Intel is losing billions

[jmaster299]

PC sales have been dropping but PC hardware has been rising. Funny that isn't it.

That's because of the gamer/enthusiast crowd, who don't buy off the shelf computers. As I stated before, that's the crowd Intel has been catering to lately. With things like the 730 SSD and a focus on better thermals for the "Devil's Canyon" to give people more room to overclock.

[kuddlesworth9419]

That's because of the gamer/enthusiast crowd, who don't buy off the shelf computers. As I stated before, that's the crowd Intel has been catering to lately. With things like the 730 SSD and a focus on better thermals for the "Devil's Canyon" to give people more room to overclock.

Yea so we are keeping all of the PC market alive. Nothing new there. What I hate though is that if the PC market starts to pick up again which it probably won't Intel, AMD and all of the other companies will change hands and betray us. Oh well it won't happen anyway. 

[Grave]

Well, thats not what intel should care about. I mean, if you had the choice between a 6300 and a 4670k for the same price, what would you chose? When they cut the prices to that level, there wont be any amd systems left (unless they cut their prices too again) and intel would sell so much more while even making more money.

This is what's wrong with people and thinking about Intel vs AMD, price ranges/competitive rates. I'm not really sure if I, too, have said something like this at some point but I know that after a certain point I noticed a trend with both Intel and AMD.

Neither company will drop the prices of their old tech, at least not "soon". When most people here think of old tech, they think of 2011 or something from 2/3 years ago. Old tech is from 2006-2008, and earlier on. Once it reaches that point, the prices significantly change but usually the stock is almost nonexistant anyway. What I mean by this is that you will not see 4670ks or 4770ks hit $100 or less until Intel starts liquidating assets due to bankruptcy or lots of time has passed, new products are out.

AMD has cornered a specific part of the market as of recently, at least in theory. AM1 (fs1b socket) processors with ultra-low power consumption and prices will be untouched by Intel. Intel can cover the top of the market all the want but after a certain point they aren't going to make money if AMD just keeps undercutting them. People want cheap tech, and the majority of the planet isn't exactly well-off enough to spend over $1,000 on a pc all the time. Even then, you might get something close to a $1,000 Intel-based system from AMD for $200-400 less. That is scary from a business point of view for Intel.

They need to stop having 2-4 processors that are worth buying and dumping 40+ on the market each refresh/new archiecture that no one buys unless it's built into a laptop/OEM system. AMD kind of does that but they have good reason to, since those OEM processors are only integrated graphics/APU-based system. It cuts out a major cost and right now, Intel can't compete graphically. If they lose the market for OEM systems, they are 100% fucked and will need to change. The AM1 processors are about as close as you can get to ultra-cheap OEM as you can get. Just imagine what might happen when AMD releases the better Zambezi-based CPU/APUs for higher end OEMs and cheap self-built computers.

[mr moose]

That's because of the gamer/enthusiast crowd, who don't buy off the shelf computers. As I stated before, that's the crowd Intel has been catering to lately. With things like the 730 SSD and a focus on better thermals for the "Devil's Canyon" to give people more room to overclock.

 

 

Yea so we are keeping all of the PC market alive. Nothing new there. What I hate though is that if the PC market starts to pick up again which it probably won't Intel, AMD and all of the other companies will change hands and betray us. Oh well it won't happen anyway. 

 

 

Not really,  Intel's three biggest revenue earners are servers, point of sales devices and automotive chips.  The desktop CPU has been one of their declining revenue products for some time now and their most of their efforts have been aimed at business not domestic/gamer markets.  Don't confuse product marketing with design intent.  Most of their products are design to be more efficient and cooler for server/corporate use, not over clocking. They recognise mobile computing is replacing the desktop which is why they currently have some 90 tablets being design with intel chips and are further realising a huge market in the internet of things group.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304572204579503701193867252?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304572204579503701193867252.html

[LukeTim]

Go ARM or go home!

 

Doesn't it cost even more for sophisticated fabrications plants to match ARM's power efficiency? 

Or MIPS!

[jezza39]

There desktop model also isn't helping. People don't really bother to upgrade from Sandy to Ivy to Haswell because Intel just don't seem to make the upgrading worth the money. Haswell is what, 10-12% faster clock for clock? Considering games haven't moved forward in terms of CPU requirements, Intel aren't selling as many CPU's.

[Sharkyx1]

maybe some didn't, but the company reports an on average $2B yearly profit, so to lose over $3B in one sector is not exactly trivial.

Well, no, their Q1 2014 was 2.6B profit on 13.83B revenue, so its more like 10B profit, and 4B into mobile, they aren't looking to spend trivial amounts on mobile because they think its the future

[GoodBytes]

There desktop model also isn't helping. People don't really bother to upgrade from Sandy to Ivy to Haswell because Intel just don't seem to make the upgrading worth the money. Haswell is what, 10-12% faster clock for clock? Considering games haven't moved forward in terms of CPU requirements, Intel aren't selling as many CPU's.

Yup. I am still running a Core i7 930. It's not even overclocked.

I see no reason to upgrade. I am not even coming close to push my CPU in any way.

[mr moose]

Well, no, their Q1 2014 was 2.6B profit on 13.83B revenue, so its more like 10B profit, and 4B into mobile, they aren't looking to spend trivial amounts on mobile because they think its the future

Yep, the report I read said their year ago profit was $1.95B, which I read to mean was their yearly profit (so my mistake), total profit for the year should average to above $8B because they still expect pc sales to decline in 2014, and their push into tablets is still a work in progress.

[kuddlesworth9419]

Not really,  Intel's three biggest revenue earners are servers, point of sales devices and automotive chips.  The desktop CPU has been one of their declining revenue products for some time now and their most of their efforts have been aimed at business not domestic/gamer markets.  Don't confuse product marketing with design intent.  Most of their products are design to be more efficient and cooler for server/corporate use, not over clocking. They recognise mobile computing is replacing the desktop which is why they currently have some 90 tablets being design with intel chips and are further realising a huge market in the internet of things group.

 

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304572204579503701193867252?mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304572204579503701193867252.html

So explain why Intel still puts out K chips. To make an enthusiast chip takes a lot of time and effort. Probably more so than making a server chip. Plus what are the 2011 chips for then. They are enthusiast chips nothing more made for productivity and overclocking. I know they do ignore the enthusiast market frequently but they do know we exist and do cater to use more then we think. 

[LukeTim]

So explain why Intel still puts out K chips. To make an enthusiast chip takes a lot of time and effort. Probably more so than making a server chip. Plus what are the 2011 chips for then. They are enthusiast chips nothing more made for productivity and overclocking. I know they do ignore the enthusiast market frequently but they do know we exist and do cater to use more then we think. 

I didn't think K chips take that much more effort to produce. It's identical to its non-K variant but with an unlocked multiplier... that's it.

Similarly, most chips within a bracket are largely the same... they are all just "speed-binned"... meaning Intel tests them up to the highest clock they'll stably manage and then sells them with the appropriate stock clock. As far as the VLSI level designs go, I'm not sure Intel produces more than about 5 or 6 different physical "Core" brand chips...

[ACatWithThumbs]

They may loose a lot of money on mobile but they still make more money on the desktop than anybody else in the industry.
If Intel wanted to they could release 6-8 core i5/i7 for a few hundred bucks.
Imagine an 8 Core i7 with HT.

 

[kuddlesworth9419]

I didn't think K chips take that much more effort to produce. It's identical to its non-K variant but with an unlocked multiplier... that's it.

Similarly, most chips within a bracket are largely the same... they are all just "speed-binned"... meaning Intel tests them up to the highest clock they'll stably manage and then sells them with the appropriate stock clock. As far as the VLSI level designs go, I'm not sure Intel produces more than about 5 or 6 different physical "Core" brand chips...

What do you really think that Intel makes the i5-i7 chips for anyone except PC gamers and or enthusiasts because I think they do. There is no reason at all to use an i5 or i7 is you are not either a PC gamer or an enthusiast. i3'a are for low end desktops and the 2011 type chips are for productivity and enthusiasts. I really do think intel knows we exist and actually cares weather or not we buy their stuff or not. It doesn't help though that AMD clearly doesn't give two sh*ts about PC gaming and enthusiasts on the CPU side.

[LukeTim]

What do you really think that Intel makes the i5-i7 chips for anyone except PC gamers and or enthusiasts because I think they do. There is no reason at all to use an i5 or i7 is you are not either a PC gamer or an enthusiast. i3'a are for low end desktops and the 2011 type chips are for productivity and enthusiasts. I really do think intel knows we exist and actually cares weather or not we buy their stuff or not. It doesn't help though that AMD clearly doesn't give two sh*ts about PC gaming and enthusiasts on the CPU side.

Huh? That's not what I said at all... And i5-i7 chips are for whoever needs them. If you're a photographer or videographer you'd definitely get a benefit from an i7 without necessarily needing to go all the way to workstation class 2011s... Computers aren't just for gaming and "enthusiasts"...

[kuddlesworth9419]

Huh? That's not what I said at all... And i5-i7 chips are for whoever needs them. If you're a photographer or videographer you'd definitely get a benefit from an i7 without necessarily needing to go all the way to workstation class 2011s... Computers aren't just for gaming and "enthusiasts"...

Yea I know that. the 2011 platform is for design and that type of thing but i7's are not generally used by photographers I wouldn't imagine. i could be wrong though. I always thought that photographers would always use a 2011 chip. If I am then forget what I said. 

[LukeTim]

Yea I know that. the 2011 platform is for design and that type of thing but i7's are not generally used by photographers I wouldn't imagine. i could be wrong though. I always thought that photographers would always use a 2011 chip. If I am then forget what I said. 

Depends upon the photographer and what their budget is... Especially given GPU accelerated photo editing these days, you can probably get away with an i7 or even an i5...

[exyia]

Anyone remember the Conan O Brien episode where he went to Intel HQ? Hilarious.

 

"I love how your gray walls, match the gray accents, which matches the grayish blue floors" lololol

 

omg thank you for posting this, must youtube after work

[exyia]

They are breaking even/making a tiny bit of money. 

That's not losing billions.

 

and if you look at history farther past just 2-3 years?

 

if Intel is on a downhill, then AMD must have done a cliff jump. they've bled money constantly since the ATi acquisition. Neither of them were prepared for the mobile boom, but Intel managed far better than AMD did

[Mo5]

I feel special because my Fonepad is using an Intel CPU

[Vitalius]

and if you look at history farther past just 2-3 years?

 

if Intel is on a downhill, then AMD must have done a cliff jump. they've bled money constantly since the ATi acquisition. Neither of them were prepared for the mobile boom, but Intel managed far better than AMD did

Billions. Intel is losing billions. AMD lost and was losing millions. Huge difference.

[exyia]

Billions. Intel is losing billions. AMD lost and was losing millions. Huge difference.

 

so what, doesn't change the fact Intel pushed through the struggle better

 

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=AMD&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=INTC&a=v&p=s〈=en-US&region=US

[Vitalius]

so what, doesn't change the fact Intel pushed through the struggle better

 

http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/z?s=AMD&t=5y&q=l&l=on&z=l&c=INTC&a=v&p=s〈=en-US&region=US

Because stock prices directly reflect the "health" of a company.

Hint: They don't. They purely reflect investor sentiment in regards to how much money they think they can make off of them which is related to how well they believe it can do in the future. 

[exyia]

Because stock prices directly reflect the "health" of a company.

Hint: They don't. They purely reflect investor sentiment in regards to how much money they think they can make off of them which is related to how well they believe it can do in the future. 

 

ok, so then what's your argument? what point are you trying to make

My 1st Point:  despite losing billions, Intel managed through the mobile boom far better than AMD did

Your point: Intel lost billions, AMD lost millions

My counter argument: Billions and millions are just numbers. In respects to their company performance, Intel still managed far better than AMD

Your counter argument: Stock prices don't reflect the health of the company

 

No, stock prices are not the ultimate 100% representation....but what's your point in relation to the original argument? That Intel managed through the mobile boom far better than AMD did

[mr moose]

So explain why Intel still puts out K chips. To make an enthusiast chip takes a lot of time and effort. Probably more so than making a server chip. Plus what are the 2011 chips for then. They are enthusiast chips nothing more made for productivity and overclocking. I know they do ignore the enthusiast market frequently but they do know we exist and do cater to use more then we think. 

because it isn't that hard,  All companies R+D and produce for the best revenue source.  It just so happens that in this field the same products can be relabelled "gaming" or "enthusiast" (or in this case unlocking the multiplier and adding K to the name) to pick up a few extra sales.  My point is really simple,  Gamers and enthusiast make very little difference, we do not drive the industry (especially at the level of intel and MS), we do not keep anyone in business.  Even Asus only make about 13% of their products for enthusiast (GPU's and mother boards) with 78% of their product sales being laptops and tablets. 

[ionbasa]

because it isn't that hard,  All companies R+D and produce for the best revenue source.  It just so happens that in this field the same products can be relabelled "gaming" or "enthusiast" (or in this case unlocking the multiplier and adding K to the name) to pick up a few extra sales.  My point is really simple,  Gamers and enthusiast make very little difference, we do not drive the industry (especially at the level of intel and MS), we do not keep anyone in business.  Even Asus only make about 13% of their products for enthusiast (GPU's and mother boards) with 78% of their product sales being laptops and tablets. 

To back that up, if I remember correctly the only difference to having an unlocked multiplier is a string permanently embedded in the CPU microcode. So it really doesn't hurt Intel to make unlocked CPUs, because the cost of doing so is effectively $0.