7 ms·

How could one person be so important at CPU development? We have no doubt he is one of the best player in the field from the history. But doesn't the huge proj

by ezoe 6y ago

How could one person be so important at CPU development? We have no doubt he is one of the best player in the field from the history. But doesn't the huge project like CPU development require a lot of good workers rather than one genius?

arcanus 6y ago
> But doesn't the huge project like CPU development require a lot of good workers rather than one genius? Yes. Intel has over one hundred thousand employees. AMD, which does not have fabs, has over ten thousand.
- cwizou 6y ago
  But only a tiny fraction of those work on CPU development, so it's not exactly a fair comparison. It's definitely not a numbers game. However, Intel has (used to have ? I haven't followed recently but I'd be surprised it changed) two separate design teams, one in Oregon, the other in Haifa, working in a sort of "tick tock" way (each would work on one set of tick-tock when that was still a thing), so that, at least, was definitely an advantage in terms of numbers for them. Whether those were efficient thanks to Intel's management/bureaucracy or, mattered at all since the 2015 process issues, however, is a a completely different story.
Guthur 6y ago
Yes CPU are designed by teams, but to effectively build a world class product you need a world class team and world class leadership. Keller has proven time and again he can lead world class teams effectively.
sunstone 6y ago
Just like a cathedral, there's an architect and then there's the implementers.
chooseaname 6y ago
> But doesn't the huge project like CPU development require a lot of good workers rather than one genius? It requires a lot of good workers and one genius. Some people are just masters at seeing the big picture.
- at-fates-hands 6y ago
  I wasn't under the impression that's why he was at Intel to begin with. I thought he was there in more of a leadership position to try and get the engineering team on more solid footing. In that regard, it would make more sense that he left due to going against the current and finally throwing in the towel after finding more resistance to what he wanted to do?
kumarvvr 6y ago
Before Elon Musk, there were just as many brilliant engineers and researchers in the world, as they are now gathered in SpaceX. Still, SpaceX was possible because of his drive, vision and most importantly, taking the critical decisions. So, that one person is important in the sense that he can get stuff done, set the vision, tone, drive, passion and inspiration.
- cookiecaper 6y ago
  SpaceX is possible because Elon was part of the PayPal Mafia. To start a company like SpaceX or Tesla, you must be fantastically wealthy -- at least billions in net worth. Elon is one of the only people who could've started SpaceX. This is not to detract from the contributions that Elon has made, but to indicate that there are potential Elons all around you. How many engineers would've built something similar if they had resources? Consider that even John Carmack, despite millions in personal fortune, had to abort Armadillo Aerospace because it was too expensive. If he had a PayPal-size exit, we may've had a SpaceX many years earlier!
  - alphakappa 6y ago
    Elon's PayPal wealth is not a rare occurrence. There are over 500 billionaires in just the US alone. His wealth was an essential ingredient for sure, but it must be obvious that it takes more than wealth to create a company like SpaceX.
    - blaser-waffle 6y ago
      500 billionaires in a country of 330 million people? What do you think rare is, then? I'd argue that wealth is step 1, but step 2 is a willingness to gamble that wealth, to lose it, and to hustle.
      - elliekelly 6y ago
        And of the billionaires I’ve met none would be willing to risk losing a comma no matter how big the potential payoff. In that respect Elon is definitely the 1% of the 1%.
gameswithgo 6y ago
A lot of people seem to think the key is that he has particular CPU design genius, but from his interviews I wonder if in fact his genius is in managing people. Perhaps people here have worked with him and could offer insight?
- danielrpa 6y ago
  It's probably both. It's about being a great manager and making sure the team are aligned around the right technical concepts. A single wrong, major technological bet can doom the entire project.
- blaser-waffle 6y ago
  Why not both? There are a lot of very talented technical people in the STEM world, but how many of them are good managers? And how many of them are willing to do management? I know a lot of sharp folks who walked away from Mgmt roles because of the BS and headaches. Someone who is a technical visionary AND can lead teams is rare and powerful. I'm guessing Keller is at least competent at driving projects, on top of any technical skillsets he brings.
  - gameswithgo 6y ago
    Yes, what I was implying is that some level of design genius is a given, but what may make him unique is that he also has management skill.
compiler-guy 6y ago
There are so many engineering tradeoffs when developing a cutting edge chip. Picking the right ones is very hard; if you have a leader who staffs the project and sets the culture and decision making process in such a way that the right tradeoffs are consistently made, then that is golden. He has a long track record of doing just that. It's not that he is the only guy on the team; it's that he has a knack for building teams that do this extremely well. And has done it at multiple companies with multiple architectures, with multiple design goals.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
im3w1l 6y ago
Imagine you have a pool of candidates. One has a proven track record. Five are equally good as him but lack the track record. Four are duds. Lacking domain knowledge yourself you can't tell the good from the duds, so you go with the guy with the track record.
UncleOxidant 6y ago
It's not just the one person but also the process and tools used. Intel's CPU design process tends to be stuck further back in the past than AMD's or Apple's. Instead of taking advantage of design automation Intel tends to throw more bodies at the problem. That doesn't scale well. Keller was brought in because of what he did at AMD and Apple to streamline the process and use more design automation. But Intel tends to hire people right out of school and they tend to stay around for many years so they've never been exposed to how things are in other companies. I have a suspicion that Intel has most of their US CPU design activities in Oregon not just because it's a cheaper location than SV but also because it's a lot harder for employees to switch companies - they'd have to move to the Bay Area or Austin and that's a tough move for people who have lived in Oregon for many years.
- dpe82 6y ago
  So much of what governs the success of large engineering projects is the processes that govern decision making: from the actual design of the thing you're trying to build, to staffing and resource allocation, norms and processes that govern how work groups interact and collaborate, etc. Adjusting those is the most important lever someone like a VP has but it takes time. You can make changes quickly but things will tend to break and sometimes the thing that breaks is the leader pushing the change.

by ezoe 6y ago

arcanus 6y ago

> But doesn't the huge project like CPU development require a lot of good workers rather than one genius? Yes. Intel has over one hundred thousand employees. AMD, which does not have fabs, has over ten thousand.

cwizou 6y ago
But only a tiny fraction of those work on CPU development, so it's not exactly a fair comparison. It's definitely not a numbers game. However, Intel has (used to have ? I haven't followed recently but I'd be surprised it changed) two separate design teams, one in Oregon, the other in Haifa, working in a sort of "tick tock" way (each would work on one set of tick-tock when that was still a thing), so that, at least, was definitely an advantage in terms of numbers for them. Whether those were efficient thanks to Intel's management/bureaucracy or, mattered at all since the 2015 process issues, however, is a a completely different story.

Guthur 6y ago

Yes CPU are designed by teams, but to effectively build a world class product you need a world class team and world class leadership. Keller has proven time and again he can lead world class teams effectively.

sunstone 6y ago

Just like a cathedral, there's an architect and then there's the implementers.

chooseaname 6y ago

> But doesn't the huge project like CPU development require a lot of good workers rather than one genius? It requires a lot of good workers and one genius. Some people are just masters at seeing the big picture.

at-fates-hands 6y ago
I wasn't under the impression that's why he was at Intel to begin with. I thought he was there in more of a leadership position to try and get the engineering team on more solid footing. In that regard, it would make more sense that he left due to going against the current and finally throwing in the towel after finding more resistance to what he wanted to do?

kumarvvr 6y ago

Before Elon Musk, there were just as many brilliant engineers and researchers in the world, as they are now gathered in SpaceX. Still, SpaceX was possible because of his drive, vision and most importantly, taking the critical decisions. So, that one person is important in the sense that he can get stuff done, set the vision, tone, drive, passion and inspiration.

cookiecaper 6y ago
SpaceX is possible because Elon was part of the PayPal Mafia. To start a company like SpaceX or Tesla, you must be fantastically wealthy -- at least billions in net worth. Elon is one of the only people who could've started SpaceX. This is not to detract from the contributions that Elon has made, but to indicate that there are potential Elons all around you. How many engineers would've built something similar if they had resources? Consider that even John Carmack, despite millions in personal fortune, had to abort Armadillo Aerospace because it was too expensive. If he had a PayPal-size exit, we may've had a SpaceX many years earlier!
- alphakappa 6y ago
  Elon's PayPal wealth is not a rare occurrence. There are over 500 billionaires in just the US alone. His wealth was an essential ingredient for sure, but it must be obvious that it takes more than wealth to create a company like SpaceX.
  - blaser-waffle 6y ago
    500 billionaires in a country of 330 million people? What do you think rare is, then? I'd argue that wealth is step 1, but step 2 is a willingness to gamble that wealth, to lose it, and to hustle.
    - elliekelly 6y ago
      And of the billionaires I’ve met none would be willing to risk losing a comma no matter how big the potential payoff. In that respect Elon is definitely the 1% of the 1%.

gameswithgo 6y ago

A lot of people seem to think the key is that he has particular CPU design genius, but from his interviews I wonder if in fact his genius is in managing people. Perhaps people here have worked with him and could offer insight?

danielrpa 6y ago
It's probably both. It's about being a great manager and making sure the team are aligned around the right technical concepts. A single wrong, major technological bet can doom the entire project.
blaser-waffle 6y ago
Why not both? There are a lot of very talented technical people in the STEM world, but how many of them are good managers? And how many of them are willing to do management? I know a lot of sharp folks who walked away from Mgmt roles because of the BS and headaches. Someone who is a technical visionary AND can lead teams is rare and powerful. I'm guessing Keller is at least competent at driving projects, on top of any technical skillsets he brings.
- gameswithgo 6y ago
  Yes, what I was implying is that some level of design genius is a given, but what may make him unique is that he also has management skill.

compiler-guy 6y ago

There are so many engineering tradeoffs when developing a cutting edge chip. Picking the right ones is very hard; if you have a leader who staffs the project and sets the culture and decision making process in such a way that the right tradeoffs are consistently made, then that is golden. He has a long track record of doing just that. It's not that he is the only guy on the team; it's that he has a knack for building teams that do this extremely well. And has done it at multiple companies with multiple architectures, with multiple design goals.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

im3w1l 6y ago

Imagine you have a pool of candidates. One has a proven track record. Five are equally good as him but lack the track record. Four are duds. Lacking domain knowledge yourself you can't tell the good from the duds, so you go with the guy with the track record.

UncleOxidant 6y ago

It's not just the one person but also the process and tools used. Intel's CPU design process tends to be stuck further back in the past than AMD's or Apple's. Instead of taking advantage of design automation Intel tends to throw more bodies at the problem. That doesn't scale well. Keller was brought in because of what he did at AMD and Apple to streamline the process and use more design automation. But Intel tends to hire people right out of school and they tend to stay around for many years so they've never been exposed to how things are in other companies. I have a suspicion that Intel has most of their US CPU design activities in Oregon not just because it's a cheaper location than SV but also because it's a lot harder for employees to switch companies - they'd have to move to the Bay Area or Austin and that's a tough move for people who have lived in Oregon for many years.

dpe82 6y ago
So much of what governs the success of large engineering projects is the processes that govern decision making: from the actual design of the thing you're trying to build, to staffing and resource allocation, norms and processes that govern how work groups interact and collaborate, etc. Adjusting those is the most important lever someone like a VP has but it takes time. You can make changes quickly but things will tend to break and sometimes the thing that breaks is the leader pushing the change.