https://www.tradingview.com/x/vJTQil4t/
30% uplift for a CEO change... that says quite a lot. What I think most people are missing is that for changing course of a semiconductor design, it takes at a minimum of 4-5 years. To catch up with someone that's already ahead (AMD), it takes around 6 to 10 years. AMD was playing catch-up with Intel for about 10 years (remember AMD Bulldozer?)
Ever since the Core/Core 2 architecture was launched, back in 2006, Intel has dominated the market - that was up until around 2018, when AMD further improved on their Ryzen architecture. It took ~12 years for AMD to get "back in the game". Lisa Su worked wonders with AMD since 2012, became CEO in 2014, and finally managed to usurp intel through an innovative new design, chiplets.
You want to know the biggest reason why Lisa Su has been so successful? Firstly, she is an Engineer, she designs solutions to problems. I have the utmost respect for her, and I thank her tremendously for bringing back competition to the industry. But one major contributor was the fact that Intel was resting on its laurels, they did not truly innovate. Ever since about ~2013, when they launched the ~i7-2600k (which powered my PC for almost 8 good years), all their future CPU's were very marginal iterations, ~5% uplift in performance from a generation to the next is a joke, especially considering the increased power consumption. I remember there were two generations where Intel intentionally sabotaged their own CPU's by replacing the soldered thermal interface with thermal pads, just to decrease heat transfer, and create a fictitious worse product, so they could have a better one released next year (having again soldered thermal interface). Yep, people were "delidding" their CPU, getting 20-30 degrees lower temperatures, because the "engineers" at intel wanted to either save a few cents, or most likely they wanted to release the next generation of CPU's without putting in any real work for improvement. Why do I think this is the case? Because intel was lead by bean-counters.
2005 to 2012, Intel was led by Paul Otellini, a person who had over 30 years of experience at the company. The development of the Pentium can be attributed to him (prior to becoming CEO), and during his tenure, Intel market share went from ~50% to 75% (as per cpubenchmark, though I really doubt it was below 90% at that time).
2012 to 2018, Brian Krzanich, the sunset starts, practically no innovation, one generation to the next are just incremental improvements.
2018 to 2021, Bob Swan, the then CFO took over as CEO, no comment.
2021 to 2025, Pat Gelsinger, an engineer, the lead architect of the 486 CPU took over. He had very good ideas, but in my opinion not enough time to implement them.
Now Intel has a new CEO, mainly knowledgeable in software, not in hardware. I guess only time will tell, but honestly, I think if Pat had a few more years, he could have pointed the ship in the right direction. As it stands, I do not have high hopes for Intel. My prediction is a drop to 15 by the end of the year. AMD doesn't rest on its laurels, Intel needs some innovation, and innovation takes time.
Anyway, all the above are my own thoughts, and I wrote them down for entertainment purposes only. Please perform your own research before opening any positions.
30% uplift for a CEO change... that says quite a lot. What I think most people are missing is that for changing course of a semiconductor design, it takes at a minimum of 4-5 years. To catch up with someone that's already ahead (AMD), it takes around 6 to 10 years. AMD was playing catch-up with Intel for about 10 years (remember AMD Bulldozer?)
Ever since the Core/Core 2 architecture was launched, back in 2006, Intel has dominated the market - that was up until around 2018, when AMD further improved on their Ryzen architecture. It took ~12 years for AMD to get "back in the game". Lisa Su worked wonders with AMD since 2012, became CEO in 2014, and finally managed to usurp intel through an innovative new design, chiplets.
You want to know the biggest reason why Lisa Su has been so successful? Firstly, she is an Engineer, she designs solutions to problems. I have the utmost respect for her, and I thank her tremendously for bringing back competition to the industry. But one major contributor was the fact that Intel was resting on its laurels, they did not truly innovate. Ever since about ~2013, when they launched the ~i7-2600k (which powered my PC for almost 8 good years), all their future CPU's were very marginal iterations, ~5% uplift in performance from a generation to the next is a joke, especially considering the increased power consumption. I remember there were two generations where Intel intentionally sabotaged their own CPU's by replacing the soldered thermal interface with thermal pads, just to decrease heat transfer, and create a fictitious worse product, so they could have a better one released next year (having again soldered thermal interface). Yep, people were "delidding" their CPU, getting 20-30 degrees lower temperatures, because the "engineers" at intel wanted to either save a few cents, or most likely they wanted to release the next generation of CPU's without putting in any real work for improvement. Why do I think this is the case? Because intel was lead by bean-counters.
2005 to 2012, Intel was led by Paul Otellini, a person who had over 30 years of experience at the company. The development of the Pentium can be attributed to him (prior to becoming CEO), and during his tenure, Intel market share went from ~50% to 75% (as per cpubenchmark, though I really doubt it was below 90% at that time).
2012 to 2018, Brian Krzanich, the sunset starts, practically no innovation, one generation to the next are just incremental improvements.
2018 to 2021, Bob Swan, the then CFO took over as CEO, no comment.
2021 to 2025, Pat Gelsinger, an engineer, the lead architect of the 486 CPU took over. He had very good ideas, but in my opinion not enough time to implement them.
Now Intel has a new CEO, mainly knowledgeable in software, not in hardware. I guess only time will tell, but honestly, I think if Pat had a few more years, he could have pointed the ship in the right direction. As it stands, I do not have high hopes for Intel. My prediction is a drop to 15 by the end of the year. AMD doesn't rest on its laurels, Intel needs some innovation, and innovation takes time.
Anyway, all the above are my own thoughts, and I wrote them down for entertainment purposes only. Please perform your own research before opening any positions.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.