News Three senior execs to retire from Intel Foundry, including respected semiconductor veteran Gary Patton

[bit_user]

The fact that you find the idea of effective leadership

I'd just like to note that you didn't answer my question about personal experience.

It's cool to have like a "TED Talk" view of leadership, but when you're saying every manager who's getting let go deserves it, just because they personally couldn't change the course of the air craft carrier that is Intel, that's where I fundamentally disagree. I'll just leave it at that.

 

[jg.millirem]

When I did my miserable stint at Intel I would see the company bigshot names plastered across the intranet, and not infrequently be encouraged to go to meetings, where they sat on the dais in their big comfy chairs and exchanged pleasantries with each other. It was all so disconnected from my daily job, Was I supposed to worship these people? Aspire to be like them? Drink long and deeply from their founts of wisdom? I soon concluded that this kind of thing is corporate idolatry. What I really needed was an immediate manager who wasn’t an asshole, and satisfying job assignments that I was promised when I was hired. These more pedestrian concerns are true for most workers.

 

[usertests]

AMD doesn't need those skills

That's ignorant. Intel has many good employees that did good work. They were always hobbled by bad management and executives.

 

[JRStern]

No successful person has a limitation mindset.

Many unsuccessful people also lack a limitation mindset.

Other than that I pretty much agreed with your rant.

Problem with so many companies today and probably Intel is that they promote on mindset and not on the ability to actually get it done or even know wtf they're talking about. Back in the day that was rare, today it's standard American business culture.

 

[JRStern]

When I did my miserable stint at Intel I would see the company bigshot names plastered across the intranet, and not infrequently be encouraged to go to meetings, where they sat on the dais in their big comfy chairs and exchanged pleasantries with each other. It was all so disconnected from my daily job, Was I supposed to worship these people? Aspire to be like them? Drink long and deeply from their founts of wisdom? I soon concluded that this kind of thing is corporate idolatry. What I really needed was an immediate manager who wasn’t an asshole, and satisfying job assignments that I was promised when I was hired. These more pedestrian concerns are true for most workers.

Yah. I saw this at "Megabank", also other places. Video conferences with high-ups I never heard of much less ever met, who didn't sound like they know the first thing about our operation. Then sometimes one comes to visit, with entourage, and we all gather, and he tells us, "Well done troops, and now here's pizza!" Wow.

 

[bit_user]

When I did my miserable stint at Intel I would see the company bigshot names plastered across the intranet, and not infrequently be encouraged to go to meetings, where they sat on the dais in their big comfy chairs and exchanged pleasantries with each other. It was all so disconnected from my daily job,

I usually don't join the company-level meetings, at my job. Too much of it has too little to do with my day-to-day job. I do join the departmental meetings, as those start to be much more relevant to me.

Once, our CTO had a "Ask Me Anything". I foolishly submitted a question that had to do with policies affecting my work. His idea for the meeting was to be like a get-to-know-me sort of thing, where he also espoused advice to those aspiring to follow in his footsteps. And there definitely were some. At one point, he was literally telling us about his dog. Some other execs had their own "Ask Me Anything" meetings, after that, but I never repeated the mistake of wasting time on them.

Whenever I run a meeting, my prime rule is to respect participants' time. There's always a clear agenda and we try to keep it moving. Afterward, anyone who was listed as a required attendee should agree that they did need to attend and feel that we didn't waste time on much that wasn't relevant to them.

Was I supposed to worship these people? Aspire to be like them? Drink long and deeply from their founts of wisdom? I soon concluded that this kind of thing is corporate idolatry.

My take is that it's mainly narcissism. The only people whose time it's worth to attend those sorts of meetings are sycophants and climbers.

What I really needed was an immediate manager who wasn’t an asshole, and satisfying job assignments that I was promised when I was hired. These more pedestrian concerns are true for most workers.

100%. Also, pay & benefits, which you know are the majority of questions submitted for the Q&A session, but they always try to dance around.

 

[acadia11]

I'd just like to note that you didn't answer my question about personal experience.

It's cool to have like a "TED Talk" view of leadership, but when you're saying every manager who's getting let go deserves it, just because they personally couldn't change the course of the air craft carrier that is Intel, that's where I fundamentally disagree. I'll just leave it at that.

I’m pretty sure I answered it.

And yes if you are an executive in Intels foundry business you are absolutely part of the problem and gotta to go. I’m appalled we are even having this discussion on something so basic … with presumably the money comes the responsibility. Aircraft carrier … or not … this isn’t a participation prize moment. And an executive isn’t a participation prize role.

To put it in terms you may understand NFL coach your team loses no one gives a … how nimble you carrier was or wasn’t. Unfair or not, it’s part and parcel a facet of the role. Are you or are you not winning?

 

[acadia11]

Many unsuccessful people also lack a limitation mindset.

Other than that I pretty much agreed with your rant.

Problem with so many companies today and probably Intel is that they promote on mindset and not on the ability to actually get it done or even know wtf they're talking about. Back in the day that was rare, today it's standard American business culture.

Agreed they do but that’s irrelevant because it’s a prerequisite not a guarantee to success not having a limiting mindset, it doesn’t mean you will be successful. Just like hardwork does not mean success either plenty of unsuccessful people are hard workers.

I believe it’s simpler, staying at the top is hard, and life is not static. Intel did not change and their business model in terms of foundry and retail was simply untenable. What Intel does have is a massive IP stack and despite its problems vast amounts of resources to right the ship. And it would be crazy that this Admin would accept losing 1 of only 3 companies in the world with leading edge capability to disappear despite its chumminess with TSMC and Korea. The question is will Intel right the ship.

 

[abufrejoval]

That's ignorant. Intel has many good employees that did good work. They were always hobbled by bad management and executives.

I believe these were fab skillsets, AMD no longer has a fab.

 

[acadia11]

I believe these were fab skillsets, AMD no longer has a fab.

Correct they spun off their FAB business in 2009, it’s what we know today as Global Foundries … and why did AMD spin it off because it’s too costly to develop FAB technology in today’s environment and you be your only customer. They did the right thing and outsourced the manufacturing in 2009 to the GF spinoff. In the 80s and 90s it made sense to have your own FAB , and in fact it was a benefit to Intel allowing to meet the demand for their pentium lineups , but as it became harder to keep up with Moores Law die shrinks the cost exponential grew to maintain a FAB. Samsung does it because it always was a Foundry and had a good customer pipeline to produce chips for others plus they make so many electronics they can support the investment for their own products. TSMC is a foundry only and Intel … well you see what’s happened.

 

[JRStern]

Agreed they do but that’s irrelevant because it’s a prerequisite not a guarantee to success not having a limiting mindset

I don't really agree with that a hundred percent and I'll bet you don't either.
If anything Intel has been hiring CEO's with your positive mindset and you know how that's been going.
Something more of a technocrat that simply gets things done instead of mindsetting all day long is what they need. This is the story of Silicon Valley, a thousand startups have CEOs with the positive mindset, and - ten of them survive. Guess why. Think of Theranos as our poster child. Even Gelsinger, look, he was hired and spent too much time cheerleading and too little time actually looking at the numbers. Let's hope Intel squeaks through and Gelsinger (and LBT) and Intel don't go down as the latest cheerleader failures.

 

[acadia11]

I don't really agree with that a hundred percent and I'll bet you don't either.
If anything Intel has been hiring CEO's with your positive mindset and you know how that's been going.
Something more of a technocrat that simply gets things done instead of mindsetting all day long is what they need. This is the story of Silicon Valley, a thousand startups have CEOs with the positive mindset, and - ten of them survive. Guess why. Think of Theranos as our poster child. Even Gelsinger, look, he was hired and spent too much time cheerleading and too little time actually looking at the numbers. Let's hope Intel squeaks through and Gelsinger (and LBT) and Intel don't go down as the latest cheerleader failures.

I did not say anything about a positive mindset, Nor did I say anything not getting isht done , nor did I speak on what Intel needs … did you read the post … in fact this discussion started with the role of an exec is to lead and get isht done, period. And if they can not then they need to go.
I said limiting mindset. Meaning pushing the limits of what is possible. It has absolutely nothing to do with cheerleading or being positive, it has to do with pushing boundaries and a resistance to mediocrity and pushing excellence. Example, The iPhone exists because Steve Jobs pushed the boundaries of what is possible in both manufacturing and innovation … and was relentless in doing so. And literally transformed global economics because of it. And again no person who is successful has a limiting mindset that doesn’t mean because you push boundaries you will be successful. Just like hardwork doesn’t mean success. It’s an ingredient not a guarantee , I can guarantee if you don’t believe you can build an iPhone you won’t. I’m actually going to stop discussing this with you because some things aren’t worth debating … because it’s as they say obvious,

 

[JRStern]

I did not say anything about a positive mindset, … because it’s as they say obvious,

Trying to avoid your double-negative of "not having a limiting mindset".
There has to be more to it, and what that is, isn't obvious.
Every startup has someone who doesn't have a limiting mindset yet nine out of ten fail.
In fact the streets are filled with people who don't have a limiting mindset.
Still looking for what they do have, the ones who do succeed.

 

[acadia11]

Trying to avoid your double-negative of "not having a limiting mindset".
There has to be more to it, and what that is, isn't obvious.
Every startup has someone who doesn't have a limiting mindset yet nine out of ten fail.
In fact the streets are filled with people who don't have a limiting mindset.
Still looking for what they do have, the ones who do succeed.

No …t there is more to it. There are a bevy a factors that lead to success but there are no guarantees in life, period. Except death currently. To be honest what are you even trying to argue at this point? And what does it have to do with my comments regarding ineffectual leadership needing to go? And that for Intel a serious shake up is good for them as their execs haven’t been getting it done?

 

[bit_user]

they spun off their FAB business in 2009, it’s what we know today as Global Foundries … and why did AMD spin it off

Because they needed money. Badly. They bought ATI when they were still on a high from Opteron, arguably overpaid for it, and then everything went rotten. You have to remember what was happening in the economy then, as well.

because it’s too costly to develop FAB technology in today’s environment and you be your only customer.

That's true today. It wasn't, back in 2009. If AMD had been doing the same sort of revenues as in the heyday of Opteron, they could've carried the fabs for a good bit longer, before the costs started to outweigh the benefits.

 

[bit_user]

Even Gelsinger, look, he was hired and spent too much time cheerleading and too little time actually looking at the numbers.

Nah, I'm sure Gelsinger looked at the numbers and they added up. What he failed to account for is the string of misfortunes that would befall Intel. You can plan for a couple things not to go your way, but the way it played out was on the highly pessimistic end. Nobody plans for that, because then your posture would be way too conservative.

 

[acadia11]

Because they needed money. Badly. They bought ATI when they were still on a high from Opteron, arguably overpaid for it, and then everything went rotten. You have to remember what was happening in the economy then, as well.


That's true today. It wasn't, back in 2009. If AMD had been doing the same sort of revenues as in the heyday of Opteron, they could've carried the fabs for a good bit longer, before the costs started to outweigh the benefits.

Of course it was true back then, even Intel experienced its first serious die shrink delay with 10nm which was already on the drawing board in 2007 … and they were still wind up being delayed in 2017 … which led to part of their current issues especially not switching to EUV. Planning and testing for leading edge nodes takes many years and was quite complex and cost prohibitive by the mid 2000s… yes AMD ended money but the fact was they needed to attract customers for foundry as it wasn’t even then a sustainable business with AMd as its main client and also a potential competitor to customers … the spinoff made sense. Intel was much larger and still believed they could support their foundry business alone …

 

[bit_user]

Tan apparently has disagreements with the scope of spending on fabs without enough confirmation of ROI.

If you wait until an RoI case can be confirmed for a fab node, then you've already missed the boat. The investment must be made well in advance of that point. It's an inherently risky business.

3. They showed this with a last minute switch from Intel 20A to TSMC N3B with Arrow Lake when Intel 20A was abandoned.

I don't believe that's what actually happened. Lunar Lake was always planned to use N3B. In order to switch the compute tile from 20A to N3B, what I think they did was simply reusing the core layouts they had from Lunar Lake, and then redid the rest of the Arrow Lake compute tile. That also explains why Arrow Lake doesn't clock very high - because the layout of those cores was done to prioritize efficiency.

I even have an Intel fabbed x86 phone chip that was contract made for Spreadtrum in a Leagoo T5c: https://www.techradar.com/news/spreadtrum-unveils-high-performance-lte-platforms-sc9853i-and-sc9850

So, an Intel-fabbed x86 phone chip is supposed to be evidence of contract manufacturing? LOL.

Like consoles at TSMC bad? (You couldn't get those for like a year because of lack of production.)

That's because demand surged, not because TSMC failed to meet its contracts.