Technology

he absolutely stayed the course that his predecessors chose,

Yes that part was always a bit confusing to me, because I couldn't really see anything new in his strategy, except he was doing it harder. But isn't that what it takes when you fall behind?
As much as I hate Gelsinger's pompous bragging style, it's hard to see what else they could do?

True, Stellantis has done extremely poorly the past couple of years IMO. They have several brands that usually feature in the top 10 most sold car models here (Denmark). But currently they have zero models even in top 20. Their EV cars are underwhelming generally offered with too small batteries, and are almost complete failures in the market. There have been some seriously wrong administrative decisions at the top.

Some of the same can possibly be said about Intel, except Intel was already in trouble when Gelsinger took over, and he is still working on the plan he set out to execute. Switching him out now looks really bad. Of course it may be they have to, disregarding how it looks.

With Stellantis it seems more the logical thing to do. Because Stellantis is bleeding, and losing market share fast.

Edit:
Huge difference with Stellantis is that they are quite open about the performance of the company has been poor, and that's the reason he retires abruptly.

Which means it was kind of effective Friday, either way it doesn't change that it is very sudden.
If this was done properly, it should have been announced Friday at the latest.

Maybe intel gets absorbed into amd after Lisa Su becomes ceo.

Every time Intel makes a release when AMD is about to release their own competitive product, Lisa is seen sitting in a big comfy chair, next to a fireplace, calmly sipping tea at them.

I don't watch LTT anymore, but they do have my favorite example of this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuaiqcjf0bs

tl;dw: Intel did a last minute reschedule of the embargo on their new HEDT lineup to lift hours before the new AMD Threadripper chips did the same. Those chips could barely keep up with AMD's current offerings, and everyone involved knew that the new AMD stuff was going to crush it (which it did). Intel bumps the timeline so reviews have to go out (because reviewers have to get them clicks) without being compared to what's actually going to be sitting on shelves alongside it. Linus sees what they're doing and absolutely rips into them at the start of the video.

IDK if that's meant as a joke, but I don't see a single reason why she would do that. She is doing very well at AMD, and the pay is better at AMD.

I think it’s looking pretty grim

Absolutely, but for some reason Intel has a history of failing in new areas. Their attempt with Itanium for high end was really bad, their attempt at RISC which mostly ended up in SCSI controllers was a failure too. Their failure with Atom not being competitive against Arm. Their attempts at compute for data-center has failed for decades against Nvidia, it's not something that just happened recently. And they tried in the 90's with a GPU that was embarrassingly bad and failed too.

They actually failed against AMD Athlon too, but back then, they controlled the market, and managed to keep AMD mostly out of the market.
When the Intel 80386 came out it was actually slower than the 80286!, When Pentium came out, it was slower than i486. When Pentium 4 came out, it was not nearly as efficient as Pentium 3. Intel has a long history of sub par products. Typically every second design by Intel had much worse IPC, so much so that it was barely compensated by the higher clocks of better production process. So in principle every second Intel generation was a bit like the AMD Bulldozer, but where for AMD 1 mistake almost crashed the company, Intel managed to keep profiting even from sub par products.

So it's not really a recent problem, Intel has a long history of intermittently not being a very strong competitor or very good at designing new products and innovating. And now they've lost the throne even on X86! Because AMD beat the crap out of them, with chiplets, despite the per core speed of the original Ryzen was a bit lower than what Intel had.

What kept Intel afloat and hugely profitable when their designs were inferior, was that they were always ahead on the production process, that was until around 2016. Where Intel lost the lead, because their 10nm process never really worked and had multiple years of delays.

Still Intel back then always managed to come back like they did with Core2, and the brand and the X86 monopoly was enough to keep Intel very profitable, even through major strategic failures like Itanium.

I am pretty sure the plan wasn't to quit at 63, at what looks like halfway through his plan.