Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger Exits the Company

[@HitnRunTony]

They are making it harder and harder to be an Intel guy

[@blurandomnumber]

Meanwhile, TSMC Arizona are shipping products out the door. Go figure.

[@DominicUliano]

I work for VMware, now part of Broadcom. I think Hock Tan has done an amazing job of saving VMware by simplifying both our business model and offerings. I think Intel needs a similar type of CEO that can be ruthless in their pursuit of cutting out the unproductive parts of Intel's business and refocusing the company on the "sticky" parts of their business that they can grow. Intel still has a huge percent of the PC and Server market. While PC/Server market may not be growing, the right CEO can refocus Intel on making Intel's share much more profitable and even more sticky. I hope someone can save this great company.

[@itperdition]

@@DominicUliano saving the brand? I see all VMware customers leaving in droves over the insane pricing model. How’s that breach of contract litigation going with AT&T and that other big European company going? Scaling back and refocusing product lines good. Pricing SMB and now VLB out of the product, bad.

[@DominicUliano]

@@itperdition I don't want to argue with your observations but I work with VMware's largest customers in the SAP on VMware space and I've only had one customer complain about our licensing but is now expanding their SAP on VMware footprint. So my observations and experiences don't align with yours. I am absolutely in love with our strategy of a unified VCF stack and a greatly reduced set of SKU's. Also, you are mis-understanding what I mean by saying, "saving VMware"... I did not mean "the brand", I mean VMware, the company. Before the acquisition, VMware was on a death spiral and if we have not been acquired by a company, like Broadcom, VMware would be like Yahoo. We would still be around but we would be completely irrelevant (no offense meant to Yahoo). I have been able to see the positive impact that Hock Tan's vision has had on VMware and that is what I think Intel needs now also.

[@briancase6180]

Oh come on. Gelsinger sealed his fate by NOT cutting the Intel workforce 15% on day one (followed by at least one more 5% or 10% cut) of his being CEO. Anyone who looked at Intel or worked there knows the way Intel is organized prevents all those people from doing useful work. Actually, the BOARD killed Intel by hiring a succession of four bean-counter CEOs who let the technical side become completely dysfunctional, especially in the process design (not processor design) side of the company. By the time Gelsinger arrived, it was basically too late UNLESS he would have cut the workforce immediately. Intel--as a combined design+fab company, an IDM--can be saved IF it can get ahold of about $100 billion to sustain the company while it fixes its problems and convinces fabless companies to use its foundry services. In other words, no, Intel cannot be saved. And, his name is pronounced Gel-SING-er. Not Gel-sinj-er.

[@thequestingblade]

they'll be forced to shrink one way or another now

[@henrythegreatamerican8136]

Well, the good news is he set the company up for the long-term with foundries. I don't think chip design will be as profitable because more companies are getting involved with that side of the business. Building the actual chips will be more profitable. It will also create a bigger mote because not everyone can start billion dollar foundries.

[@shermc4587]

@@henrythegreatamerican8136 competing with an established foundry that is bigger with better cost advantages, better technical know how and lower personal cost is going to be more profitable than competing with US fabless companies which all make more money than TSMC. Great logic. By the way, Intel chip design is still very competitive unlike their foundry. Foundry is being the “it” tech hyped up by politicians and Intel. Does anyone really look at what is best path for Intel to survive?

[@lordcron]

I believe they're making a huge mistake letting him go.... They'll regret that....

[@Matrix1Gamer]

There are a lot gamers looking for Battlemage GPUs. Some investors might prioritize short-term gains over long-term growth. Gelsinger poured billions into building new fabrication plants (fabs) in the US and Europe, aiming to regain Intel's leadership in chip production technology. Huge investment with a winning strategy.

[@slimjimjimslim5923]

This is like the final struggle of Intel. The whimper before the final dark 😢😢😢

[@jaylove5555]

"Refirement" 😢

[@ps3301]

Intel 18a has only 10 percent yield

[@5600hp]

How to verify this statement?

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@5600hp New York Times... 4 days ago. combine with the news from Reuters in Septs. Intel 18A fail to pass Broadcom verification due to low yield rate, highly possible.

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@5600hp New York Times, 4 days ago Combine with the news from Reuters in Sept., Intel 18A fail to pass Broadcom’s verification due to low yield rate… highly possible

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@5600hp New York Times, 4 days ago Combine with the news from Reuters in Sept., Intel 18A failed to pass Broadcom’s verification due to low yield rate. Highly possible.

[@twit]

@5600hp It has been widely reported.

[@yashai74]

verify your claims… facts are distorted… consider talking to intel alumni for real perspective

[@twit]

@yashai74 we are only discussing what others have written. We did not write the stories.

[@debugin1227]

Never heard of pat.., intel haven’t been relevant for years

[@AlexNomadHuang]

If you tell a Taiwanese about Intel 18A, the very first question Taiwanese will ask is .... "what is the yield rate?" So what is Intel's 18A yield rate now? from the news..... the number is horrible. imagine Intel produce 100 18A-chips and only 10 of them are ok.....

[@francishallare204]

it's the wrong way to measure the yield defect rate.

[@francishallare204]

defect density is based on the type of chips being made.

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@francishallare204 1. For the yield argument part, 10% or 99%... unless we know more detail otherwise it is pointless to look at these numbers. die size is a factor, defect density is a factor, And In the industry, no one evaluates chip yield purely based on defect density. Yield is determined by whether the functionality works correctly and whether the performance is within the expected range. “Defect density and yield are not unrelated, but they are not directly correlated.” In general, if you want to manipulate the data to show a higher yield in reports, you just need to broaden the acceptable performance range. The yield will then improve. But one question, if the yield rate is really that good today like that 99%-yield-tweet says would the Board let Pat go few days ago? Clearly we all agree the Board members can see the internal report. 2. yesterday's news, david zinsner and michelle johnston holthaus said the split off option is a open question, if 18A project fails. what does that tell us? if 18A fails? so 18A is not even close to be ready?

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@francishallare204 1. For the yield argument part, 10% or 99%... unless we know more detail otherwise it is pointless to look at these numbers. die size is a factor, defect density is a factor, And In the industry, no one evaluates chip yield purely based on defect density. Yield is determined by whether the functionality works correctly and whether the performance is within the expected range. “Defect density and yield are not unrelated, but they are not directly correlated.” In general, if you want to manipulate the data to show a higher yield in reports, you just need to broaden the acceptable performance range. The yield will then improve. But one question, if the yield rate is really that good today like that 99%-yield-tweet says would the Board let Pat go few days ago? Clearly we all agree the Board members can see the internal report. 2. david zinsner and michelle johnston holthaus said yesterday that the split off option is an open question, if 18A project fails next year. what does that mean for us? "if 18A project fails next year" so... 18A is not even close to ready?

[@AlexNomadHuang]

@@francishallare204 1. For the yield argument part, 10% or 99%... unless we know more detail otherwise it is pointless to look at these numbers. die size is a factor, defect density is a factor, And In the industry, no one evaluates chip yield purely based on defect density. Yield is determined by whether the functionality works correctly and whether the performance is within the expected range. “Defect density and yield are not unrelated, but they are not directly correlated.” In general, if you want to manipulate the data to show a higher yield in reports, you just need to broaden the acceptable performance range. The yield will then improve. But one question, if the yield rate is really that good today like that 99%-yield-tweet says(09:29) would the Board let Pat go few days ago? Clearly we all agree the Board members can see the internal report. 2. yesterday david zinsner and michelle johnston holthaus said Intel split off is an open question if the 18A project fails next year. obviously it releases one message... 18A is not ready.