Intel CEO laments Nvidia's 'extraordinarily lucky' AI dominance, claims it coulda-woulda-shoulda have been Intel

M

Marees

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
2,096

Pat Gelsinger: Nvidia Got 'Extraordinarily Lucky' in Dominating the AI Market​

If it hadn't been for that meddling company, Intel would be rich by now!

Things would be completely different if only Intel hadn't cancelled the Larrabee GPU.

https://www.extremetech.com/computi...aordinarily-lucky-in-dominating-the-ai-market

https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-ceo-l...ims-it-coulda-woulda-shoulda-have-been-intel/

During a broad ranging discussion at MIT, Gelsinger was asked what Intel is doing to drive the development of AI.

Gelsinger's comments came in response to a professor who asked what Intel was doing along the lines of AI hardware. This query prompted Gelsinger to recap Intel's ill-fated history with GPUs and "throughput computing" (as opposed to scalar), where he noted that when Intel pushed him out of the company 11 years ago, it also cancelled its discrete GPU project named Larrabee. According to Gelsinger, if the company had stuck with that project, it would be Intel at the apex of the AI industry right now. Instead, Nvidia finds itself at the helm, which Gelsinger says results from Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang getting "extraordinarily lucky."


Gelsinger also claimed things would have been very different had Intel not cancelled the Larrabee project shortly after he left for an 11-year stint outside of Intel before returning as CEO in February 2021.

"When I was pushed out of Intel 13 years ago, they killed the project that would have changed the shape of AI," Gelsinger said of Larrabee.

Larrabee was an Intel GPU project long before its current Arc graphics cards that was intended to go head-on with Nvidia in the gaming and GPGPU markets courtesy of scores of tiny x86 CPU cores. The gaming graphics cards were cancelled in late 2009 and the rest of the Larrabee project withered thereafter.
 
Last edited:
Nvidia pushed AI for years all while Investors gave them shit and Jensen said F’it were going to do it anyways because it’s cool.

Intel caved to the pressure their investors put on them to do the same. That’s what Intel gets for not having a spine and telling pencil pushers NO.
 
sharknice said:
Can't see them because twitter is down lol

NVIDIA has been investing billions in AI for years. There was no luck involved.
Click to expand...
Twitter is up now !!!


I worked at Intel on Larrabee applications in 2007. Then I went to NVIDIA to work on ML in 2008. So I was there at both places at that time and I can say:NVIDIA's dominance didn't come from luck. It came from vision and execution. Which Intel lacked.

There were a lot of people at Intel back in 2007 that I worked with that saw both the opportunity and the risk for Intel. Back then NVIDIA was 10X smaller revenues so Intel management thought they would crush NVIDIA with Larrabee. But Intel lacked vision and execution.
 
Something worth noting.

Intel has to rely on TSMC to make GPUs. Even samsung or global foundries couldn't compete with TSMC fabs for GPU compute
 
Marees said:
Something worth noting.

Intel has to rely on TSMC to make GPUs. Even samsung or global foundries couldn't compete with TSMC fabs for GPU compute
Click to expand...
Nvidia was amongst first wave of companies that took advantage of 3rd party foundry (from Taiwan especially)
 
Marees said:
I believe Nvidia was also first with programmable shaders !?
Click to expand...
UNIFIED SHADERS:
Two weeks after the ATI buyout, Nvidia ushered in the age of unified shader architectures for PC graphics. ATI's Xenos GPU for the Xbox 360 had already introduced the unified architecture to consoles

https://www.techspot.com/article/657-history-of-the-gpu-part-3/

GPU:
Less than two months after the Rage Fury MAXX announcement, Nvidia announced the GeForce 256 SDR on October 1, followed in February 2000 by the DDR version. It would be the first card to use this form of RAM. A 23 million transistor chip built on TSMC's 220nm process, this was the first graphics chip to actually be called a GPU (Graphics Processing Unit), based on the addition of a transformation and lighting engine (TnL or T&L).

The GeForce 256's status as the first to incorporate programmable pixel shaders with the use of T&L has long been the subject of debate. That's because a number of designs also incorporated T&L either at the prototype stage (Rendition VéritéV4400, BitBoys Pyramid3D, 3dfx Rampage), at a level approaching irrelevancy (3DLabs GLINT, Matrox G400's WARP), or through a separate on-board chip (Hercules Thriller Conspiracy).

None of these achieved commercial functionality, however. Moreover, by being first to adopt a four pipeline architecture, Nvidia had an inbuilt performance lead over the competition. This combined with the T&L engine enabled the company to market the GeForce 256 as a professional workstation card.

A month after the desktop variant became available, Nvidia announced their first range of professional workstation Quadro cards, the SGI VPro V3 and VR3, based on the GeForce 256. The cards leveraged SGI's graphics technology Nvidia had gained access to through a cross-license agreement signed in July 1999.

https://www.techspot.com/article/653-history-of-the-gpu-part-2/
 
Intel's comments are like from someone who doesn't understand what their commenting on about but they feel that they have to say something to stay relevant...

I think they should focus more on innovation and bringing better products than commenting on their direct competitors.
 
AlexisRO said:
Intel's comments are like from someone who doesn't understand what their commenting on about but they feel that they have to say something to stay relevant...

I think they should focus more on innovation and bringing better products than commenting on their direct competitors.
Click to expand...

They’re behind the 8-ball now and they’re acting like a company who is behind the 8-ball. Just watch their product presentations. They mention “the competition” more times than I can count. Compare that to an Nvidia presentation.

Intel is really a case study in bad management. I remember when they were the last word in computing. Then they just sat there and did nothing while their competitors leapfrogged them.
 
HockeyJon said:
They’re behind the 8-ball now and they’re acting like a company who is behind the 8-ball. Just watch their product presentations. They mention “the competition” more times than I can count. Compare that to an Nvidia presentation.

Intel is really a case study in bad management. I remember when they were the last word in computing. Then they just sat there and did nothing while their competitors leapfrogged them.
Click to expand...
They didn’t do nothing. They leveraged their position to try and crush their competitors and milk their customers for nearly a decade.
 
Nvidia is a scum bag of a company...


But they basically CREATED the AI market. The tools, the research, the hardware... No other single entity has nearly as many published papers, software solutions, or available products
 
Massive parallel computing was at the center of the discussion on the future computing at Nvidia and ATI/AMD. While Intel was testing architectures based on x86 and failed. Even more, they missed the gaming GPU times after they bought that company who made the i740, and Intel never followed the path and integrated the graphic chip without really changing it into their chipset for motherboards. They clearly took the money and profit as much as possible without reinvesting. This is how Intel failed.
Now, it looks like with their new GPU architecture, it could have been easy to compete, but it's quite to late to try to take a good share. Even AMD is much more advanced whatever Intel tries. AMD has explored several architectures and now uses one dedicated architecture for professional parallel computing and one for gaming and graphics. Intel seems to have abandoned it. I bet in a couple of years Intel will keep their GPU as iGPU and will quit the GPU market. This is what they do, every time except for CPUs which sit on an old standard.
 
madpistol said:
Nvidia has a market cap of $1.21 Trillion
Intel has a market cap of $200 Billion.

Yea, I bet Intel really hates Nvidia right now. Nvidia hit it big.
Click to expand...
It seems AMD is betting on IA too. They won't use much silicon for gaming on next gen, meaning no high end, just to use all their reserved silicon at TSMC for CDNA GPGPU.
Their CDNA high end chip is very powerfull, on some tasks better than Nvidia's.
 
Jandor said:
It seems AMD is betting on IA too. They won't use much silicon for gaming on next gen, meaning no high end, just to use all their reserved silicon at TSMC for CDNA GPGPU.
Their CDNA high end chip is very powerfull, on some tasks better than Nvidia's.
Click to expand...
It comes down to the real world work cases for AI, it does boring work faster and more reliably than a human. Law firms “paying” to interns to crawl through legal precedents to support your case, or a search query.

Need to optimize a radio antenna design for a specific channel and frequency, let the AI simulate a few thousand permutations it generates based on previous results over an afternoon.

Network security, statistics, accounting, lots of big industry applications.
 
HockeyJon said:
“Intel would be leading the world in foundaries if it weren’t for TSMC, Samsung, and Global Foundaries.”

- Pat Gelsinger, probably
Click to expand...
Intel's now #3 in market cap, revenues, and overall networth thanks to Pat and his incompetence.
 
KazeoHin said:
Nvidia is a scum bag of a company...


But they basically CREATED the AI market. The tools, the research, the hardware... No other single entity has nearly as many published papers, software solutions, or available products
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t even call them a scumbag company, having worked with them in the past they aren’t any better or worse than any others out there. And unlike most Nvidia pushes themselves, Nvidia knows they have a dozen companies trying to take their spot and copy their software features. So they spend a crapload on R&D to ensure they stay ahead, but hot shit donkey punch do they charge for it, but if there were other software and hardware pairs out there that did it for less then they couldn’t charge what they do, but there isn’t so they can.
 
What ever happen to Meteor Lake, tile the world approach? 2021, oops 2022, well 2023 and well at least it competes with AMD current generation soon to be replaced by next, lol. Forget desktop, the 1490KS will make a rare occurrence instead.
 
philb2 said:
Wowsers. AMD, the long time underdog with fleas, ahead of "mighty" Intel. Surprised the CEO hasn't been tarred and feathered, or put into the stocks.
Click to expand...
Intels biggest issue is it’s too damned big, and they let shareholders call the shots for too long. AMD, Nvidia, and TSMC are lean, agile, and highly focused. Intel is anything but those and they squandered their lead, so now they have to slim down, focus up, and get themselves moving again but they can’t accelerate at near the pace their competitors can. And it’s not like they are standing still either, so while Intel is forced to waste time and resources rebuilding their foundations, everybody else is sprinting ahead full blast. So that means Intel can’t just go their competitors pace which is already fast, but they need to double it to get back into their race.

Intel isn’t going away, but their only hope of catching up is to either score some absolutely massive fab gains, or have somebody else trip.

The Intel upper management has done exactly what the investors and their board wanted them to do. So their jobs are secure, but the board was giving terrible direction for a long time and it’s only bit them in the ass.
 
Xar said:
Intel's now #3 in market cap, revenues, and overall networth thanks to Pat and his incompetence.
Click to expand...
Not really Pat fault.
It's Brian Krzanich fault (I don't have a clue how to pronounce his name). He let Intel lose advance on process and Intel didn't chose the good direction for their GPGPU and so he just abandoned the market instead of changing their solution, but pulled from the company whatever Intel should have invested in R&D to stock revenues. Intel stocks rose on the market but without the knowledge Intel was just burning its cash and future.
He was fired on sexual affair, but it was to cover up his incompetence as CEO, which would have revealed Intel bad technological position.

Pat is now just trying to catch up. There is no other way. He probably pushed the administration for help, for the sake of the US based industry, which they did.
 
Jandor said:
He was fired on sexual affair, but it was to cover up his incompetence as CEO, which would have revealed Intel bad technological position.

Pat is now just trying to catch up.
Click to expand...
Sexually speaking Pat does have considerable ground to make up, yes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top