News Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger retires, effective immediately — also steps down from BOD, two co-CEOs step in

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sad days. Intel was in trouble before this and it feels like they ripped the rudder right off their ship by losing Pat. I didn't agree with all his decsions, beast lake cancellation for example...assuming rumors are true. But I do think Pat was likely the best chance Intel had to right the ship as a CEO with an engineering background. Now I worry Intel will sail along aimlessly selling itself off piece by piece to satisfy shareholders until they run a ground and truly become irrelavent. I hope I am wrong as we need good competition in the CPU space

I think the better analogy is that the BoD (Board of Directors) kicked Pat out of the "Captain's Chair" because he didn't make "Stock # Go UP", which is what the BoD wants.

Pat's a "Honest Guy" and I think he's their "Fall Guy" for ALOT of VERY bad decisions made by previous CEO's.

#1 Bob Swan
#2 Brian Krzanich

As far as I can tell, Pat was cleaning up the mess as best as he can set by previous CEO's, and all because things didn't improve fast enough, or that he was "Too Honest" with the media and didn't make "Stock # Go Up", he's taking the fall.

I think it's unfair to him and that he deserved ALOT more time to right the ship than what he got.

 

[thestryker]

I know you really want to make this about Intel as some sort of hidden genius, they are not.

I'm not sure what you're smoking to come to that conclusion I've never even remotely suggested this was the case. You're the one who chose to ignore a massive investment by Intel during a time ASML had no production EUV lithography machines and I was correcting that.

There's nothing even remotely competent about the way Intel dealt with EUV lithography machines.

Umm ... EUV has been around since 1999. It didn't make financial sense at that time due to other process's being cheaper, but it existed.

A technology existing on paper is not the same as it existing as a viable product.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Ehh ... Apple has absolutely nothing to do with this ... at all..

A long time ago Intel eschewed trying to pursue EUV on it's own due to the massive costs involved and instead kept pursuing it's own process technology. Eventually there were only two companies with viable EUV technology, Silicon Valley Group (SVG) and ASML. ASML later bought SVG and in 2018 was able to successfully create a product that could use EUV to create semiconductors. TSMC entered into an agreement with ASML to buy their devices a couple hundred million each.

That is how TSMC got the ability to produce the fastest chips in the world. They built their process technology off ASML's EUV lithography technology. While Intel was stuck for years trying, and failing, to make their own lithography technology make smaller circuits, TSMC (and the Samsung) leap frogged them using ASML.

While ASML is important, & a very important part, it was Apple that gave TSMC the push & funding to bet all in on the latest Process Node & Technology, including buying ASML's VERY expensive EUV machines.
It also gave them the ability to develop at a consistent slow pace but incremental & steady pace.

You should read this.
https://semiconductor.substack.com/p/the-apple-tsmc-partnership

Disciplined Risk Taking
​

Apple requires leading-edge processes for its mobile products and drives huge volumes on a predictable annual cadence. The annual iPhone cadence instilled a manufacturing discipline and served as a self-regulating mechanism for TSMC to take measured risks in its process technology choices. Prior to winning the Apple business, TSMC process nodes were introduced on an irregular, unpredictable cadence. TSMC struggled to get their 40nm (strained Si) and 28nm (HKMG) nodes to high volume and introduced multiple versions of these nodes without a strong, driving customer. Since winning the Apple iPhone SoC design in 2014, TSMC has introduced a new process node every year. This annual cadence requires TSMC to be risk-averse and make conservative process choices. Every other year, TSMC introduces a major process change (e.g., N7, N5) while in the intervening year, it refines the technology from the prior year (e.g., N7P). This alternating cadence of half-nodes and full nodes every year enables TSMC to make smaller process changes in every node, but still reap the benefits of compounded gains in the long run.

 

[spongiemaster]

Zen 1 was trashing Intel in application, just not into games.

AMD was offering 8 cores when the Client sector max offering was 4 cores.

You might want to go look at the reviews again.

Stock vs stock, 1800X held a 1% lead over Intel's quad core, while losing to Intel when both were overclocked. That's not trashing by any sane definition. Then we look at games:

Intel quad core leading by 12%. Mind you, that's a 50% bigger lead than the 9800X3D has over the 14900k at 1080p (7.7%), while the 14900k genuinely trashes the 9800X3D in application performance (19.5% lead) and you AMD folks act like the 9800X3D is the second coming of God.

 

[atomicWAR]

You're creating a pretzel shaped formation trying to insert Apple here.

Well over half the phone market, probably 60-75% of it is Android phones. My only thought is on the CPUs that are contained in those said phones and tabs.

TSMC has had access to small-node phone CPUs long before Apple came along and even after as well. You would have to imagine that all phones on the planet are Apple phones for this to work and that all small socs are isocs. It just isn't the case.

What you're saying in regard to small socs and ease of getting to new nodes makes some sense, I don't know the fine details to elaborate.

I specifically said cellphone/tablet socs, not just Apple. Though Apple got a direct mention. I did not mean for Apple to be the sole soc on the list. Every cell/tablet soc maker was intended as "included" in the small socs that help TSMC move forward. I also said their contribution was indirect. So yeah my comment a bit pretzalish by design.

Apple did nothing, absolutely nothing. Remove them completely from the equation.

Like seriously, why do iPeople think Apple is involved with this. That's like saying Microsoft is responsible for Intel's problems because people use Windows for gaming and games need GPU's and nVidia use's TSMC instead of Intel. Some six degree's to Keven Bacon stuff.

Hmmm now that is problematic for a host of reasons. First 'iPeople'...insulting one because I own zero Apple gear and haven't in over a decade nor would I recommend them to friends or family. Also its uncalled for in a tech forum to 'name call/belittle' even if you feel or are 'correct'. And if it wasn't clear I meant all small socs on newer nodes helped TSMC dial said nodes in faster helping them get ahead more quickly. Apple just gets more credit from some, not me, for seemly everything. So I get some of your push back as some folks think Apple drives all tech advances even though most tech heads know better.

https://semiconductor.substack.com/p/the-apple-tsmc-partnership

As previously stated these small socs helped them ramp up production. No Apple didn't doom Intel but they (and others) did help TSMC get there faster with node maturity. And they helped fund a lot of this to. That in conjunction with Intel's bad choices, like as you pointed out not pursuing EUV, did the rest. Thus my point of small socs helped TSMC overcome Intel more quickly than had they only made bigger chips like x86 or GPUs

As for this being six degrees of Kevin Bacon...I did say Apple and other phone/tablet socs were indirectly involved in hurting Intel by helping TSMC advance their nodes more quickly so its more like Kevin Bacon's agent's friend knew a movie producer...oh wait that is six degrees of Kevin Bacon. So fair point but my point still isn't without validy either if you give it a fair shake. TSMC would have won either way if you ask me. I am only arguing the timeline it did it in was helped by small chips. In the semiconductor field a day, week, month or quarter counts. Without those small chips to help for all we know TSMC could just now be releasing a node that has been out years. Making their lead less substantial than it currently is. Regardless at the end if the day TSMC has put Intel and its fabs in a tight spot. On that I think we can agree.

 

[atomicWAR]

While ASML is important, & a very important part, it was Apple that gave TSMC the push & funding to bet all in on the latest Process Node & Technology, including buying ASML's VERY expensive EUV machines.
It also gave them the ability to develop at a consistent slow pace but incremental & steady pace.

You should read this.
https://semiconductor.substack.com/p/the-apple-tsmc-partnership

You read my mind I posted the same link in response to palladin as well. I just saw yours after I posted. Very nice...

 

[SunMaster]

The old story of the "Tortoise & the Hare".

TSMC was the Tortoise, Intel was the Hare.

Intel was leading for a VERY long time, but in a marathon, TSMC got focused by Apple and worked on minor NODE improvements every year and they eventually won the race.

Now that TSMC is using the philosophy instilled by Apple, they are leading by ALOT.

That's creative - attributing TSMCs improvements and success to Apple.

 

[SunMaster]

I said minus a few skus....

point is without Intel, you will no longer afford AMD cpus.

I don't believe for a second AMD would be left alone should Intel dissapear. The competition will step up, just as AMD did. There will be plenty of ARM and eventually (maybe, I hope) Risc-V alternatives. ARM is already making an impact in the server/datacentre market AFAIK.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

That's creative - attributing TSMCs improvements and success to Apple.

Literally, go read it:
https://semiconductor.substack.com/p/the-apple-tsmc-partnership

Disciplined Risk Taking​

​

Apple requires leading-edge processes for its mobile products and drives huge volumes on a predictable annual cadence. The annual iPhone cadence instilled a manufacturing discipline and served as a self-regulating mechanism for TSMC to take measured risks in its process technology choices. Prior to winning the Apple business, TSMC process nodes were introduced on an irregular, unpredictable cadence. TSMC struggled to get their 40nm (strained Si) and 28nm (HKMG) nodes to high volume and introduced multiple versions of these nodes without a strong, driving customer. Since winning the Apple iPhone SoC design in 2014, TSMC has introduced a new process node every year. This annual cadence requires TSMC to be risk-averse and make conservative process choices. Every other year, TSMC introduces a major process change (e.g., N7, N5) while in the intervening year, it refines the technology from the prior year (e.g., N7P). This alternating cadence of half-nodes and full nodes every year enables TSMC to make smaller process changes in every node, but still reap the benefits of compounded gains in the long run.

W/O Apple's partnership & going "ALL IN" on TSMC & forcing them to change the way they develop Process Node's we wouldn't be where we are today with tech.

For as much as I dislike Apple for a HUGE number of other reasons.

What they did for TSMC was great and I thank them for it.

W/O them going to TSMC and focusing TSMC's R&D efforts into a steady Tik-Tok pattern with constant yearly cadence of improvements, their Process Node would be VASTLY behind Intel & trying to do BIGGER jumps.

After this hard earned victory thanks to Apple forcing them into the literal cadence, you can understand why I think TSMC's success is due to Apple.

They changed their Mentality, their focus, their way of doing things.

They literally gave them the financial capability to buy all the hardware to super charge their manufacturing.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I don't believe for a second AMD would be left alone should Intel dissapear. The competition will step up, just as AMD did. There will be plenty of ARM and eventually (maybe, I hope) Risc-V alternatives. ARM is already making an impact in the server/datacentre market AFAIK.

But most of their impact is from Hyper-Scalers like Amazon making their own in-house ARM Server CPU's, same with Google.

That's also not stopping them from buying x86 Server CPU's as well.

The only "CotS" (Consumer off the Shelf) ARM CPU that a regular person/business can buy still hasn't made a dent in the Server Market.

 

[SunMaster]

Let's not rewrite history. Zen didn't surpass Intel until Zen3.

As for Athlon. Here is the opening paragraph to Anandtech's initial Athlon 64 review:



This was from 2003, while Athlon was initially launched in 1999. So AMD's time at the top was very brief and doesn't include the Athlon 64 era.

What does "surpass" mean. The Threadrippers obliterated Intels HEDT segment - starting with Zen.

 

[SunMaster]

But most of their impact is from Hyper-Scalers like Amazon making their own in-house ARM Server CPU's, same with Google.

That's also not stopping them from buying x86 Server CPU's as well.

The only "CotS" (Consumer off the Shelf) ARM CPU that a regular person/business can buy still hasn't made a dent in the Server Market.

I don't disagree, but my main point is that a void left by Intel will quickly be filled by the competition - be it ARM or Risc-V based. Using a non-x86/X64 platform for anything at all has never been easier. It pains my mind to see an instruction set as kludgy as X64 be the dominant one

 

[YSCCC]

I think the better analogy is that the BoD (Board of Directors) kicked Pat out of the "Captain's Chair" because he didn't make "Stock # Go UP", which is what the BoD wants.

Pat's a "Honest Guy" and I think he's their "Fall Guy" for ALOT of VERY bad decisions made by previous CEO's.

#1 Bob Swan
#2 Brian Krzanich

As far as I can tell, Pat was cleaning up the mess as best as he can set by previous CEO's, and all because things didn't improve fast enough, or that he was "Too Honest" with the media and didn't make "Stock # Go Up", he's taking the fall.

I think it's unfair to him and that he deserved ALOT more time to right the ship than what he got.

Sadly it didn't only exist for intel, or tech industry in the USA, it basically is going the same route for all professional companies, where those geeky, technical over everything professionals are sidelined and forced by the managers to look at the deadlines, stock price and pay cheque above everything, so you get those headline making Boeing disasters using subpar quality parts, strange decisions where someone early on warned will be disasterous and whistle blower firing and mysterious suicide.

A smaller example was the Titan submersible implosion which was warned by their fired technical officer.

Less known example is the leaning towerin SanFrancisco, VW cheating in the emission testing... the list goes on.

Gone are the days where big names care about reputation and having real leading edge performance and reliability products out the gate.

 

[vink]

A very HASTY decision, in the midst of the RENAISSANCE that PAT conceived at Intel with the best and most efficient processors on the WORLD-market: Intel Core Ultra 7 256V ... 2XXK ... and MORE.
Let's not forget that other Intel CEOs slept between 2010-2020 with their heads on 4 Cores, not PAT. Goodbye friend PAT GELSINGER, GO INTEL! Your WORK has been SEEN, thank you for SAVING INTEL.

 

[NinoPino]

Lisa Su had basically nothing to do with AMD's turn around.

She had a lot of merits.

While she was handed a company in worse financial shape than Intel, all the major components that turned the company around were already complete are well under way by the time she took over. All she had to do was not screw it up.

And she was very successful in this.

Compared to Intel, AMD looks good. Compared to Nvidia, their other major competitor, Su looks like a complete failure.

But, according to your reasoning, if CPUs success was not her merit, also GPU and AI failures were not her responsibilities.

 

[vink]

INTEL now has the opportunity with PAT's new low-power processors to introduce them into any device besides laptops and PCs: Smart TVs, NAS, Smartphones, Home Appliances, Audio devices etc. with Windows or Linux OS. I would do that very quickly; including too in a Raspberry Pi equivalent. Everything for Everyone, Worldwide.

 

[Roland Of Gilead]

In the last 4 quarters, Nvidia has generated over $60 billion in profits. One year. That's not monopoly money from the soaring stock value that could disappear tomorrow, that's actual money generated from product sales. Over that same time frame, AMD has generated $1.8 billion in profits. It doesn't matter where AI goes from here. AMD missed the bus.

Yes, this is true, but that's not the point I'm making. I'm only saying that AI is enduring a slow roll out in terms of general consumers. The buzz/fad has passed, apart from big companies setting themselves up for what's to come so they can make some money. We're at early stages right now with AI.

AMD do have the Instinct range, and the current one seems decent in comparison to nVIdia, so they haven't totally missed the bus!

 

[phead128]

To those harping that "he wasn't given enough time to see results", Pat claimed 18A defect density is less than 0.4 d0 defect density, which means it's reasonably healthy, and HVM is viable in 2-3 quarters. The fact that he abruptly resigned with less than 2-3 quarters to go with 18A HVM means that either Pat Gelsinger was either gaslighting the board/public on the actual health of 18A, or his engineers stretched the truth on the true health status of 18A, that's not as healthy as he was told. Either way, he was the one who set 5 nodes in 4 years, so he got booted at year 3.8 with only 2-3 quarters left in 18A HVM, he has been given sufficient time given his own declared timeline.

 

[palladin9479]

That's creative - attributing TSMCs improvements and success to Apple.

Yeah people are really trying hard to make ASML and TSMC's success somehow about Apple, like really hard. The people who have been collaborating with semiconductor manufacturing since the 70's somehow needed a fashion brand to succeed, like people really expect us to believe that.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Apple did nothing, absolutely nothing. Remove them completely from the equation.

The reason AMD chips started doing so much better then Intel's is they ditched GloFo and licensed TSMC's 7nm process to make Zen 2. Apple's SOC products were only attractive because they paid TSMC a massive pile of cash to be the first people to have access to their new production process. Take a hard look at the timings, this all happened right after ASML announced their new EUV backed process technology enabling the creating of sub "10nm" chips at high efficiency rates.

Intel is hurting because they refused to pursue this technology over a decade ago and just iterated on what they already had developed (and had patents for). ASML and TSMC were willing to spend the large amounts of time and money to develop an entirely new chip fabrication technology, Intel was not. This was a gamble that paid off well for TSMC / ASML.

Like seriously, why do iPeople think Apple is involved with this. That's like saying Microsoft is responsible for Intel's problems because people use Windows for gaming and games need GPU's and nVidia use's TSMC instead of Intel. Some six degree's to Keven Bacon stuff.

I totally disagree with you on Apple doing "nothing." I would also disagree with the other extreme of saying it's all about Apple, with the reality somewhere in the middle.

1) Apple started designing its own chips and ditched x86. Apple's architectures have proven to be very competitive. (Side note: A lot of Apple's top chip designers are ex-Intel people that left in the Krzanich era — often forced out the door because they were older white men. This caused a lot of problems with moving beyond 14nm, needless to say.)

2) Apple's iPhone was a revelation to the smartphone world, literally. Pre-iPhone cell phones were flip phones with keypads and tiny screens iPhone changed all that, the rest of the industry had to play catchup. There are millions of people that only have a work laptop, and at home all they really need is a cell phone, maybe a tablet.

3) Intel totally failed to capture any part of the smartphone market, in part because of points one and two. ARM SOCs were good enough for the first four iPhones, but when Apple rolled their own architecture it got the advantage of full hardware and software control. I don't love Apple, at all, but credit where it's due: The company has rocked the smartphone market, and leveraged that to expand in other areas.

4) Because if its success, Apple was able to charge a premium for its new phones, and in turn pay a premium to TSMC to get first access to the latest process nodes. First N7, first N5, first N4, N3, etc. All the billions funneling into TSMC via Apple cannot be understated. It was very much a win-win scenario.

5) People used to upgrade their PCs every few years. Now, people upgrade their smartphones every couple of years. And smartphones often cost $600–$1000. And they roll that into contract pricing so it feels less painful. I have family and friends that always seem to have the latest model iPhone who balk when I tell them it's time to put their eight years old laptop out to pasture and buy a new $500 model from Costco.

Apple didn't carve out a massive slice of the desktop/laptop market, no. It's still less than 10% and probably will remain so for a long time. Or maybe some other device and company rises to the top. But iPads have reached the point where they're viable laptop alternatives, and if you count those the percentage of "laptop" users that Apple has taken from Intel is far from trivial. Tens of millions I'd say.

And it's obviously not solely Apple doing this. I'm not trying to imply that at all. But it's equally disingenuous to postulate that Apple did "nothing" that has hurt Intel. It played a part is what I'm saying. Bring in all the mobile SOC companies like Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek, etc. and you have a rather sizeable chunk of the world's computing market that's not doing anything directly to "help" Intel (or AMD or Nvidia).

I sort of predicted this eight years ago while at PC Gamer (or Maximum PC, which became part of PC Gamer). Except I saw it mostly as a threat to Microsoft, which weathered the storm just fine thanks to data center stuff. But in the comments you'll note that I'm also discussing out Intel and PCs are equally at risk due to a paradigm shift in how we use computing.

Intel is in serious jeopardy right now. If it starts selling off chunks like AMD did with GloFo, that could very well be the end of Intel as we knew it. I suspect the US government would step in and take over before letting that happen, but then governements aren't good at being efficient. What Intel could do with $10 billion of gov't support, the government will do on its own with $100 billion.

 

[palladin9479]

I totally disagree with you on Apple doing "nothing." I would also disagree with the other extreme of saying it's all about Apple, with the reality somewhere in the middle.

1) Apple started designing its own chips and ditched x86. Apple's architectures have proven to be very competitive. (Side note: A lot of Apple's top chip designers are ex-Intel people that left in the Krzanich era — often forced out the door because they were older white men. This caused a lot of problems with moving beyond 14nm, needless to say.)

2) Apple's iPhone was a revelation to the smartphone world, literally. Pre-iPhone cell phones were flip phones with keypads and tiny screens iPhone changed all that, the rest of the industry had to play catchup. There are millions of people that only have a work laptop, and at home all they really need is a cell phone, maybe a tablet.

3) Intel totally failed to capture any part of the smartphone market, in part because of points one and two. ARM SOCs were good enough for the first four iPhones, but when Apple rolled their own architecture it got the advantage of full hardware and software control. I don't love Apple, at all, but credit where it's due: The company has rocked the smartphone market, and leveraged that to expand in other areas.

4) Because if its success, Apple was able to charge a premium for its new phones, and in turn pay a premium to TSMC to get first access to the latest process nodes. First N7, first N5, first N4, N3, etc. All the billions funneling into TSMC via Apple cannot be understated. It was very much a win-win scenario.

5) People used to upgrade their PCs every few years. Now, people upgrade their smartphones every couple of years. And smartphones often cost $600–$1000. And they roll that into contract pricing so it feels less painful. I have family and friends that always seem to have the latest model iPhone who balk when I tell them it's time to put their eight years old laptop out to pasture and buy a new $500 model from Costco.

Apple didn't carve out a massive slice of the desktop/laptop market, no. It's still less than 10% and probably will remain so for a long time. Or maybe some other device and company rises to the top. But iPads have reached the point where they're viable laptop alternatives, and if you count those the percentage of "laptop" users that Apple has taken from Intel is far from trivial. Tens of millions I'd say.

And it's obviously not solely Apple doing this. I'm not trying to imply that at all. But it's equally disingenuous to postulate that Apple did "nothing" that has hurt Intel. It played a part is what I'm saying. Bring in all the mobile SOC companies like Samsung, Qualcomm, MediaTek, etc. and you have a rather sizeable chunk of the world's computing market that's not doing anything directly to "help" Intel (or AMD or Nvidia).

I sort of predicted this eight years ago while at PC Gamer (or Maximum PC, which became part of PC Gamer). Except I saw it mostly as a threat to Microsoft, which weathered the storm just fine thanks to data center stuff. But in the comments you'll note that I'm also discussing out Intel and PCs are equally at risk due to a paradigm shift in how we use computing.

Intel is in serious jeopardy right now. If it starts selling off chunks like AMD did with GloFo, that could very well be the end of Intel as we knew it. I suspect the US government would step in and take over before letting that happen, but then governements aren't good at being efficient. What Intel could do with $10 billion of gov't support, the government will do on its own with $100 billion.

This has nothing to do with ASML developing high resolution EUV machines and TSMC then building advanced process nodes based on those machines, like nothing at all.

Apple is just a luxury fashion designer, a very good one but still just that. And the Apple ARM SOC isn't anything special, no matter how much people were paid to rave about it. Apple paid TSMC a ton of money to be the first customers on any new production node, meaning their Mx CPU's were a generation ahead of AMD and several generations ahead of Intel.

As I said before, people are doing mental gymnastics to make their favorite luxury brand into something they aren't. Unless Apple invented a time machine, they were not involved in the aforementioned R&D. Of course I wouldn't put it past people to insist Steve Jobs did create such a thing.

As for Intel's recent financial struggles, it's because years ago they missed the boat on incorporating EUV into their own fabrication process. The yields on their 10nm process were so bad they had to stick with the 14nm process and just keep releasing products on that while AMD and Apple both got on TSMC's 7nm process. If a CPU on 7nm can't absolutely crush one on 14nm then those designers need to be fired. And even though Intel has now moved past those issues, they are still an entire generation or more behind TSMC in fabrication technology. This means their competitors, AMD / Apple, will always be at least a generation ahead.

That is why Intel is thinking of doing what AMD did and spinning off it's fabrication business into a separate entity. Most microprocessors are not these high performance components that need to be on the latest generation process to be competitive. Intel's vertical integration is what's making it uncompetitive in the processor space. There are places that works but this isn't one of them.

 

[Roy2001]

I totally disagree with you on Apple doing "nothing." I would also disagree with the other extreme of saying it's all about Apple, with the reality somewhere in the middle.

1) Apple started designing its own chips and ditched x86. Apple's architectures have proven to be very competitive. (Side note: A lot of Apple's top chip designers are ex-Intel people that left in the Krzanich era — often forced out the door because they were older white men. This caused a lot of problems with moving beyond 14nm, needless to say.)

Intel's issue was/is process technology, Apple absorbed chip design engineers and it has nothing to do with process. Old white men targeted layoff is completely false.

4) Because if its success, Apple was able to charge a premium for its new phones, and in turn pay a premium to TSMC to get first access to the latest process nodes. First N7, first N5, first N4, N3, etc. All the billions funneling into TSMC via Apple cannot be understated. It was very much a win-win scenario.

Apple did/does not charge premium! Apple makes money because of its scale, if you want to buy an Android phone with same/similar quality, it costs more.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

I don't disagree, but my main point is that a void left by Intel will quickly be filled by the competition - be it ARM or Risc-V based. Using a non-x86/X64 platform for anything at all has never been easier. It pains my mind to see an instruction set as kludgy as X64 be the dominant one

It's not that bad, as a extension of x86, it works just fine.

I want RISC-V to elevate BSD into a symbiotic platform that starts from a solid basis with a OS foundation that is primed for rapid growth.

But that's me wanting two products from Berkley area working together in Synergy to start a seperate Computer Revolution in parallel.

A "Open Source" revolution.

 

[Kamen Rider Blade]

Sadly it didn't only exist for intel, or tech industry in the USA, it basically is going the same route for all professional companies, where those geeky, technical over everything professionals are sidelined and forced by the managers to look at the deadlines, stock price and pay cheque above everything, so you get those headline making Boeing disasters using subpar quality parts, strange decisions where someone early on warned will be disasterous and whistle blower firing and mysterious suicide.

A smaller example was the Titan submersible implosion which was warned by their fired technical officer.

Less known example is the leaning towerin SanFrancisco, VW cheating in the emission testing... the list goes on.

Gone are the days where big names care about reputation and having real leading edge performance and reliability products out the gate.

I blame the BoD (Board of Directors) who are chasing Stock # valuation over Long Term growth.

This kind of behavior is what leads to Government Intervention and Over Regulation in the long term.

 

[phead128]

Intel is in serious jeopardy right now. If it starts selling off chunks like AMD did with GloFo, that could very well be the end of Intel as we knew it. I suspect the US government would step in and take over before letting that happen, but then governements aren't good at being efficient.

No, Intel will spin off IFS foundry to remove the dead weight from it's balance sheet (atleast 49.1% of the dead weight due to CHIPS ACT requirements, not 100%).

Then Intel Products can dual source from IFS Foundry and TSMC (for bleeding edge nodes as it current does with Lunar Lake, Arrow Lake). Intel Products is highly lucrative and will thrive if it continues outsourcing to TSMC. US Gov't talks a tough game about local manufacturing, but it already achieved that now with 4nm fab coming online in Arizona by TSMC. US gov't prefers private investment into IFS Foundry and doesn't want to throw taxpayer money in an endless money pit to make Intel bleeding edge.