Pat [Kicking] Gelsinger’s “retirement” isn't a simple case because it involves dynamics around Chipzilla’s plans and how the firm decides to proceed.

According to a Bloomberg report, Intel's former CEO was given the option of either getting fired by the board of directors or resigning.

Intel's channel partners claim that Gelsinger's exit shows "doubt" about his strategy.

Gelsinger has played a pivotal role in reshaping Intel's foundry business so that it competes with mainstream competitors in "node technology."

Given the optimism Intel's former CEO was heading with, it was confident that the industry would witness a "business turnover," whether through the debut of IFS's 18A process or even through the progress the company was making in the consumer CPU segment.

An "unnamed" US Intel distribution partner claims that Gelsinger's departure isn't "voluntary."  

There was no mention of a transition period or the usual formalities, and instead, Gelsinger said that he was stepping down immediately. This certainly hints that Intel's former CEO wasn't pleased with the move and was pressured to make such a decision, whether by the board of directors or the state of Intel's business.

Usually, when somebody retires from Intel, there’s a much longer process,” said the distribution executive.

They announce that they’re retiring. They usually stay on for a transition period and do all those things in a long and drawn-out period, not, ‘I’m retiring, and today’s my last day.

Some experts claim that this move made Gelsinger a "scapegoat" for Intel, and he wasn't being credited rightly for the progress the firm achieved within the four years of his CEO tenure.

Some say that Intel's "sluggish" AI performance, followed by the lost dominance in the CPU workstation markets, were the primary catalysts behind this decision, so things weren't looking good for Gelsinger either way.

Now that Intel’s board has lost confidence in Gelsinger's "long-term strategy," it will be interesting to see how the firm proceeds in the future, given that now, it won't have the option of blaming the company's administration if the sluggish business momentum continues.