What a jump, I'd be curious to hear first why anyone would prefer Intel above pretty much anything else, but also secondly how the actual experience difference between the two after working at both, must be a very strong contrast between them.
On her website it says she is working on GPU drivers there - I wouldn't be surprised if that's something she greatly enjoys and Intel gave her then opportunity to work on official, production shipping drivers instead of reverse engineered third party drivers.
Maybe she was given a huge signing bonus to avoid her working on making X86 irrelevant? Combined with perhaps some interesting project to work on for real.
I wouldn't have thought so 5-10 years ago, but with Microsoft offering Windows on ARM the is really no OS that specifically targets x86 (Legacy MS products will keep it alive if the emulation isn't perfect).
The thing is, x86 dominance on servers,etc has been tied to what developers use as work machines, if everyone is on ARM machines they'll probably be more inclined to use that on servers as well.
Microsoft has tried Windows on ARM, like, 5 times in the past 15 years and it's failed every time. They tried again recently with Qualcomm, but Qualcomm barely supports their own chips, so, predictably, it failed.
The main reason x86 still has relevance and will continue to do so is because x86 manufacturers actually care about the platform and their chips. x86 is somewhat open and standardized. ARM is the wild, wild west - each manufacturer makes bespoke motherboards, and sockets, and firmware. Many manufacturers, like Qualcomm, abandon their products remarkably quickly.
Huh? Qualcomm announced the X2 chips just 2 months ago with shipments for early next year. Looked at a local dealer site and there's MS, Dell, Asus and Lenovo WinArm machines (with current gen Elite X chips).
Yes, Windows on desktop hardware will probably continue mainly with x86 for a while more, but how many people outside of games, workstation-scenarios and secure scenarios still use desktops compared to laptops (where SoC's are fine for most part)?
I imagine there's also some challenging work that would be fun to dig into. Being the person who can clean up Intel's problems would be quite a reputation to have.
There’s a real limit on what level of problem one engineer can fix, regardless of how strong they are. Carmack at Meta is an example of this, but there are many. Woz couldn’t fix Apple’s issues, etc.
A company sufficiently scaled can largely only be fixed by the CEO, and often not even then.
I'm sure most would stay at valve if they could. The just do so much contract work, and I'm sure a stable job at intel is better pay, benefits and stability.
Would it shock you to hear that famous engineers with their own personal brand power have different opportunities and motivations than many/most engineers?
Their point is even made stronger by your comment. Engineers of this type don't experience megacorps like regular engineers. They usually have a non-standard setup and more leeway and less bureaucracy overhead. Which means brand isn't the biggest thing, the specific projects and end user impact are.