properly that's my pointDidn't they just bring two highly credentialed members in?
Yeah they added two ,but they still have 9 with no meaningful semiconductor experience. While this doesn't include Eric Meurice and Steve Sanghi it still isn't nearly enough:Didn't they just bring two highly credentialed members in?
Well I don't care particularly, but I don't think it will be easy to find a literate enough (technical background) CEO candidate that would actually like that job. Remember how long it took to even hire Pat?What difference does it make? Other than to keep trying to rehab Pat's image for unknown reasons? Why do any of you care about the reputation or rememberance of his golden parachute possessing ass anyways?
Our Father who art in Santa Clara,
May your foundry be sanctified,
Let your die shrink come,
Let your yield be maximized
On the fabs of Arizona and Oregon
Give us today wafers without blemish,
Forgive us our engraving errors,
As we also forgive our failing managers.
And don't let us succumb to the excesses of the board,
But deliver us from leakage.
Because innovation, performance and market dominance belong to you,
For future technological generations.
Amen.
In the spring of last year, a certain Intel engineer stated that the “GPU is dead”, a statement which was reiterated by now former Intel exec, Pat Gelsinger at IDF Spring 2008, happening in the city of Shanghai. Pat took charge of Larrabee and was certain that this architecture was the future of Intel. We agree 100% with Pat that the future of not just Intel, but AMD as well, as Larrabee is a merger between the CPU and the GPU. This applies for nVidia as well, but that’s another topic.
The only problem is, Intel sparked a war with nVidia without even having working silicon [ok, silicon capable of displaying a picture]. And that was a big mistake. The moment Jen-Hsun saw the comments made by Intel engineers and later statements by Intel execs at IDF Spring 2008 in Shanghai, Jen-Hsun “opened a can of whoop-ass” on Intel. Luckily for Intel, Jen-Hsun didn’t have the GT300 silicon either, but GT200 was at the gates.
Intel filed a suit against nVidia in Delaware court [naturally, since both companies are incorporated in the “Venture Capital of the World” state], claiming that nVidia doesn’t hold the license for CPUs that have integrated memory controller. nVidia didn’t stand back, but pulled a counter-suit, but this time around, nVidia wanted the cross-license deal annulled and to stop Intel from shipping products that use nVidia patents.
If you wonder why this cross-license agreement is of key importance for Larrabee, the reason is simple: without nVidia patents, there is no Larrabee. There are no integrated chipsets either, since they would infringe nVidia’s patents as well. Yes, you’ve read that correctly. The Larrabee architecture uses some patents from both ATI and nVidia, just like every graphics chip in the industry. You cannot invent a chip without infringing on patents set by other companies, thus everything is handled in a civil matter – with agreements. We heard a figure of around several dozen patents, touching Larrabee from the way how frame buffer is created to the “deep dive” called memory controller. If you end up in court, that means you pulled a very wrong move, or the pursuing company is out to get you. If a judge would side with nVidia, Larrabee could not come to market and well can you say – Houston, we have a problem?