Incoming Intel CEO Derides Company's Inability to 'Deliver Better Products' Than Apple's M1 Chip

[mannyvel]

Really, Intel is creating what their customers want. And their customers (system builders) want chips that don't rock the marketing boat. It's pretty simple.

The M1 was built because Apple's customers wanted more than what Intel was willing to deliver.

Really, focus on your customer and ignore everything else. Intel's customers are happy, at least for now.

 

[Maconplasma]

Exactly, M1 is not a real competitor for anything besides low end machines.

Yeah, so you're saying that INTEL's Core i9 with 8 cores is designed for low-end machines? Because a MacBook Air with the M1 rivals and in some cases exceeds the 16" MBP with the Core i9 8 Core processor with a dedicated AMD GPU for half the price. Keep dreaming and wishing. The Intel fans here upset by the M1's threat are hilarious! 😂

 

[joiwomcow]

"We have to deliver better products to the PC ecosystem than any possible thing that a lifestyle company in Cupertino."

'tis but a scratch!

 

[M.PaulCezanne]

Garbage company.

 

[techwhiz]

Yeah, so you're saying that INTEL's Core i9 with 8 cores is designed for low-end machines? Because a MacBook Air with the M1 rivals and in some cases exceeds the 16" MBP with the Core i9 8 Core processor with a dedicated AMD GPU for half the price. Keep dreaming and wishing. The Intel fans here upset by the M1's threat are hilarious! 😂

Can you add more than 16GB of memory to a M1?
The comparison you make will be dramatically different when you need to go off chip to access memory.
Caches will need to be larger, etc.
For I/O the M1 is severely limited.
So while some tasks are faster, if you need to maipulate large datasets the M1 falls on it's face because you end up swapping data out of memory.

 

[Maconplasma]

Can you add more than 16GB of memory to a M1?
The comparison you make will be dramatically different when you need to go off chip to access memory.
Caches will need to be larger, etc.
For I/O the M1 is severely limited.
So while some tasks are faster, if you need to maipulate large datasets the M1 falls on it's face because you end up swapping data out of memory.

No worries I see that you're plugging your ears on what I was actually saying. Also the M1 has proven that it manages Ram far better than Intel's processors do so many are doing great with 8GB Ram. Intel has brainwashed you into believing that you need tons of Ram...yeah for THEIR processors. Apple Silicon will prove to be impossible for Intel to ever match in the coming months when they release processors for the 16"MBP, iMac and Mac Pro. Goodbye Intel! Won't miss you're overheating-battery draining processors.

 

[LeeW]

the M1 has proven that it manages Ram far better than Intel's processors do so many are doing great with 8GB Ram.

This utter nonsense again

 

[MJaP]

If we go on what generates Apple the most revenue then Apple as a company is now first and foremost a mobile phone manufacturer whose sole purpose is to tie you into its paid apps and subscription services revenue stream. The biggest threat to Apple's bottom line is if the App store is opened up to competition due to the likes of Epic and anti-competition lawsuits.

 

[subjonas]

When I asked "why the dogmatic need to stick with Intel?" he had no answers. Then he made a claim of 22 hours of run time on their latest Latitude, and I told him "yeah, and with typical corporate mandated security stacks, people are lucky to see 4 hours in the real world - so that's underwhelming."

I’m not too aware of what AMD is doing, but is it that much better than intel battery-wise? Aren’t those their only two realistic choices?

 

[cupertinojay]

In the late 90's, I worked for a company with a CEO who liked to deride the competition. He liked to call HP a "printer company" and IBM something, I forgot what. Well, who remembers the names of that company and the CEO? Sun Microsystems and Scott McNeally.

People like that don't make very good CEOs, IMO.

 

[Rigby]

Yesterday, I begrudgingly sat through a 1 hour "preview" of Dell's upcoming enterprise product line for 2021 at work (we have about 3000 Macs in use and 7000 Dells). The Dell executive was confusing his Latitudes in the presentation, because surprise surprise, it's basically all the same stuff on a 14nm chip. Their biggest "brag" was that they designed a de-inclined hinge, similar to what Apple had in 2004-era iBooks... so you get an extra 1/2 inch on space when the lid's up behind an airline seat (which is so irrelevant this year it's frankly hilarious).

When I asked "why the dogmatic need to stick with Intel?" he had no answers. Then he made a claim of 22 hours of run time on their latest Latitude, and I told him "yeah, and with typical corporate mandated security stacks, people are lucky to see 4 hours in the real world - so that's underwhelming."

The new Dell Latitude series is actually based on Tiger Lake (i.e. Intel 10nm). I think all of them also meet the "Evo" requirements, which means they have at least 9 hours battery life under realistic workloads.

 

[Marx55]

The writing is on the wall. Intel and AMD should switch to ARM, as Apple Silicon.

 

[Rigby]

The writing is on the wall. Intel and AMD should switch to ARM, as Apple Silicon.

It's not going to happen anytime soon. Even when Apple has switched 100% to ARM, over 90% of new PCs shipped will still be based on x86 CPUs, and there is a huge amount of x86 software (particularly enterprise software) that is not available for ARM. Then there is the server market, where ARM has less than 5% market share.

 

[MysticCow]

The writing is on the wall. Intel and AMD should switch to ARM, as Apple Silicon.

If Intel would have had its house in order, we would not be in this situation of talking about ASMacs vs Mactels at all. I could say the same thing about the AIM Alliance--if they would have gotten their collective act together, we would still be in PowerPC.

AIM couldn't get it together and so we got Mactels. Intel couldn't get it together and so we got ASMacs. Unlike AIM, though, Intel at least stands a chance to still be in consumer electronics...if they can get their act together and not just rely on "We're Intel!" for advertising.

 

[jerryk]

Should have been more specific. Look at where their phones are now. They successfully pivoted toward services but you can't deny they lost out tremendously on Windows Mobile.

That was Balmer's Windows-only focus. And services and subscriptions like Azure, Office 365, etc are hugely profitable.

 

[chouseworth]

Incoming Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger has said that the company must "deliver better products" than Apple, which he described as a "lifestyle company," and says that Intel's best days are "in front of it" (via The Oregonian).

Speaking at an Intel all-hands meeting yesterday, Gelsinger derisively implied that Apple is merely a "lifestyle company," so Intel must be able to surpass its technology:



The jibe at Apple comes after the launch of Apple Silicon last year, which has begun to displace Intel chips inside Mac computers. The M1 chip, Apple's first custom silicon processor for the Mac, has far surpassed the capabilities of equivalent Intel offerings, with markedly better performance and power consumption.

Gelsinger will replace Bob Swan as Intel CEO, having already spent 30 years at the company before leaving in 2009. He was the company's first Chief Technology Officer before becoming CEO of VMware. Speaking to employees, Gelsinger insisted that Intel has its best days "in front of it."

He joins the company at a time of crisis as it contends with multiple threats. With major client Apple dropping Intel for its own custom silicon, and Microsoft expected to follow suit in the near future, Intel has struggled to deliver technological innovations. This is after the company has repeatedly reported delays with its latest processors, while its main competitor, AMD, has proceeded to capture valuable market share.

In December, a major hedge fund with a one-billion-dollar stake in Intel, Third Point, issued a letter urging Intel to take "immediate action" and shake up its business model to combat the mounting threats to the company. Gelsinger's arrival will go some way to appeasing shareholders, but the company has some way to go to regain its footing.

Gelsinger starts as CEO next month, having been lured away from his current job with a package reportedly worth $116 million.

Article Link: Incoming Intel CEO Derides Company's Inability to 'Deliver Better Products' Than Apple's M1 Chip

“Incoming Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger has said that the company must "deliver better products" than Apple...the M1 chip, Apple's first custom silicon processor for the Mac, has far surpassed the capabilities of equivalent Intel offerings, with markedly better performance and power consumption.”

Now there’s a news lead that most of us never dreamed we would see as late as a few months ago.

 

[jerryk]

Exactly, M1 is not a real competitor for anything besides low end machines.

The M1 is the first of the Mac Apple Silicon processor family. The Pentium of Apple Silicon for the Mac. All models after the M1 will have more performance.

 

[jerryk]

In the late 90's, I worked for a company with a CEO who liked to deride the competition. He liked to call HP a "printer company" and IBM something, I forgot what. Well, who remembers the names of that company and the CEO? Sun Microsystems and Scott McNeally.

People like that don't make very good CEOs, IMO.

I remember those days. And now those ex-Sun HQ buildings on 84 are Facebook offices.

 

[ThemePro]

Given his background, I had hopes that Gelsinger might turn things around. Hearing him bash Apple reminds me of Steve Ballmer not Steve Jobs.

 

[Rigby]

The M1 is the first of the Mac Apple Silicon processor family. The Pentium of Apple Silicon for the Mac. All models after the M1 will have more performance.

The M1 evolved from Apple's A-series CPUs, of which there have been 10 generations already.

 

[Darth Tulhu]

Really, Intel is creating what their customers want. And their customers (system builders) want chips that don't rock the marketing boat. It's pretty simple.

The M1 was built because Apple's customers wanted more than what Intel was willing to deliver.

Really, focus on your customer and ignore everything else. Intel's customers are happy, at least for now.

I don't know about that. Every tech environment I frequent is clamoring for AMD Ryzen over Intel. Which I think that is the problem here.

Apple will always do their own thing, and that's okay, but PC enthusiasts want flexibility AND power in their machines, not one or the other.

That said, this decade is going to be interesting and it is at least good to see an Intel CEO all fired up to take on the challenge ahead of him. We'll see if he can back his talk up with shipped products that walk the walk.

 

[Rigby]

That said, this decade is going to be interesting and it is at least good to see an Intel CEO all fired up to take on the challenge ahead of him. We'll see if he can back his talk up with shipped products that walk the walk.

Yep. But I think Gelsinger should be a better person for the job at this point in time, since he has a technical background and a long history with Intel. Swan is a finance guy who was with Intel only a few years before he reluctantly became CEO after the previous one had to resign.

 

[techwhiz]

No worries I see that you're plugging your ears on what I was actually saying. Also the M1 has proven that it manages Ram far better than Intel's processors do so many are doing great with 8GB Ram. Intel has brainwashed you into believing that you need tons of Ram...yeah for THEIR processors. Apple Silicon will prove to be impossible for Intel to ever match in the coming months when they release processors for the 16"MBP, iMac and Mac Pro. Goodbye Intel! Won't miss you're overheating-battery draining processors.

So the problem is you are condescending in your tone.
I'm not plugging my ears.
I have extensive experience designing custom processors.
I have extensive experience in processor architecture and tool chains.
I have been doing this for 30+ years.

There are applications that require lots of memory.
Word processing and web surfing do not.
For a low end machine you are absolutely correct.
My typical tasks include running large simulations that will not fit in a 16GB memory foot print.
So Intel doesn't have me fooled. I need lots of memory for the large datasets I simulate.

I also run RTL synthesis that will often blow out of a 64GB footprint.
So please don't take a tone of I don't know what I am talking about.

 

[name99]

I’m not sure why some here are acting like this is a dig at Apple. This is literally the new CEO of intel telling the company to get its **** together, this is embarrassing and we’re capable of so much more.

Acknowledging a problem is the first step towards doing something about it. Intel hasn’t been honest about it’s problems in delivering their roadmap for almost an entire decade....

I agree with this analysis; it's a way of saying to the employees "How come THEY can do so much better than us? This is ridiculous".
BUT

it's only step one, to admit that Apple has a better product (for almost all purposes).
The next question is why is Apple's product better? The sorts of answers possible include
- better process
- ARMv8 is a much better design target than x86
- Intel has scared off every decent designer
- targeting the highest frequency possible rather than the smartest core possible is a bad strategy
- market segmentation dominates engineering (ie Atom design ideas have been crippled)

Everything depends on which of these explanations are accepted as *the* explanations.
Anyone who follows tech will know that which of these explanations is accepted is an *extraordinarily* contentious point. Will Gelsinger make the decision based on data, or sentiment and politics? Does the data to make the decision on technical grounds exist? Will Gelsinger be shown it, or will it be suppressed as much as possible by people with their own sentiments and politics?
Gelsinger ought to remember everything about the disaster that was Itanium very well. What did he take away from that in terms of technology? Politics? Fooling yourself and being fooled by others?

 

[name99]

So the problem is you are condescending in your tone.
I'm not plugging my ears.
I have extensive experience designing custom processors.
I have extensive experience in processor architecture and tool chains.
I have been doing this for 30+ years.

There are applications that require lots of memory.
Word processing and web surfing do not.
For a low end machine you are absolutely correct.
My typical tasks include running large simulations that will not fit in a 16GB memory foot print.
So Intel doesn't have me fooled. I need lots of memory for the large datasets I simulate.

I also run RTL synthesis that will often blow out of a 64GB footprint.
So please don't take a tone of I don't know what I am talking about.

You're being condescended to because you're making a ridiculous (ie political, rather than technical) statement!

The issue is not how much memory can be attached to an M1 -- OBVIOUSLY everything that's required to scale that up can trivially be scaled up and will. At first by likely 2x, for mini Pro, iMac, MBP; then a whole lot more for iMac Pro and mac Pro.
The issue is the quality of the core proper, the uncore, the memory controller.

You're comparing Apple's Pentium Silver class chip to Intel's Xeon class chip and acting like you've made some signifcant discovery, some deep technical point! This is behavior that deserves to be ignored.