Semiwiki on LinkedIn Semiwiki on Facebook Semiwiki on Twitter Register / Log in 
Array
(
    [content] => 
    [params] => Array
        (
            [0] => /forum/threads/intel-foundry-losing-key-people-in-2025-2026.24620/page-2
        )

    [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] => 2030970
            [XFI] => 1060170
        )

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

Intel Foundry, losing key people in 2025-2026

siliconbruh999 said:
the SIMD is mostly don't getting used for AI it's the Matmul hardware or the tensor core part that is getting used. TPU is just a large matmul accelerator (gross simplification)
Click to expand...
You're correct that Blackwells, for example, aren't the (relatively!) simple systolic arrays that GPUs used to be, but SIMD is used actually or conceptually (single instruction stream on multiple threads) in various execution units and dataflows in the chips. I will argue that Nvidia's experience with SIMD concepts and implementations has given them a leg up over companies that have never implemented and productized SIMD or SIMD-like architectures before. The same goes for AMD. And Google has seven generations of getting systolic arrays right in TPUs. I know that you know that theory is easy compared to making an implementation function reliably, with high performance and high efficiency, especially in silicon gates.
 
blueone said:
You're correct that Blackwells, for example, aren't the (relatively!) simple systolic arrays that GPUs used to be, but SIMD is used actually or conceptually (single instruction stream on multiple threads) in various execution units and dataflows in the chips. I will argue that Nvidia's experience with SIMD concepts and implementations has given them a leg up over companies that have never implemented and productized SIMD or SIMD-like architectures before. The same goes for AMD. And Google has seven generations of getting systolic arrays right in TPUs. I know that you know that theory is easy compared to making an implementation function reliably, with high performance and high efficiency, especially in silicon gates.
Click to expand...
AMD has been shipping client GPUs for quite some generation so they have the experience. The issue with AMD is not hardware but software but their Hardware from only hardware point of view is very good but the software and tooling is not mature,. AMD was able to come back in CPU due to the fact that hardware was compatible with already mature X86_64 Ecosystem if somehow you can insert AMD hardware and run CUDA and stuff on it Nvidia would be in a tight spot as for your last sentence I wholeheartedly agree.
 
blueone said:
I'd eliminate the program management function completely, and assign the engineering leaders to get the big picture or get out.
Click to expand...
Hate to say it because Intel is so decimated already, but you may get your wish. Another round of layoffs coming I think, kicked off by Jack Dorsey. That middle layer is red meat.
 
blueone said:
That might true for engineering and fab operations, but probably not for marketing, sales, product management, and program management.
Click to expand...
I think LBT has helped on the program managers. I am ok with a program manager. having 6 for one platform.... and having chief of staff for a couple of them..... and having " assistant to the program manager" (jk) was excessive.

by all metrics Intel was overstaffed at all positions. I firmly believe Intel will deliver better, more quickly, as a result of less people.

That said, I have friends at Intel who said a year ago "we need more people, not less". I told them they were irreversably corrupted and they should go work for government LOL
 
Daniel Nenni said:
So many but here are my top 5:

  • AI Strategy. Did Intel even have one?
Click to expand...
As I have mentioned like a broken record, Intel was prioritizing AI accelerators in 2010 and had multiple projects working and prioritized. They made multiple acquisitions.

Somehow, the products have been incredible delayed and as a result incredibly off base on specs. Most were cancelled. I have heard horror stories on the management and execution on the projects (example: Changing product requirements document every month)

I am guessing Intel is too slow and not agile enough to deal with AI (or Mobile). LBT has made major changes to fix this..... but the employees are still there.
 
Daniel Nenni said:
So many but here are my top 5:

Leadership Restructuring. Intel had so many layers of management.
  • AI Strategy. Did Intel even have one?

  • Focus on Engineering and Execution. One thing I can tell you about Lip-Bu is that he does not suffer fools gladly and Intel had plenty of fools.

  • Strong Foundry Strategy. I have strong ties to the foundry business and I like what I see. Prior to Lip-Bu I did not like what I say.

  • Financial Strength. One week Trump called out Lip-Bu to resign. The next week the USG made a big investment in Intel, followed by investments from Nvidia and SunSoft. I don't care what anyone says, that is a STRONG move under an incredible amount of pressure.

Personally I think Lip-Bu will go down in history as the best Intel CEO, absolutely.
Click to expand...
Restructuring and delayering by LBT is true and a positive. TSMC has 90% less VPs and it sure didn’t seem to impact their growth or performance.
 
hist78 said:
Hiring TSMC former Senior Vice President Wei‑Jen Lo is one example that puzzled me. Regardless of whether Mr. Lo stole any trade secrets, why did Lip‑Bu Tan allow the situation to deteriorate into civil lawsuits and criminal prosecutions? Did he forget that TSMC has been one of Intel’s most important suppliers and partners for more than 30 years? Did he not realize that TSMC’s leading edge capacity is in extremely high demand, and that many of Intel’s competitors are financially capable of taking over any capacity Intel might otherwise secure? That could easily cost Intel several billions in lost revenue, profits, and opportunities. How could Lip‑Bu Tan not be worried about this and handle the situation more like a seasoned, skillful CEO?
Click to expand...

This is very concerning. Hopefully there is a good explanation but I cannot think of one.
 
You can add:

Chek-San (CS) Leong
· 1st Senior Director, Head of IP and Chiplet Ecosystem Alliance at Intel Foundry.

After 4.5 years, I am closing my chapter at Intel. As I prepare to move on to my next endeavor, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to all my Intel colleagues. Working alongside such talented, supportive, and inspiring individuals has been an incredibly rewarding journey. To all my ecosystem partners who have consistently supported us - thank you.
 
Daniel Nenni said:
You can add:

Chek-San (CS) Leong
· 1st Senior Director, Head of IP and Chiplet Ecosystem Alliance at Intel Foundry.

After 4.5 years, I am closing my chapter at Intel. As I prepare to move on to my next endeavor, I want to take a moment to express my sincere gratitude to all my Intel colleagues. Working alongside such talented, supportive, and inspiring individuals has been an incredibly rewarding journey. To all my ecosystem partners who have consistently supported us - thank you.
Click to expand...
Is this just hypocrisy? Is IFS IP alliance really there after 4.5 yrs, and how much $ spent?
 
icnewer said:
Is this just hypocrisy? Is IFS IP alliance really there after 4.5 yrs, and how much $ spent?
Click to expand...

It was a valiant attempt by Pat Gelsinger to follow TSMC's ecosystem but misguided. The top semiconductor companies tell EDA what foundries to support. Top semiconductor companies create most of their own IP. Intel Foundry can be in the drivers seat on this one. They are a leader not a follower.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top