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

#151
Taisho
Isn't he the "it's over!" (for AMD) guy?
Posted on Reply
#152
Vayra86
RandallFlaggSo 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.
We could credit the unending stream of promises for that stabilization. But the reality checks keep coming.
Posted on Reply
#153
Lycanwolfen
Glad he is gone, Maybe intel will return to making some good CPU's now none of this E core I core Bullcore crap. Make a 16 core real monster with 32 threads for desktop then we talking power.
Posted on Reply
#154
lexluthermiester
ThomasKAll I'm reading is whatever whatever whatever I'm a fanboy.

+ Irony apart, who are you to judge merit here? Nobody.
Judging merit is not difficult when one knows how to mentally process factual information. Just throwing it out there.
Posted on Reply
#155
ThomasK
lexluthermiesterJudging merit is not difficult went one knows how to mentally process factual information. Just throwing it out there.
Posted on Reply
#156
trparky
lexluthermiesterCitation or it didn't happen.
(Sidenote: Really? You're better than this kind of thing, what the hell?)
Excuse me? The fact that the announcement of his retirement was completely unexpected proves this!!!
Posted on Reply
#157
RandallFlagg
Vayra86We could credit the unending stream of promises for that stabilization. But the reality checks keep coming.
That piqued my interest as to what, exactly, changed on Intel's roadmap under Pat.

To do this, I used Google's date range tool so that I could see what their roadmap looked like in 2019-2020 before Pat got there without all the revisionism that pops up in more recent articles.

That led me to the article below, dated Dec 2019. Also of note, TSMC N2 in 2025 is a full year from TSMC's original projected timelines, which had risk production in 2023 and volume in 2024. So Pat had that small benefit of TSMC's stumble.

Nevertheless, if you look at this and consider what's been accomplished in terms of new node adoption, accounting for the renames (appropriate, since TSMC N5 is not 5nm in Intel's nomenclature - it's 7nm), he actually kept Intel on track. Keep in mind they are using Intel 3 for Sierra Forest and Granite Rapids, so just because it's not on client is somewhat irrelevant.

In fact, if 18A (Intel's "2nm" node in 2019) comes out in 2025 it will be about 1-2 years ahead of this timeline and match up with TSMC's (1 year late) N2. However, unlike 20A would have done it will have backside power delivery which TSMC won't have until 2026. It's not clear which is ahead here, they are that close.

That's a lot better than being 2Y behind like in 2021.

wccftech.com/intel-2021-2029-process-roadmap-10nm-7nm-5nm-3nm-2nm-1nm-back-porting/
Posted on Reply
#158
lexluthermiester
ThomasK
Good idea..
trparkyExcuse me? The fact that the announcement of his retirement was completely unexpected proves this!!!
Yes, excuse you. That proves nothing.
Posted on Reply
#159
trparky
lexluthermiesterYes, excuse you. That proves nothing.
This was a panic move, pure and simple. You can see this in how they didn't have a successor prepped and ready to take the job as Pat left, instead they've chosen to have Co-CEOs which is nothing more than management by committee. Again, this is a panic move.
Posted on Reply
#160
lexluthermiester
trparkyThis was a panic move, pure and simple. You can see this in how they didn't have a successor prepped and ready to take the job as Pat left, instead they've chosen to have Co-CEOs which is nothing more than management by committee. Again, this is a panic move.
Or Pat decided to retire for personal reasons. There are a number of possibilities for why. People seem to be buying the BS going around without so much as a single shred of actual evidence. So are YOU going think for yourself and require evidence or are you going to join the sheeple crowd?

Until Intel makes a public statement as to reasons, we will not know for sure unless Pat himself discloses it. If he were going to, he would have already.

This is why TPU's above article is worth reading as opposed to the drivel being published elsewhere. It sticks to released statements and factual info.
Posted on Reply
#161
trparky
lexluthermiesterOr Pat decided to retire for personal reasons.
OK, let's go that route. Why didn't he groom a successor? Why didn't he come out and say that I'm going to retire but here's my replacement?

Again, this was not planned.
Posted on Reply
#162
lexluthermiester
trparkyOK, let's go that route. Why didn't he groom a successor? Why didn't he come out and say that I'm going to retire but here's my replacement?

Again, this was not planned.
I'm not arguing that point and couldn't care less. Unplanned retirements happen all the time. My point was that at no time has there been ANY indicators of Pat being voted off the board(which would require a unanimous board vote) and him being removed as CEO(which requires shareholder notification). Both would need to be made public and neither have taken place.

Whatever reasons exist for the timing of Pat's departure, forced removal is VERY UNLIKELY. Possible, maybe, but very unlikely.
Posted on Reply
#163
trparky
But again, why isn't there a plan? Nothing happens in the C-Suite of companies without some plan as to how things will go. All that happened was that Pat retired and then... *crickets*.

If I were a stockholder right now, I'd be very pissed.
Posted on Reply
#164
Redwoodz
RandallFlaggThat ain't what the charts say sparky, but you just keep being you.
Ok prove it.
Posted on Reply
#165
lexluthermiester
RedwoodzOk prove it.
He did. Conveniently overlook those charts did we?
trparkyBut again, why isn't there a plan?
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..
trparkyIf I were a stockholder right now, I'd be very pissed.
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.
Posted on Reply
#166
DavidC1
lexluthermiesterWhile that is a fair point, if it happened the way that is being portrayed in that Bloomberg article, they would be compelled to make a public statement about it as a matter of law. They have not, so whatever internal squabbling took place is not public information and is not credible.
Ok, so the previous CEO Brian Kraznich left because of inappropriate relations with a lower ranked employee? You believed that too? It's laughable. When a CEO suddenly "retires" there's more to it than meets the eye.

And no, they don't fire CEOs because of "inappropriate" relations. Yes, they can use it as blackmail, but they do far, far worse than that. Broadcom CEO had underground sex party dungeons not far away from his own house. Intel Developer Forum had "after hours" where they would offer "special benefits" for high profile audiences. No one cares, as long as they do the job. Kraznich got fired because he tanked the company and it went from being 3 years lead in process to 3 years behind.
Posted on Reply
#167
Makaveli
4 years wasn't long enough to right a ship the size of intel. Commend him for his effort .
Posted on Reply
#168
lexluthermiester
DavidC1Ok, so the previous CEO Brian Kraznich left because of inappropriate relations with a lower ranked employee? You believed that too? It's laughable. When a CEO suddenly "retires" there's more to it than meets the eye.

And no, they don't fire CEOs because of "inappropriate" relations. Yes, they can use it as blackmail, but they do far, far worse than that. Broadcom CEO had underground sex party dungeons not far away from his own house. Intel Developer Forum had "after hours" where they would offer "special benefits" for high profile audiences. No one cares, as long as they do the job. Kraznich got fired because he tanked the company and it went from being 3 years lead in process to 3 years behind.
Just stop. Your statement has nothing to do with this situation.
Posted on Reply
#169
Vayra86
RandallFlaggThat piqued my interest as to what, exactly, changed on Intel's roadmap under Pat.

To do this, I used Google's date range tool so that I could see what their roadmap looked like in 2019-2020 before Pat got there without all the revisionism that pops up in more recent articles.

That led me to the article below, dated Dec 2019. Also of note, TSMC N2 in 2025 is a full year from TSMC's original projected timelines, which had risk production in 2023 and volume in 2024. So Pat had that small benefit of TSMC's stumble.

Nevertheless, if you look at this and consider what's been accomplished in terms of new node adoption, accounting for the renames (appropriate, since TSMC N5 is not 5nm in Intel's nomenclature - it's 7nm), he actually kept Intel on track. Keep in mind they are using Intel 3 for Sierra Forest and Granite Rapids, so just because it's not on client is somewhat irrelevant.

In fact, if 18A (Intel's "2nm" node in 2019) comes out in 2025 it will be about 1-2 years ahead of this timeline and match up with TSMC's (1 year late) N2. However, unlike 20A would have done it will have backside power delivery which TSMC won't have until 2026. It's not clear which is ahead here, they are that close.

That's a lot better than being 2Y behind like in 2021.

wccftech.com/intel-2021-2029-process-roadmap-10nm-7nm-5nm-3nm-2nm-1nm-back-porting/
Interesting! Ill adjust my negativism... slightly :)
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 4th, 2024 04:18 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts