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

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

#176
lexluthermiester
igormpIt has, you're just the one ignoring everything around you for some reason.
www.reuters.com/business/intel-ceo-pat-gelsinger-retire-2024-12-02/

Next you'll say that Reuters is just a rumor mill :rolleyes:
All you did there was highlight your inability to properly read, pay attention to detail and understand context. That's on you. Further example?...
TaishoAs 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.
Posted on Reply
#178
Aximous

[URL='https://youtu.be/yM0zaMQiytA?list=RDNSs1VIjo_WUdY']Intel shares fall after CEO exit[/URL]

Just take a look at board of directors. Intel needs a new board more than a new CEO.
Posted on Reply
#179
LittleBro
So, increasing decline in server segment and no customers in AI segment got him retired. Makes sense, servers are Intel's golden duck.
Posted on Reply
#180
RandallFlagg
Aximous

[URL='https://youtu.be/yM0zaMQiytA?list=RDNSs1VIjo_WUdY']Intel shares fall after CEO exit[/URL]

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.
Posted on Reply
#181
trparky
Damn, not one single person on the board had any technical expertise at Intel.

The future for Intel isn't looking too bright.
Posted on Reply
#182
lexluthermiester
trparkyDamn, 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.
Posted on Reply
#183
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.
Posted on Reply
#184
AnotherReader
trparkyYes, 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.
Posted on Reply
#185
trparky
AnotherReaderwould result in a yield of 9% for a Hopper sized chip.
That's even worse!
Posted on Reply
#186
AnotherReader
trparkyThat'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
Posted on Reply
#187
trparky
Having to throw away 90% of the chips that are made isn't exactly a ticket for success.
Posted on Reply
#189
RUSerious
An interesting post, from Ian Cutress, IMHO:

x.com/IanCutress/status/1863995277675282773

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.
Posted on Reply
#191
trparky
RandallFlaggThat 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.
Posted on Reply
#192
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.
Posted on Reply
#193
Redwoodz
lexluthermiesterHe 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.
Posted on Reply
#194
lexluthermiester
RedwoodzYou 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..
RedwoodzYou 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..
Posted on Reply
#195
RUSerious
RandallFlaggThat 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).
Posted on Reply
#196
RandallFlagg
RUSeriousApparently, 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.
Posted on Reply
#197
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.
Posted on Reply
#199
AnotherReader
lexluthermiesterI'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.
Posted on Reply
#200
lexluthermiester
AnotherReaderbut regulatory hurdles will prevent them from doing so.
Yup.
AnotherReaderStill, if they reduce funding for the fabs to a level that's insufficient to catch up to TSMC, they will constrain Intel's future.
The board does that and they will be out by one of two methods. Deliberately taking actions that can be viewed as harmful to the company is valid reason for emergency votes of no confidence by shareholder action. Deliberate sabotage of a publicly traded company is a criminal offense. So the board won't be doing what you suggest.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 5th, 2025 11:03 EDT change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts