[HN Gopher] An Interview with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger ___________________________________________________________________ An Interview with Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger Author : oumua_don17 Score : 103 points Date : 2022-02-27 09:31 UTC (13 hours ago) (HTM) web link (stratechery.com) (TXT) w3m dump (stratechery.com) | vvanders wrote: | > Some of these conversations, Ben, I just find them delightful. | We have these five whale customers that we've talked about, these | are active conversations. Active, daily things and in that, the | teams are now saying, well, what about the ultra low voltage | threshold for the thin pitch library that we're going to use in | this particular cell? "TSMC is giving us these characteristics, | you don't characterize that corner." Okay, guess what? Go | characterize the corner! "Your PDK isn't as robust as the Samsung | or TSMC PDK is to describe the process technology for my team to | simulate." | | I get where he's going with this but if you're ever on the other | side interacting with a vendor you should be very careful about | what, if at all you disclose that their competitors are doing. | Vendors notice what they learn from your teams and if they know | it is leaky they will not disclose things that make the technical | side easier. | | At a past gig we used the be the central point of contact for our | vendors because we kept a strict firewall on the technical side | between different product lines and SoCs. | | The first instinct of most engineers when you're trying to | evaluate something or get the best performance is to say "X does | Y, why don't you do Y" or "X does Y, how can we get similar | results" and you've just disclosed something and that vendor will | notice. On the flip side if you build up that trust and are known | to not disclose you can be read in on things that normally | wouldn't be shared. This can be incredibly valuable when you're | trying to close on a key technical issue under schedule/time | constraints. | adityar wrote: | I find "X does Y, why don't you?" As a means to keep vendors | from becoming complacent. As customers, we don't know what the | tools limits are. Sometimes, vendors will not invest in | improving their tools/results without a credible threat. The | results from competing vendors is the closest you can get to | impartial results that create pressure to perform. | vvanders wrote: | A good chunk of my time was in SoC eval so if the vendor was | being complacent they didn't get the bid. You should always | be running multiple solutions so you don't get locked in with | a certain vendor(and also a really good reason to keep any | tech stack you have highly portable). | | Even then though there's ways to approach it that don't | disclose. You can set KPIs that you expect to hit and talk | through how they plan too approach it from their side. If | something is known in the public you can reference it | although I generally prefer not to. | | Depending on what part of the industry you're in some vendors | prefer not to patent and keep approaches internal so | discussion of certain aspects can be pretty sensitive. | criticaltinker wrote: | I think that is a reasonable counter argument to the solid | advice GP shared. In my experience, vendors are usually well | aware of their competition. It's a thin and subtle line | between motivating them and recklessly sharing details | regarding trade secrets, IP, competitive advantages etc. | | Only mentioning this because I wish someone had clued me in | earlier in my career. I only learned after my friend in opsec | called me out for my loose lips. | danielmarkbruce wrote: | >> Every day I sell another x86 socket, that is the highest | margin, most strategic thing that Intel can do | | This basically summarizes why Intel is in so much trouble. They | can execute well for the next 10 years and they are still hosed - | they used to be practically the only supplier (AMD wasn't doing | well) of the by far most used architecture in servers (and | clients), and sold to 100s of thousands of customers, none of who | could push them around. Now there are several architectures and | several suppliers and the buyers are bigger and more concentrated | than ever. They are just lucky the server market has been growing | while the big cloud providers built out. It's not going to be a | pretty 10 years to 2032... selling those x86's in 2032 won't be | so.. high margin. | initplus wrote: | I'm not sure focusing on the instruction set is the right | angle. | | x86 would be more competitive in the mobile space if Intel had | offered efficient chips. Is the instruction set the biggest | blocker that prevented this? Or is it the licensing model? | Perhaps if Intel had licensed their architecture and | instruction set to others, like ARM does, they would be in a | better position? | | ARM's licensing model get's a lot more eyes on instructions | sets and chip designs. It allows big companies like Apple come | in and run the show, licensing just the instruction set. Why | wasn't Intel working with large customers with an interest in | custom x86 designs? In hindsight it seems presumptuous to | assume there is no x86 talent outside Intel/AMD. | | Really impossible to know how much the actual instruction set | is holding Intel back without being on the inside. | convolvatron wrote: | true. but I really cant imagine that the area and latency | associated with the uop translator is really where this is | all falling down. i have always wondered how much support for | the old vector units, segmentation and all the rest cost, but | it cant really be that much since caches keep getting bigger | and bigger. its a really good question. | xchaotic wrote: | It's a classic innovator's dilemma- they can continue milking | the x86 or reinvent the company but not both at the same time. | gumby wrote: | > but not both at the same time. | | For 20 years they could have afforded to. Now it may be too | late. If they try I don't think the market would punish them | for it. | | And in fact they are famous for killing their cash cow | (memory) and focusing on the new thing (microprocessors) in | the 80s under Grove. They have fallen far. | | Other big companies, like Google, have this problem and | haven't made efforts to address it. | tester756 wrote: | If Microsoft managed to do turn around, then why they cant? | n7pdx wrote: | Intel is not going to beat anyone else in architecture or | design in any compute system besides x86. They don't have the | experience, the talent, or the culture to do so. Heck, Intel | can't even beat AMD in x86 power/perf. So Pat is just stating | the obvious, Intel has no option but to go maximal x86. | awill wrote: | Skimmed. I was hoping to read a deeper question about Intel's | power consumption. I keep seeing benchmarks showing Intel's | massive gains with the 12th gen that avoid talking about power. | It's not that hard to match or exceed a competitors benchmark if | you double the power budget. | | I've read that for the original iPhone Steve Jobs was in talks | with Intel to produce a low power x86 chip. Intel said no. The | silicon landscape would be very different if that had happened. | bloodyplonker22 wrote: | I calculated once that the cost of buying an intel chip is | around double that of a similar performing AMD chip if you | factor in the cost of electricity over a few years. | Unfortunately for intel, their latest generation is still on | very old 10nm technology while AMD is currently on 7nm and is | going to 5nm soon. Because of their giant screw-ups with a | sales and marketing CEO, Intel has fallen far behind with their | own fabs, and power consumption has not improved at all. All | they can do for now is sell their latest generation chips with | a terrible profit margin in order to compete against AMD. | pinewurst wrote: | But Intel has renamed their 10nm to "Intel 7"! ;) | fnbr wrote: | Stratechery (& Dithering) is the only paid newsletter I subscribe | to. It's so worth it. I think that everyone working in tech | should subscribe to maintain an objective view of the overall | tech landscape. Otherwise, you get sucked into the gravitational | well of your employer's propaganda. | | This is especially true at big tech, as Ben covers them often. | enos_feedler wrote: | I am not sure how many people really get sucked into employer's | propaganda. However, it is a great newsletter with good | interviews and an energetic and passionate voice on tech. | fnbr wrote: | I think it's easy to get sucked into it accidentally if the | only source of tech news you read is your employer's internal | newsletters. | pphysch wrote: | A bit off topic but every other (public) article from | Stratechery reads like a hagiography of Intel. Now he landed an | interview with the man himself. Hmm. Pat's time is | extraordinarily valuable. Either the author lets his personal | bias affect his analysis too much, or there is some PR money at | work here. | | There's still a lot of interesting analysis but my opinion of | the newsletter has soured over time. | ghaff wrote: | >Pat's time is extraordinarily valuable. | | It is. On the other hand, a not insignificant part of his job | is talking to journalists, industry analysts, financial | analysts, etc. Doesn't mean just anyone can drop an email and | get an interview but, although I haven't spoken with Pat for | quite some time, I had 1:1s with him (and did a little work | for him) when he was CTO. | binarynate wrote: | It sounds like you should read more of Ben's articles. He | doesn't write about Intel every other article and he has long | been critical of them for losing ground to TSMC. | marcodiego wrote: | Not a single word about IME. | xchaotic wrote: | What's that? | JonChesterfield wrote: | Intel management engine. Remote code execution backdoor / | feature. | mooreds wrote: | This is OT, but can I just say how amazing it is that the head of | a large public tech company is being interviewed by a smart guy | with a paid newsletter? | | What a world. | | Edit: corrected typo. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-27 23:00 UTC)