Bill Gates Is “Stunned” at What Intel Has Become: “Basically Lost Its Way”

Tsing

The FPS Review
Staff member
Joined
May 6, 2019
Messages
13,255
Points
113
Bill Gates, the American businessman and philanthropist who currently sits on Forbes' real-time billionaires list with a net worth of $106.9 billion thanks in part to his co-founding of Microsoft in 1975 and the development of the Windows operating system, is unhappy with the current state of Intel, according to new statements that the 69-year-old shared during a recent interview with the AP about his new memoir, Source Code: My Beginnings.

See full article...
 
I agree. It saddens me to no end to see Intel like this. I've very much enjoyed my recent rides with AMD but I spent decades using Intel and currently don't see anything on the horizon that will bring me back.

Edit: I will say that I like the CPU in my laptop but there was no other choice at the pricepoint I got for it. Twice now when I've went to get a gaming laptop they've managed to corner the market for premier GPU bundling. I recently mentioned this continued trend happening with RTX 5080/5090 mobile GPUs and mobile Core Ultra 285K processors. They seem to have their act together on the mobile front but basically abandoned desktop gaming. That may seem overly dramatic but it's what I perceive.
 
The new AI chips from AMD are gaining some traction at least in hearts and minds if not store shelves/online portals.
 
"And now they are kind of behind in terms of chip design and they are kind of behind in chip fabrication."
Coming from a guy who thought Netscape and mobile/cell's were nothingburgers. I give him a lot of credit, but any company/CEO can miss the boat.
 
I almost feel bad for Intel. Almost.

I am sad that if Intel doesn't get it's act together, x86 is pretty well dead. I mean, AMD is there, and kudos to them. But I think if x86 becomes a one-horse race, ARM will walk all over it -- and that, I think, will be the death of DIY computer building. ARM may yet walk all over it anyway - all the signs are kind of pointed that direction, but the only thing that has held it off as long as it has, has been the innovation driven by the rivalry between AMD and Intel, and the ability for ~both~ of those companies to remain viable and successful throughout (for various definitions of viable and successful, I admit).

But I don't feel sorry for Intel at all - I remember all the anti-competitive practices and shenanigans they pulled in the 90's and 00's. This is just like karma.
 
Intel , likely destroyed itself with forced ranking, or equivalent.
 
Nah, Intel killed themselves being greedy. Hiding new features behind high end datacenter products (IE: more PCIe lanes, more cores) and not innovating anything on the desktop side other than just mere IPC increases year after year. If it wasn't for AMD we would probably still be buying quad core Intel CPUs for "mainstream" gaming setups and the 8 core would be super expensive on the higher end desktop/workstation models.

Intel gets what they deserve. Good riddance.
 
True but you'll note that AMD has also only been giving IPC increases since intel is no longer competitive with them. Mainstream gaming has been 8 cores since 2017 at AMD's side too.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Nah, Intel killed themselves being greedy. Hiding new features behind high end datacenter products (IE: more PCIe lanes, more cores) and not innovating anything on the desktop side other than just mere IPC increases year after year. If it wasn't for AMD we would probably still be buying quad core Intel CPUs for "mainstream" gaming setups and the 8 core would be super expensive on the higher end desktop/workstation models.

Intel gets what they deserve. Good riddance.
Click to expand...
True they are greedy, but have they been capable of innovating? No they have not. True all you said if they didnt have competition, but all their greedyness would matter a lot less if they were blasting away AMD year after year. Nvidia is plenty greedy and they are manuvering the whole market towards their exclusive tech, slowly but surely.
Nvidia is plenty expensive, and yet.
Intel killed themselves with forced ranking, they might not even know it. Forced ranking and the like have insidous, yet hard to define consequences. It screws a lot with human behaviors and tendencies, its slow, termite style kind of thing.
If they are still doing forced ranking, I dont think they will survive at all. Btw, yes ARM will blow away x86 in time, how much, who knows, but the software side seems quite agile to move between the two.
 
MadMummy76 said:
True but you'll note that AMD has also only been giving IPC increases since intel is no longer competitive with them. Mainstream gaming has been 8 cores since 2017 at AMD's side too.
Click to expand...

Right, AMD came out with 8 core processors for their first two Zen generations. Then they started with the 16 core processors. All the while Intel had 4, 6

If it wasn't for that. Intel would probably still be rocking quad core CPUs with IPC increases.

In 2018, Intel came out with 6 core processors. Watch out now. 6 whole cores.

Rumor has it that Zen6 will have 12 core chiplets which will mean 24 core Ryzen processors with 48 threads.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Right, AMD came out with 8 core processors for their first two Zen generations. Then they started with the 16 core processors. All the while Intel had 4, 6

If it wasn't for that. Intel would probably still be rocking quad core CPUs with IPC increases.

In 2018, Intel came out with 6 core processors. Watch out now. 6 whole cores.

Rumor has it that Zen6 will have 12 core chiplets which will mean 24 core Ryzen processors with 48 threads.
Click to expand...
Skylake already had up to 18 cores in 2017, that were in the enthusiast line, not datacenter / enterprise products.
 
Articles online from 'leakers' are claiming intel will have 52 core processors. P cores, E cores, and Super E cores. (or whatever they call them)

Could be exciting.
 
LeRoy_Blanchard said:
Rumor has it that Zen6 will have 12 core chiplets which will mean 24 core Ryzen processors with 48 threads.
Click to expand...
Here's hoping. Its a long, long time coming and maybe I'm imagining it but it seems like we're finally seeing more games utilize more than 8c/16t, even at 4K. Still just a small amount of them and even then barely moving the meter but that has to start somewhere. I purposely held off, for now, on an AM5 build because of this. Meanwhile some Panther Lake stuff is looking pretty cool.
 
Grimlakin said:
Articles online from 'leakers' are claiming intel will have 52 core processors. P cores, E cores, and Super E cores. (or whatever they call them)

Could be exciting.
Click to expand...
IDK, I'd prefer less but faster cores, beyond a few very specific computation tasks what can even efficiently leverage so many threads?
 
MadMummy76 said:
Skylake already had up to 18 cores in 2017, that were in the enthusiast line, not datacenter / enterprise products.
Click to expand...

I am talking about the main stream desktop processors. Not the HEDT stuff where the CPUs cost $2k. Because AMD had those, too. In 2018 AMD had 32 core HEDT processors.

Main gaming systems and main desktops had 16 cores for AMD. Intel up to 6 cores.

The fact they had 18 cores in some processors just proves Intel was just holding them back because they could, not because they didn't have the ability to give them more cores.
 
HEDT used to be pretty mainstream until threadripper priced most enthusiasts out of it. I believe the 12 core and 16 core "mainstream" tier is the current equivalent to the lower level HEDT offerings of the 2010s

Obviously Intel was sandbagging, I didn't say they weren't. I said that since Intel is not competitive AMD has been doing it too. 8 years of the same core count in each tier I think counts. 1600x -> 2600x -> 3600x -> 5600x -> 7600x -> 9600x, that's 7 generations on the same core count. If anything this is worse than intel used to be.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Become a Patron!
Back
Top