Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/index.php?threads/intel-ceo-says-nvidia%E2%80%99s-ai-dominance-is-pure-luck-%E2%80%94-nvidia-vp-fires-back-says-intel-lacked-vision-and-execution.19343/
        )

    [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] => 2021370
            [XFI] => 1050270
        )

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

Intel CEO says Nvidia’s AI dominance is pure luck — Nvidia VP fires back, says Intel lacked vision and execution

tonyget

Active member

If only Intel didn’t kill his Larrabee project, laments Pat Gelsinger.

Pat Gelsinger talks to MIT VIPs

(Image credit: MIT video)

Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger has publicly characterized Nvidia’s AI industry success as being purely accidental. In a wide-ranging interview with Gelsinger, hosted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Intel boss told attendees that Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang “got extraordinarily lucky.” He went on to lament Intel giving up the Larrabee project, which could have made Intel just as ‘lucky,’ in his view. However, the VP of Applied Deep Learning Research at Nvidia, Bryan Catanzaro, took to Twitter / X earlier today to dismiss Gelsinger’s hot take on the status quo in the AI hardware industry, saying Intel lacked the vision and execution to succeed in its prior initiatives.


The Intel CEO’s highlighting of ‘lucky’ Nvidia came in response to a question about 17 minutes into the video recorded by MIT. Daniela Rus, a Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science and Director of the Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory (CSAIL) at MIT, asked, “What is Intel doing for the development of AI hardware, and how do you see that as a competitive advantage?”
Gelsinger began his answer by talking about Intel’s mistakes. According to the current CEO of Intel, the firm’s fortunes took a dive when he left, but it is again on the path to glory. He recounted his 11 years in the wilderness (at EMC, then VMWare) and the sad fate that met Larrabee.

_eb4599SAX5HDErzJRyfsfj-1200-80.jpg.jpg


Intel Larrabee prototype board (Image credit: leodanmarjod)
“When I was pushed out of Intel 13 years ago, they killed the project that would have changed the shape of AI,” Gelsinger told his MIT audience, referencing the end of development work on Larrabee. Meanwhile, Jensen Huang is characterized as a hard worker who was single-mindedly pursuing advances in graphics but lucked out when AI acceleration began to be a much sought-after computing feature.

Jensen Huang “worked super hard at owning throughput computing, primarily for graphics initially, and then he got extraordinarily lucky,” stated Gelsinger. He illustrated his point by asserting that when the green shoots of AI first popped up, Nvidia “didn't even want to support their first AI project.”
Continuing to lament the loss of Larrabee, or any kind of similar development thrust at Intel, Gelsinger explained Nvidia’s dominance came partly from the fact that “Intel basically did nothing in the space for 15 years.” Don’t worry, though, as Gelsinger heralds his own return, “I come back, I have a passion, okay, we're going to start showing up in that space.”
As well as developing hardware to accelerate AI, Gelsinger is keen on what he calls his number one strategy of democratizing AI. New hardware alone isn’t the answer he says, it is also vital to “eliminate proprietary Technologies like CUDA.” In the not-too-distant future, the Intel CEO sees this democratizing force as making high-performance AI available on every machine, from modest home users to developers, enterprises, and super-powerful servers.
Interestingly, Gelsinger predicts that, largely thanks to AI, we are on the precipice of “one to two decades of sheer innovation.” He reckons that we will get AI to tap resources far beyond the large but rather simple data sets that are being used now (mostly textual). Moreover, Intel is busy executing its plans and will “build lots of fabs, so we can build lots of compute” to address AI.

Nvidia says no​

Nvidia’s VP of Applied Deep Learning Research, Bryan Catanzaro, issued a concise dismissal of Gelsinger’s assertions about Nvidia benefitting from simple luck.


In the above Tweet (click to expand), we see a key Nvidia VP explain why he thinks “Nvidia’s dominance didn't come from luck.” Rather, he insists, “It came from vision and execution. Which Intel lacked.”

Catanzaro has worked at both companies, including spending time working on Larrabee applications in 2007, so he has insight into management decisions. However, we must temper his words with the knowledge that he is currently a green team player.
 
Is Pat actively trying to kill customer relations for IFS. All this sh*t talking about Apple, nvidia etc. What is the plan here. Can’t imagine Jensen takes kindly to this
Yeah it is very weird. It is one thing to say we will work together and be fierce competitors, and I want to beat you and your closed ecosystem. As that is expected and prompts a response of I won’t let it happen easily. Calling someone lucky is another thing all together. I don’t think it was meant to be a personal attack against Jensen, but it sure sounds like one. As for Apple who cares. Intel would need to be a decade ahead of TSMC for apple to even consider jumping ship me thinks.
 
One might equally argue that Intel was "lucky" to succeed with the 8086 against the superior 68000.

On the other hand, as the golfer Gary Player famously said, "the harder I practice, the luckier I get". Or Mark Twain: "It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt".
Around 1990 I worked for a company that had a 68000 product line of servers, and a couple of proprietary computing products. The trend in the company was to switch to a unified computing product line based on the 68000, though some argued for MIPS, and eliminate the proprietary products. Around that time the CEO brought in an outsider as a senior strategy executive, who argued that the future computing product lines should be based on Intel CPUs, from PCs to supercomputers, because no one would be able to out-invest Intel, given its design win with IBM on the PC. There were lots of arguments against that strategy, that Intel CPUs were at the time inferior to Motorola's, but he made the Intel decision anyway, and it turned out to be the wildly correct one, based on economics, not technology.

A similar argument could be made about Nvidia GPUs versus Intel's Larabee, although in this case, IMO, Nvidia had obvious technological advantages in addition to an economic advantage. (Though Intel was the larger company by far at the time, Larabee was a little project forced to use low-power in-order x86 cores each with a special vector processing unit, while Nvidia had the entire company focused on GPUs which also had superior levels of hardware parallelism, even then.)

If anyone is interested, this is the seminal Larabee architecture paper written by the Larabee architects.


Gelsinger has always had the opinion that x86 CPUs, extended with special purpose instructions and accelerators, were the answer to every computing problem. And he still does.
 
Nvidia actively distributed its GPUs to a diverse range of customers across various industries, as well as to leading academic laboratories. The company then closely monitored how these GPUs were utilized in real-world applications. This approach allowed Nvidia to enhance both its vision and its products based on practical feedback and usage data. Such a strategy is a deliberate effort to improve and innovate, rather than a matter of luck.

Intel never did not.
 
I am surprised about the statement made by Intel CEO, but having done my time at Intel for 15 years, I can say that this company has a long history of bad management doing big mistakes/decisions. Intel tried to re-invent many wheels (things which already were Off The Shelf available in the industry, ex: components in areas Intel didn't any experience, including GPU, laptops & tablets, silicon design software, simulators of various staff, etc.) and wasted tons of billions of dollars in their paranoia to be the leader in many areas and for the fear of losing technology secrets. Intel did try to compete with Nvdia and ATI (now part of AMD) but didn't have much success. In my opinion and of many Intel insiders, the biggest Intel blunder was when Intel having a 3 years leading edge in technology development, had done one of the biggest lay-off for the most senior engineers working in the development fab (Oregon) and after that they were trailing by 3 years behind TSMC. Now Intel is still playing catch-up with TSMC. Should I mention that one of my direct manager at Intel which was kicked out became a director for 3 technologies (different nm) at TSMC in Taiwan? Experience is gained by hard work and dedication and not by accident.
 
"...in areas Intel didn't any experience..."

Can the empire builders, regurgitators, and meeting goers. Hire a skunk works team of 50 smart engineers to compete against Nvidia, including guys with experience in that area. They are a huge design house with their own finfet fab, with an advanced packaging facility and test equipment. It is an obvious market to go after.

You go Gunslinger. Talk big and kick Nvidia's ass!
 
"...in areas Intel didn't any experience..."

Can the empire builders, regurgitators, and meeting goers. Hire a skunk works team of 50 smart engineers to compete against Nvidia, including guys with experience in that area. They are a huge design house with their own finfet fab, with an advanced packaging facility and test equipment. It is an obvious market to go after.

You go Gunslinger. Talk big and kick Nvidia's ass!
They hired 50 engineers from Stanford to develop the Tcad software while Technology Modelling Associate had already TSupreme4 in the market and it was running in windows (in color) user friendly while to use Tcad one had to type scripts to run the simulations in unix (or the old VAX system). What a waste just to prevent people from stealing & using the process file outside Intel.
 
"...in areas Intel didn't any experience..."

Can the empire builders, regurgitators, and meeting goers. Hire a skunk works team of 50 smart engineers to compete against Nvidia, including guys with experience in that area. They are a huge design house with their own finfet fab, with an advanced packaging facility and test equipment. It is an obvious market to go after.

You go Gunslinger. Talk big and kick Nvidia's ass!
Who exactly would "can" the deadweight and hire the skunk works team? The meeting goers are all that's left. By the time any decision was made, Intel is even more behind.
Management now follows the IBM model, accounting tricks and stock buy backs. Add in marketing FUD and there is another 10 years until they start selling off the parts, 20 until it is just a consulting house.
"Talk big" is all we have seen from Intel in the last five years. The Semi formula is simple, make chips, make money.
 
Yeah it is very weird. It is one thing to say we will work together and be fierce competitors, and I want to beat you and your closed ecosystem. As that is expected and prompts a response of I won’t let it happen easily. Calling someone lucky is another thing all together. I don’t think it was meant to be a personal attack against Jensen, but it sure sounds like one. As for Apple who cares. Intel would need to be a decade ahead of TSMC for apple to even consider jumping ship me thinks.
Pat is busy blaming previous CEOs for Intel's current position. Perhaps he should focus on Intel executing on his very optimistic forecasts. He might have a few "Larrabee's" of his own in the hopper that could cause some issues in 2024. Larrabee: " Intel term for a project that sucks ton's of money, tons of resources, tons of focus, and is a failure"
 
The meeting goers are all that's left.
Do you have insider knowledge to this?

The semi formula isn't simple. We are in a tough business. The fabs are fighting physics (I think some of the guys here are crazy), and the design division needs to have tiny skunk works teams, but that is what we signed up for. They don't have to be #1 at everything. Stay in the game and do your jobs. The whole is worth more than the sum of the parts. They have the complete system in the best location.

I see lots of cowards and losers beyond this forum. I started noticing it in the mid 90s. "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you're right" -- Henry Ford. They need to keep their divisions, clean house and get to work, and don't listen to short sighted investors.

Note: I forgot to add sympathizers and diversifiers to my original statement. My bad.
 
IMO, Pat should employ (Perhaps he does. Dunno) "management by walking around" and talk to the workers. Find out why meetings have more than 3 people? Do they talk in pairs first? Large meetings take exponentially longer. Did they wait too long to meet? What's wrong with the telephone? Don't allow hiring based on diversity. Keep passionate people.

Odds are, they can remove over 50% of the people in engineering. I am not qualified to give an opinion on manufacturing. The square root of the number of people in most organizations do 50% of the work. That is a statistic that I find to be somewhat true. This is solvable. They have a great infrastructure. Many people (including me) would love to have Pat's job. It would be a blast.
 
IMO, Pat should employ (Perhaps he does. Dunno) "management by walking around" and talk to the workers.
Intel has over 130K employees, in numerous countries. There are 22K employees just in Oregon. How exactly is PG going to manage by walking around? PG's direct staff consists of EVPs and SVPs. If PG does "skip-level one-on-ones", he's talking to Corp and Appointed VPs and senior fellows. Staff-2 also consists of VPs, and fellows, maybe a senior director (but that must be rare). It's rare director or Sr. PE who gets time with the CEO, and when he or she does it makes their management chain nervous as hell. Upward communications to the CEO in every big company I've ever worked in is managed carefully.

Because PG rose up the ranks at Intel he personally knows thousands of senior Intel employees, so every time he walks down a hallway he's passing people he knows or even worked directly with 20 years ago.
Find out why meetings have more than 3 people? Do they talk in pairs first? Large meetings take exponentially longer. Did they wait too long to meet? What's wrong with the telephone? Don't allow hiring based on diversity. Keep passionate people.
So how does this small meeting stuff work communicating in teams with 100 or more (and sometimes hundreds more) of engineers?

As for diversity, just for you, Cliff:


Odds are, they can remove over 50% of the people in engineering.
Not in my experience. Perhaps the bottom 5-10%, but getting into the bottom 5% is sometimes nothing but politics.
I am not qualified to give an opinion on manufacturing.
Me either.
The square root of the number of people in most organizations do 50% of the work. That is a statistic that I find to be somewhat true. This is solvable.
Not among engineering individual contributors. There are numerous dead weight managers. I still hear about this problem, like just last week.
They have a great infrastructure. Many people (including me) would love to have Pat's job. It would be a blast.
I'd rather be POTUS, but apparently I'm not old enough yet.
 
Last edited:
The management by walking/wandering around should be done 2 levels below Pat. Obviously it cannot be Pat.

Communicating with 100 or more should not be interactive. Same argument should be for 10 or more.

Small competent teams should be doing the architectures, and various methods prototyped. That is what engineering is.
There are numerous dead weight managers. I still hear about this problem, like just last week.
Especially them. Deep in mind that those dead weight managers probably hired incompetent engineers.
 
The management by walking/wandering around should be done 2 levels below Pat. Obviously it cannot be Pat.
Two levels below PG are probably Corporate VPs. I think to meet your requirements it'll be three or four levels down from PG, most likely four.
 
Back
Top