Patrick Moorhead weighs in on the recent Intel announcements

[Artificer60]

Patrick Moorhead's take on Intel's announcements Monday seems pretty positive.

Intel made some major announcements Monday that I believe are positive indicators for its turnaround efforts under CEO Pat Gelsinger—assuming it can execute flawlessly on them. All kinds of rumors have been flying, and last week I gave my best assessment of what’s happening with the company. Now there’s been a crucial board of directors meeting backing Gelsinger’s strategic moves, along with announcements about deals with AWS and the U.S. Department of Defense, plus internal reorganization steps.

All of these developments have put more wind into Intel’s sails. I’ve had a chance to digest these announcements—and to speak with Gelsinger directly before they were made public—so I want to share my findings here.

Intel Makes A Slew Of Announcements Supporting Its Turnaround Strategy

Intel's big announcements this week are positive indicators for its turnaround efforts and overall strategy, assuming it can execute the announced moves flawlessly.

www.forbes.com

 

[blueone]

I'm still having trouble understanding what Intel is doing in a custom Xeon for Amazon. I'm also having trouble getting excited about Amazon's potential unit volumes, even if IFS were to fab every chip AWS bought, completely supplanting TSMC.

I unfollowed Moorhead on LinkedIn. He was posting too much trivial stuff about his diet and exercise regimen. If I wanted to have posts like that in my feed I'd have a Facebook account.

 

[kevin01]

I'm still having trouble understanding what Intel is doing in a custom Xeon for Amazon. I'm also having trouble getting excited about Amazon's potential unit volumes, even if IFS were to fab every chip AWS bought, completely supplanting TSMC.

I unfollowed Moorhead on LinkedIn. He was posting too much trivial stuff about his diet and exercise regimen. If I wanted to have posts like that in my feed I'd have a Facebook account.

Aws/Intel deal is not about volume, it is about confidence. Like Intel said, aws is a very "discerning customer who has very sophisticated design capabilities", aws choosing IFS to manufacturing some of their products adds credence to IFS, and encourage others to do similar things.

 

[Artificer60]

Aws/Intel deal is not about volume, it is about confidence. Like Intel said, aws is a very "discerning customer who has very sophisticated design capabilities", aws choosing IFS to manufacturing some of their products adds credence to IFS, and encourage others to do similar things.

I completely agree. The cash/volume is nice be the chance to build credibility in the ecosystem is the big win here. The deal is intended to go 5 years across multiple process technologies. Now Intel has to do what Mr. Moorhead said and "execute flawlessly—remorselessly—like it used to." This is a real make or break opportunity for Intel Foundry.

 

[siliconbruh999]

Also Amazon packages their In house chips at Intel

 

[Artificer60]

I'm still having trouble understanding what Intel is doing in a custom Xeon for Amazon. I'm also having trouble getting excited about Amazon's potential unit volumes, even if IFS were to fab every chip AWS bought, completely supplanting TSMC.

I unfollowed Moorhead on LinkedIn. He was posting too much trivial stuff about his diet and exercise regimen. If I wanted to have posts like that in my feed I'd have a Facebook account.

I think a lot of the customization is going to be built around specific IP blocks that the chiplet approach and advanced packaging allows.

From the article "First out will be a custom Xeon 6 processor on the Intel 3 node. In my conversation with Gelsinger, he couldn’t tell me exactly what made it custom, but he did say it was beyond what it does today, with custom voltages and frequencies. My guess is that it integrates some of AWS’s networking and AI IP blocks."

 

[BruceA]

I completely agree. The cash/volume is nice be the chance to build credibility in the ecosystem is the big win here. The deal is intended to go 5 years across multiple process technologies. Now Intel has to do what Mr. Moorhead said and "execute flawlessly—remorselessly—like it used to." This is a real make or break opportunity for Intel Foundry.

Execute flawlessly that is a tall order if managers to top executives aren’t fanatically detailed in their management and driving employees as hard as their competitors it isn’t likely to succeed. Process at these dimensions all about deep knowledge, fanatical attention to details and making the right trade offs across thousands of things. If employees no matter how good aren’t driven and challenge all the way up it will fail!

I wonder what the hell Patrick thinks he is doing listing his daily diet and test and such on LinkedIn. I’d say how sad and narcissist is this, LOL

 

[meo9725]

Execute flawlessly that is a tall order if managers to top executives aren’t fanatically detailed in their management and driving employees as hard as their competitors it isn’t likely to succeed. Process at these dimensions all about deep knowledge, fanatical attention to details and making the right trade offs across thousands of things. If employees no matter how good aren’t driven and challenge all the way up it will fail!

I wonder what the hell Patrick thinks he is doing listing his daily diet and test and such on LinkedIn. I’d say how sad and narcissist is this, LOL

I'm afraid AWS will come to regret their decision. Intel seems scattered and no longer knows how to execute flawlessly.

 

[Artificer60]

Execute flawlessly that is a tall order if managers to top executives aren’t fanatically detailed in their management and driving employees as hard as their competitors it isn’t likely to succeed. Process at these dimensions all about deep knowledge, fanatical attention to details and making the right trade offs across thousands of things. If employees no matter how good aren’t driven and challenge all the way up it will fail!

This sounds like a McGregor Theory X kind of argument.

The theory X managers assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented. In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income. Management believes employees' work is based on their own self-interest.

By contrast, theory Y managers assume employees are internally motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better themselves without a direct reward in return. These managers view their employees as one of the most valuable assets to the company, driving the internal workings of the corporation. Employees additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not need close supervision to create a quality product.

Theory X managers must give detailed instruction and closely scrutinize all work to ensure outcomes. Theory Y managers must clearly communicate intent and purpose and ensure all work is coordinated to achieve the end goal.

In military theory there are two schools of thought on exercising command and control that I think are analogous. The first is directive control where all orders explicitly spell out where a unit will go and the path to get there. The second is detailed control where orders detail the objective to be achieved and serve as a coordinating principle. In WWII Germany and the Western Allies (America, Great Britain, et. al.) practiced detailed control while the Soviets practiced directive control. I bring this up because I think that it demonstrates that neither means of control is inherently good or bad.

I would argue that while theory X is effective it requires all the creativity to be provided by a few people (management). Theory Y has the advantage of accessing the creativity of your entire work force, but I believe it is harder to execute successfully. This would make the theory Y approach superior if you can pull it off successfully, but that is a big if.

 

[Artificer60]

I'm afraid AWS will come to regret their decision. Intel seems scattered and no longer knows how to execute flawlessly.

Time will tell, but the progress on 5N4Y would seem to indicate that Intel may have put their troubles behind them. Note I do not equate the decision not to ramp 20A on a very limited volume/product mix a failure. Your mileage may very.

 

[BruceA]

This sounds like a McGregor Theory X kind of argument.

The theory X managers assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented. In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income. Management believes employees' work is based on their own self-interest.

By contrast, theory Y managers assume employees are internally motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better themselves without a direct reward in return. These managers view their employees as one of the most valuable assets to the company, driving the internal workings of the corporation. Employees additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not need close supervision to create a quality product.

Theory X managers must give detailed instruction and closely scrutinize all work to ensure outcomes. Theory Y managers must clearly communicate intent and purpose and ensure all work is coordinated to achieve the end goal.

In military theory there are two schools of thought on exercising command and control that I think are analogous. The first is directive control where all orders explicitly spell out where a unit will go and the path to get there. The second is detailed control where orders detail the objective to be achieved and serve as a coordinating principle. In WWII Germany and the Western Allies (America, Great Britain, et. al.) practiced directive control while the Soviets practiced detailed control. I bring this up because I think that it demonstrates that neither means of control is inherently good or bad.

I would argue that while theory X is effective it requires all the creativity to be provided by a few people (management). Theory Y has the advantage of accessing the creativity of your entire work force, but I believe it is harder to execute successfully. This would make the theory Y approach superior if you can pull it off successfully, but that is a big if.

Well no theory is required the traits and culture as well as leaders and their personalities are all known very clearly. The challenge for one is to continue to execute, the other to harvest their talent and excite which does require significant transformation across the organization top to bottom

 

[delong.height]

I'm still having trouble understanding what Intel is doing in a custom Xeon for Amazon. I'm also having trouble getting excited about Amazon's potential unit volumes, even if IFS were to fab every chip AWS bought, completely supplanting TSMC.

I unfollowed Moorhead on LinkedIn. He was posting too much trivial stuff about his diet and exercise regimen. If I wanted to have posts like that in my feed I'd have a Facebook account.

I see from what Pat M talk to Pat G about it this morning in a article he wrote, it's bigger than what they have done historically

 

[delong.height]

I'm afraid AWS will come to regret their decision. Intel seems scattered and no longer knows how to execute flawlessly.

not like that over the last two-three years. Lunar lake is done great, and that design lifespan should cover majority of PG's tenure of office

 

[Irish70]

"...assuming it can execute flawlessly" On what basis could you make that assumption about Intel at any time in the last 10 years?

 

[siliconbruh999]

"...assuming it can execute flawlessly" On what basis could you make that assumption about Intel at any time in the last 10 years?

In last 10 years the only thing the delivered to now was Lunar Lake Sierra Forest nothing else I can't remember anything on time since 14nm+++/10 nm+++ everything was delayed all 10nm product delayed Meteor lake delayed

 

[Xebec]

In last 10 years the only thing the delivered to now was Lunar Lake Sierra Forest nothing else I can't remember anything on time since 14nm+++/10 nm+++ everything was delayed all 10nm product delayed Meteor lake delayed

I agree with the sentiment, but it wasn’t quite that bad. I’d argue they were on time for 3 out of 10 tries .

Skylake was on time (2015), Meteor Lake (2023) was only 1 quarter late — and I suspect some of TSMC/Apple’s launches were 1 quarter (or more) later than expected, though it’s hard to really tell since the entire M lineup is not pre-announced nor annual like the A series SoCs for phones. AMD also doesn’t do any granularity for dates anymore, so they could be hiding 1 quarter delays behind ‘it launches in 2025’. Arrow Lake and Lunar Lake seem to be in the ~ 1 month late range but honestly that’s nothing for products this complex.

Has anyone published what the original Intel ‘chip’ roadmap was supposed to be starting with Cannonlake? I know Intel published 10nm, 7nm, 5nm etc as a roadmap, but was there ever a leaked code name to show ‘Tigerlake’ should have been X year or that sort of thing? I think those were all delayed but curious ..

 

[Xebec]

I unfollowed Moorhead on LinkedIn. He was posting too much trivial stuff about his diet and exercise regimen. If I wanted to have posts like that in my feed I'd have a Facebook account.

I wonder what the hell Patrick thinks he is doing listing his daily diet and test and such on LinkedIn. I’d say how sad and narcissist is this, LOL

I have to bite a little bit on this one — as a guy who spent a lot of years in IT and Defense being unhealthy and only recently *really* learning how to be (eat/exercise) healthy, I appreciate “technology people” sharing stuff like this. Some of the most life changing things you learn (through conversations) working in these industries have nothing to do with the industry itself.

We shouldn’t shame people for sharing journeys of self-improvement or success, it’s not narcissistic or trivial.

 

[tooLongInEDA]

This sounds like a McGregor Theory X kind of argument.

The theory X managers assumes that the typical worker has little ambition, avoids responsibility, and is individual-goal oriented. In general, Theory X style managers believe their employees are less intelligent, lazier, and work solely for a sustainable income. Management believes employees' work is based on their own self-interest.

By contrast, theory Y managers assume employees are internally motivated, enjoy their job, and work to better themselves without a direct reward in return. These managers view their employees as one of the most valuable assets to the company, driving the internal workings of the corporation. Employees additionally tend to take full responsibility for their work and do not need close supervision to create a quality product.

Theory X managers must give detailed instruction and closely scrutinize all work to ensure outcomes. Theory Y managers must clearly communicate intent and purpose and ensure all work is coordinated to achieve the end goal.

In military theory there are two schools of thought on exercising command and control that I think are analogous. The first is directive control where all orders explicitly spell out where a unit will go and the path to get there. The second is detailed control where orders detail the objective to be achieved and serve as a coordinating principle. In WWII Germany and the Western Allies (America, Great Britain, et. al.) practiced directive control while the Soviets practiced detailed control. I bring this up because I think that it demonstrates that neither means of control is inherently good or bad.

I would argue that while theory X is effective it requires all the creativity to be provided by a few people (management). Theory Y has the advantage of accessing the creativity of your entire work force, but I believe it is harder to execute successfully. This would make the theory Y approach superior if you can pull it off successfully, but that is a big if.

The Theory X and Y analogy is interesting ... but (and we're going way off topic here) this is the first time I've ever heard the Soviet/Russian military approach described as more flexible and allowing more unit level decision making than the Allies. Are you quite sure you got this the right way round ?

I'm not sure that Theory Y is as rare as you imply. Or that Theory X actually has any management creativity at all (there's a good book called "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" here). Most engineers can't stand Theory Y anyway.

 

[Artificer60]

The Theory X and Y analogy is interesting ... but (and we're going way off topic here) this is the first time I've ever heard the Soviet/Russian military approach described as more flexible and allowing more unit level decision making than the Allies. Are you quite sure you got this the right way round ?

I'm not sure that Theory Y is as rare as you imply. Or that Theory X actually has any management creativity at all (there's a good book called "On the Psychology of Military Incompetence" here). Most engineers can't stand Theory Y anyway.

That would be because my brain saw what I intended to type and not what I actually typed. Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected the original post.

When you say most engineers can't stand theory Y are you referring to managers and their need for control or are you saying that engineers want exactly what they are supposed to do spelled out for them? In my experience it is more the former rather than the latter. I've heard many complaints from my peers over the year that they aren't allowed to apply creative solutions.

 

[tooLongInEDA]

That would be because my brain saw what I intended to type and not what I actually typed. Thanks for pointing that out. I corrected the original post.

When you say most engineers can't stand theory Y are you referring to managers and their need for control or are you saying that engineers want exactly what they are supposed to do spelled out for them? In my experience it is more the former rather than the latter. I've heard many complaints from my peers over the year that they aren't allowed to apply creative solutions.

When I use the word engineer, it's usually for those doing the hands-on stuff. Historically, that usually excludes managers. But these days I think we see more first level managers also doing a lot of hands on technical work (a good thing in my view).

I've erred too and over-simplified. Not all engineers are nonconformist sceptics who distrust authority. But the better ones often are.