this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2024
233 points (98.3% liked)
Technology
59587 readers
2493 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Injection of money more often than not does not solve the fundamental problems that lead a business to failure or in this case poor performance. The causes of the poor decisions along the way must also be addressed.
An engineer should be at the helm. MBAs fuck tech companies up.
Intel's current CEO is Pat Gelsinger, he's an engineer who was the chief architect of the i486.
It's not just who's at the top, the issue is that the company has gotten too big. There's a reason why AMD with such a lower staff count has managed to leapfrog Intel.
Jim Keller was a pretty big reason.
Intel had Jim Keller, and then Jim Keller left prematurely because of political infighting within Intel.
He could barely get anything done and was blocked all the time, because people thought his longer term goal was to become Intel's next CEO.
His Royal Core project, which looked promising, has been cancelled by Pat Gelsinger.
Intel had a goose that laid golden eggs, killed it, then threw all the eggs they had into a volcano.
Intel had such a huge competitive lead during AMDs Bulldozer debacle. I assumed they were still making internal advancements and just sitting on them since there wasn't any need to push the envelope while they had basically no competition.
Now I'm wondering if they did the typical US corporation thing of laying off their actual talent and using their obscene profits from this period for bonuses for their corporate officers.
Mostly, it's more that they had massive infighting, different projects kept fighting each other because everybody wanted to own "the next big thing", so they kept smothering other projects in their beds.
Read about knights landing, it was a beautiful piece of engineering that was eaten by politics.
Imagine a knights landing Ai core.
I suspect Intel has a broader product range than AMD to justify the headcount, but I'm not sure where the extra resources should go.
Their networking chipsets were gold-standard in the 100M and Gigabit era, but their 2.5G stuff is spotty to the point Realtek is considered legit.
They've pulled back from flash, SSDs and Optane.
There must be some other rich product lines that they do and AMD doesn't
AMD doesn't have fabs, and contracts that work out to TSMC. Intel has fabs worldwide. That alone makes Intel a much more capital-intensive, labor-intensive business.
AMD just makes the designs and farms out manufacturing. Intel has to make the designs and manufacture the chips themselves.
That should be an advantage for Intel, yet here we are