Former Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: ‘I’ve been called here for a purpose’

[XYang2023]

Key Highlights from the Interview​

Gelsinger, now 64, opens up about his firing ("Did it hurt? Absolutely it hurt!"), his critiques of U.S. policy, and his bold new venture. Here's a breakdown:

• The Intel Exit and CHIPS Act Frustrations:
• Gelsinger led Intel's $100 billion+ bet on American chip fabs, fueled by the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. But he calls the law's rollout "hideous," citing bureaucratic delays, insufficient funding, and political infighting that slowed progress. Despite this, he remains optimistic about quantum computing's potential to "upend" the industry, predicting it could solve problems classical chips can't touch.
• New Role: Leading a "Christian AI" Platform:
• Undeterred, Gelsinger has taken the helm at a startup building an AI platform grounded in Christian principles. It's aimed at countering what he sees as the moral drift in Big Tech, emphasizing ethical AI that aligns with biblical values—like truth, justice, and human dignity. This isn't just a job; it's mission-driven, tying back to his purpose-driven ethos.
• Faith as the North Star:
• Religion has long shaped Gelsinger. A devout evangelical, he's authored books like Balancing Your Family, Faith, and Work and served on the boards of Christian organizations. In the interview, over a shared meal, he pauses to say grace and even probes the journalist: "Ultimately the best thing I can do for you Michael is: Do you have an eternity?" It's a glimpse into how faith propelled him from Intel employee #3 in the 1970s to CEO, and now beyond.

Why This Resonates Now​

With AI's explosive growth and geopolitical chip wars raging, Gelsinger's story feels timely. On X (formerly Twitter), the interview sparked quick shares from tech watchers and policy wonks, like AEI's James Pethokoukis highlighting the eternity line [post:7] and Asia tech analyst Paul Triolo noting the quantum angle [post:6]. It's a reminder that even in Silicon Valley's cutthroat arena, some leaders see their work as part of a larger calling.

Former Intel chief Pat Gelsinger: ‘I’ve been called here for a purpose’

The executive on the ‘hideous’ implementation of the 2022 Chips Act, his new role heading up a Christian AI platform — and why quantum could upend computing

www.ft.com

 

[XYang2023]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1994750412742955273

 

[XYang2023]

In the article, he never acknowledged the consequences of aggressive spending. He blamed the last-minute rollout of the CHIPS Act instead. He admitted that he hadn’t paid enough attention to AI—he wasn’t fully convinced at the time.

 

[Barnsley]

I will give this subject a literal "Jesus Christ"

 

[XYang2023]

If I read the article correctly, he tried to promote his religion within Intel, and Intel’s HR and the CEO at the time were not happy about it.

 

[siliconbruh999]

If I read the article correctly, he tried to promote his religion within Intel, and Intel’s HR and the CEO at the time were not happy about it.

I agree with HR/CEO in regards to this Intel is a Tech Company not a religion company they should be Neutral in this regard.

 

[tooLongInEDA]

Paywalled articles (everything in the FT is) make it hard to evaluate and discuss.

I did hear about this article and the more interesting part was Pat's claim that quantum computers would start taking serious compure share from GPUs and *in a 2 year timeframe*. Gobsmacked. Not convinced about the claim, but to say that the transition starts in 2 years feels very optimistic. Jensen was quoted as saying the transition started in around 20 years. You wonder if the last few years at Intel might have cured Pat's optimism bias. And then you read this. It's almost as if he struggles to separate what he wants to happen from what realistically will.

Pat was also reported as saying that in the last 5 years at Intel (up to his exit), not a single Intel product had come in on schedule. If true (and that's not all his fault it is is), there are some serious issues for LBT to deal with on the product side.

 

[dkr1986]

Paywalled articles (everything in the FT is) make it hard to evaluate and discuss.

Non Paywalled link to the article. https://archive.is/Eiedt

Yeah bringing religion into workplace is unacceptable especially the way it is described here.

I did hear about this article and the more interesting part was Pat's claim that quantum computers would start taking serious compure share from GPUs and *in a 2 year timeframe*.

He did not say that at all. He thinks Quantum computing can become mainstream in 2 years (he said 5 years in last year GTC - He also emphasized it would be silicon based). Separately he is saying, a quantum breakthrough could pop the AI bubble (which he think's won't pop for couple of years). He works with PsiQuantum through the Playground Global investment group now that he is part of. Probably being too optimistic as ever .

Pat was also reported as saying that in the last 5 years at Intel (up to his exit)

He is talking about the 5 years before he joined Intel. Since PG many products have launched on time (ignoring MTL & SPR of BS's era, CWF would have missed the launch window even if he stayed on).

 

[tooLongInEDA]

Non Paywalled link to the article. https://archive.is/Eiedt

Yeah bringing religion into workplace is unacceptable especially the way it is described here.
View attachment 3924

He did not say that at all. He thinks Quantum computing can become mainstream in 2 years (he said 5 years in last year GTC - He also emphasized it would be silicon based). Separately he is saying, a quantum breakthrough could pop the AI bubble (which he think's won't pop for couple of years). He works with PsiQuantum through the Playground Global investment group now that he is part of. Probably being too optimistic as ever .
View attachment 3922

He is talking about the 5 years before he joined Intel. Since PG many products have launched on time (ignoring MTL & SPR of BS's era, CWF would have missed the launch window even if he stayed on).
View attachment 3923

Thanks. Useful to read the article (though not convinced it should be reposted like that). And the correction about the late projects. Obviously, the question we don't have the answer to is whether any project came in on time on his watch. But it can't have been any worse than in the previous 5 years !

"Lunch with the FT" (every Saturday) is always an interesting column. And I actually find Pat hard to dislike as a person. Can't agree with everything he says, but he does seem authentic and straight and answers the questions honestly (as he says, he's not a politician !).

I do wonder now if his success at Intel came while there was someone above him to balance out the excessive optimism and when CEO there was no one there to do it. But, as so often, that would be a failing of the board not to cover the gap here. Perhaps with better support around him, he might have done better. But fair play to Pat for not seeking to blame anyone else, justified though that probably is.

 

[Xebec]

[too much to quote in reply] -

dkr1986 - The insight into Otellini's mindset explains the general decay of Intel technical execution (and technology strategy) starting with Otellini. He still gets my vote for being the #1 'pivot to failure' CEO . Thank you for sharing.

tooLongInEDA - Pat had Andy Grove as a mentor, and I'm sure that gave him air cover for behaviors outside the norm (i.e. excess optimism). If other leaders didn't like what Pat was saying/doing, they'd likely think twice knowing that "Andy was on his side". That would have granted Pat more leeway for "behaviors" than another leader without that kind of connection.

Re: Quantum Computing - is Quantum Computing, as a technology solution, aligned well to AI computing type demands?

 

[tomatoma]

In the article, he never acknowledged the consequences of aggressive spending. He blamed the last-minute rollout of the CHIPS Act instead. He admitted that he hadn’t paid enough attention to AI—he wasn’t fully convinced at the time.

I agree with Gelsinger's talk about the CHIPS Act.

 

[MKWVentures]

Lets not make this too complex:

Pat decided to focus Intel on foundry... and believed Intel would have 5B+ in external foundry business in 2026. Intel was not a good foundry or cost effective manufacturing company. It has cost Intel 10s of billions.

 

[XYang2023]

Lets not make this too complex:

Pat decided to focus Intel on foundry... and believed Intel would have 5B+ in external foundry business in 2026. Intel was not a good foundry or cost effective manufacturing company. It has cost Intel 10s of billions.

I think at the moment, it is about making his idea work somehow. Discussing whether that was a good decision by PG is less relevant now as we can't change the history.

 

[count]

He was appointed by god to save Intel, but it could not be saved because of the government heathans. But god works in mysterious ways and now god wants to make sure future AI beings worship Christ, lest the world fall into the hands of Chinese atheist AI.

After all, if AI does not believe in god, can it truly be Intelligent?

 

[MKWVentures]

I think at the moment, it is about making his idea work somehow. Discussing whether that was a good decision by PG is less relevant now as we can't change the history.

I am not sure anything has changed for Intel foundry since 2021 other than 10s of billions in losses. Lets see what happens next

 

[XYang2023]

I am not sure anything has changed for Intel foundry since 2021 other than 10s of billions in losses. Lets see what happens next

Management

 

[dkr1986]

I am not sure anything has changed for Intel foundry since 2021 other than 10s of billions in losses. Lets see what happens next

Come on, this is not true at all.

Things that have changed for Intel Foundry since 2021,
- Successfully caught up to TSMC on node process tech or at least land in the same ballpark as TSMC compared to stuck on 10nm in 2021. 18A>=N3P with 3-4 months lag on actual products in shelf, 18A-P is withing ballpark of N2. 14A will be ~=A14. IMO, the best thing LBT can do for Intel Foundry is to accelerate 14A to be manufacturing ready before A14.
- Intel has now shells built in USA and ready for onboarding customers on advanced nodes in USA to service external customers. Strategically aligned with US government's initiative to onshore\re-shore semiconductor production back to USA.
- Successfully leveraged advanced packaging tech & supported Intel Product's tile based products during those years supporting HVM of many such products.
- Executed cost reductions all the while their top line was under pressure by low wafer volume due to Bob Swan's plan to use TSMC for PC products (Meteor Lake supporting tiles, Arrow Lake & Lunar Lake). [Outsourcing to TSMC was a good stop gap plan that helped Intel Products keep market share (especially Lunar Lake) - so it was a necessary step I don't blame BS for - but it is undeniable that led to pressure on Intel Foundry topline). All those wafer volume would have offset the fixed cost of a foundry business like in 2021 at least on a Gross margin basis.
- Successfully stood up an external foundry framework (node process, capacity etc) & established foundry ecosystem (still WIP). TSMC was not built in couple of years, IFS will not be built in couple of years, imo it will take at least 5+ years to stand up a foundry that is profitable just like any other fixed cost businesses that rely on economies of scale. At least Intel has the product division to satisfy a portion of that wafer volume demand from Intel Foundry before others sign up.
- Got the CHIPS act grant money for Intel (Although brain dead Biden admin was prioritizing DEI & helping out foreign companies more than helping out their own - I think they didn't want to be seen as being discriminatory to Taiwan since virtue signaling seems to be one of their goal- Most Asian countries would throw a foreign business under a Bus to favor their own companies if the roles were reversed).
- Signed up customers like Microsoft, Amazon and DoD on 18A, Mediatek on Intel 16. Colloborations with UMC & Tower (China made a major blow to Intel Foundry by not letting them acquire Tower Semi)

All this while their primary CPU business was being disrupted due to myriad of reasons. All this heavy lifting was done under a brain dead BoD and US admin. Intel Foundry is setup for success especially with Trump admin in power, they just need to execute the strategy forward. With LBT's push for efficient operation, I am confident they will become a reliable 2nd source Foundry by 2030.

 

[dkr1986]

I forgot to add adoption of High NA EUV early to the list. Experience of early adoption of High NA EUV & learnings most likely will help Intel Foundry in the future.

 

[MKWVentures]

Come on, this is not true at all.

Things that have changed for Intel Foundry since 2021,
- Successfully caught up to TSMC on node process tech or at least land in the same ballpark as TSMC compared to stuck on 10nm in 2021. 18A>=N3P with 3-4 months lag on actual products in shelf, 18A-P is withing ballpark of N2. 14A will be ~=A14. IMO, the best thing LBT can do for Intel Foundry is to accelerate 14A to be manufacturing ready before A14.
- Intel has now shells built in USA and ready for onboarding customers on advanced nodes in USA to service external customers. Strategically aligned with US government's initiative to onshore\re-shore semiconductor production back to USA.
- Successfully leveraged advanced packaging tech & supported Intel Product's tile based products during those years supporting HVM of many such products.
- Executed cost reductions all the while their top line was under pressure by low wafer volume due to Bob Swan's plan to use TSMC for PC products (Meteor Lake supporting tiles, Arrow Lake & Lunar Lake). [Outsourcing to TSMC was a good stop gap plan that helped Intel Products keep market share (especially Lunar Lake) - so it was a necessary step I don't blame BS for - but it is undeniable that led to pressure on Intel Foundry topline). All those wafer volume would have offset the fixed cost of a foundry business like in 2021 at least on a Gross margin basis.
- Successfully stood up an external foundry framework (node process, capacity etc) & established foundry ecosystem (still WIP). TSMC was not built in couple of years, IFS will not be built in couple of years, imo it will take at least 5+ years to stand up a foundry that is profitable just like any other fixed cost businesses that rely on economies of scale. At least Intel has the product division to satisfy a portion of that wafer volume demand from Intel Foundry before others sign up.
- Got the CHIPS act grant money for Intel (Although brain dead Biden admin was prioritizing DEI & helping out foreign companies more than helping out their own - I think they didn't want to be seen as being discriminatory to Taiwan since virtue signaling seems to be one of their goal- Most Asian countries would throw a foreign business under a Bus to favor their own companies if the roles were reversed).
- Signed up customers like Microsoft, Amazon and DoD on 18A, Mediatek on Intel 16. Colloborations with UMC & Tower (China made a major blow to Intel Foundry by not letting them acquire Tower Semi)

All this while their primary CPU business was being disrupted due to myriad of reasons. All this heavy lifting was done under a brain dead BoD and US admin. Intel Foundry is setup for success especially with Trump admin in power, they just need to execute the strategy forward. With LBT's push for efficient operation, I am confident they will become a reliable 2nd source Foundry by 2030.

OK. lets see what the external revenue and margin looks like in the next couple years for IFS. Intel has the 5 year forecast already and DZ hinted at what it says last earning report.

As IBM and Samsung and Global found out, the goal is not be just be a leader in process node... you have to be profitable. 202618A finances will give us a peek at the future of IFS.

 

[dkr1986]

OK. lets see what the external revenue and margin looks like in the next couple years for IFS. Intel has the 5 year forecast already and DZ hinted at what it says last earning report.

IIRC, John Pitzer again reiterated that they expect to break even exiting 2027 at an investor conference recently on operating profit basis, only caveat being they will see expenses raise if they land a 14A customer (meaning they need to re-hire a bunch of people they fired to run the Ohio fabs leading to increase in OpEx again)

If you are referring to the 18A yield comments, he said yield is at what they expect it to be for a node on ramp up process. It will be high enough to drive margins end of 2026 and industry standard level margins in 2027. I don't see a smoking gun in that comment without knowing appropriate level of margin he is talking about here. Intel target operating profit for IFS was 30-40% back in 2023, may be he is referring to that for 18A. Even if we take a pessimistic pov, he thinks they can drive "appropriate level of margin" in 2027. Industry standard is probably referring to TSMC's OM of 50% recently.

And everyone conveniently forget about this comment about 18A yields in the same ER call. 18A yield is where they want them to be at this point of time.

As IBM and Samsung and Global found out, the goal is not be just be a leader in process node... you have to be profitable. 202618A finances will give us a peek at the future of IFS.

I agree with you on this. That is why I said by 2030. Global Foundry had negative gross margin between 2018 to 2020 and as they have increased topline, economies of scale kicked in and now they are profitable by Gross Profit & Operating Profit basis. There is no reason to think Intel can't achieve that too. With USG onboard and LBT driving operating efficiency, slowly and surely, more customers will signup for IFS and they will become profitable by Gross profit basis first, then operating profit & free cash flow positive (these usually correlates) and then GAAP net income basis.