Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/how-innovation-died-at-intel.21717/
        )

    [addOns] => Array
        (
            [DL6/MLTP] => 13
            [Hampel/TimeZoneDebug] => 1000070
            [SV/ChangePostDate] => 2010200
            [SemiWiki/Newsletter] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/WPMenu] => 1000010
            [SemiWiki/XPressExtend] => 1000010
            [ThemeHouse/XLink] => 1000970
            [ThemeHouse/XPress] => 1010570
            [XF] => 2021770
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

    [wordpress] => /var/www/html
)

How Innovation Died at Intel

O

osnium

Active member
Intel's Biggest Misses.jpg



Key quotes:

“They had a God complex; they were super arrogant,” a former high-level executive who worked at Intel for more than 20 years told Yahoo Finance. “They felt like they had such a large competitive advantage that they could never do anything wrong.”

"Nobody in the Intel Technology Development Group, who's either at the top level or one level down, would even have a seat at the table anywhere in the first three levels of management at TSMC," said the former executive who worked in Intel's foundry.

"I don't envy the new CEO," one former executive said. "How many leading-edge silicon providers can the world afford? Is it two or is it three? If it's three, then you'd say, 'OK, as long as they get their manufacturing technology up, it'll be OK.' If it's two, then ... who's going to die as a foundry, Intel or Samsung?"

“Their focus on Nvidia, who is the real enemy, was simply not there,” the source said. “They were like …crabs fighting amongst themselves.”

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would also add one more the 2010s into 2020s- Intel tried to layer AI / HPC capabilities onto all their hardware products instead of focusing on just one product focused on the needs of GenAI. Maybe that's the same as Gaudi not prioritized. The bottom line is that Intel missed the mobile and the GenAI markets, because they tried to force-fit their existing products into the newly emerging markets, instead of leveraging more appropriate architectures where they were not the leader (Arm, GPUs).
 
Not understanding the comment about 18A being delayed. Did this happen? If so, when? My recolleciton is that Pat's plan all along had 18A being in products in 2025. 5 nodes in 4 years... year 4 is/was 2025. The last news I saw from an Intel source is that they've confirmed Panther Lake will be on 18A and will release this year. How is this delayed?
 
Rumenovic said:
New day new Intel is dying thread


I wish we could just skip until at least end of 2025 to call them dead or alive.
Packaging tech
Much more 18A details
Clearwater Forest
Diamond Rapids
Falcon Shores
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Also, I believe that Lion Cove and Skymont cores have been underestimated as a result of some serious latency issues with the current tile design (among other things). Panther Lake and Clearwater Forest may well show significantly better metrics after a few tweaks are performed and 18A's advantages are brought to bear.

I do believe that the future at Intel is squarely on 18A though. Arrow Lake on N3B struggles to compete with Zen 5 on N4P. How will the next generation of Intel processors fair if they don't enjoy the traditional process advantage of most other Intel generations?
 
The whole tone and premise of this article about dying innovation is disturbing, deliberatley negative, and written with an agenda. Yes, Intel made many mistakes over the last 20 years and these have been well documented and discussed to death already. But if you look at those mistakes they are mainly business and strategy failures, not innovation failures. Yes, these bad business decisions resulted in not working on certain important innovations (EUV, Arm, etc...). But starting in 2021 with Pat, Intel has made great strides to at least fix part of their past strategic errors, mainly finally embracing EUV. To say nothing about the fact that Intel spends more on R&D than their competitors, has Intel Labs, has innovation ongoing in quantum, Si-photonics, neuromorphic computing, leading edge gate all around transistor R&D, having backside power before anyone esle, being the first to setup and begin doing R&D with high NA EUV toosl, etc... is simply leaving out all the good stuff on purpose. And as I stated in my reply above, I see no indication that 18A is delayed. These 18A delay comments are maybe refering to the also delibrately misleading news about bad 18A yields? Intel needs to fight back. They are letting people with a clear agenda set the tone and story.
 
jabo said:
The whole tone and premise of this article about dying innovation is disturbing, deliberatley negative, and written with an agenda. Yes, Intel made many mistakes over the last 20 years and these have been well documented and discussed to death already. But if you look at those mistakes they are mainly business and strategy failures, not innovation failures. Yes, these bad business decisions resulted in not working on certain important innovations (EUV, Arm, etc...). But starting in 2021 with Pat, Intel has made great strides to at least fix part of their past strategic errors, mainly finally embracing EUV. To say nothing about the fact that Intel spends more on R&D than their competitors, has Intel Labs, has innovation ongoing in quantum, Si-photonics, neuromorphic computing, leading edge gate all around transistor R&D, having backside power before anyone esle, being the first to setup and begin doing R&D with high NA EUV toosl, etc... is simply leaving out all the good stuff on purpose. And as I stated in my reply above, I see no indication that 18A is delayed. These 18A delay comments are maybe refering to the also delibrately misleading news about bad 18A yields? Intel needs to fight back. They are letting people with a clear agenda set the tone and story.
Click to expand...
What’s different about this article is that it quoted current and former Intel employees who are very critical of the current management and engineers at Intel working on TD. I think it’s a fresh perspective because of that.
 
I think the IBM2.0 comparison is better. Like IBM, I think Intel is still a very innovative company, but also like IBM, they are struggling to commercialize innovations. That's an execution issue.

In my view, the failure to commercialize a lot of tech is because it's hard for a company like Intel or IBM to commercialize something that doesn't fit into their business model. So if they have a great product in R&D but it looks like it's only going to have 15% margins and it's a competitive market where they don't see themselves as the leader - they won't do it.
 
Last edited:
When you are ahead dosing on your business and strategy innovation. Can be very different. When you are ahead it’s easy to become arrogant especially if you are a westerner. Yeah that is a stereotype. It takes a special upbringing and company culture of many to drive to become a leader and keep the humble hard working and paranoid themes.

People over play Andy’s only the paranoid survive mantra as something that is deep at Intel. There is little to non existence of the kind of paranoia and the scrutiny go of the big and little details at Intel today necessary to survive.

Now you got a bean counter and a sales marketing executive leading the company. I am certain they are top 1% and can and do understand a few things about technology and manufacturing, business and design. Chip making and product design as well as Technology and manufacturing is about the on the ground boots details. Nobody who hasn’t been on the ground and fought those has an appreciation for those. Like a general who has never been on the front lines in a war will simply not have the detailed experience to ask the hard questions that force the organization to focus on the critical little things that win battles and wars. Intel is in need of a transformation and that is big bold strategy but more important detailed scrutiny and execution of details.

Across TSMC the senior leadership has that paranoi, experience, culture and ask the kind if detailed question that force activity and organization to execute on the details.

At Intel the senior leadership across the manufacturing side and TD, all the way up to Pat had none of that, just professional managers and until a new senior leadership comes Intel is destined to fail. Even Pat didn’t possess nor pretended to do those things so in the long run he was going to fail.
 
Last edited:
BruceA said:
When you are ahead dosing on your business and strategy innovation. Can be very different. When you are ahead it’s easy to become arrogant especially if you are a westerner. Yeah that is a stereotype. It takes a special upbringing and company culture of many to drive to become a leader and keep the humble hard working and paranoid themes.

People over play Andy’s only the paranoid survive mantra as something that is deep at Intel. There is little to non existence of the kind of paranoia and the scrutiny go of the big and little details at Intel today necessary to survive.

Now you got a bean counter and a sales marketing executive leading the company. I am certain they are top 1% and can and do understand a few things about technology and manufacturing, business and design. Chip making and product design as well as Technology and manufacturing is about the on the ground boots details. Nobody who hasn’t been on the ground and fought those has an appreciation for those. Like a general who has never been on the front lines in a war will simply not have the detailed experience to ask the hard questions that force the organization to focus on the critical little things that win battles and wars. Intel is in need of a transformation and that is big bold strategy but more important detailed scrutiny and execution of details.

Across TSMC the senior leadership has that paranoi, experience, culture and ask the kind if detailed question that force activity and organization to execute on the details.

At Intel the senior leadership across the manufacturing side and TD, all the way up to Pat had none of that, just professional managers and until a new senior leadership comes Intel is destined to fail. Even Pat didn’t possess nor pretended to do those things so in the long run he was going to fail.
Click to expand...
The only one was Ann Kehller of the TD we don't need marketing and DEI in leadership i agree we need good leadership with good experience Intel definitely has those they just promote the wrong one
 
BruceA said:
When you are ahead dosing on your business and strategy innovation. Can be very different. When you are ahead it’s easy to become arrogant especially if you are a westerner. Yeah that is a stereotype. It takes a special upbringing and company culture of many to drive to become a leader and keep the humble hard working and paranoid themes.

People over play Andy’s only the paranoid survive mantra as something that is deep at Intel. There is little to non existence of the kind of paranoia and the scrutiny go of the big and little details at Intel today necessary to survive.

Now you got a bean counter and a sales marketing executive leading the company. I am certain they are top 1% and can and do understand a few things about technology and manufacturing, business and design. Chip making and product design as well as Technology and manufacturing is about the on the ground boots details. Nobody who hasn’t been on the ground and fought those has an appreciation for those. Like a general who has never been on the front lines in a war will simply not have the detailed experience to ask the hard questions that force the organization to focus on the critical little things that win battles and wars. Intel is in need of a transformation and that is big bold strategy but more important detailed scrutiny and execution of details.

Across TSMC the senior leadership has that paranoi, experience, culture and ask the kind if detailed question that force activity and organization to execute on the details.

At Intel the senior leadership across the manufacturing side and TD, all the way up to Pat had none of that, just professional managers and until a new senior leadership comes Intel is destined to fail. Even Pat didn’t possess nor pretended to do those things so in the long run he was going to fail.
Click to expand...
The problem is that Intel has mis-executed on so many recent nodes that the engineering leadership pipeline is contaminated with people who made mistakes and did not execute correctly. The best choice I think in the future will be to recruit from TSMC Arizona and Samsung Taylor.
 
osnium said:
The problem is that Intel has mis-executed on so many recent nodes that the engineering leadership pipeline is contaminated with people who made mistakes and did not execute correctly. The best choice I think in the future will be to recruit from TSMC Arizona and Samsung Taylor.
Click to expand...
LOL the talent at both those fabs aren’t going to lead Intel to glory, they are all indoctrinated with the TSMC way. Unless they forded most of the management From GL to VP in both Chandler and Ireland as well as LTD Intel’s fate is set. Not it but when it will die
 
BruceA said:
LOL the talent at both those fabs aren’t going to lead Intel to glory, they are all indoctrinated with the TSMC way. Unless they forded most of the management From GL to VP in both Chandler and Ireland as well as LTD Intel’s fate is set. Not it but when it will die
Click to expand...
Given that, would you avoid hiring from Intel when the inevitable collapse happens? It seems that everyone from GL and higher has bad Intel habits with them.
 
BruceA said:
When you are ahead dosing on your business and strategy innovation. Can be very different. When you are ahead it’s easy to become arrogant especially if you are a westerner. Yeah that is a stereotype. It takes a special upbringing and company culture of many to drive to become a leader and keep the humble hard working and paranoid themes.

People over play Andy’s only the paranoid survive mantra as something that is deep at Intel. There is little to non existence of the kind of paranoia and the scrutiny go of the big and little details at Intel today necessary to survive.

Now you got a bean counter and a sales marketing executive leading the company. I am certain they are top 1% and can and do understand a few things about technology and manufacturing, business and design. Chip making and product design as well as Technology and manufacturing is about the on the ground boots details. Nobody who hasn’t been on the ground and fought those has an appreciation for those. Like a general who has never been on the front lines in a war will simply not have the detailed experience to ask the hard questions that force the organization to focus on the critical little things that win battles and wars. Intel is in need of a transformation and that is big bold strategy but more important detailed scrutiny and execution of details.

Across TSMC the senior leadership has that paranoi, experience, culture and ask the kind if detailed question that force activity and organization to execute on the details.

At Intel the senior leadership across the manufacturing side and TD, all the way up to Pat had none of that, just professional managers and until a new senior leadership comes Intel is destined to fail. Even Pat didn’t possess nor pretended to do those things so in the long run he was going to fail.
Click to expand...
I'm curious... you speak about TSMC's work and management cultures and Intel's work and management cultures as if you worked at both companies in manufacturing. Have you worked at one or both?
 
jabo said:
The whole tone and premise of this article about dying innovation is disturbing, deliberatley negative, and written with an agenda. Yes, Intel made many mistakes over the last 20 years and these have been well documented and discussed to death already. But if you look at those mistakes they are mainly business and strategy failures, not innovation failures. Yes, these bad business decisions resulted in not working on certain important innovations (EUV, Arm, etc...). But starting in 2021 with Pat, Intel has made great strides to at least fix part of their past strategic errors, ...
Click to expand...
Repeating strategy and business mistakes inevitably lead to flawed innovation and poor business results. Gelsinger's stubbornness combined with Intel board's sluggishness and lack of timely oversight costed Intel $150 billion of company's market value in just 3 years. It is hard not to be "negative" about such outcome.
 
Just a reminder that AMD has a large failure list like this from the same time period, but still found a very profitable and comfortable corner of the semi market. There probably is a healthy path forward for Intel but it's going to require some Lisa Su shrewdness to pivot hard and stick with the pivot.

Some AMD blunders:
- Not second sourcing AMD K7/K8 when they had a strong product advantage
- Doubling down on clock speed with AMD FX after watching Pentium 4 burn
- Promising Nvidia destroying GPUs (Raja: "Poor Volta") then delivering second and third tier performance
- (Per Jim Keller interviews) - championing a CPU roadmap that put them increasingly behind Intel (prior to Zen)
- Not outsourcing fabs even earlier
- Selling mobile graphics IP to Qualcomm ("Adreno") just before Android/iOS took off

As long as Intel is pursuing a "king of the industry" mantle, they're doomed at this point.. but if they target something they can defeat the competition at, consistently -- then they can maybe return to being a cash cow.
 
Maximus said:
Ironically, when Morris Chang gave a speech in 1999 on the importance of Innovation. He used Intel as the example:
"In the next 30 years, Intel will be able to continue to maintain their innovation and make them bigger and more successful."
Click to expand...
You forgot at the helm were Grove not a bunch of MBAs with no semi knowledge who only knows how to milk a cow not create the cow
 
siliconbruh999 said:
You forgot at the helm were Grove not a bunch of MBAs with no semi knowledge who only knows how to milk a cow not create the cow
Click to expand...
Grove was a legend and a force but I could also say he failed as a founder as he created a leadership and culture that failed in the following decades as was his spectacular failure in succession planning.

One can argue Intel did rise to process leadership. What they did strategically was blah milk the opportunities that presented to them. To be honest during the Grovian days process leadership didn’t exist that came later and was squandered in the end by failed senior management in the decades that followed. Intel while innovative in process leadership was saddled with management myopia and a strategy that was so x86 focused. This was classical Innovators Delma if there ever was

TSMCs innovation was/is relentless incremental improvement and trying and adopting the latest and greatest very carefully. They push their tool vendors and their engineers far harder than Intel.

Also innovative and unique is how they were and still are customer oriented from the technician to senior management in a way that is non existent at Intel. That customer oriented focus helped them build that foundry ecosystem. Talk is cheap it is what your customer sees and that is also innovation hard to replicate.

TSMC doesn’t need to directly innovate they have the worlds customers telling them what they need and they just serve their customers desires, I guess that is innovative as that is totally non existent Intel
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top