Intel has been a company of engineering underdelivery and incompetence for a decade now. Huge bonuses and pay to financial management, salary reductions and cheapness on the labor side, your classic American MBA war-on-labor.
The fact they cannot deliver a GPU, which is just a big vector processing array fundamentally, has been the long running sign of Intel's incompetence, something they should have had literally 25 years ago when Apples had vector processors and the first 3D accelerators were hitting the PC gaming world.
The intellectual talent long fled Intel, and they didn't invest in replacement intellectual talent. Because MBAs don't respect "talent". They tolerate it for some function of tolerance, and generally the "dead sea effect" is imposed as talent leaves and the managers let the structure rot rather than fix it.
Gelsinger obviously didn't have time to fix the intellectual and talent rot, because he probably needed to eliminate three levels of vice presidents to start with.
I really celebrate the article's approach. The arrival of massive CEO pay, allegedly because of how important, public, and critical their positions are, never actually comes with detailing of who is in charge and the effect of their decisions.
Why do the major heads of petroleum companies, cigarette companies, and other managerial structures largely get to destroy their companies or the world in the anonymity of private org charts?