[mnau]

> I don't care if they have to do the development at a loss for half a dozen cycles,

And here is the problem. You are discussing a dream scenario with unlimited money. This thread is about how CEO of Intel has retired/was kicked out (far more likely) for business failures.

In real world, Intel was in a bad shape (see margins, stock price ect) and couldn't afford to squander resources. Intel couldn't commit and thus it should adjust strategy. It didn't. Money was wasted that Intel couldn't afford to waste.

[timschmidt]

Well, seeing as GPU is important across all client segments, in workstation and datacenter, in console where AMD has been dominant, and in emerging markets like automotive self-driving, not having one means exiting the industry in a different way.

I brought up Intel's insane chiplet [non-]strategy elsewhere in the thread as an example where it's clear to me that Intel screwed up. AMD made one chiplet and binned it across their entire product spectrum. Intel made dozens of chiplets, sometimes mirror images of otherwise identical chiplets, which provides none of the yield and binning benefits of AMD's strategy. Having a GPU in house is a no-brainer, whatever the cost. Many other decisions going on at Intel were not. I don't know of another chip manufacturer that makes as many unique dies as Intel, or has as many SKUs. A dGPU is only two or three of those and opens up worlds of possibility across the product line.

[lmm]

Pulling out of a vital long-term project because it can't deliver a short-term return would be a bigger waste. Unless you think Intel is already doomed and the CEO should be pursuing managed decline?