Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Maybe Pat is not the problem?

Let's see how well we understand Intel, and it's business. If one was to guess how long it takes to design and build a CPU based on a new architecture? Is it one year? Two years? Three years? Five years? or Six to eight years? Spoiler... at Intel, it's prob closer to eight plus years, and that's assuming the investigation the architecture is viable for design, and manufacturing is already done. Outside company, prob four or five years since they are using off the shelf libraries, and non-customized foundry equipment.

So who long has Pat been back? About 3.5 years, and prob have about two years wasted due to the pandemic. Pat's decisions today are only to cancel projects or spin off businesses. Real products under Pat's watch won't show up till late 2020's at the earliest.

OK, let's also play a thought exercise... what if Pat left. Who would they bring in willing to try save Intel, vs like Swan who just sat around collecting tens of millions while Intel is dying? Even if they brought in someone, they'll likely pull an Elon, and if you think 15% HC cut is bad... they'll prob use two options... cut 50%-60% with the first 90 days of walking through the door, and re-hire as needed. Second option is VSP/fire 35% today... see how it looks in six months, and then cut another 20%-35% (but this time, with a reduced severance package). Either way, the new Intel will be a shell of the old Intel.

by
| 2303 views | | 30 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1tVOCsRU

30 replies (most recent on top)

what do you expect when you hire a guy who tweets bible cr-p all day long? and then obscenely overpay him?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @7qzl+1tVOCsRU

He will get us out of this. He along with senior leadership know what they are doing and will sacs us! We have faith in you Pat!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2gni+1tVOCsRU

Pat immediately added to the existing problems when he got here in Feb 21. The amount of capex he initiated isn’t needed or sustainable. The bottom line is he is the CEO. When you accept that job you are assuming responsibility for the entire company not just the parts you like or create. He is the head clown at this circus. After 3.5 years in the role there is no pointing at others. He owns it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2jop+1tVOCsRU

The problem at Intel has been the silicon process. Client ships many products using TSMCs process and those devices are competitive, if not leading edge. Those same core designs are then rolled into Intel's process and then used for Server chips and we all know the result of that side of the business. There will never be process leadership as all companies are using similar equipment. Intel can only hope to have a process on par with the industry and then a good design with probably superior package/power delivery. To date Intel has not shown any ability to make in-roads for other companies to use our process which seems insane. Of the total silicon market, very little is leading edge so even our tried and true silicon processes are not interesting to outside customers.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2mfs+1tVOCsRU

@2xhz In server, in most video calls with senior product planners and mgmt, there's often toys, guitars, keyboards, etc in the background in their "home office". Who knows what happens when the camera is off. It's not like people would bring an electric guitar or keyboard to their office... or would they? There was one guy working remotely, who kept telling folks he's remodeling his house by himself, so you can watch the progress he made in every meeting, since he took calls in whatever room he's in. Other people you can tell were working out (sweating, they tell you they just worked out an hour), walking the dog, telling folks how engrossed they are with the World Cup, need to make kids lunch, etc. I get people have breaks, but isn't the general rule about 10-20min breaks, twice a day or something like that.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2cmd+1tVOCsRU

@2keb Andy Bryant is the culprit by far. He got promoted to Chairman of the Board, and oversaw the promotion of BK to CEO (who is the liar in chief for TMG for decades)... after BK got fired, AB let the CEO role vacant for almost a year w/Swan keeping the seat warm by doing nothing... before deciding, Swan who has zero technical expertise other than counting beans lead Intel for almost two years, continuing to do nothing and holding no one accountable. Pat didn't come on board until AB "retired" from the Board... and had the bad luck of dealing with the pandemic, and everyone pretending to WFH (which prob tanked productivity by 66%-75%). Seriously, how many WFH calls have we all taken where there's screaming kids or the TV (game) in the background... yeah, sure, these people are "working".

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2xhz+1tVOCsRU

He is not the 'only' problem. Craig Barrett, PSO, BK,BS ... We have a legacy nightmare team

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2keb+1tVOCsRU

@1zoa You do know that Intel is breaking into two seperate companies right... design and foundry? That was essentially Pat's first decision when he came back. The problem is all the liars in ELT which prob keeps saying, they are just about to turn the corner (esp TMG). There's been 30 years of lies and fat that's been institutionalized. Those who think they are top performers are actually terrible employees.. because they perpetuate the lie (esp anyone in TMG... they must've known their cost structure was 3x-4x what TSMC costs to make). I remember there was an initiative by a TMG leader (who recently "retired") about six years ago for Intel to get within 2x TSMC cost over a five year span. That's right, the GOAL was to get within TWO TIMES over TSMC cost in five years. Not surprisingly, it went radio silent before the two year mark since it was hopeless. Pat can't change decades of entrenched thinking in a couple of years without drastically interrupting execution. If you want to blame someone... start with Andy Bryant... BK... Swan... PSO... Pat in that order.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @2cvk+1tVOCsRU

My take: Pat and the board appear to be blind to the obvious fact that being an IDM is no longer a competitive advantage.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1zoa+1tVOCsRU

The lawsuit will be interesting.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1trc+1tVOCsRU

Not sure clearing out ELT (now) is the answer either. It’s been a revolving door - some of those ‘chairs’ have changed three times since Pat has been back.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1lry+1tVOCsRU

Nope. Intel is hitting on all cylinders. This is only a matter of spending too much too fast to fix manufacturing. In some respects, really all rational respects, the spending had to be done. Server has been eroding. Client has been good but stagnant.

Zinser is right. When our own fabs make our own chips and we aren't building 5 fabs concurrently we will be doing much better. If our fabs make other's chips we subsidize our own.

In general, 5N4Y was a grand plan. It's still on track, but the plan the board agreed to is expensive and they know Y6 or Y7 is when we get the rewards. Strangely, the market knows that too. I wouldn't be surprised if the Chinese government was shorting Intel stock. If Intel falters, there is zero hope for the US ever catching up again. Biden should give Pat another $20B. There is no bigger risk in our current economy than offshoring all advanced chip production.

Par is a rock star and Intel's last hope. If the board is short sighted enough to not let this journey manifest itself while revenues are still 2X AMD's, then we deserve the sad end we will face.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @1jyq+1tVOCsRU

Maybe Pat is not the answer?

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aig+1tVOCsRU

It's all the boomers and all the H1Bs that are the problem

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @qhe+1tVOCsRU

@nlx Who "blindsided" him?
It just shows that the company doesn't have accountability in its culture anymore.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @aty+1tVOCsRU

It’s the CEO’s job to find out the truth and take action. The fact that he allows bad signals into his brain is proof he’s not a good CEO.

There needs to be a system setup by him of checks and balances and accountability of his lieutenants.

That’s what a CEO does!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mjs+1tVOCsRU

Oh no he is definitely a major part of the problem. He is in way over his head and should have never been given the reigns.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zuo+1tVOCsRU

“I was blindsided” is not an excuse for a successful CEO. Your executive staff has to feel fear every day. They get paid enough to compensate.You need to be up in everyone’s business and one slip and you have to actually fire them. You have to actually see the new chips repeatedly boot and repeatedly load operating systems before saying it on earnings call. You have to tell the public your chips are fu---d, remediate the customer and stop selling them.

No……,no more excuses for Pat. You’re fired!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @nlx+1tVOCsRU

@uqt Wow... someone who actually understands what happened.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @zdx+1tVOCsRU

I’m going to be a little fairer to Pat - but before I get downvoted here me out :)

When Pat joined I firmly believed he was the ONLY executive out there who stood a chance of saving the company …. Running a fab business and a product business concurrently requires a certain skill set .

I think the intent was good ; he made a bold and correct step, by splitting the P&Ls - this is a good setup for the inevitable break up.

Where it’s gone wrong - is ELT and their staff have outright lied and inflated things to a point that they all live in a reality distortion field …

So yes , Pat needs to carry the can - but the seven dwarfs that surround him I think have more than blindsided him and the board.

A full ELT clear out is needed …. Followed by a split of the company and a reset ..

is it all on Pat no … the failure demonstrates it’s too big and complex a machine for one CEO ; time to split it up ; right size both and inject fresh blood

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @uqt+1tVOCsRU

@gkm I would agree Intel design might die, or just become an embedded player supporting legacy products (that were actually good).

I have some confidence in Foundry since Western Governments will want a non-Asia CPU mfg... be it a $1B or $50B or $200B business, we don't know. I don't know if my assumptions are flawed, but there are only two front end fab equipment makers (ASML, AMAT) which prob makes 90%+ of all equipment. So Intel is playing on a level field with competitors there on equipment costs. They have a decent assy technology, so they can actually get a product through FSAT start-to-finish. What Intel has a problem with that it's grossly obese in spending wise... which is prob due to 30 years HC fat and inefficiencies. They need to get spending and OH costs on par with TSMC. If they can get that accomplished, and Intel could be worth 20% of TSMC's market cap, that means stock would be $31-$35... if they can get half of TSMC's market cap, that's $70's+

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tpv+1tVOCsRU

It’s not Pat’s fault, ignore the trolls.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @wrc+1tVOCsRU

I spent nearly all of my 21 years at Intel chip design well aware that the process was disgraceful. Some of the design tools were leading edge, some were polygon-pushers with lipstick. Any attempt at defining the processes implement continuous improvement was met with suspicion and disdain, and not funded. Data flow efforts were spawned by some maverick engineers but it took away from their official measured deliverables at woodchipper time. I once asked the head of one of my design projects (Rani Borkar) if we had any system for Business Intelligence and returned a blank stare.
Time to Market is the thing that makes a company an industry leader, harping on it made me a troublemaker and I was involuntarily retired in 2016 along with thousands.
Can you imagine if we all bought NVidia back then.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @tra+1tVOCsRU

@bew Let's be honest. Intel engineering and design is 4th tier on it's best day these days. Most of the smart and truly talented engineers have long retired, or left for a better company. We may have a handful of bright talent in the bench, but the useless meat sack engineers and engineering mangers likely outnumber them 1,000:1 or more. Intel will never design their way out of the problem at this point.... ARM designs have entered into the market, and x86 power & performance aren't good enough to displace those designs (and now the ARM ecosystem is entrenched in servers, and expanding into PCs). Essentially, pandora's box has been open, and it can't be closed again.

As for foundry, that is what Intel has to pivot to since design keeps falling behind (as demonstrated by server losing MSS from 97% to 50% or maybe even less; and PCs used to be 90% NB/85% DT... now it's prob in the 70's/60's).

Let's look at it this way... Intel is worth $85B today... TSMC is worth $724B. Intel combined is worth only 11.7% of TSMC. Heck, if Intel get foundry to be worth 20% of TSMC alone, that's $142B, or stock back around $31-$35 a share. Intel may have a chance in foundry since basically 1-2 companies make all front end fab equipment (ASML, AMAT), so in theory, TSMC or Sammy won't have any secret sauce advantage. Surprisingly, Intel does have very good/decent back-end assy technology (which Nvida will even use)... but it's expensive as f. So if the Foundry side can cut all the obese fat and get competent mgmt that doesn't lie about execution, Intel could have a chance in Foundry.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @xcz+1tVOCsRU

To address both your points:

— if the eight year prod lead is the problem then that is what Pat should have addressed rather than building all those fabs. This also would mean though that 5in4 wasn’t actually Pat’s idea since products on 5in4 nodes are hitting market well before 8 years since Pat joined
— you talk about the pulling an Elon like it’s a bad thing. Every day Pat gets to pretend his plan isn’t DOA is more investor money burned for no good and more talent wasted on futile activities. So there’s going to be a big layoff when the next CEO nukes the plan and splits the company. Get it over with.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bew+1tVOCsRU

When you said "Spoiler..." I instantly knew this post is from an Intel exeutive wa-k. Go fu-k yourself!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @pwi+1tVOCsRU

Maybe Intel deserves to die if they need 8 years to bring out a CPU.

I’m now at a competitor and it’s like 3-4 years max from a blank sheet to shipping product.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @gkm+1tVOCsRU

Fu-k you!

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @sfc+1tVOCsRU

Pat is guilty of lying to investors and not taking accountability.

He can’t even project 3 months out.
Somehow, meteor lake was a surprise to the CEO?

In 2022, he set expectations that Intel had bottomed.

He’s doing a “clean sheet” analysis of the business starting today. WHY DID HE NOT DO THIS IN 2021?

He has lost all credibility.
He needs to be more transparent with investors and share better metrics on progress.

He also needs to STFU about AMD in the rear view and other such nonsense.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @bzh+1tVOCsRU

Pat, you are just making excuses for yourself.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @njb+1tVOCsRU

Post a reply

: