You must log in or register to comment.

erosram t1_j631rv1 wrote

I like intel, but after seeing them drag their feet, play games with gatekeeping technology, buying up small companies and running their technologies into the ground, having intentionally confusing terminology and nomenclature and product lines that are meant to extract as much money from each product segment and customer as possible, and taking innovative technologies like optane and kicking them to death, I can’t say I mind it too much.

I want them to climb back in the ring, but I also want them to learn a lesson or two.


DanielPhermous t1_j63c8tf wrote

> I like intel

Having read the entire comment, I am bound to ask... why?


erosram t1_j63cuve wrote

Because I know every company is made up of good people and bad. But for most of intels life, there’ve been a lot of good people advancing computers for everybody. Recently it’s all the MBAs and shareholders who are running the company.


Zalbag_Beoulve t1_j63jeu1 wrote

Totally, that's why they lost a massive anti trust lawsuit nearly 20 years ago. The shitty behavior is definitely new. 100%.


Mr-Logic101 t1_j659uvp wrote

They have not been competitive because they did not contract out there chip manufacturing. They manufacture in-house. That is why reason AMD advanced quickly.

The ultra Capitalist MBAs would have contracted out production to minimize liability and increase flexibility.


sub-merge t1_j63u8sq wrote

I worked for intel in Vancouver from an acquisition they made for AR glasses called “Vaunt”. They flew us around the world, wasted billions then scrapped the project before launch about 5 months after announcing it. To this day, it was one of the most exciting and confusing projects I’ve ever worked on. I still wonder to this day what happened.


katieberry t1_j64zxlr wrote

I heard a lot of this fell on BK’s terrible decision making (I’m also ex-Vaunt, though not by acquisition).

My favourite part was when they planned a PR blitz, backed out of announcing anything at the last minute, then details leaked, and The Verge had exclusivity rights so was able to publish their whole article as a result. The one time I haven’t been angry that something I was working on leaked.


sub-merge t1_j65sylz wrote

Ah I remember working with you actually when they flew us and the Israeli team down to Santa Clara to basically have a 48 hour coding hackathon. Hope all is well!


renlewin t1_j67grqm wrote

It definitely started with BK. I was in HR at Intel at the time, and the talk was there was a special team just to deal with him and his issues.


skatecrimes t1_j64c9bt wrote

Probably research came back no one would buy them. Vr/ar is a huge money sink with little demand. Its got a few more generations before its small enough and good enough for mass usage.


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j633ie4 wrote

> having intentionally confusing terminology and nomenclature and product lines that are meant to extract as much money from each product segment and customer as possible

This is why I haven't had an Intel processor in over a decade.

Just...could not be arse figuring out the difference between the 1234K, the 1324, the 1243, and the 1342K, even though they've got the same clocks and cores, and then wondering if that motherboard I want is the right motherboard for it.


mb2231 t1_j63lgxh wrote

I don't know, I never really thought intel's processor naming was that hard to understand....

13 - Generation

7 - Processor SKU/Line (i.e. i7)


K/F/S - Unlocked/No Graphics/Special Edition


MaximumPlume t1_j63n5cn wrote

Same. I’m not sure if it’s the blue cool-aid that I’m drinking or what, but their naming schemes aren’t that confusing.

Not to mention each of my builds gets researched as I’m figuring out what components I’ll be using – so I never really had any issues with guaranteeing that everything works once I get all the hardware together.

However if the objective is to head to the store, grab a bunch of parts off the shelf, and have everything just fit together when building at home, then yeah I guess it’s currently not so straightforward.


Actually-Yo-Momma t1_j64ma4k wrote

TV naming conventions was hard for me until i googled “Samsung naming conventions”. Most of this info for any company is one 5 second search away lol


SparkStormrider t1_j63e1tv wrote

Seems like every processor needs its own mobo for it when it comes to Intel and their mobos, regardless who makes them, are expensive. There were like 5 generations of cpus on the AMD side that used one socket and didn't see any degrading of performance when upgrading to newer processors.


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j63g3wk wrote

I loved when they simply removed a single pin - 1156 to 1155 - just to fuck over backwards compatibility, while still being able to use the same tooling for the processors and saving themselves money...while ensuring the consumer has to upgrade more than just his CPU.


SparkStormrider t1_j63jcbm wrote

Yeah, fucking greed at its finest. This isn't something new with Intel either. They tried to do do away with the socket years ago saying sockets have gone as far as the technology would allow, and introduced Slot 1. Luckily that bullshit died real fast.


Sylanthra t1_j647sr9 wrote

If you find that confusing, than I guess you haven't upgraded your computer at all in over a decade huh?


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j65ru0k wrote

Nope, 2019 was the last major upgrade.

I'm just not the sort of guy who jerks off over learning model names, and, at any rate, my time is worth a lot more than yours.


Sylanthra t1_j65wa1k wrote

Well mister moneybags, I guess, it was an AMD processor and AMD is well known for their clear naming schemes that don't involve numbers like the Ryzen 7 3700x.


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j6664rt wrote

I like how you called me "Mr. Moneybags" when you know I bought AMD.


Sylanthra t1_j66qy2k wrote

You are the one saying you are worth more than me, I am simply acknowledging your superiority.


SpecificAstronaut69 t1_j68iylj wrote

Where did I say that?

And saying I'm superior to you isn't that big a deal. Pretty much everything on the planet is superior to you. I've run over stuff on then highway that's superior to you.


CitySeekerTron t1_j67d9m8 wrote

For fun add the Atom, Celeron, and Pentium line. Do you want a Celeron 5125j, or a Pentium gold?

Or maybe you want a CPU with AVX512... Here's some options... And they're gone!


Zerksys t1_j64bpwm wrote

I feel like this is the fate of a lot of large companies whose core business, at one point, revolved around innovation and engineering. Over time, good engineering and creative innovation take a back seat to the company being run more like a hedge fund or a bank than a technology company. This is when the fall from grace usually starts.


PatternMachine t1_j65gif2 wrote

The term for this is 'financialization' and it is endemic across all industries. The assets generated from the core business are used to continue generating money through investments and other financial tools. Even (maybe especially) cultural institutions like museums or even universities fall prey to it.


phoenix0r t1_j668i2b wrote

Because no one wants to invest in a company that has stopped growing and increasing demand and profits. So to have these optics, these companies do this MBA BS to basically hide the fact that they don’t have any other new groundbreaking IP. If you lose investors, your company is basically sunk, even if you have a fantastic core product and dedicated customer base.


EmotionalGuarantee47 t1_j63o1dn wrote

Intel could have pushed opencl to compete with cuda. But they botched it and I believe it was on purpose. There was just one person working on beignet for so long.

They could not let go of their x86 compatibility and “ecosystem” as a talking point and wanted to kill any advancement in heterogeneous computing. They shot themselves in the foot.

I don’t blame amd for not trying hard enough. Things might be good for them now but back when opencl could have used some investment they were busy putting fires.

So yeah. Screw intel and screw apple for their neglect of opencl. And screw them if they say don’t use cuda because it’s not open source.


ericneo3 t1_j66mlmd wrote

Sounds a lot like ADOBE, DELL, HP, CISCO and LENOVO.

It seems like these companies get big then fire the product people to hire cheap overseas and marketing people, only to find out they cannot do the job then have to take their millions and use it to gobble up all new tech because they can no longer produce it.


_MoveSwiftly t1_j63nk06 wrote

Pat Gilsinger is good at marketing. That's it.


pmotiveforce t1_j65hxi2 wrote

He pretty much just started, and inherited this mess. And his bona-fides are actual engineering of the old school variety. So I don't know how you can say he's just "good at marketing" based on anything.


_MoveSwiftly t1_j65phvr wrote

"Intel 7" but it's actually 10nm
"Intel 4" but it's actually 7nm

That's marketing, and he keeps lying about how well they're doing and refusing to acknowledge AMD because they're too high and mighty, until he got his nose bloodied a bit.


pmotiveforce t1_j65xpeg wrote

Rubbish. Formerly Intel's 10nm was e.g. closer to TSMC's 7. Feature sizes are not as simple as "Xnm, derp!"". Intel's new naming scheme more closely aligns with what TSMC/Samsung are using.


trevize1138 t1_j64c6we wrote

> Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket.

Eric Hoffer


aquarain t1_j635ngi wrote

AMD is killing it in server.


[deleted] t1_j63my6p wrote



_MoveSwiftly t1_j63ntjk wrote

Your link shows that AMD grew in market share, taking away from Intel, which agrees with both reality and the comment you're replying to.

This is why people bag hold. They don't read.


_Fony_ t1_j63ps4t wrote

Lol, exactly. Intel’s own report cited AMD as a major reason for their fall in servers.


_MoveSwiftly t1_j63re78 wrote

They stated "CoMpEtItIvE pReSsUrE"

They refuse to acknowledge AMD, they're too high and mighty for that.


[deleted] t1_j63bnkq wrote

Even Apple develops their own in-house ARM chips and cut off Intel.


Successful-Gene2572 t1_j63dt4b wrote

Yep, Apple is all about vertical integration and walled gardens.


Kevin_Jim t1_j63nau4 wrote

They would slay if the sold their chips for server use, though.


stratospaly t1_j63o0q2 wrote

I do not think we could have 1TB ram inside the CPU for Server use. Maybe in 10 years, but not now. That is the big game changer of the M1/2 is that the ram is built into the CPU not needing a bus to move through. I believe it is as big of a leap in speed as spinning disk to SSD. Yes, it sucks for upgradability of ram, but the speed difference is by far worth it.


pmotiveforce t1_j65i4km wrote

Lol, no they wouldn't. And there's more to a server ecosystem than just the raw processor, they'd have to develop and deliver a whole lot of servery shit.


erosram t1_j63d934 wrote

And that’s going to lead windows to release better arm versions and maybe more losses for intel down the line.


Carbidereaper t1_j64lma3 wrote

Future Windows on ARM could be as bad as android smartphones are today with locked down boot-loaders and unsupported driver chipsets. God help you if your windows ARM chip is a Qualcomm one. You’ll never be able to update your pc after 3 years or install an an alternate OS on it. ARM is also owned only by a single company the x86 instruction set is owned by two companies ( intel and amd ) intel and amd would rather develop an open source RISC-V architecture then pay constant licensing fees to ARM


Awkward-Painter-2024 t1_j63fawc wrote

I wonder if Microsoft would be open to buying Intel...


Asuka_Rei t1_j63pyut wrote

Bad idea, unless you want to accelerate the trend of paying a subscription fee to unlock the full potential of the hardware you "own".


roboninja t1_j63pmzj wrote

That's the perfect way to finally push me away from Windows.


Nobodk t1_j63zvf7 wrote

Why would windows supporting arm better push you away?


Super_flywhiteguy t1_j63c7qn wrote

I can see Intel becoming a fab that supplies chips to other companies in the future, much like TSMC. Unless Jim Kelley's design in 2025 is a banger of architecture, Intel is in trouble if they stay the current course.


_Fony_ t1_j63dvh5 wrote

They’re already trying to do that.


allenout t1_j63z0pp wrote

And failed miserably. I think it bankrupted 1 large company and severally harmed even more


beall49 t1_j64lzw6 wrote

I don’t think it failed miserably yet. They’re building a huge facility just for this in Israel.


hondasauce t1_j66npx7 wrote

My thought is that they saw the writing on the wall after AMD took the market for cards and have been planning for years to put themselves in the position to be competitive without relying on TSMC


DelcoInDaHouse t1_j63hq0p wrote

Typical huge market share company resting on its laurels. Not unlike Netware back in the day. AMD created the multi core CPU with Opteron in the early 2000s and Intel laughed at them. The need for multi core systems ticked up at the same time as VMware started to be adopted across data centers. AMD subsequently flubbed the rollout of their quad core CPUs and Intel decided to paste two 2 core cpus into on socket and never looked back. Once AMD went dormant in the server market Intel turned on cruise control and started creating all kinds of expensive SKUs for CPUs that didnt innovate. Once again AMD says we are going to create these EPYC CPUs with 64c and decent frequencies using and more efficient fab process and Intel decided to wait and see and half heartedly begin design of competitive large core CPUs. Its been 5 years (and 3 revisions) since the EPYC has been released and Intels answer, Sapphire Rapids, is still not available for purchase. The rehire if Paul Gelsinger was the right move, but will it be too late?


wpm t1_j64a56w wrote

> Once AMD went dormant in the server market Intel turned on cruise control and started creating all kinds of expensive SKUs for CPUs that didnt innovate

Whats funny is they're still doing that. Xeon SPR has a fucking subscription service!


semitope t1_j644fv9 wrote

they aren't resting on their laurels now. That was years ago. This is a general market downturn. They do have more to lose being the majority of the market.


brenton07 t1_j64yt88 wrote

14% margin drop and 33% revenue drop? No, that is not happening in the general market. Stocks are losing that value, but the companies are generally making their revenue targets.


DelcoInDaHouse t1_j64ne1c wrote

Do a quick search for amd vs intel server market graph. They are only trying now because they let AMD eat their scraps. Now AMD is poised to eat their lunch and then?


Toad32 t1_j63q6nx wrote

Server admin here - I started buying AMD instead of Intel back in 2018 when Spectre cam out (Intel CPU slowed down by 30% after patch). I am not dealing with that again.


1derwymin t1_j64sbge wrote

Really? But heartbleed was not even a CPU vulnerability; it was an OpenSSL problem. Are you thinking of Spectre and Meltdown?


Toad32 t1_j65wpww wrote

You are correct - its hard to remember all the names when there have been so many.


semitope t1_j644ang wrote

somebody will find a vulnerability in AMDs relatively new processors and force you to deal with that again.


DaisyPK t1_j64ywfd wrote

It’s all about the “sockets”. Once you change processors you have to change the hardware and that’s a lot of money.


semitope t1_j6448fq wrote

in the stock world some people swore this wouldn't happen after the massive pandemic demand. They swore the huge sales were the new norm.


heckfyre t1_j66l856 wrote

It was totally absurd to think that was going to last.


Jorycle t1_j64x7a9 wrote

I feel like I always have to remind about the context of what capitalism considers a "loss":

>While the company remained profitable in 2022

That is, the company didn't have a loss (other than maybe on the shortest scale), they simply didn't make as much money as they wanted or have made previously. They still made more money than they spent.

It's kind of frustrating when companies then start cutting costs and firing employees, too - not because they're at risk of becoming unprofitable, but because they simply want to make more enormous profits.


itspie t1_j656bi7 wrote

They also just dropped $20 billion on new manufacturing in ohio.


titanup1993 t1_j66cnmz wrote

Which will do what exactly to their prices? Nothing, Intel is hoping Uncle Sam subsidizes them but TSCM is opening a fab and their about 10 years too late unless they get aggressive with acquisitions


Fred_McNasty t1_j66s6c4 wrote

They already got the subsidiary. They just have to build the building.


titanup1993 t1_j66sp2r wrote

This company is still awful. I like their ceo but idk if he can turn it around


iceph03nix t1_j664kn7 wrote

Yeah, not buying Intel for business when the Intel tax is like $400 per computer.

They've priced themselves out of the market in most places but gaming and fairly specific Intel only scenarios


littleMAS t1_j66gs90 wrote

WinTel vs Apple, a battle lasting over four decades, now looks like Apple is winning.


SparkStormrider t1_j63ef49 wrote

If I am not mistaken their GPU line has still yet to produce anything for them in terms of market penetration. Still, it's hard to do anything when you release very little product and what you do release is riddled with so many bugs in the drivers upon release. I think some of the driver issues are resolved, but I'm not 100% sure.


giltirn t1_j63kmng wrote

That said, their GPUs are the core component of the upcoming Aurora exascale supercomputer, which will be the most powerful supercomputer in the world.


allenout t1_j63zipp wrote

I think El Capitan is more powerful and may come sooner.


giltirn t1_j64e59u wrote

Looks like both are around 2 exaflops, guess we need to wait for the benchmarks to be certain. I don’t really follow news on that machine because it seems to be earmarked for nuclear weapon simulations rather than scientific computing.


mouse1093 t1_j63qy4t wrote

Well yeah, that was to be very expected. No one in their right mind thought Intel's first foray into discrete graphics was going to be a game changer nor even compete in the mid/value ranges. I'm certainly not buying any dysfunctional products for the record, but I'll definitely watch from the sidelines to see how many generations it takes to really get in there. They have at least 2 of them planned and in the works already


CCHTweaked t1_j64acqg wrote

>Intel's first foray


this isn't their first Rodeo with an attempt at discrete graphics.


i740 AGP says hello.


theoriginalceb t1_j66p7wx wrote

I had one of those in the computer I bought for post secondary school before in 1997 or 98. The card didn't even support basic display properly. Had to use my roommates comp as a guide when I had to reinstall windows 95 so I could figure out the keyboard presses to install it blind. Sad thing was it was paired with dual voodoo 2 (3dfx monster2 12MB) I got seriously ripped off - ended up getting a matrox G200 as a replacement after that.


CCHTweaked t1_j66qywk wrote

That Matrox was a good card! OG 2D windows acceralation.


BassWingerC-137 t1_j63lu7u wrote

Is there a word missing from the authors title??


Not_Pictured t1_j64dqkm wrote

The one thing Intel really has going for it is many software licenses are on a per-core basis so the per-core performance matters a lot more when you are paying $15k a year for each additional one. If it weren't for that AMD would be getting a lot more of my business.


grameno t1_j64q86a wrote

I guess they are no longer taking care of business.


Select_Salt_3200 t1_j64sml1 wrote

It’s crypto farms, they have had the rise and now fall, it’s cyclical


f0rkster t1_j65jybd wrote

Several of things at play..

  1. Execs are overpaid - basically robbing the company of its cash and liquidity and not focusing on making a great and cost effective CPU
  2. Prices are still too stupid high. When you gouge too much, people just won’t buy it. They’ll buy a much cheaper AMD
  3. AMD cpus are cheaper and continually innovating. When you get complacent you get sidestepped, even if technically you have a faster CPU.