Wednesday, October 6th 2021

Intel's Pat Gelsinger Exclaims "Intel is Back" AMD is "Over"

Intel's recently appointed CEO wasn't mincing words in a recent interview with CRN, where he claimed that Intel not only "have the best product" but also that "this period of time when people could say, "Hey, [AMD] is leading," that's over." We'd say them are fighting words, regardless of what various leaks have suggested, since Intel still has a lot to prove with its upcoming Alder Lake CPUs.

Gelsinger continues with "We have 80 percent market share. We have the best software assets that are available in the industry. We do the best job supporting our partners and our OEMs with it. We have an incredible brand that our channel partners, customers want and trust. Wow, that's a lot of assets in that. If the channel partner doesn't see value in that, I want to talk to him." It's pretty clear from this that Intel believes that they're doing a bang up job and if their customers don't see it, then they need a talking to.
For those that were hoping for an engineer to be at the reins of Intel again, the interview with CRN reads like a marketing spinner is at the head of the company. "We are back with a very defined view of what it requires to be leadership in every dimension: leadership product, leadership [chip] packaging, leadership process, leadership software, unquestioned leadership on critical new workloads like AI, graphics, media, power-performance, enabling again the ecosystem. This is what we will be doing with aggressive actions and programs over the next couple of years." How Intel is planning to take the lead in the graphics market is going to be interesting to see if nothing else.

Most of the interview is about how Intel is planning on growing its channel and partner ecosystem, but the article also touches on things like Apple, although once again, Gelsinger dismisses Apple's move away from Intel hardware by saying " We ultimately see the real competition to enable the ecosystem to compete with Apple". This suggests that he doesn't seem to understand why Apple decided to make its own processors in the first place. He also doesn't seem to be a fan of what he calls "Apples closed garden" while calling Windows an "open ecosystem".

When asked how Intel is going to be able to compete with AMD and the various Arm based server parts from companies like Amazon and Ampere, he simply answers "do better products". It's hard to take that kind of an answer seriously and although Intel is hardly in a situation where they're likely to end up on the brink of ruin any time soon, the company has been losing ground in both the server, desktop and notebook markets over the past couple of years.

Gelsinger isn't expecting any further slips in terms of market share, mostly due to the fact that neither Intel or AMD can increase their production at the moment and the situation is likely the same for the Arm based server chip makers. Furthermore, he's expecting pricing to remain stable, although this seems to be referring to server parts, as consumer CPUs aren't discussed in the article. He doesn't see a thread from Arm based server CPUs either, claiming that they have a "very minimal" market share today and will continue to do so.

One interesting quote about the consumer PC side is that he believes that with Alder Lake, Intel will have the "energy efficiency leadership", something no-one else is expecting. That said, it seems like he does have some respect for AMD, saying "AMD has done a solid job over the last couple of years. We won't dismiss them of the good work that they've done". It'll be interesting to see how this unfolds over the next couple of generations of CPUs from both companies, as Intel still has a lot to prove with its new CPU designs.
Source: CRN
Add your own comment

161 Comments on Intel's Pat Gelsinger Exclaims "Intel is Back" AMD is "Over"

#76
seth1911
Locked or not thats no point this times yeah i can oc a CPU for 10% more Performance lmao, this isnt a good deal for 50-100€ over the normal value.

In 775 or AM2 Times u got 40%+++ more Performance
Why_MeB660 boards and locked cpu's will be where it's at.
Posted on Reply
#77
Ravenas
lasHOWEVER without Intel being stuck at 14nm _and_ AMD using TSMC 7nm - AMD would never have been able to do what they did. Ryzen 1000 and 2000 on GloFo was nothing special at all however it delivered an alternative to Intel which even the most hardcore AMD fanboys had joined, because FX CPUs were pretty much garbage.
I'm trying to determine what point you are trying to make here? This is like saying, "If the stop light hadn't of turned red, the car would never have stopped." :kookoo:

Intel became so complacent in the PC gaming market due to zero competition and lower revenue streams in regard to custom desktop gaming, that they stopped making major investments in it. AMD with a market cap of $1 billion used limited R&D resources to design a new chip, make a strategic decision to go fabless, and then put Intel in a corner of good single core performance at the cost of horrible power consumption, for three generations. What has Intel's new CEO done at this point? Launching a new processor based on decisions made pre his tenure and hire an AMD GPU architecture designer.

Intel's problems are beyond PC gaming, they are in a position of 12% chips worldwide, with TSMC dominating the market at greater than 70%. Horrible business strategies led to Intel's position, a new CEO proclaiming Intel is back isn't changing anything. Let the market dictate the outcome.
Posted on Reply
#78
Why_Me
seth1911Locked or not thats no point this times yeah i can oc a CPU for 10% more Performance lmao, this isnt a good deal for 50-100€ over the normal value.

In 775 or AM2 Times u got 40%+++ more Performance
I don't believe the pricing on B660 boards and locked cpu's has been announced yet.
Posted on Reply
#79
londiste
RavenasIntel became so complacent in the PC gaming market due to zero competition and lower revenue streams in regard to custom desktop gaming, that they stopped making major investments in it. AMD with a market cap of $1 billion used limited R&D resources to design a new chip, make a strategic decision to go fabless, and then put Intel in a corner of good single core performance at the cost of horrible power consumption, for three generations. What has Intel's new CEO done at this point? Launching a new processor based on decisions made pre his tenure and hire an AMD GPU architecture designer.
How do you come to this conclusion? Results are one thing but Intel did not become complacent or stop making major investments. It is a fairly common point to make that Intel has a huge R&D budget although when comparing to AMD that is a very much misleading number because Intel has a much wider area of activities. On the topic of this discussion, Intel has been sinking tens of billions in fabs and manufacturing process R&D during this time. So has TSMC.

When it comes to architecture and single core performance - AMD caught up to Intel with Zen2 in 2019. The same Intel that had been sitting on Skylake for 4 years at that point. This is no mean feat but it did not happen overnight. AMD spent two years improving the already highly competitive Zen architecture to catch up to Skylake.

At the same time Intel did not and is not sitting still as the common conception seems to be. Manufacturing is one thing but architecture wise if you look further from desktop - which admittedly is where most of us posting here are focusing on - Ice Lake and Tiger Lake are doing fine against Zen2/3 in terms of single core performance. As I noted before - Rocket Lake (which seems to have some strange downsides due to backport from 10nm to 14nm) has single core performance between Zen2 and Zen3.

Here, I should note that I am taking about R&D and architecture. The core counts and prices available as SKUs are a somewhat different topic.

I have no idea how people have built expectations that Gelsinger is some kind of savior engineer. He is not, at this point he is a CEO of an enormous company. He has influence on many decisions including the corporate climate and focus projects but expecting him to directly do anything is naive.
Posted on Reply
#80
HenrySomeone
RavenasI'm trying to determine what point you are trying to make here? This is like saying, "If the stop light hadn't of turned red, the car would never have stopped." :kookoo:

Intel became so complacent in the PC gaming market due to zero competition and lower revenue streams in regard to custom desktop gaming, that they stopped making major investments in it. AMD with a market cap of $1 billion used limited R&D resources to design a new chip, make a strategic decision to go fabless, and then put Intel in a corner of good single core performance at the cost of horrible power consumption, for three generations. What has Intel's new CEO done at this point? Launching a new processor based on decisions made pre his tenure and hire an AMD GPU architecture designer.

Intel's problems are beyond PC gaming, they are in a position of 12% chips worldwide, with TSMC dominating the market at greater than 70%. Horrible business strategies led to Intel's position, a new CEO proclaiming Intel is back isn't changing anything. Let the market dictate the outcome.
Intel in a horrible position? Only 12% (supposed at that) of all the different world chips made? They are an x86 company, first and foremost (and have always been) and there it's they who are dominating which is also nicely reflected in their year over year profits and considering their nodes are finally catching up with their designs (which are still notably superior), that dominance isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
Posted on Reply
#81
Ravenas
londisteI have no idea how people have built expectations that Gelsinger is some kind of savior engineer. He is not, at this point he is a CEO of an enormous company. He has influence on many decisions including the corporate climate and focus projects but expecting him to directly do anything is naive.
I listed his two major accomplishments and influences. 10nm desktop launch and hiring an AMD GPU architecture designer. That's not saying anything about what is expected of him, or whether or not he should be handling micromanagement activities.

The comment I made towards the post was obvious. The post made a double negative comment which didn't clarify any reasoning for the rest of his post.
Posted on Reply
#82
HisDivineOrder
When you don't have the technology on your side, you start talking up all the extras and intangibles. If you have the actual technology lead, you don't need to say a thing about those things, except as bullets on a powerpoint somewhere.
Posted on Reply
#83
mechtech
HenrySomeoneOh, these poor, poor team red unfortunates with no fabs! One might almost think they never had them and then got rid of them because that's what they deemed better at the time.
And while not quite a dozen, there were several more companies making x86 chips back in the 90s and Intel's share was still just as high...
Where they all on the same level of performance as intel?
Posted on Reply
#84
Minus Infinity
This has about as much credibility as Chump claiming he wasn't obese.

Look Alder Lake will be a big improvement but with the leaked power consumption it's sort of disgraceful with the current push to do something about lowering emissions. You can make anything fast if you let power skyrocket. I'm far more interested in Meteor Lake and Luna Lake. If they can't regin in power usage it's a hard pass.

Alder Lake will probably beat Zen3 in many areas, but Zen3+ will narrow gap and all bets are off for Zen4 vs Meteor Lake.
Posted on Reply
#85
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Cheating has already begun, cough11...
Posted on Reply
#86
RJARRRPCGP
Bomby569lets hope not, we all know how great it was to be a consumer when "AMD was over".
Is that a reference to the 2012-2016 period?
Posted on Reply
#87
Pepamami
omg, does that mean, that Intel gonna become more consumer friendly?
Posted on Reply
#88
TheLostSwede
mechtechWhere they all on the same level of performance as intel?
More or less during the 386 and 486 days.
Just consider the fact that AMD was a second source for Intel back in the 1980's, just so Intel could sell CPUs to IBM. If that hadn't happened, we might not be using x86 CPUs at all today.
So the 8086, 8088, 80186, and 80188 processors AMD made were actually Intel chips.
Only by the time the 286 arrived, AMD started to make clones that weren't based entirely on Intel designs.
Moving to the 386 days, we had AMD, Cyrix, IBM, Chips and Technologies and TI making clones, with ST, UMC (yes, the semiconductor manufacturer) and most likely someone else I forgot about, making 486 clones in addition to the aforementioned. Finally IDT Winchip (Centaur) joined around the early Pentium days.
So yeah, there used to be quite a bit of competition in the x86, which mostly died when the Pentium was introduced, since at that point Intel only had three competitors.

On a side note, this was my first CPU. Well, not that one specifically, but one just like it.

Posted on Reply
#89
GURU7OF9
I think AMD would need 10 years of total dominance for them to get to 50% market share with everything !

Then we would truly see an EPIC battle !

It would be a proper battle, none of this David versus Goliath stuff!

They have done amazingly well with their Ryzen architecture thus far !

I hope that would be the case but remember what happened last when the Empire strikes back !

Hopefully they will be better prepared this time round!
Posted on Reply
#90
mechtech
HenrySomeoneOh, these poor, poor team red unfortunates with no fabs! One might almost think they never had them and then got rid of them because that's what they deemed better at the time.
And while not quite a dozen, there were several more companies making x86 chips back in the 90s and Intel's share was still just as high...
TheLostSwedeMore or less during the 386 and 486 days.
Just consider the fact that AMD was a second source for Intel back in the 1980's, just so Intel could sell CPUs to IBM. If that hadn't happened, we might not be using x86 CPUs at all today.
So the 8086, 8088, 80186, and 80188 processors AMD made were actually Intel chips.
Only by the time the 286 arrived, AMD started to make clones that weren't based entirely on Intel designs.
Moving to the 386 days, we had AMD, Cyrix, IBM, Chips and Technologies and TI making clones, with ST, UMC (yes, the semiconductor manufacturer) and most likely someone else I forgot about, making 486 clones in addition to the aforementioned. Finally IDT Winchip (Centaur) joined around the early Pentium days.
So yeah, there used to be quite a bit of competition in the x86, which mostly died when the Pentium was introduced, since at that point Intel only had three competitors.

On a side note, this was my first CPU. Well, not that one specifically, but one just like it.

But he mentioned the 90s. So how many in 1999?? ;)
Posted on Reply
#91
ThrashZone
Hi,
Sounds more like reaction releases after having their ass handed to them
And it took two sockets and two chips to finally beat amd hardly a success story Intel lol
Posted on Reply
#92
Why_Me
Pepamamiomg, does that mean, that Intel gonna become more consumer friendly?
Funny that seeing how Intel is budget friendly compared to AMD's hose job with the 3600, 5600x and 5800x.
Posted on Reply
#93
MrWord
Intel is huge with huge financials, but one only has to look at AMD revenue growth. Enterprise sales ramp slowly but AMD data center is growing and Intel revenue is down. That's a fact, not up for debate. It will never be like it was before. AMD is in the position to compete for years to come. The talk of AMD would only be here if this and Intel would be ahead of them if not for that this speaks to another point leadership and execution and AMD has been eating their lunch on leadership and execution. AMD CEO is one of the best of any company worldwide not just in tech of any company and that matters management and leadership matters until we see some leadership and execution from Intel all this back and forth in the comment section is for nothing.
Posted on Reply
#94
TheLostSwede
mechtechBut he mentioned the 90s. So how many in 1999?? ;)
Well, Intel launched the i486 in 1989, most of those companies were around in 1990, but the first Pentium (the unpopular one) arrived in 1993, so I would say most of them were no longer doing x86 clones by 1999.
Posted on Reply
#95
cst1992
What tripe.

Show me CPUs that don't shut down 500W PSUs in an otherwise modest system and I'll believe this guy.

Otherwise, forget it.

What a disappointment.
Posted on Reply
#96
HenrySomeone
mechtechBut he mentioned the 90s. So how many in 1999?? ;)
Oh, so the 90s are just 1999 now, huh "pal"? Because that would happen to suit your agenda, yes? Regardless of your obvious ignorance of x86 past, the fact remains that there were several more chip makers for the whole of that decade and for the most of it, just as many as the poster above stated.
Posted on Reply
#97
Valantar
cst1992What tripe.

Show me CPUs that don't shut down 500W PSUs in an otherwise modest system and I'll believe this guy.

Otherwise, forget it.

What a disappointment.
Hey, don't be so negative - at least they're bringing some form of excitement back to PC building :D
Posted on Reply
#98
mechtech
HenrySomeoneOh, so the 90s are just 1999 now, huh "pal"? Because that would happen to suit your agenda, yes? Regardless of your obvious ignorance of x86 past, the fact remains that there were several more chip makers for the whole of that decade and for the most of it, just as many as the poster above stated.
No agenda. Just asking a question. I suppose I should have worded it more specifically as more modern x86-64 chips, which would put it more around 2002-2003. My bad.
Posted on Reply
#99
noel_fs
80% on steam, would like to see datacenter stats

not to mention consoles, intel doesnt even smell those while amd is eating the whole cake
Posted on Reply
#100
HenrySomeone
A whole lot of good that does them with the measly profits there and besides, they can't even deliver enough volume anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if next console contract actually goes to Intel, now that they'll have their gpus as well and not to mention their larger (and more reliable) production capacities.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment