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

[b1k3rdude]

"Retires" - er he got fired by the board.

 

[Taisho]

Isn't he the "it's over!" (for AMD) guy?

 

[Vayra86]

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.

We could credit the unending stream of promises for that stabilization. But the reality checks keep coming.

 

[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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

All 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.

 

[ThomasK]

Judging merit is not difficult went one knows how to mentally process factual information. Just throwing it out there.

 

[trparky]

Citation 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!!!

 

[RandallFlagg]

We 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.

Intel Lays Down 2019-2029 Manufacturing Roadmap - 1.4nm in 10 Years, 2 Year Cadence with Back Porting on Advanced ++ Nodes

Intel's Process roadmap for 2021-2029 has been unveiled, showcasing 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, 3nm, 2nm, 1.4 nm and their respective optimized nodes.

wccftech.com

 

[lexluthermiester]

View attachment 374354

Good idea..

Excuse me? The fact that the announcement of his retirement was completely unexpected proves this!!!

Yes, excuse you. That proves nothing.

 

[trparky]

Yes, 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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

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.

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.

 

[trparky]

Or 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.

 

[lexluthermiester]

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.

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.

 

[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.

 

[Redwoodz]

That ain't what the charts say sparky, but you just keep being you.

Ok prove it.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Ok prove it.

He did. Conveniently overlook those charts did we?

But 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..

If 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.

 

[DavidC1]

While 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.

 

[Makaveli]

4 years wasn't long enough to right a ship the size of intel. Commend him for his effort .

 

[lexluthermiester]

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.

Just stop. Your statement has nothing to do with this situation.

 

[Vayra86]

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.

Intel Lays Down 2019-2029 Manufacturing Roadmap - 1.4nm in 10 Years, 2 Year Cadence with Back Porting on Advanced ++ Nodes

Intel's Process roadmap for 2021-2029 has been unveiled, showcasing 10nm, 7nm, 5nm, 3nm, 2nm, 1.4 nm and their respective optimized nodes.

wccftech.com

Interesting! Ill adjust my negativism... slightly

 

[L1on]

when man like he has given up >>> we know the mission is impossible

intel was past like nokia

 

[igormp]

Whatever it is has not been made public.

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/

Intel CEO Gelsinger forced out after board lost confidence in turnaround plan

- The board told Gelsinger he could retire or be removed, and he chose to step down, according to the source.

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

 

[Taisho]

or maybe he just got tired of all the shit-talking morons badmouthing him.

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.

 

[dragontamer5788]

We could credit the unending stream of promises for that stabilization. But the reality checks keep coming.

The opposite. The 1.6 Billion loss was invoked by Pat. And this was a good thing.

The truth about companies is that profits and losses are fucking made up numbers by accounting teams. The hope is that accounting reflects reality, but in practice... they do not.

What we see here is Pat choosing to evaluate Intel on a more comprehensive and objective way. When the accountants came back, they said "Well if we do this accounting in a more strict manner, then Intel loses $1.6 Billion in value". Pat then signed his name on the bottom and decided that reflecting reality was more important than just lying about numbers again.

And now Pat got fired for that.

------------

Hopefully, the next CEO keeps the new and more honest culture around at Intel. But if they undo the cultural change and cultural shift and start lying about their accounting books again, then it'd be for naught.

You must have accountants seek the truth. And if they ever stray from the truth, a CEO must sacrifice themselves (ex: Rory Reed of AMD) to setup the next CEO (ex: Lisa Su) with a good culture. Companies are ultimately financial instruments, you need the financials to reflect reality if you want any hope of actually innovating into the future. After all, invention is just one step of innovation, you still need to evaluate and figure out what is (or isn't) working. Honest accounting will help see what inventions are truly innovations.

Pushing a company's accountants back onto the path of truth and honesty necessarily sacrifices the CEO. It will always come back and look like a massive loss of profits / net / etc. etc. of various short-term financial figures. But the "honest truth" is that Intel lost all that money over the last 10 years, but somehow ignored it. Eventually the chickens come home to roost and someone needs to fall on the sword and take the blame for it.

 

[L'Eliminateur]

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.

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.