Monday, December 2nd 2024

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

Intel Corporation (NASDAQ: INTC) today announced that CEO Pat Gelsinger retired from the company after a distinguished 40-plus-year career and has stepped down from the board of directors, effective Dec. 1, 2024. Intel has named two senior leaders, David Zinsner and Michelle (MJ) Johnston Holthaus, as interim co-chief executive officers while the board of directors conducts a search for a new CEO. Zinsner is executive vice president and chief financial officer, and Holthaus has been appointed to the newly created position of CEO of Intel Products, a group that encompasses the company's Client Computing Group (CCG), Data Center and AI Group (DCAI) and Network and Edge Group (NEX). Frank Yeary, independent chair of the board of Intel, will become interim executive chair during the period of transition. Intel Foundry leadership structure remains unchanged.

The board has formed a search committee and will work diligently and expeditiously to find a permanent successor to Gelsinger. Yeary said, "On behalf of the board, I want to thank Pat for his many years of service and dedication to Intel across a long career in technology leadership. Pat spent his formative years at Intel, then returned at a critical time for the company in 2021. As a leader, Pat helped launch and revitalize process manufacturing by investing in state-of-the-art semiconductor manufacturing, while working tirelessly to drive innovation throughout the company."
Yeary continued, "While we have made significant progress in regaining manufacturing competitiveness and building the capabilities to be a world-class foundry, we know that we have much more work to do at the company and are committed to restoring investor confidence. As a board, we know first and foremost that we must put our product group at the center of all we do. Our customers demand this from us, and we will deliver for them. With MJ's permanent elevation to CEO of Intel Products along with her interim co-CEO role of Intel, we are ensuring the product group will have the resources needed to deliver for our customers. Ultimately, returning to process leadership is central to product leadership, and we will remain focused on that mission while driving greater efficiency and improved profitability."

Yeary concluded, "With Dave and MJ's leadership, we will continue to act with urgency on our priorities: simplifying and strengthening our product portfolio and advancing our manufacturing and foundry capabilities while optimizing our operating expenses and capital. We are working to create a leaner, simpler, more agile Intel."

Gelsinger said, "Leading Intel has been the honor of my lifetime - this group of people is among the best and the brightest in the business, and I'm honored to call each and every one a colleague. Today is, of course, bittersweet as this company has been my life for the bulk of my working career. I can look back with pride at all that we have accomplished together. It has been a challenging year for all of us as we have made tough but necessary decisions to position Intel for the current market dynamics. I am forever grateful for the many colleagues around the world who I have worked with as part of the Intel family."

Throughout Gelsinger's tenure at Intel across a variety of roles, he has driven significant innovation and advanced not only the business but the broader global technology industry. A highly respected leader and skilled technologist, he has played an instrumental role in focusing on innovation while also creating a sense of urgency throughout the organization. Gelsinger began his career in 1979 at Intel, growing at the company to eventually become its first chief technology officer.
Zinsner and Holthaus said, "We are grateful for Pat's commitment to Intel over these many years as well as his leadership. We will redouble our commitment to Intel Products and meeting customer needs. With our product and process leadership progressing, we will be focused on driving returns on foundry investments."

Zinsner has more than 25 years of financial and operational experience in semiconductors, manufacturing and the technology industry. He joined Intel in January 2022 from Micron Technology Inc., where he was executive vice president and CFO. Zinsner served in a variety of other leadership roles earlier in his career, including president and chief operating officer at Affirmed Networks and senior vice president of finance and CFO at Analog Devices.

Holthaus is a proven general manager and leader who began her career with Intel nearly three decades ago. Prior to being named CEO of Intel Products, she was executive vice president and general manager of CCG. Holthaus has held a variety of management and leadership roles at Intel, including chief revenue officer and general manager of the Sales and Marketing Group, and lead of global CCG sales.
Add your own comment

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

#126
azrael
Seems like "Kickin' Pat" Gelsinger got kicked out (however else Intel might want to phrase it). TBH when he joined Intel as CEO I had high hopes, but it seems he was in over his head.
Posted on Reply
#127
Vayra86
lexluthermiesterUnlike the fanboying nonsense being displayed in some of the comments above, I think Pat did a lot of good while he was at the helm. We have the ARC GPU's, both card and IGP versions, we had the BIG/little thing which turned out decently and few other things he helped with or started. My only real complaint is that he didn't revisit the HEDT market sector, but with the challenges of the pandemic...

Pat was a positive person and he left a good mark on Intel and the world.

Enjoy retirement Mr Gelsinger! :toast:
In my view, Pat did certainly try to do a lot of good, but a lot of his efforts failed miserably.

Big little didn't save Core, but did get into a lot of issues; scheduling most notably, but even more so: degradation on chips. One could say big little enabled this, as it enabled Intel to keep pushing their old designs even further past expiry date. At the same time, Pat has not had the courage to just stop releasing for a while and actually get back to the drawing board for something truly new. The train had to keep rolling. That's a CEO decision and it basically put Intel in an even worse position.

Arc did not materialize into any kind of footing on the GPU market yet, at best it serves now to keep their IGPs somewhat current, but they did that without Arc, too. We're hoping the next release of Arc will 'do something' in the entry level dGPU space. That's... not much.

IFS thus far is a catastrophic failure and again: 20A is not materializing, 18A is a big question mark.

Share price:


So yeah... fantastic, such a positive person, who managed to shed 60% of Intel's share price in his amazing reign.
Posted on Reply
#128
L'Eliminateur
john_I wonder if this is an indication that his plan to make Intel a manufacturing behemoth to go against TSMC is failing. They scrapped A20, probably to focus more on A18, I wonder if A18 is also bad. If A18 was in a very good position, that alone could keep him in the CEO position. If this is also failing, then I can understand why he is stepping down.
Then again we had the 14K fiasco, the 200 Ultra fiasco, the failed attempt with ARC to get market share in discrete GPU market, the Raja server GPU that was a failure, the AURORA.....damn, they are many...
Raja itself is the failure, i forget if he was there before Pat or he got hired under Pat, if it was the former he should've been fired on the spot, the dude is a smoke-machine chronic underperformer and company-destroyer. If it was the latter... welll now we see what happens when you FAFO

As i've said, intel cannot stop fucking up in all the fronts, the division that didn't fuckup got sold (like storage, and even then they discontinued 3d Xpoint which was an terrific technology totally disruptive and could've been perfect for consumer if they got the cost down)
Posted on Reply
#130
TumbleGeorge
dragontamer5788but today's Ultra 7 265k processors are basically Threadripper
Threadkiller, just fixed this for you.
Posted on Reply
#131
Hecate91
L'EliminateurAs i've said, intel cannot stop fucking up in all the fronts, the division that didn't fuckup got sold (like storage, and even then they discontinued 3d Xpoint which was an terrific technology totally disruptive and could've been perfect for consumer if they got the cost down)
Agreed, I was disappointed when Intel discontinued and sold off their entire storage division, 3D Xpoint and Optane was some very innovative tech and Intel was dumb for giving up on storage.
DavenInteresting take by Servethehome.com…are the dual interim CEOs precursor to a split?

www.servethehome.com/pat-gelsinger-out-as-intel-ceo/
That would be a surprise if Intel would be allowed to split, the CHIPS act funding Intel got isn't allowing them to sell their foundries.
Posted on Reply
#132
R0H1T
L'Eliminateurthen they discontinued 3d Xpoint which was an terrific technology totally disruptive and could've been perfect for consumer if they got the cost down
Except they didn't want that, at least not hard enough & wanted the same "Intel" premium they'd been charging in the server space for decades! Remember this company did not lower their consumer CPU prices for over(?) a decade till Ryzen second gen, they just retired them instead :D
Hecate91the CHIPS act funding Intel got isn't allowing them to sell their foundries.
I read majority ownership should be American(Intel?) but that doesn't stop them from spinning it off as a separate entity with over 50% ownership!
Posted on Reply
#133
Yukikaze
Hecate91That would be a surprise if Intel would be allowed to split, the CHIPS act funding Intel got isn't allowing them to sell their foundries.
That depends on what gets sold off. Intel can retain the fabs but sell off CCG to someone else. They keep their foundries this way and remain Intel, but they no longer develop consumer CPUs. Kind of like a reverse of what happened with AMD and GloFlo.
Posted on Reply
#134
Daven
YukikazeThat depends on what gets sold off. Intel can retain the fabs but sell off CCG to someone else. They keep their foundries this way and remain Intel, but they no longer develop consumer CPUs. Kind of like a reverse of what happened with AMD and GloFlo.
This is exactly right and a split might be the reason Pat was fighting with the Board. I expect a major Intel business announcement of some sort as early as this month but no later than early 2025.
Posted on Reply
#135
R0H1T
Selling CCG is basically end of Intel as we know it, no way that's possible!
Posted on Reply
#136
Am*
Congratulations to Intel -- this firing/"retiring" was long overdue, and we can finally celebrate that his employment with Intel is now firmly "in the rearview mirror".

He's easily been one of the worst CEOs the company has ever had.
Posted on Reply
#137
igormp
lexluthermiesterGoogle is your friend. Look up "Vote of no-confidence". Enjoy.
I don't believe this applies here, nor has anything to do with any laws regarding a publicly traded company.
lexluthermiesterFor Pat Gelsinger, Intel's CEO and Director of the Board, to be forced out, Intel would be required to disclose such to the public. They have not, as of yet.
They did disclose that he was retiring. Similarly, with Bob Swan they just disclosed that he was stepping down, and nothing else.
It sounds like you're just trying to cope for some weird reason.
Posted on Reply
#138
Daven
Am*Congratulations to Intel -- this firing/"retiring" was long overdue, and we can finally celebrate that his employment with Intel is now firmly "in the rearview mirror".

He's easily been one of the worst CEOs the company has ever had.
Many here have no idea how poorly Intel performed under Pat. The stock was almost 70 just after he took over and dropped as low as 18 earlier this year.

Intel missed out on smartphones and tablets.
Intel missed out on Apple computers.
Intel missed out on cryptocurrency.
Intel missed out on data center GPUs.
Intel missed out on foundry leadership.

There is not one single product rumored or on an official roadmap in the near and far future that would return Intel to competitiveness much less market dominance.

And before anyone says this is a cycle, or Intel will turnaround or they are too big to fail, please explain how they plan to beat Nvidia at GPUs, Apple at SoCs, AMD at gaming and TSMC at both fab node advancement and procuring third party customers for IFS.
Posted on Reply
#139
RandallFlagg
csendesmark
Distribution of Intel and AMD x86 computer central processing units (CPUs) worldwide from 2012 to 2024, by quarter
What monopoly are you referring? :rolleyes:
So that chart is interesting. Pat Joined Intel in 2021 - after a steep market share decline that included most of 2020 / Covid start. Within a few quarters Intel's overall market share slide stopped and stabilized, even went up a few points. Chart likely does not include Intel's IFS contracts as well.
Posted on Reply
#140
NoneRain
DavenIntel missed out on smartphones and tablets.
Intel missed out on Apple computers.
Intel missed out on cryptocurrency.
Intel missed out on data center GPUs.
Intel missed out on foundry leadership.

There is not one single product rumored or on an official roadmap in the near and far future that would return Intel to competitiveness much less market dominance.

And before anyone says this is a cycle, or Intel will turnaround or they are too big to fail, please explain how they plan to beat Nvidia at GPUs, Apple at SoCs, AMD at gaming and TSMC at both fab node advancement and procuring third party customers for IFS.
Maybe his achievements were the friends made along the way.
Posted on Reply
#141
Caring1
Vya DomusYeah everyone kind of knew his time is up when he started to tweet bible quotes.

Two out of three for him, no honour in leaving a sinking ship.
Posted on Reply
#142
JustBenching
RandallFlaggGames aren't known for using the E-cores much.

Games @ 1440p:


Like I said, the AMD fanboi's really hated to see Raptor Lake be this good.
The same people that blamed intel for not adding more cores now complain that they are faster only because they have more cores. It's insanity...
Posted on Reply
#143
L'Eliminateur
R0H1TExcept they didn't want that, at least not hard enough & wanted the same "Intel" premium they'd been charging in the server space for decades! Remember this company did not lower their consumer CPU prices for over(?) a decade till Ryzen second gen, they just retired them instead :D
A probable point, Optane was perfect for consumer because of the insanely low response time it has that make everything super responsive, we don't need ultra high throughtput with high response times in consumer space, are you telling me you'll notice a 3GB/s drive vs a 8GB/s one?, but i'll bet you'll notice if you have a sub-ms response at all loads versus tens of ms for nand flash

i'm still waiting for cheap 2nd/3rd hand DC P5800X drives
Posted on Reply
#144
ThomasK
lexluthermiesterWhy because I'm being objective, sensible and respectful to someone retiring and NOT jumping on the Intel shaming, shitposting bandwagon? Hmm? :rolleyes: Additionally, if you had been around long enough to be paying attention, you would know that I go to bat the same way for AMD and the nitwits badmouthing Lisa Su. You'd know that I take little to nothing on tick and I don't suffer fools.

Your comment is as ironic as it is without merit.


Oh, a Bloomberg rumor article eh? You don't say. When it's announced from Intel themselves, and it would legally have to be under those kinds of conditions, we can accept that as meritful. Not until then.
All I'm reading is whatever whatever whatever I'm a fanboy.

+ Irony apart, who are you to judge merit here? Nobody.
Posted on Reply
#145
dragontamer5788
kapone322. The Marketing lean. Intel told us that Arc was going to compete and it didn't. More recently they marketed the IGPU in the MSI Claw as being an alternative to the Steam Deck but the reviews showed us that they are still behind.
That's just Raja being Raja. When Raja was working for AMD, he pulled the same crap with Vega and Polaris GPUs.

Raja Koduri was probably the industry's biggest hypeman for GPUs, I kid you not. Literally every GPU feature was hyped to hell-and-back under Raja. I'm not surprised he continued that streak into Intel.

Raja seems to be reasonably decent at GPU design. But always take his hype for... well... hype. Take with many grains of salt.
Posted on Reply
#146
Carlyle2020hs
Anybody seen his interim replacements?

Good luck to them. They seem a tad overwhelemd.
Posted on Reply
#147
RUSerious
Carlyle2020hsAnybody seen his interim replacements?

Good luck to them. They seem a tad overwhelemd.
Finding a new CEO to take on Intel in its current state is going to be a challenge. The pay package is going to have to be huge I think.
Posted on Reply
#148
pavle
This is quite a turn of events, once again intel is in the hands of bean-counters. Who needs engineers anyway?

P.S.: I don't like the situation either.
Posted on Reply
#149
Am*
DavenMany here have no idea how poorly Intel performed under Pat. The stock was almost 70 just after he took over and dropped as low as 18 earlier this year.

Intel missed out on smartphones and tablets.
Intel missed out on Apple computers.
Intel missed out on cryptocurrency.
Intel missed out on data center GPUs.
Intel missed out on foundry leadership.

There is not one single product rumored or on an official roadmap in the near and far future that would return Intel to competitiveness much less market dominance.

And before anyone says this is a cycle, or Intel will turnaround or they are too big to fail, please explain how they plan to beat Nvidia at GPUs, Apple at SoCs, AMD at gaming and TSMC at both fab node advancement and procuring third party customers for IFS.
I agree -- but it's not just that. It's Pat's entire IDM 2.0 strategy (which should've been called IBM 2.0, because they're well on their way to becoming as irrelevant as IBM).

Putting all your bets on the most long-term strategy you could possibly pick (building new fabs) whilst you're losing market share, are years behind in efficiency and losing profitability in every sector is suicidally stupid. All they had to do is focus on the most short-term strategy that they could pick -- bring out a killer new CPU architecture like AMD did, put a roadmap together to keep improving on it and then focus on their GPU architecture -- with all fab expansion plans being placed last in the pipeline only if/once their new node is ready. Building fabs for a company that can't refresh its already existing architecture without colossally screwing up (with oxidation, degradation and ring bus failures) and which is paying through the nose to not use their own fabs is as dumb as if WeWork with all of their vacant offices during the lockdown suddenly decided to build additional offices of their own in preparation for the lockdowns lifting. You can't be taking out new long term debt when your current short term business model is crumbling by building new fabs in preparation for some pie-in-the-sky dream when your current ones have no customers, can't manufacture or design decent hardware of their own and can't even produce decent yields at anywhere near comparable costs to other fabs.

The board of directors that approved this strategy of his should be sacked ASAP for Intel to have any chance of surviving.
Posted on Reply
#150
b1k3rdude
"Retires" - er he got fired by the board.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 4th, 2024 04:14 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts