Educate me about your love of Pat

From my vantage point it simply looks like Pat’s Plan failed. But let’s look at this.

It seems to me that Pat’s Plan was to get node leadership back. To do this we needed lots of upfront cash a bigger fab network (to amortize TD costs) and 5N4Y I mean 4N4Y

So far all we have from this is the big hole in the bank account.

So coming up with this plan seems to be pure Pat — kudos on the strategic vision.

But either

we’ll never get the other stuff and wouldn’t even Pat were still in charge

DZ and MJ are perfectly capable of understanding the Plan and continuing to execute it and to reach the goalposts without Pat

It may seem crass to say wham bam thanks for the plan — but it works

Someone else might even fill out the details BETTER than Pat could. Usually that’s not the forte of the grand vision types

Educate me.

Comment! It's anonymous!

8 replies (most recent on top)

You are still beating dead horse. PG is gone with the money as most(not all) of the non-founding CEOs do.

There is really nothing. Do not even try to find any. All those plans you heard to make the company go in bright direction after brief saddle period is just brainwash.

If Pat was still here, I wouldn't be stressing over Foundry getting bought. It's doom if BC buys it.

10-15 years from now on, x86 will be dead. All semi folks now that.

Pat did right - pushed the fab and the nodes to make intel stay afloat. You need to pump money into cutting edge technology, however post-COVID we did not need as many CPUs as in COVID. I blame Zisner, he missed predictions 4 or 5 times not by a small margin… Pat played with cards he had been informed.

Design is cr-p, you have multiple teams doing same work - they need to be merged. Intel is behind - even if they have used TSMC.

Now Intel have only salesman’s in ETL and they are listening the silly story how Intel product is important - which is a short term gain. But in next 5 years if Intel will not invest heavily into IFS - they will be done.

@a2: you’re educating me and I appreciate it. Have an upvote

@others: excellent analysis many thanks

PG was not necessarily the final nail in the coffin.

He was a solid choice for the following reasons:
1 - he was a technologist
2 - he had a vision
3 - he knew process technology was the past differentiator
4 - he knew of the internal weaknesses

He encountered the following problems.
1 - 5 nodes in 4 years required similar financial results as 2020 and 2021
2 - he was too proud to adjust that vision to mitigate capital outlays and keep the company solvent
3 - BU and design was slow to adapt to the new cost models for fabrication - cannot just pay for new masks and new wafers for every bug

There was much more...
For example, some of the groups are full of tier 2 or tier 3 people. And the mediocre folks leading them are fearful or suspicious of new ideas.

I view PG as the final nail in the coffin. All of his fab projects seemed rather outlandish and impractical at the time, and now look like hustles. Meanwhile, design was left to flounder and rot. The captain of the Titanic comes to mind. The previous CEOs were hardly any better though, a pack of corrupted incometents.

Pat knew design side was worst that hot steaming sh-t and company can only survive as a fab and he put his eggs in that basket. Unfortunately Turds like OP and Yeary still think intel's design is wroth more than red hot pile of steaming sh-t, time won't be kind to both of them.

So if you are Yeary, go back to fellating yourself, and if you are not yeary, go back to fellating Yeary.

Thread regarding Intel Corp. layoffs

Educate me about your love of Pat

8 replies (most recent on top)

Post a reply