Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger Retires, Company Appoints two Interim co-CEOs

[Wirko]

exactly, the "inappropriate relation" was a patsy, he did not even had an affair just dating an "underling", it was used as a convenient excuse to boot him out.

At the time I thought he wanted, and possibly arranged with the board, a convenient excuse to catapult himself out. But whatever.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It has, you're just the one ignoring everything around you for some reason.

https://www.reuters.com/business/intel-ceo-pat-gelsinger-retire-2024-12-02/

Next you'll say that Reuters is just a rumor mill

All you did there was highlight your inability to properly read, pay attention to detail and understand context. That's on you. Further example?...

As if Pat were a nice and humble guy. Dissing AMD in a bad-taste and unprofessional manner (the reality check for these "bold" words was brutal on so many occasions), and hiding behind Bible quotes to pose as a saint.

...this silly nonsense.

 

[Ravenas]

Reuters (@reuters) on Threads

Intel's interim co-CEO Zinsner says new chief executive will have foundry experience reut.rs/4ghVAPF

www.threads.net

Pat wanted to sell the foundries?

 

[Aximous]

Intel shares fall after CEO exit​

Just take a look at board of directors. Intel needs a new board more than a new CEO.

 

[LittleBro]

So, increasing decline in server segment and no customers in AI segment got him retired. Makes sense, servers are Intel's golden duck.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Intel shares fall after CEO exit​

Just take a look at board of directors. Intel needs a new board more than a new CEO.

That is actually the correct answer, in more ways than one.

 

[trparky]

Damn, not one single person on the board had any technical expertise at Intel.

The future for Intel isn't looking too bright.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Damn, not one single person on the board had any technical expertise at Intel.

The future for Intel isn't looking too bright.

Kinda sad isn't it. Pat was the only one.

 

[trparky]

Yes, I know @lexluthermiester... we've had an argument over whether or not Pat retired or got retired but what with how Intel's 18A process node had an abysmal 10% yield, to me it sounds like the technically inept (Literally technically inept. See what I did there?) board of directors were looking for a scapegoat and Pat was the closest one.

 

[AnotherReader]

Yes, I know @lexluthermiester... we've had an argument over whether or not Pat retired or got retired but what with how Intel's 18A process node had an abysmal 10% yield, to me it sounds like the technically inept (Literally technically inept. See what I did there?) board of directors were looking for a scapegoat and Pat was the closest one.

Don't read too much into that 10% figure. Broadcom's switches are huge chips that are nearly the size of Nvidia's AI offerings. A defect density of 0.4 per square cm, as Pat claimed before, would result in a yield of 9% for a Hopper sized chip.

 

[trparky]

would result in a yield of 9% for a Hopper sized chip.

That's even worse!

 

[AnotherReader]

That's even worse!

Not really. If the defect density was 0.4 per square cm in September, then Intel should be on track to release products made using 18A some time in 2025 H2. Of course, this assumes that the defect density scaling follows historical trends of good processes

 

[trparky]

Having to throw away 90% of the chips that are made isn't exactly a ticket for success.

 

[AnotherReader]

Having to throw away 90% of the chips that are made isn't exactly a ticket for success.

Bear in mind that the process hasn't started mass production yet. For context, this chart depicts TSMC's defect rate before mass production for some relatively recent processes. As you can see, three quarters before mass production, they had similar defect rates as Intel reported three months ago.

 

[RUSerious]

An interesting post, from Ian Cutress, IMHO:

x.com

x.com

Okay, no details show:

There have been two sides to this discussion. (1) People who look at the business as a whole, from foundry to product with financials, and believe Gelsinger was on the right path and mostly think he should have stayed to see it through as fundamental change takes years (as does chip design). (2) People who are frustrated with Intel's CPU/financial performance thinking Gelsinger dropped the ball on several generations of chips and should've been out ages ago. Most of these people find it amazing anyone is shocked he retired, and say 'I don't know why you weren't expecting this'. The funny thing is, everyone I trust in this industry - engineer, analyst, media - falls squarely in the (1) camp. IYKYK.

 

[RandallFlagg]

An interesting post, from Ian Cutress, IMHO:

x.com

x.com

Okay, no details show:

That link does work, and after reading a little more in the thread it sounds like the BoD is in fact the problem.

 

[trparky]

That link does work, and after reading a little more in the thread it sounds like the BoD is in fact the problem.

Hence why I think Pat was told to retire. They needed a scapegoat and he was the closest one at hand.

 

[wheresmycar]

Guys,

Postman Pat with his silly ole hat, went packing and took his cat - without validation does it really matter why he left unless you're planning to hire him and need a reference from Intel?

The danger of public speculation is, when we're wrong, we don't just misstep, we actively tarnish someones reputation. You have to be a real nasty character for me not to care and if thats the case i'd probably join in on the shitting-spree. But that doesn’t seem to be the situation here, so maybe we should just let the guy BE.

 

[Redwoodz]

He did. Conveniently overlook those charts did we?


There are a lot of possible reasons for that. Medical issues, family issues or maybe he just got tired of all the shit-talking morons badmouthing him. Whatever it is has not been made public. That means it's not our business. Intel is only obligated to disclose that info IF certain situations took place... We're going in circles here..

Even "if", you have no right to be angry. It's not our business, it's Pat's. He is NOT obligated to share personal decisions and reasonings.

You mean those cherry picked slides with no links and showing no power numbers? You people are the reason Intel is where it's at.

 

[lexluthermiester]

You mean those cherry picked slides with no links and showing no power numbers?

Cherry picked? It's called "relevant data", you know because context is important and whatnot. Staying on topic is too. So I digress..

You people are the reason Intel is where it's at.

All you're doing right now is blah-blah-blahing to try to save face. Just stop, no one cares..

 

[RUSerious]

That link does work, and after reading a little more in the thread it sounds like the BoD is in fact the problem.

Apparently, some large 'blue chip' investors were dumping the stock - hence it's rapid price decline. So one aspect of Gelsinger's untimely end was pressure on the BoD from investors. These large investors have more substantial communications with the companies whos' stocks they own. They weren't happy. Undoubtedly, it's a multifaceted reason for the termination. I think the bottom line is just that US investors have no stomach for taking the long view (unless the long view is only three years).

 

[RandallFlagg]

Apparently, some large 'blue chip' investors were dumping the stock - hence it's rapid price decline. So one aspect of Gelsinger's untimely end was pressure on the BoD from investors. These large investors have more substantial communications with the companies whos' stocks they own. They weren't happy. Undoubtedly, it's a multifaceted reason for the termination. I think the bottom line is just that US investors have no stomach for taking the long view (unless the long view is only three years).

Unfortunately, I think this is true of most corporations a generation or so after their founders and their protege's leave. The bean counters and short term thinkers, and the rotating execs out to make a quick buck, then take over. Pat specifically is not a founder, but rather is a protege. Much like Tim Cook.

 

[AnotherReader]

There's some interesting insight into this at Fabricated Knowledge. The whole article is worth a read, but some extracts are below:

I would liken firing Pat in the final hour of 18A to quitting the final round of chemotherapy in cancer treatment. Instead of seeing the long and painful process through, I think the board will let Intel die and be sold for parts. It’s the correct answer to maximize relatively short-term shareholder value, but it's a nearsighted move that the Intel board specializes in.

The board is pretty horrific. Most of the people have no technical expertise, and many of the people most at fault for getting Intel to where it is, are still on the board.

Let’s take a second to acknowledge that Boeing's EVP of operations is the audit committee head and has been on the board for the entire fiasco. That’s probably the only other American giant having as bad a time as Intel!

The board has decided to gut Intel. Four former board members wrote an OpEd about splitting the company in two. The winds of change are clearly to abandon IDM 2.0, and Pat doesn’t fit into that picture.


They have fired the technical leader they needed to turn around Intel. There are valid reasons, as Pat’s naive optimism can feel delusional. It never felt like he never truly acknowledged the problem at hand and had visions of old Intel in his head. But he wanted to do the job, and that’s hard to say for most people. Meanwhile, the transcript out today talking about “rightsizing utilization” implies that the Board didn’t like his grand plans (overly optimistic plans) for IFS and saw the product imploding. At the same time, the CEO focused on the loss-making part of the business.

But that’s the thing—the profitable part of the business is commoditized and will only worsen. I would argue that it’s a former monopoly that has become commoditized and will soon become worse. It makes sense to focus on the future, and IFS could have been one of two (TSMC) instead of a product group, which is one of many. The moonshot has always been IFS; now it’s time for plan B. And I frankly find Plan B to be uninspiring.

 

[lexluthermiester]

There's some interesting insight into this at Fabricated Knowledge. The whole article is worth a read, but some extracts are below:

I'm not buying any of that. Just not going to happen.

 

[AnotherReader]

I'm not buying any of that. Just not going to happen.

I suspect that the board wants to do what many fear, but regulatory hurdles will prevent them from doing so. Still, if they reduce funding for the fabs to a level that's insufficient to catch up to TSMC, they will constrain Intel's future. In any case, it looks like Pat left because the board just didn't understand that Intel's future required hardship in the near term; this short term thinking has been and will continue to be the downfall of many corporations.