Intel has been a company of engineering underdelivery and incompetence for a decade now. Huge bonuses and pay to financial management, salary reductions and cheapness on the labor side, your classic American MBA war-on-labor.
The fact they cannot deliver a GPU, which is just a big vector processing array fundamentally, has been the long running sign of Intel's incompetence, something they should have had literally 25 years ago when Apples had vector processors and the first 3D accelerators were hitting the PC gaming world.
The intellectual talent long fled Intel, and they didn't invest in replacement intellectual talent. Because MBAs don't respect "talent". They tolerate it for some function of tolerance, and generally the "dead sea effect" is imposed as talent leaves and the managers let the structure rot rather than fix it.
Gelsinger obviously didn't have time to fix the intellectual and talent rot, because he probably needed to eliminate three levels of vice presidents to start with.
I really celebrate the article's approach. The arrival of massive CEO pay, allegedly because of how important, public, and critical their positions are, never actually comes with detailing of who is in charge and the effect of their decisions.
Why do the major heads of petroleum companies, cigarette companies, and other managerial structures largely get to destroy their companies or the world in the anonymity of private org charts?
Intel does have GPUs on the market which are good on the silicon side, but simply do not have the same level of software support that companies like Nvidia have built up (Nvidia has drivers that are backwards compatible for 20 years, Intel has issues with games released more than 4 years ago, as an example)
What they don't have is GPU manufacturing setup. All the Intel GPUs are fabbed by TSMC. But guess what, Nvidia has no manufacturing at all!
I heard people were optimistic about their GPU drivers for AI when comparing them to AMD at least, I have a few friends that seem happy with each major driver version update they get for gaming as well so I'm optimistic that they can eventually figure out the software side of things.
> The fact they cannot deliver a GPU, which is just ..
“Just”?! This is an incredibly dumb take.
Are you by chance comparing a brand new hardware product launch with a software product launch? Launching a hw product that does well takes YEARS. Any other company will not be able to pull this off, or they would have done it already. Intel has done quite well coming up with a decent gpu from scratch. There are like two other companies in this world that know how to do that, and they took a long, long time to get there.
They absolutely could have done so multiple times, and did a few times with the iGPU and Larrabee, but the issue was that they wanted to protect their lucrative CPU cash cow.
So Jensen and nVidia worked around them. Any big tech company can become a fabless semiconductor company quickly, so the value edge of having "the best CPU" is declining. Intel products are OK for now but we can machine translate x86 to ARM or risc-v so well that it won't matter.
Intel has been a company of engineering underdelivery and incompetence for a decade now. Huge bonuses and pay to financial management, salary reductions and cheapness on the labor side, your classic American MBA war-on-labor.
The fact they cannot deliver a GPU, which is just a big vector processing array fundamentally, has been the long running sign of Intel's incompetence, something they should have had literally 25 years ago when Apples had vector processors and the first 3D accelerators were hitting the PC gaming world.
The intellectual talent long fled Intel, and they didn't invest in replacement intellectual talent. Because MBAs don't respect "talent". They tolerate it for some function of tolerance, and generally the "dead sea effect" is imposed as talent leaves and the managers let the structure rot rather than fix it.
Gelsinger obviously didn't have time to fix the intellectual and talent rot, because he probably needed to eliminate three levels of vice presidents to start with.
I really celebrate the article's approach. The arrival of massive CEO pay, allegedly because of how important, public, and critical their positions are, never actually comes with detailing of who is in charge and the effect of their decisions.
Why do the major heads of petroleum companies, cigarette companies, and other managerial structures largely get to destroy their companies or the world in the anonymity of private org charts?