Notably this is about the 3rd time in 2 years that he's reported that the Intel dGPU efforts are being killed off.

Even on the latest developments the reporting is contradictory, so someone is wrong and I suspect it's him. https://www.techpowerup.com/341149/intel-arc-gpus-remain-in-...

They're a channel focused on leaks, but most of their leaks are just industry insider gossip masked as factual to farm clicks. Their leaks are useless for any sort of predictions, but may be interesting if you'd like to know what insiders are thinking.

A quick google search also yielded this[1] 2-year old reddit thread that shows videos they deleted because their predictions were incorrect. There's probably many more. (That subreddit seems to be dedicated to trashing MLID.)

[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/BustedSilicon/comments/yo9l2i/colle...

Intel has so many other GPU-adjacent products and they will doubtless be continuing most of them, even if they don't pursue Arc further: Jaguar Shores, Flex GPUs for VDI, and of course their Xe integrated graphics. I could possibly see Intel not ship a successor to Flex? Maybe? I cannot see a world where they abandon Xe (first-party laptop graphics) or Jaguar Shores ("rack scale" datacenter "GPUs").

With all of that effort going into GPU-ish designs, is there enough overlap that the output/artifacts from those products support and benefit Arc? Or if Arc only continues to be a mid-tier success, is it thus a waste of fab allocation, a loss of potential profit, and an unnecessary expense in terms of engineers maintaining drivers, and so forth? That is the part I do not know, and why I could see it going either way.

So I can see it both ways, but in no world do I trust these supposed leaks.

With their own fabs, at that

Seems like you'd prefer yet another +1 selling AI oil and promises ...

>"On training, I think it is too late for us,"

Not too late for AI, but too late for training meanwhile there's inference opportunity or something like that

When he joined only a few months ago, he set the vision of making Intel a worthy participant in the AI space.

Then just a few months later, he announced "we cannot compete".

What happened in the middle? Recent articles came out about the conflict between him and Frank Yeary, the head of the Intel board. He wanted to acquire a hot AI startup, and Frank opposed it. Two factions were formed in the Board, and they lost a lot of time battling it out. While this was going on, a FAANG came in and bought the startup.

I think his announcement that Intel cannot compete was his way of saying "I cannot do it with the current Intel board."

Same as how they messed up the Core Ultra desktop launch, of their own volition - by setting the prices so high that they can’t even compete with their own 13th and 14th gen chips, not even mentioning Ryzen CPUs that are mostly better in both absolute terms and in the price/perf. A sidegrade isn’t the end of the world but a badly overpriced sidegrade is dead on arrival.

Idk what Intel is doing.

The only reason I can imagine for them leaving the money on the table is that they think that the AI boom won't last that much longer and they don't want to kill their reputation in the consumer market. But even in that case, I'm not sure it really makes that much sense.

Maybe if consumer GPUs were literally just datacenter silicon that didn't make the grade or something, it would make sense but I don't think that's the case.

The smaller the node the smaller the yield, chiplets is a necessity now (or architectural changes like Cerebras).