Intel appoints two new board members with semiconductor backgrounds following Gelsinger exit

Intel has appointed Eric Meurice, former CEO of ASML, and Steve Sanghi, chairman and interim CEO of Microchip Technology, to its board of directors. Both are seasoned leaders in the semiconductor industry and bring decades of expertise and significant accomplishments to the board previously led by people without microelectronics experience. What is noteworthy is that both new board members used to work at Intel. 

"As successful CEOs with proven track records of creating shareholder value, they will bring valuable perspectives to the board as the company delivers on its priorities for customers in Intel Products and Intel Foundry, while driving greater efficiency and improving profitability," said Frank D. Yeary, interim executive chair of the Intel board. 

Eric Meurice led ASML from 2004 to 2013, and during his tenure the company's market value grew fivefold as the company became the world leader in lithography. He played a key role in launching the Customer Co-Investment Program, where Intel, Samsung, and TSMC backed ASML's development EUV machines, which are now an indispensable part of leading-edge process technologies and fabs. His prior roles include leadership positions at Thomson, Dell, ITT Semiconductors, and Intel.  

"I am thrilled to join Intel's board as the company completes a historic pace of process technology innovation and transforms its business for the future," said Meurice. "I look forward to working with my fellow directors to further enhance Intel's market competitiveness and deliver sustainable financial performance." 

Steve Sanghi, who served as CEO of Microchip Technology for 30 years, transformed the company from a $10 million enterprise into a $44 billion company. Under his leadership, the company achieved 121 consecutive profitable quarters. Before joining Microchip, Sanghi held senior roles at Waferscale Integration and Intel.  

"I am excited to lend my experience and perspective as Intel executes one of the most consequential corporate transformations in decades," said Sanghi. "Intel is well-positioned to capitalize on attractive opportunities across its product and foundry businesses, and I am eager to work with the board and management team to deliver on the goals the company has set." 

As Intel became a more product-diversified company, it appointed people outside of the semiconductor industry to its board of directors. As a result, the board was flooded with people who have little to no experience in the field of microelectronics.  

Right now, the board has 13 directors led by Frank D. Yeary, who spent 25 years in the finance industry and is currently managing member at Darwin Capital Advisors LLC, a private investment firm. Including Yeary, there are five members of the board with financial, venture capitalist, and ecommerce backgrounds. Two directors come from the healthcare industry, two come from academia with a focus on electrical engineering and semiconductors, one comes from the PC industry, and three now have a background in the semiconductor industry.

Anton Shilov
Contributing Writer

Anton Shilov is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.

  • Jimbojan
    The new board members are worthless as they cannot do anything about what Intel does.
    Reply
  • Mama Changa
    Jimbojan said:
    The new board members are worthless as they cannot do anything about what Intel does.
    The board appoionts the CEO, so hopefully now with tow more technical people on the board they will help make a more pragmatic choice than appointing a pure MBA type person.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Intel lost two board members with heavy semiconductor experience so don't expect these to actually tip the scales at all.
    Reply
  • ezst036
    Considering the nature of Intel's woes, a former CEO of ASML might have some impact.

    Might.
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    thestryker said:
    Intel lost two board members with heavy semiconductor experience so don't expect these to actually tip the scales at all.
    These two new members come from Semiconductor backgrounds which is better than the background most of the remaining board members have (software and finance).
    Reply
  • thestryker
    JamesJones44 said:
    These two new members come from Semiconductor backgrounds which is better than the background most of the remaining board members have (software and finance).
    What's your point? The board lost two members with similar backgrounds and these two simply replace those. It doesn't change the shape of the board at all it just means it didn't get worse.
    Reply
  • bit_user
    If this is true, Gelsinger absolutely needed to be tossed out on his bum:
    https://wccftech.com/intel-foundry-fails-to-impress-once-again-18a-process-yield-rates-poor/
    Do you feel lied to? I do.

    Gelsinger was too ambitious. He should've been trying to do only half of what he did. 5 nodes in 4 years? I'd be more than happy with 3 that actually work!
    Reply
  • thestryker
    bit_user said:
    If this is true, Gelsinger absolutely needed to be tossed out on his bum:
    https://wccftech.com/intel-foundry-fails-to-impress-once-again-18a-process-yield-rates-poor/
    Do you feel lied to? I do.

    Gelsinger was too ambitious. He should've been trying to do only half of what he did. 5 nodes in 4 years? I'd be more than happy with 3 that actually work!
    This is almost certainly untrue and Ian Cutress' take on it is likely the correct one.

    The reason why I say it's untrue: they were on the record speaking about how the node is done and they're just working on standard node optimizations now. If the yields really were that bad there would be some heavy lifting yet to be done as that would make them worse than the unusable Samsung GAA nodes. Lying right after your CEO is ousted would be extremely dangerous for many reasons.

    Here's a piece on Pat's firing and the board which was posted after the UBS AI/Tech Conference (there's plenty of info in the non-paywalled section): https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-death-of-intel-when-boards-fail
    Reply
  • Kamen Rider Blade
    thestryker said:
    Here's a piece on Pat's firing and the board which was posted after the UBS AI/Tech Conference (there's plenty of info in the non-paywalled section): https://www.fabricatedknowledge.com/p/the-death-of-intel-when-boards-fail
    My god, the amount of Board Members who don't know SQUAT about SemiConductors, much less computers or computing.

    Hell, if that's who is running the Board at Intel, I think us Forum members would do a better job if we took their spots.

    -_-
    Reply
  • JamesJones44
    thestryker said:
    What's your point? The board lost two members with similar backgrounds and these two simply replace those. It doesn't change the shape of the board at all it just means it didn't get worse.
    That's my point, they could have appointed 2 new members with finance backgrounds. It's not great, but better than it could be.
    Reply