Discussion Intel's past, present and future

[DrMrLordX]

SSE2, SSE3, and AVX

SSE2 and SSE3 patents should be expired already.

Again, instruction sets are not patents, they are Copyrights.

Copyright is much easier to sidestep than a patent, though.

 

[Joe NYC]

Copyright is much easier to sidestep than a patent, though.

That may be the case in genera (beat in a song, theme of a movie), but specifically, related to CPU instruction set - No. Instruction set is clearly defined and crystal clear. It is obvious, beyond any doubt if one is a copy of the other.

Nobody would be crazy enough to invest $100 billion under the assumption that years down the road, some court would invalidate AMD copyright. Only 2 feasible options exist:
- no one will buy Intel
- whoever buys Intel, makes a deal with AMD.

Intel has revenue of $40 billion tied to x86 instruction set. A a court injunction could vaporize this business, prevent Intel's acquirer from selling Intel CPUs. OEMs would also hesitate to buy a CPU that does not have rights to its own instruction set...

 

[DrMrLordX]

That may be the case in genera (beat in a song, theme of a movie), but specifically, related to CPU instruction set - No. Instruction set is clearly defined and crystal clear. It is obvious, beyond any doubt if one is a copy of the other.

Eh, think outside of the box a bit.

Otherwise you're probably correct, and I'll reiterate that I see no future where Intel collapses or is bought out and rendered inert in which AMD loses its ability to produce x86 CPUs as a consequence. The cross-licensing deal was drafted at a time when it was far more likely for someone to buy out AMD.

 

[Joe NYC]

Eh, think outside of the box a bit.

Otherwise you're probably correct, and I'll reiterate that I see no future where Intel collapses or is bought out and rendered inert in which AMD loses its ability to produce x86 CPUs as a consequence. The cross-licensing deal was drafted at a time when it was far more likely for someone to buy out AMD.

... and the deal made it next to impossible for someone to buy AMD. It was a great bargain for Intel at the time: Enable a weak competitor (AMD) but prevent a strong competitor (potential AMD acquirer) with deep pockets to compete with Intel

And now Intel is on the other side of this bargain, and AMD is holding all the cards.

 

[NTMBK]

Please don't clutter the forum with AI generated spam. We're here to talk to humans, not chatbots.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Please don't clutter the forum with AI generated spam. We're here to talk to humans, not chatbots.

ChatGPT has been shown to get legal stuff entirely wrong.

 

[adamge]

Raja has posted his take on Intel's culture.

Ex-Intel exec, Raja Koduri, blames the bureaucratic 'PowerPoint snakes' within the company for its current issues: 'These processes multiply and coil around engineers'

Such processes, he says, are "constraining their ability to execute on the product roadmap with the boldness it requires'."

www.pcgamer.com

 

[Gideon]

Well it seems the CHIPS act is de facto dead:

CHIPS Act dies because employees are fired – NIST CHIPS people are probationary - Semiwiki

- NIST to lose 100's of mainly CHIPS Act people - If no people are left to administer CHIPS Act it dies by default - Following USAID play book to kill an unwanted program - Using the

semiwiki.com

I'd like to remind people of this article and this table from there:

along with the commentary:

While Intel has ~$120B of capital to tap, to get to our 150,000+ wafers a month sustainable target, they may need more than that. We are not sure where they can get this cash from. The process technology we believe is there. We aren’t sure who is willing to front the rest of these costs, as further financing would likely be a poison pill.

Umm, how much did they actually get from the CHIPS act in the end, $7.5 Billion?

So does that mean they now have a ~$35 Billion hole in the budget for the next 5 years?

 

[Kepler_L2]

Well it seems the CHIPS act is de facto dead:

CHIPS Act dies because employees are fired – NIST CHIPS people are probationary - Semiwiki

- NIST to lose 100's of mainly CHIPS Act people - If no people are left to administer CHIPS Act it dies by default - Following USAID play book to kill an unwanted program - Using the

semiwiki.com

I'd like to remind people of this article and this table from there:

along with the commentary:


Umm, how much did they actually get from the CHIPS act in the end, $7.5 Billion?

So does that mean they now have a ~$35 Billion hole in the budget for the next 5 years?

Intel is dead if this is true

 

[marees]

Intel is dead if this is true

Who did charlie say wanted to buy Intel ? Was it Musk ??

 

[poke01]

if Jim thinks RISC-V is the future of CPUs then probably is. He’s the one that made Apple A7 possible, so look out for some really fast RISC-V CPUs .

Also Ahead computing is formed from former Intel Royal Core employees. Good game Intel, you created this yourself and Jim is on their board and not yours for a reason.

 

[moinmoin]

if Jim thinks RISC-V is the future of CPUs then probably is.

The future of unconstrained innovation anyway, as he put it.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Raja has posted his take on Intel's culture.

Ex-Intel exec, Raja Koduri, blames the bureaucratic 'PowerPoint snakes' within the company for its current issues: 'These processes multiply and coil around engineers'

Such processes, he says, are "constraining their ability to execute on the product roadmap with the boldness it requires'."

www.pcgamer.com

Funny coz I've heard of him being described as a very Powerpoint guy.

He seems to be baiting the Intel board to hire him as CEO and give him another five years to create more hype.

 

[jdubs03]

Funny coz I've heard of him being described as a very Powerpoint guy.

He seems to be baiting the Intel board to hire him as CEO and give him another five years to create more hype.

To be honest I rather them make a run for Johny Srouji. I remember seeing he was a contender when Gelsinger was hired. Seems like a no nonsense guy who can get shit done.

 

[Nothingness]

if Jim thinks RISC-V is the future of CPUs then probably is. He’s the one that made Apple A7 possible, so look out for some really fast RISC-V CPUs .

What do you expect from the CEO of a company that uses RISC-V?

Also Ahead computing is formed from former Intel Royal Core employees. Good game Intel, you created this yourself and Jim is on their board and not yours for a reason.

As long as Ahead is not made from former Intel managers

 

[DrMrLordX]

Who did charlie say wanted to buy Intel ? Was it Musk ??

Apologies if someone has already posted this link in this thread, but:

Sources Say Intel Is An Acquisition Target

About two months ago, SemiAccurate was read an email about a company trying to acquire Intel, whole.

www.semiaccurate.com

Also side note, but why does it take 500 federal employees to administrer the CHIPS grants?!?

 

[StefanR5R]

I don't know if it was meant as one, but it sounds like a suggestive question.

 

[marees]

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett​

BYCraig Barrett
Craig Barrett is the former CEO and chair of Intel.


I ran Intel with 100,000-plus employees, and I think I know the challenges if Intel were to be split up. If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart. The conversation should be who the next CEO should be to build on Pat Gelsinger’s accomplishments over the last few years. Currently the company is being run by a CFO and a product manager. The challenge for Intel is to get someone who understands the business of making chips, not someone who spends their time splitting the company into two pieces. Along the way, you might also worry about the Intel board. They bear ultimate responsibility for what has happened to Intel over the last decade.


It takes years to develop a new semiconductor manufacturing technology and ramp it into volume production. Intel is about to regain its leadership in this area, and the dumbest idea around is to stall that from happening by slicing the company into pieces.

The moment you announce you are splitting up Intel you’ll lose the momentum and resources you need to succeed.


Four former Intel board members have written two opinion pieces for Fortune arguing that the only solution to Intel’s problems is to break the company into two pieces: a design company and a wafer fabrication (foundry) company. I do agree with their position that Intel should not sell its foundry business to TSMC but strongly disagree with their argument that Intel should be broken up.

The board members are well meaning but off target. They are two academics and two former government bureaucrats, just the type of folks you want dictating strategy in the ruggedly competitive semiconductor industry.

Intel is back—stop talking about breaking it up: Craig Barrett | Fortune

If we want semiconductor manufacturing leadership in the U.S., then build on the current resurgence of Intel, don’t tear it apart.

fortune.com

 

[fastandfurious6]

the chips craig, where are the chips???

 

[fastandfurious6]

View attachment 118161

if Jim thinks RISC-V is the future of CPUs then probably is. He’s the one that made Apple A7 possible, so look out for some really fast RISC-V CPUs .

Also Ahead computing is formed from former Intel Royal Core employees. Good game Intel, you created this yourself and Jim is on their board and not yours for a reason.

why isn't there any viable riscV product yet?

no product no game, they need a high performing MVP/prototype

 

[igor_kavinski]

the chips craig, where are the chips???

He's like, "Intel has the best manufacturing technology. Everyone come and make chips with Intel. Fire the board. Hire Pat back. Let him finish his work".

Maybe he should return too and run Intel as co-CEO with Pat. Let's see how long he can sit back and look at Pat burning cash away.

 

[Doug S]

Also side note, but why does it take 500 federal employees to administrer the CHIPS grants?!?

There is over $50 billion in federal funding, if you assume an average cost of $100K per employee (it is probably a little higher especially when you include benefits) that's $50 million a year, or 1/10th of one percent. Even if you double it that's only 2/10th of one percent. If you think an administrative cost in the low tenths of a percentage point is a lot then I guess you've never read the disclosures on any stock funds you're invested in or have considered investing in. Even something like an S&P index fund is usually over 0.1% in administrative costs, and that requires zero research or expertise - the trading is probably automated in fact.

If we want to insure the money is being allocated to the right companies you need people to pore over reams of materials on their plans, ask a lot of tough questions, and so forth. Obviously I don't know the specifics and maybe there is some "waste" there, but it may end up costing us more in "fraud" if it was understaffed and money was allocated where it would be wasted or stolen. Just look at PPP for an example of how much money can be stolen when the money spigot is opened and there is essentially no review or oversight of how it is spent.

 

[DrMrLordX]

There is over $50 billion in federal funding, if you assume an average cost of $100K per employee (it is probably a little higher especially when you include benefits) that's $50 million a year, or 1/10th of one percent. Even if you double it that's only 2/10th of one percent. If you think an administrative cost in the low tenths of a percentage point is a lot then I guess you've never read the disclosures on any stock funds you're invested in or have considered investing in. Even something like an S&P index fund is usually over 0.1% in administrative costs, and that requires zero research or expertise - the trading is probably automated in fact.

If we want to insure the money is being allocated to the right companies you need people to pore over reams of materials on their plans, ask a lot of tough questions, and so forth. Obviously I don't know the specifics and maybe there is some "waste" there, but it may end up costing us more in "fraud" if it was understaffed and money was allocated where it would be wasted or stolen. Just look at PPP for an example of how much money can be stolen when the money spigot is opened and there is essentially no review or oversight of how it is spent.

Whether or not there is waste, if people get caught in a mass layoff, there should be another way to get the CHIPS funding to its intended destination.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Whether or not there is waste, if people get caught in a mass layoff, there should be another way to get the CHIPS funding to its intended destination.

Who will check that the money reached the "intended destination" if the experts that were hired for that are not here anymore?

 

[DrMrLordX]

Who will check that the money reached the "intended destination" if the experts that were hired for that are not here anymore?

No one. The whole idea of the CHIPS act was "we need domestic silicon production", which was an allergic reaction to various chip shortages during covid etc. Which was hilarious since it arrived late and since Intel was probably not the best domestic semiconductor company to handle that problem. So in the spirit of just handing money to Intel under the assumption that hey, give money to our last best foundry, just . . . give them the money and call it a day. CHIPS was never a good idea in the first place, and sticking a few hundred post-docs up their butts isn't going to make it any less of a boondoggle.