I’m too tired to read that carefully right now, but it looks interesting, and calls Gelsinger out on some dumb stuff. I had thought that he had simply taken on a messed up company and done the best he could, spouting some BS here and there as required. Oh well.
Special Report: Inside Intel, CEO Pat Gelsinger fumbled the revival of an American icon [Reuters]
Submitted 2 weeks ago by Rekall_Incorporated@lemm.ee to technology@lemmy.world
Comments
solrize@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Rekall_Incorporated@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Worth reading if the semiconductor industry is one of your interests.
Paints a pretty bad picture of Gelsinger. I wonder how systematic these issues are. However the examples cited are too serious to be ignored IMO.
Kidplayer_666@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Say what you will about business school CEOs, they at least know when to stay shut up… hopefully this engineer CEO is able to keep Intel engineering centric and to actually sort their crap out…
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It was pretty obvious from the beginning that Gelsinger was on some kind of hype train.
He has over promised and under delivered on everything. Personally I disliked him from the start, I saw him as an untrustworthy buffoon.
He was too eager to try to convince everybody that Intel would soon be leading in every aspect. His claim about winning Apple back was cringy. After Apple had made their own chip equaling X86 laptops on performance, but using only half the power.
The new Arrow Lake is a disappointment too. Yes it uses less power, but that’s probably mostly due to the improved TSMC process.
When AMD came out with the Ryzen CPU, Intel still had a performance per core advantage, and decent PPW compared to Ryzen.
Historically Intel has always been able to come back quickly from a setback like Ryzen was to them on total performance and PPW per CPU package.
But this time around they are making failure upon failure. Extremely Power hungry chips that performed only slightly better, and now chips that have better PPW but are slower despite TSMC fabrication.
It’s now almost 8 years since AMD revealed Ryzen, and Intel still can’t beat it. AMD managed to come back from near bankruptcy with extremely strained budgets. But Intel despite having way more money and R&D budgets to fight back with, has been almost constantly failing for 10 years.
I’m saying 10 years because Intel failed on the 10nm process, and released reiterations of SkyLake with barely any improvements at least 2 times before Ryzen came out.
If Intel had made decent progress on their desktop CPU’s the last couple of years before Ryzen, Ryzen would not have been nearly as successful.
Before that Intel tried to compete against Arm with X86, claiming ISA doesn’t matter. I guess $10 billion R&D to compete with Arm and failing, despite using more than Arm’s entire revenue for years would argue that it does.
Their GPUs do have decent performance for the price, problem is that the die to provide that is twice as big as the competition. So it’s not competitive to manufacture, it’s just Intel who was selling cheap to move product.
TheGrandNagus@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
In gaming, maybe. In most workloads Ryzen was beating Intel. Shit, their $300-500 8 core models were matching or beating Intel’s $1,700 10 core.
Comparing 8 core to 8 core, the 1700X/1800X were faster than the 6900K, and used a lot less power. The 1700 was a bit slower but used a huge amount less power.
Buffalox@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
No Intel had a per core performance advantage overall with Skylake, when Ryzen came out.
True. But that was because Intel had failed to upgrade their Workstation CPU’s from Broadwell to Skylake.