• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Goodbye Pat Gelsinger! Don't let the door hit you on your way out!

I

igor_kavinski

Lifer

Page 695 - Discussion - Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads

Page 695 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
forums.anandtech.com forums.anandtech.com

Who is going to be celebrating and how?

What do Intel's future prospects look like to you now?

Who would be your pick for CEO?

Do you think Jim Keller has a chance now since he was basically right about everything?
 
I suggest we move this to the CPU section.

But regarding the topic, I suspect this was a sacking and not a retirement. Intel’s cash flow has been in peril ever since Pat committed the firm to its fabs, and even then we haven’t seen a definitive turn around with 5N4Y (where customers?). Under Pat, Intel missed the AI boom and they ceded more market share to AMD in the segments that make big profit. I understand that things in the semiconductor industry take time, but the Board probably didn’t see the direction that Pat was taking as being sustainable in the near future, so something had to give. Putting their CFO and head of Intel Products in charge as dual interim CEOs suggests they are pivoting to Products over Foundries.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 511
Indus said:
Wait, what did Jim Keller say?
Click to expand...
This:
https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/z3set6/jim_keller_apparently_left_intel_2020_because_of

Had they pivoted to TSMC sooner like Keller had told them to, the Raptor Lake and Meteor Lake fiascos could've been avoided or their ultimate impacts minimized and at least, a large number of CPUs built on TSMC process would have been immune to the mistakes made by and incompetence of Intel fab personnel.

Instead, they favored the idiot Renduchintala who was fired not soon after due to 10nm delays. Imagine if Raptor Lake refresh and Meteor Lake had been dual sourced with TSMC silicon. Both RPL degradation and Intel 4 hot lots issues could've been managed by paying for more TSMC silicon rather than trying to make the most of their broken internal fab processes with zero regard for the incurred cost.

Even the current bad situation of Arrow Lake could've been partially offset by trying to fab a monolithic version of Arrow Lake on TSMC silicon. But Pat didn't have the sense to keep tabs on what his design teams were doing.
 
Betting biggest on IDM during a period of bottlenecks being adv packaging and memory was not smart.
The pure-play faction seems to have won, and rightfully so. Foundry spinoff is only a matter of time, though that CHIPS clause is really funny.
 
igor_kavinski said:
Had they pivoted to TSMC sooner like Keller had told them to, the Raptor Lake and Meteor Lake fiascos could've been avoided or their ultimate impacts minimized and at least, a large number of CPUs built on TSMC process would have been immune to the mistakes made by and incompetence of Intel fab personnel.

Instead, they favored the idiot Renduchintala who was fired not soon after due to 10nm delays. Imagine if Raptor Lake refresh and Meteor Lake had been dual sourced with TSMC silicon. Both RPL degradation and Intel 4 hot lots issues could've been managed by paying for more TSMC silicon rather than trying to make the most of their broken internal fab processes with zero regard for the incurred cost.

Even the current bad situation of Arrow Lake could've been partially offset by trying to fab a monolithic version of Arrow Lake on TSMC silicon. But Pat didn't have the sense to keep tabs on what his design teams were doing.
Click to expand...
This has to be a joke right?? First of all the raptor lake degradation issues were completely on the design team for Raptor lake, there isn't a fundamental issue in intel 7 that caused that issue. Meteor lake also was not a fab issue at all, it was a design problem as being the first generation of intel's tile architecture concept. Even if intel outsourced to TSMC earlier it's not like their products would've magically been competitive. Lunar lake is essentially monolithic arrow lake and even then it barely edges out the competition at the one thing it's designed for... power efficiency. And it certainly doesn't do that through it's over two node advantage over Raptor lake or even it's Lion Cove cores. Arrow lake isn't less performance than raptor lake simply because it's a tile architectures, It also would not have gained much performance due to the fact that TSMC nodes are historically lower performance than Intel nodes even 1-2 generation behind.

Paying for TSMC to temporarily make your products marginally more competitive is not a longer term solution. Pat has brought 5n4y into reality, it's unknown whether it will pay off, but if it does I think we all know who to thank. At least some of us do.
 
Last edited:
Splitting the company would be an interesting exercise. Given the US government's current posture, sticking the foundry side with the $50 billion in debt and leaving the design side cash rich would be the way to go.
 
ajsdkflsdjfio said:
This has to be a joke right?? First of all the raptor lake degradation issues were completely on the design team for Raptor lake, there isn't a fundamental issue in intel 7 that caused that issue.
Click to expand...
The fab team must've signed off on the design team's plan to hit 5 GHz and above. Surely, testing that the silicon does not degrade under stress should be the fab's job, no? Otherwise, they could have put their foot down and told Pat, we object to these frequencies and voltages and cannot guarantee long term stability. Let's say this actually happened and Pat couldn't see a way out (because he is old and feeble) so he decided to err on the side of chance and release Raptor Lake and its Refresh against the advice of his foundry people. That's probably why Pat is out and not the head of foundry.

ajsdkflsdjfio said:
Meteor lake also was not a fab issue at all, it was a design problem as being the first generation of intel's tile architecture concept. Even if intel outsourced to TSMC earlier it's not like their products would've magically been competitive. Lunar lake is essentially monolithic arrow lake and even then it barely edges out the competition at the one thing it's designed for... power efficiency.
Click to expand...
Meteor Lake was a pure yields issue and they wasted wafers trying to meet demand. The process was just too immature for prime time but Pat pushed them to waste wafers because he couldn't think of anything else (old and feeble mind there again). Lunar Lake is probably the best product Pat got out and it is thanks to being on TSMC and being monolithic. Did you miss Geekerwan's chart where a Lenovo Lunar Lake laptop is beating everything else in battery life?
 
igor_kavinski said:
Lunar Lake is probably the best product Pat got out and it is thanks to being on TSMC and being monolithic. Did you miss Geekerwan's chart where a Lenovo Lunar Lake laptop is beating everything else in battery life?
Click to expand...
Is that really all due to TSMC? Not due to the on package memory, Skymont E-cores, removal of HT, cleaning up of old inefficiencies in P-core architecture preparing for future scalability? We'll see shortly with panther lake/clearwater forest whether simply manufacturing on TSMC really is the golden bullet for all of intel's problems.
Meteor Lake was a pure yields issue and they wasted wafers trying to meet demand. The process was just too immature for prime time but Pat pushed them to waste wafers because he couldn't think of anything else (old and feeble mind there again).
Click to expand...
Meteor Lake yields issue is separate from the discussion on the performance of the product. The product was horrible because the lp e-cores were completely useless starved of L3 cache, the regular e-cores were pretty trash too being just a relatively weak architecture compared to its successor skymont, and the tons of issues that come with a completely new 1st gen tiled architecture. With the note of a completely new tiled architecture has RDNA 3 ever entered your mind? And that was significantly less complicated than meteor lake with all the computer being located on a single die.

BTW what's with this old and feeble mind thing? Run out of actual constructive criticism? Tim cook - 64 years old, Jensen Huang - 61 years old, Lisa Su - 55 years old, Pat Gelsinger.... 90? 80? 70? No wait it can't be.. 63 years old.
That's probably why Pat is out and not the head of foundry.
Click to expand...
That's not the main reason. The underlying issue is the foundry takes years to pay off and Intel upper management is not happy with that fact. If you were to evaluate Pat solely on foundry technology he'd be the best CEO intel has had in decades.
 
Lol you guys are making fun of Pat but the real problem remains even if someone else becomes CEO the board they have Boeing Guy as Board member and the frank yeary they need to go as well it requires change in all the position
 
511 said:
Lol only you think se even John Carmack thinks it was a bad mistake
Click to expand...
He's calling it bad from his point of view of thinking of Pat as an engineer.

Good CEOs, on the other hand, need to be ruthless to do their job effectively and Pat wasn't prepared to axe the middle managers to effect change in Intel's sluggish bureaucracy. They are in dire need of someone to clean the house of every single toxic person who is being a hindrance to innovative thinking.

As Charlie of Semiaccurate wrote, they have an entrenched culture of lying and managers are the biggest liars. Most of the bad ones take credit for the hard work of their subordinates and blame them for any mistake, totally absolving themselves of the responsibility of foreseeing any potential problems before they become too big to handle.
 
igor_kavinski said:
He's calling it bad from his point of view of thinking of Pat as an engineer.

Good CEOs, on the other hand, need to be ruthless to do their job effectively and Pat wasn't prepared to axe the middle managers to effect change in Intel's sluggish bureaucracy. They are in dire need of someone to clean the house of every single toxic person who is being a hindrance to innovative thinking.
Click to expand...
This one i wholeheartedly agree but not of his strategy being bad the strategy is fine
igor_kavinski said:
As Charlie of Semiaccurate wrote, they have an entrenched culture of lying and managers are the biggest liars. Most of the bad ones take credit for the hard work of their subordinates and blame them for any mistake, totally absolving themselves of the responsibility of foreseeing any potential problems before they become too big to handle.
Click to expand...
Ahh i don't want to put stick in this but i found
A better reason for pat getting fired

Intel Corporation to Participate in Upcoming Investor Conferences

That limits the field. They will need to hire someone from TSMC :ROFLMAO:. Or maybe someone from GF. Gary Patton already works at Intel or maybe they can lure Dr. Thomas Caulfield over? Tom pivoted GF and is now successful but growth is questionable since there are no leading edge technologies...
semiwiki.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top