4 ms·

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. Panther Lake is quite a good CPU and 14A looks like it'll be a competitive process. IMO, it vindicates the

by scrlk 6mo ago

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. Panther Lake is quite a good CPU and 14A looks like it'll be a competitive process. IMO, it vindicates the decisions that Pat made a few years ago and wasn't able to see through to completion. "Designing microprocessors is like playing Russian roulette. You put a gun to your head, pull the trigger, and find out four years later if you blew your brains out." (Robert Palmer, former DEC CEO)

melling 6mo ago
Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. I thought he would eventually turn the company around but Intel was priced for bankruptcy. Stock price has tripled since last August. Hopefully, Intel is really back. They do need a couple of Fab customers.
- m132 6mo ago
  Was it Pat or Brian? If I recall correctly, it was under Brian when Intel had one of its worst periods of stagnation, when the 10 nm process all the bets were on turned out to be a non-starter, and when Meltdown and Spectre erupted. It's easy to overlook this because Intel had fairly no competition around then, but that doesn't mean the company was in a good shape. I've always felt like Pat was a scapegoat who was chosen to clean up the mess when the whole place was already up in smoke and the smell was only starting to leak out. I liked his strategy, was disappointed to see him booted out.
  - osnium123 6mo ago
    BK really destroyed the company and Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision. Pat was the visionary who saw the value of the fabs but it took a long time to turn things around.
    - ksec 6mo ago
      >Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision Let's be fair to Bob, he has the vision, but dont know how to execute it because he lacks the technical knowledge. He was also the one who finally settled the argument I had for 5 years, if Intel were to made 250M Modem for Apple, where is the additional Capex for capacity expansion on their Fabs. The answer, only to be told by Bob in a 2020 interview was they never really planned for it.
      - osnium123 6mo ago
        I think the 5G modems were intended to be manufactured by TSMC even before they sold the division to Apple.
- mort96 6mo ago
  I don't understand what you mean. Stock price has tripled since last August based on Intel finally having a competitive architecture and a competitive process again, no? At least that in combination with various geopolitical circumstances. Sounds like Pat's decision resulted in Intel's stock price rising?
  - melling 6mo ago
    “The stock price has tripled since last August” That’s just a statement of fact. I offered no other analysis.
    - mort96 6mo ago
      This seems like analysis? "Pat killed Intel’s share price."
      - melling 6mo ago
        I suppose if you just look at a chart…
        mort96 6mo ago
        Then what?
        valianteffort 6mo ago
        [dead]
- ksec 6mo ago
  >Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. Let's face it. Everything he cut, and products / department he sold were what he wanted to do on day one. He had to force his hand, make the stock price worst and ultimately force the board to allow him to do it. You could argue he laid all the foundation for today's Intel to thrive. Yes, I am pointing the fingers at the board. Although words on the street was the board also have their hands tied as they were also beholden to large institutional investors. It is all a Game of Cards.
- tw04 6mo ago
  Much like a president, most of their decisions take years to really be felt. The major changes Pat made weren’t going to change the balance sheet for years. What exactly has Intel done that’s dramatically different than Pat’s vision that you feel is increasing share price? Or is it just that they sold their soul to Trump combined with Pat’s choices finally bearing fruit?
dzonga 6mo ago
me personally, I wouldn't bet against companies like Intel that have full government banking. soon or later they were gonna turn things around with military precision specially with DOD, Intelligence folks giving advice.
- dieortin 6mo ago
  What makes the DoD qualified to give advice about manufacturing microprocessors?
  - saghm 6mo ago
    I think the implication is that if they're doing this, they'll probably be buying some things from them, and the DoD has quite a lot of money.
aurareturn 6mo ago
Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. My speculation: * Intel in 2019 had $72 billion in revenue and 110k employees. When he was fired in 2024, Intel had $54 billion in revenue and 124k employees. He also didn't cut dividend until 2024. He nearly put Intel into the grave in 3 years. * Under Pat, Intel's roadmap was a mess. When you look at AMD's roadmap, it made a ton of sense, predictable, and there are rarely any delays or cancellations. When you looked at an Intel roadmap, expect 30% of them cancelled, 50% delayed by 1-2 quarters, and 30% switched to a different node tech. * IFS strategy under Pat amounted to nothing. Fab cancellations or on hold. Cancelling 20A altogether. Not being able to woo any notable customers. Not hiring the right people for external customers. There were reports that he didn't know how to run an external fab, which is why the board decided to hire Lip Bu Tan who came from Cadence. * He missed on AI boom, crypto boom, said AMD was in rear view mirror, politicized TSMC in order to win government grants while still still using TSMC nodes themself.
- cubefox 6mo ago
  > Intel in 2019 had $72 billion in revenue and 110k employees. When he was fired in 2024, Intel had $54 billion in revenue and 124k employees. He also didn't cut dividend until 2024. He nearly put Intel into the grave in 3 years. That's nonsense. Intel's problems were caused by falling behind TSMC, which was not the fault of Pat Gelsinger. Quite the contrary, he did a lot to turn things around, but this takes time, a lot more than three years.
  - aurareturn 6mo ago
    They had far more problems than just falling behind TSMC. See my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 Under Pat, Intel overestimated the covid boom, which nearly put them into bankruptcy. They hired many more employees while their revenue tanked. He went on an IFS spending spree while he lacked execution on actually winning external customers. He didn't stop dividends until 2024 which tells me he lacked awareness of where Intel was as late as 2024. LBT was hired because he could actually see Intel as what it is today, instead of the Intel dominance that Pat thought he was still operating in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue
natbennett 6mo ago
Gelsinger is unlikely to be a good source on this question.
etempleton 6mo ago
I said it at the time and I reiterate it now. Pat had the right strategy and was the right person for the job. His decision are justified. He could have played the politics better with the board and externally and that is why I think he got fired, but he laid the ground work for where they are now.

by scrlk 6mo ago

melling 6mo ago

Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. I thought he would eventually turn the company around but Intel was priced for bankruptcy. Stock price has tripled since last August. Hopefully, Intel is really back. They do need a couple of Fab customers.

m132 6mo ago
Was it Pat or Brian? If I recall correctly, it was under Brian when Intel had one of its worst periods of stagnation, when the 10 nm process all the bets were on turned out to be a non-starter, and when Meltdown and Spectre erupted. It's easy to overlook this because Intel had fairly no competition around then, but that doesn't mean the company was in a good shape. I've always felt like Pat was a scapegoat who was chosen to clean up the mess when the whole place was already up in smoke and the smell was only starting to leak out. I liked his strategy, was disappointed to see him booted out.
- osnium123 6mo ago
  BK really destroyed the company and Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision. Pat was the visionary who saw the value of the fabs but it took a long time to turn things around.
  - ksec 6mo ago
    >Bob Swan was the finance guy who did not have a vision Let's be fair to Bob, he has the vision, but dont know how to execute it because he lacks the technical knowledge. He was also the one who finally settled the argument I had for 5 years, if Intel were to made 250M Modem for Apple, where is the additional Capex for capacity expansion on their Fabs. The answer, only to be told by Bob in a 2020 interview was they never really planned for it.
    - osnium123 6mo ago
      I think the 5G modems were intended to be manufactured by TSMC even before they sold the division to Apple.
mort96 6mo ago
I don't understand what you mean. Stock price has tripled since last August based on Intel finally having a competitive architecture and a competitive process again, no? At least that in combination with various geopolitical circumstances. Sounds like Pat's decision resulted in Intel's stock price rising?
- melling 6mo ago
  “The stock price has tripled since last August” That’s just a statement of fact. I offered no other analysis.
  - mort96 6mo ago
    This seems like analysis? "Pat killed Intel’s share price."
    - melling 6mo ago
      I suppose if you just look at a chart…
      - mort96 6mo ago
        Then what?
      - valianteffort 6mo ago
        [dead]
ksec 6mo ago
>Pat killed Intel’s share price. Should have paid more attention to the balance sheet. Let's face it. Everything he cut, and products / department he sold were what he wanted to do on day one. He had to force his hand, make the stock price worst and ultimately force the board to allow him to do it. You could argue he laid all the foundation for today's Intel to thrive. Yes, I am pointing the fingers at the board. Although words on the street was the board also have their hands tied as they were also beholden to large institutional investors. It is all a Game of Cards.
tw04 6mo ago
Much like a president, most of their decisions take years to really be felt. The major changes Pat made weren’t going to change the balance sheet for years. What exactly has Intel done that’s dramatically different than Pat’s vision that you feel is increasing share price? Or is it just that they sold their soul to Trump combined with Pat’s choices finally bearing fruit?

dzonga 6mo ago

me personally, I wouldn't bet against companies like Intel that have full government banking. soon or later they were gonna turn things around with military precision specially with DOD, Intelligence folks giving advice.

dieortin 6mo ago
What makes the DoD qualified to give advice about manufacturing microprocessors?
- saghm 6mo ago
  I think the implication is that if they're doing this, they'll probably be buying some things from them, and the DoD has quite a lot of money.

aurareturn 6mo ago

Sadly nothing about why Pat was forced out of Intel. My speculation: * Intel in 2019 had $72 billion in revenue and 110k employees. When he was fired in 2024, Intel had $54 billion in revenue and 124k employees. He also didn't cut dividend until 2024. He nearly put Intel into the grave in 3 years. * Under Pat, Intel's roadmap was a mess. When you look at AMD's roadmap, it made a ton of sense, predictable, and there are rarely any delays or cancellations. When you looked at an Intel roadmap, expect 30% of them cancelled, 50% delayed by 1-2 quarters, and 30% switched to a different node tech. * IFS strategy under Pat amounted to nothing. Fab cancellations or on hold. Cancelling 20A altogether. Not being able to woo any notable customers. Not hiring the right people for external customers. There were reports that he didn't know how to run an external fab, which is why the board decided to hire Lip Bu Tan who came from Cadence. * He missed on AI boom, crypto boom, said AMD was in rear view mirror, politicized TSMC in order to win government grants while still still using TSMC nodes themself.

cubefox 6mo ago
> Intel in 2019 had $72 billion in revenue and 110k employees. When he was fired in 2024, Intel had $54 billion in revenue and 124k employees. He also didn't cut dividend until 2024. He nearly put Intel into the grave in 3 years. That's nonsense. Intel's problems were caused by falling behind TSMC, which was not the fault of Pat Gelsinger. Quite the contrary, he did a lot to turn things around, but this takes time, a lot more than three years.
- aurareturn 6mo ago
  They had far more problems than just falling behind TSMC. See my post here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47706423#47738977 Under Pat, Intel overestimated the covid boom, which nearly put them into bankruptcy. They hired many more employees while their revenue tanked. He went on an IFS spending spree while he lacked execution on actually winning external customers. He didn't stop dividends until 2024 which tells me he lacked awareness of where Intel was as late as 2024. LBT was hired because he could actually see Intel as what it is today, instead of the Intel dominance that Pat thought he was still operating in. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/revenue

natbennett 6mo ago

Gelsinger is unlikely to be a good source on this question.

etempleton 6mo ago

I said it at the time and I reiterate it now. Pat had the right strategy and was the right person for the job. His decision are justified. He could have played the politics better with the board and externally and that is why I think he got fired, but he laid the ground work for where they are now.