Most pundits seem torn.
Half of them see Intel ready to punt on this. It's been a massive money sink, they aren't ready for market, and they haven't found the light at the end of the tunnel. They just canned optane, they have been selling side-projects off left and right, and they really have been trying to focus on their core business -- processors and their foundries. They have made progress, but haven't exactly righted the ship in their core business, so anything that isn't directly related to getting that back on track needs to go. The fact that they have to send products to outside foundries for manufacture is a huge black eye, especially since process node advantage was one of the key factors in Intel dominance of their other market segments for so long.
The other half see it as something Intel can't afford to pass up. Intel missed the boat on ARM and the small, energy efficiency processors (phones, IOT, etc). Almost everything points to the extremely parallel nature of graphics processors as being key to ever-expanding data centers ,AI applications, cypto, and other emerging markets. Intel needs a product like this to stay competitive and relevant in the 10-year horizon. It may be bleeding money now, but to give up on it means relegating the company to irrelevance inside of the next decade. A shrinking desktop/laptop processor market (apart from the temporary uptick due to covid) and a more competitive AMD in the data center space only add fuel to the need to diversify; the fact that their main rival already has a foothold in this space (AMD) even more so.
I guess it's a matter of which way the Board and Shareholders feel about it.
Personally, speaking as a non-direct shareholder (I probably own some faction of a share through an index fund somewhere if I dug, but I don't consider myself a shareholder) -- and as a largely ignorant armchair quarterback: I think Intel should spin the foundry off, focus on chip design, and invest significantly in the DGX. I also think Raja is a poison to that division. The focus shouldn't be on gaming, that is how ATI/AMD and nVidia happened to get there, but the gaming market isn't the growth driver. Data centers, AI, Crypto (i want to gag typing that, but I can't deny the impact of when those bubbles hit), HPC, and edge computing (cars, etc) are the explosive growth markets; gaming is just a glitzy high profile niche. The gaming thing is just serving as an unnecessary distraction, I'm not saying they need to can a gaming-oriented SKU, but it should not be the focus of the development efforts, and most of your news cycle should not be eaten up with how crappy your product is compared to other gaming products.