8 ms·

This is the right strategy. Intel can't survive using the same strategy as GlobalFoundries (giving up high-end fabs). Intel has two legs. Intel microarchitectu

This is the right strategy. Intel can't survive using the same strategy as GlobalFoundries (giving up high-end fabs). Intel has two legs. Intel microarchitecture business competes with fabless AMD, Apple, Nvidia, ARM, Qualcomm. And Samsung. Intel's chip manufacturing competes only with TSMC and Samsung in the high-end. Intel has always been the first and foremost chip manufacturing process company. Intel was founded by chemists. The competitiveness of x86 didn't come from superior chip architecture. It came from superior manufacturing and volume. There is the more expected value in risking the whole company and betting everything on high-end fabs, process technologies R&D than just competing with fabless. High risk, high reward.

dsizzle 5y ago
I get positive impressions that they might pull off their vision whenever I watch new CEO Pat Gelsinger, like here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtYEmR9F8OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtYEmR9F8OM He's also targeting getting Apple back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsrCOkIth_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsrCOkIth_U
- gumby 5y ago
  > He's also targeting getting Apple back I doubt he seriously is, I think that’s just rallying the troops by setting an aggressive, aspirational target, acknowledging the humiliation and trying to use it. Which is what he should be doing so good for him. It remains to be seen if he’s another Lisa Su. The odds are against it but I’d be excited if he could pull it off.
- sithadmin 5y ago
  If Pat's recent performance at VMware is any indicator...I wouldn't put that much faith in his ability to turn things around. He was very good for VMware early on in his tenure, but as competition from IaaS and other players making inroads in on-prem virtualization platforms intensified, his leadership seemed to falter. VMware began to churn and burn through acquisitions without much success, became entangled in a toxic relationship with Dell, and only managed to make marginal gains in terms of home-grown product innovation. The last couple years of his tenure were an especially noticeable period of decline, with massive losses in employee morale and retention, as well as continually degrading release quality. As a former employee (I left just before Pat did), I left the company with the impression that Pat and the rest of the execs were asleep at the wheel while the heads of various business units simply ran amok.
  - dsizzle 5y ago
    Hmm, thanks for the inside perspective from VMWare. I can still believe things would be different at Intel, because of his long history there, and he seems pretty passionate about it (although maybe he seemed that way at VMWare too?)
    - sithadmin 5y ago
      Passion for technology and compassion for people are probably Pat's greatest strengths as a leader, but I'm not convinced that those alone are enough to shift an enterprise towards success when it's facing an existential crisis.
      - lugged 5y ago
        Intel has a history of big plays, I'll be taking a punt on them, just as soon as this slow growth and missed earnings errode their stock price over the next couple years.
        totalZero 5y ago
        I don't think you'll get a couple of years to buy in. There seems to be a lot of noise in the triangular thought bubble between Chinese fab, Taiwanese independence, and semiconductor shortages. Big developments on any of those fronts may force the US government to step in and do something more substantial than giving tax incentives to buy lithography scanners.
  - geertj 5y ago
    > If Pat's recent performance at VMware is any indicator...I wouldn't put that much faith in his ability to turn things around. His track record at VMware was also my major concern when deciding whether to invest in INTC stock recently. In the end I decided for myself that VMware was probably unsalvageable. They had a dominant position in the datacenter (and still have), but were unable to compete effectively in the cloud as there is too little overlap between the VMware culture, commercial model, and product with what's needed to run a hyperscale cloud. Gelsinger managed to become CTO at Intel in 2001, which is I think is not something you can do if you don't have any leadership skills. Given that the Intel mission is pretty clear, and given that I don't think Intel needs to total cultural overhaul (just the management), my view is that he has a decent chance.
- UncleOxidant 5y ago
  > He's also targeting getting Apple back Very unlikely to happen. Maybe Intel could end up manufacturing Apple's M* chips, but it seems very unlikely at this point that Apple would ever go back to the Intel architecture - Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    > Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that. Case in point: 2x ProRes accelerators in the M1 Max. These are critical to a significant percentage of Apple's core base and yet there is zero chance that we would see them in the Intel offerings.
  - gjsman-1000 5y ago
    Not to mention they'd need Rosetta 3, which would be the opposite of Rosetta 2. Things would have to be desperate to do that.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      Just about the only backflip I could imagine is for Apple to declare that the highest end variants of Mac Pro would remain Intel indefinitely, making the Mac a permanently multi-architecture platform. But I’d put the odds of that happening at far less than 1%.
      - UncleOxidant 5y ago
        Unless Intel comes up with some completely new architecture with a new ISA I don't see how they could catch up with what Apple has done with the M* CPUs.
        gameswithgo 5y ago
        there is no firm evidence that apples chips are better because of isa, they perform about like a ryzen would at 5nm
- raverbashing 5y ago
  The Apple ship has sailed since Intel rejected supplying the iPhone chips The only way they could maybe have a chance is for them to have something better than the equivalent M1 5 years from now. It's not going to happen. Especially with x86
  - totalZero 5y ago
    Two reasons I respectfully disagree with you, the first more compelling than the second: First, Apple has a history of dipping its fingers into several cookie jars simultaneously. They source from different suppliers to introduce supply chain redundancy and establish pricing power. This way, they ensure that a transition from a main supplier company to its competitor is always viable, because they build relationships and allow the competitor to generate enough revenue to stay active in that particular product segment. So even if Apple wants to make its own chips, it has a reason to do so at least in part with Intel as the IDM 2.0 push towards foundry becomes a reality. Second, there are still some significant drawbacks to Apple's new machines. I want more external monitors, for one. This is neither here nor there, but personally I think Apple should have spent $500 billion on its own chip fabrication infrastructure rather than doing share buybacks over the past ten years.
    - vimy 5y ago
      > Second, there are still some significant drawbacks to Apple's new machines. I want more external monitors, for one. “ Overall, the new MacBook Pro with the M1 Pro chip supports up to two external displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz, while the new MacBook Pro with the M1 Max chip supports up to three external displays with up to 6K resolution and one external display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz” More than this?
      - petersellers 5y ago
        Yeah, the person you replied to really seemed to be grasping at straws there. How many laptops for sale now have this level of support for external monitors?
klelatti 5y ago
The key question is whether the two legs should stay together. Even with excellent execution the risk is that x86 with its higher margins gets priority over the third party fab business which as a result remains uncompetitive. Independent Fabs would be ultimately able to compete with TSMC on equal terms - in fact on better terms for some clients as based in US. The fabs would be a growth business and x86 a cash cow. Going back in history the move which Grove is remembered for - ditching memories - was partly about improving focus. This strategy is doing the opposite.

dsizzle 5y ago

I get positive impressions that they might pull off their vision whenever I watch new CEO Pat Gelsinger, like here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtYEmR9F8OM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtYEmR9F8OM He's also targeting getting Apple back https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsrCOkIth_U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsrCOkIth_U

gumby 5y ago
> He's also targeting getting Apple back I doubt he seriously is, I think that’s just rallying the troops by setting an aggressive, aspirational target, acknowledging the humiliation and trying to use it. Which is what he should be doing so good for him. It remains to be seen if he’s another Lisa Su. The odds are against it but I’d be excited if he could pull it off.
sithadmin 5y ago
If Pat's recent performance at VMware is any indicator...I wouldn't put that much faith in his ability to turn things around. He was very good for VMware early on in his tenure, but as competition from IaaS and other players making inroads in on-prem virtualization platforms intensified, his leadership seemed to falter. VMware began to churn and burn through acquisitions without much success, became entangled in a toxic relationship with Dell, and only managed to make marginal gains in terms of home-grown product innovation. The last couple years of his tenure were an especially noticeable period of decline, with massive losses in employee morale and retention, as well as continually degrading release quality. As a former employee (I left just before Pat did), I left the company with the impression that Pat and the rest of the execs were asleep at the wheel while the heads of various business units simply ran amok.
- dsizzle 5y ago
  Hmm, thanks for the inside perspective from VMWare. I can still believe things would be different at Intel, because of his long history there, and he seems pretty passionate about it (although maybe he seemed that way at VMWare too?)
  - sithadmin 5y ago
    Passion for technology and compassion for people are probably Pat's greatest strengths as a leader, but I'm not convinced that those alone are enough to shift an enterprise towards success when it's facing an existential crisis.
    - lugged 5y ago
      Intel has a history of big plays, I'll be taking a punt on them, just as soon as this slow growth and missed earnings errode their stock price over the next couple years.
      - totalZero 5y ago
        I don't think you'll get a couple of years to buy in. There seems to be a lot of noise in the triangular thought bubble between Chinese fab, Taiwanese independence, and semiconductor shortages. Big developments on any of those fronts may force the US government to step in and do something more substantial than giving tax incentives to buy lithography scanners.
- geertj 5y ago
  > If Pat's recent performance at VMware is any indicator...I wouldn't put that much faith in his ability to turn things around. His track record at VMware was also my major concern when deciding whether to invest in INTC stock recently. In the end I decided for myself that VMware was probably unsalvageable. They had a dominant position in the datacenter (and still have), but were unable to compete effectively in the cloud as there is too little overlap between the VMware culture, commercial model, and product with what's needed to run a hyperscale cloud. Gelsinger managed to become CTO at Intel in 2001, which is I think is not something you can do if you don't have any leadership skills. Given that the Intel mission is pretty clear, and given that I don't think Intel needs to total cultural overhaul (just the management), my view is that he has a decent chance.
UncleOxidant 5y ago
> He's also targeting getting Apple back Very unlikely to happen. Maybe Intel could end up manufacturing Apple's M* chips, but it seems very unlikely at this point that Apple would ever go back to the Intel architecture - Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that.
- threeseed 5y ago
  > Apple would be ceding control if they went back and they're not going to do that. Case in point: 2x ProRes accelerators in the M1 Max. These are critical to a significant percentage of Apple's core base and yet there is zero chance that we would see them in the Intel offerings.
- gjsman-1000 5y ago
  Not to mention they'd need Rosetta 3, which would be the opposite of Rosetta 2. Things would have to be desperate to do that.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    Just about the only backflip I could imagine is for Apple to declare that the highest end variants of Mac Pro would remain Intel indefinitely, making the Mac a permanently multi-architecture platform. But I’d put the odds of that happening at far less than 1%.
    - UncleOxidant 5y ago
      Unless Intel comes up with some completely new architecture with a new ISA I don't see how they could catch up with what Apple has done with the M* CPUs.
      - gameswithgo 5y ago
        there is no firm evidence that apples chips are better because of isa, they perform about like a ryzen would at 5nm
raverbashing 5y ago
The Apple ship has sailed since Intel rejected supplying the iPhone chips The only way they could maybe have a chance is for them to have something better than the equivalent M1 5 years from now. It's not going to happen. Especially with x86
- totalZero 5y ago
  Two reasons I respectfully disagree with you, the first more compelling than the second: First, Apple has a history of dipping its fingers into several cookie jars simultaneously. They source from different suppliers to introduce supply chain redundancy and establish pricing power. This way, they ensure that a transition from a main supplier company to its competitor is always viable, because they build relationships and allow the competitor to generate enough revenue to stay active in that particular product segment. So even if Apple wants to make its own chips, it has a reason to do so at least in part with Intel as the IDM 2.0 push towards foundry becomes a reality. Second, there are still some significant drawbacks to Apple's new machines. I want more external monitors, for one. This is neither here nor there, but personally I think Apple should have spent $500 billion on its own chip fabrication infrastructure rather than doing share buybacks over the past ten years.
  - vimy 5y ago
    > Second, there are still some significant drawbacks to Apple's new machines. I want more external monitors, for one. “ Overall, the new MacBook Pro with the M1 Pro chip supports up to two external displays with up to 6K resolution at 60Hz, while the new MacBook Pro with the M1 Max chip supports up to three external displays with up to 6K resolution and one external display with up to 4K resolution at 60Hz” More than this?
    - petersellers 5y ago
      Yeah, the person you replied to really seemed to be grasping at straws there. How many laptops for sale now have this level of support for external monitors?

klelatti 5y ago

The key question is whether the two legs should stay together. Even with excellent execution the risk is that x86 with its higher margins gets priority over the third party fab business which as a result remains uncompetitive. Independent Fabs would be ultimately able to compete with TSMC on equal terms - in fact on better terms for some clients as based in US. The fabs would be a growth business and x86 a cash cow. Going back in history the move which Grove is remembered for - ditching memories - was partly about improving focus. This strategy is doing the opposite.