Can Intel comeback ?

[monopoly_hater]

Just now, jordanbuilds1 said:

and shitty and used, theres a reason companies dont buy used hardware, especially old hardware.

shitty dude this is better then anything you can get for under 500 dollars today. Brand new budget laptops are so bad they're maufactured ewaste and should not be legal to sell

[GOTSpectrum]

3 minutes ago, Dedayog said:

Give more context

 

19 billing loss, but what was revenue last year as a comparison?   How significant is 19?  

 

May be impactful, I don't know their financial statement or projections.    Their roadmap is still important.

Context is intels reported cash reserves are 19billion, which means with no changes and taking on no more debt they will be broke in another 9-12 months. But they are likely to take on debt and reduce spending before that happens. And we have seen exactly that, with staffing cuts and selling/closing a few of their subsidiaries and product lines over the last few years 

[ToboRobot]

6 minutes ago, GOTSpectrum said:

Intel don't have the needed funds or market cap to buy either of those companies. Intel has about 19 billion in cash, and a market cap of a little over 100b. 

 

Qualcomm has a market cap of 173b and Broadcomm is 769b. It would be more feasible for Broadcomm to buy Intel, than the other way around. 

Doesn't matter, there are ways to do so, such as a leveraged buyout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout 

Or a merger like Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas.

The point is that the x86 license isn't transferable without the cross licensing agreements being invalidated or contested, so Intel buying another company or merging is a potential way to allow Intel to fix it's issues.

Financial engineering has many creative ways to do unusual things like this. 

 

[jordanbuilds1]

Just now, monopoly_hater said:

shitty dude this is better then anything you can get for under 500 dollars today. Brand new budget laptops are so bad they're maufactured ewaste and should not be legal to sell

but do you really think Joe-smoe and his co-worker Timothy are about to upgrade laptops that thier bosses gave them or do the work they were asked to do, besides its gonna become more of a liability on IT if they use older hardware. (mom and dad used to work for IT companies, taught me a bit.)

[GOTSpectrum]

4 minutes ago, monopoly_hater said:

shitty dude this is better then anything you can get for under 500 dollars today. Brand new budget laptops are so bad they're maufactured ewaste and should not be legal to sell

I don't think you understand how bulk-purchases, service contracts or anything like that works. 

Half the time the schools don't buy the hardware, they are leased under a service contract that provides devices, workspace and replacement parts for a relatively low cost. 

And even if they bought them, because they are buying so many they get a very cheap subscription to google workspace and service contracting 

[GOTSpectrum]

3 minutes ago, ToboRobot said:

Doesn't matter, there are ways to do so, such as a leveraged buyout. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leveraged_buyout 

Or a merger like Boeing and Mcdonnell Douglas.

The point is that the x86 license isn't transferable without the cross licensing agreements being invalidated or contested, so Intel buying another company or merging is a potential way to allow Intel to fix it's issues.

Financial engineering has many creative ways to do unusual things like this. 

 

Actually, AMDs side of the agreement specifically states that if Intel was to merge with another company it would be invalid. I imagine Intels is the same for AMD. Otherwise, someone would have bought AMD for their license a decade ago. 

It's the same reason no one has bought VIA for their x86 license, it is not transferable like they used to be. VIA still makes low end x86 chips for embedded applications. 

 

Also to note that a merger would leave the company with the larger market cap in charge, in the same way when Avago and Broadcom "merged", it was technically a stock for stock buyout, but then we are getting into complicated territory. it was the Avago leadership that was in control. They did decide to take the Broadcom name though 

[okkee]

43 minutes ago, SS451 said:

So Intel has had a bit of a rough ride,  but do you think they came comeback from it ? 

 

They make their own chips in house which might be what saves them but that is arguably what doomed them in the first place. 

Can they come back? Sure

Will they come back? Hard to say.

Right now, they're probably not going anywhere soon. Their processors are whatever but they've been playing catch up for a some time now and the cracks are really showing. Maybe they have some sort of miraculous technology that they've been secretly developing for the past 5 years because that's the only thing that will gain them any rep rn. As things stand, they're simply a company that just stagnated and failed to innovate. Hoping they can ride out the storm but it's gonna take a lot.

[Ha-Satan]

I'm just an amateur armchair analyst, but I don't think Intel is going anywhere.

 

They still hold a massive lead in client/desktop market share:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-stumbles-amds-zen-5-104049784.html

 

At least as of earlier this year, client computing group (which, if I understand correctly, means mostly desktop and laptop chips) was by far their biggest revenue earning division:

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-revenues-are-up-year-over-year-but-foundry-unit-loses-dollar25-billion

 

This represents a major cushion in terms of revenue and market share. Yes, AMD and Snapdragon are encroaching on Intel's turf here, but I think people are underestimating the stranglehold that Intel has on companies like Dell and HP and other companies that do big corporate contracts for millions of desktops and laptops. Like, do you think Dell is going to take a risk by shipping out Snapdragon-based machines to major corporate and institutional clients? Hell no, at least not until Snapdragon Just Works for everything in Windows to the same extent that x86 does.

 

As an example, I work for a major R1-level university in the US. I'm not in IT, but I do supervise a computer lab and work with a lot of client/desktop systems on a day to day basis. And based on my casual observations, I can tell you that the computers that are deployed at my university are still 95% Intel-based. This includes personal office computers and laptops, computer labs, computers in presentation rooms, computers hooked up to scanners and other equipment, etc. There are a few Apple Silicon-based Macs floating around but most departments are Windows-only, and that means Intel-only. I have literally never seen an AMD-based system being deployed on campus at any level, and I've worked here for 9.5 years. Similarly, I haven't seen a single Snapdragon laptop deployed yet.

 

Maybe the next time we get a PC refresh that will change, but I kinda doubt it. I'm betting that the next time my computer lab is updated by IT (which will probably be this year  next year (I don't understand how time works) since we're currently on a mix of Comet Lake and Rocket Lake systems), we'll get Arrow Lake-based systems, because they still work just fine and I doubt that Dell will start switching over to using AMD as their primary supplier for Optiplexes and Latitudes.

 

So yeah, I think that Intel will likely be buoyed by client/desktop sales for a long time yet. Then again, I am just Some Fuckin' Guy who reads the news and casually observes trends so I could turn out to be moronically wrong.

 

 

[jordanbuilds1]

1 minute ago, Satan_Prometheus said:

I'm just an amateur armchair analyst, but I don't think Intel is going anywhere.

 

They still hold a massive lead in client/desktop market share:

 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-stumbles-amds-zen-5-104049784.html

 

At least as of earlier this year, client computing group (which, if I understand correctly, means mostly desktop and laptop chips) was by far their biggest revenue earning division:

 

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/intels-revenues-are-up-year-over-year-but-foundry-unit-loses-dollar25-billion

 

This represents a major cushion in terms of revenue and market share. Yes, AMD and Snapdragon are encroaching on Intel's turf here, but I think people are underestimating the stranglehold that Intel has on companies like Dell and HP and other companies that do big corporate contracts for millions of desktops and laptops. Like, do you think Dell is going to take a risk by shipping out Snapdragon-based machines to major corporate and institutional clients? Hell no, at least not until Snapdragon Just Works for everything in Windows to the same extent that x86 does.

 

As an example, I work for a major R1-level university in the US. I'm not in IT, but I do supervise a computer lab and work with a lot of client/desktop systems on a day to day basis. And based on my casual observations, I can tell you that the computers that are deployed at my university are still 95% Intel-based. This includes personal office computers and laptops, computer labs, computers in presentation rooms, computers hooked up to scanners and other equipment, etc. There are a few Apple Silicon-based Macs floating around but most departments are Windows-only, and that means Intel-only. I have literally never seen an AMD-based system being deployed on campus at any level, and I've worked here for 9.5 years. Similarly, I haven't seen a single Snapdragon laptop deployed yet.

 

Maybe the next time we get a PC refresh that will change, but I kinda doubt it. I'm betting that the next time my computer lab is updated by IT (which will probably be this year, since we're currently on a mix of Comet Lake and Rocket Lake systems), we'll get Arrow Lake-based systems, because they still work just fine and I doubt that Dell will start switching over to using AMD as their primary supplier for Optiplexes and Latitudes.

 

So yeah, I think that Intel will likely be buoyed by client/desktop sales for a long time yet. Then again, I am just Some Fuckin' Guy who reads the news and casually observes trends so I could turn out to be moronically wrong.

 

 

but a good question is how old these pcs are, bc we will never know if these will be accepted until companies upgrade.

[GOTSpectrum]

1 minute ago, Satan_Prometheus said:

Maybe the next time we get a PC refresh that will change, but I kinda doubt it. I'm betting that the next time my computer lab is updated by IT (which will probably be this year, since we're currently on a mix of Comet Lake and Rocket Lake systems), we'll get Arrow Lake-based systems, because they still work just fine and I doubt that Dell will start switching over to using AMD as their primary supplier for Optiplexes and Latitudes.

Even if they wanted to, AMD don't have the fab capacity to supply such a demand. The EPYC and desktop chips use the same CPU chiplets, so AMD don't really want to sell them in desktop if there is someone willing to buy that chiplet in an EPYC processor, and they sell EVERY SINGLE EPYC chip they can make... So it would be a bad business move unless they can increase their wafer allotment at TSMC 

[GOTSpectrum]

Just now, GOTSpectrum said:

Even if they wanted to, AMD don't have the fab capacity to supply such a demand. The EPYC and desktop chips use the same CPU chiplets, so AMD don't really want to sell them in desktop if there is someone willing to buy that chiplet in an EPYC processor, and they sell EVERY SINGLE EPYC chip they can make... So it would be a bad business move unless they can increase their wafer allotment at TSMC 

Also worth noting that TSMCs bleeding edge fabs are running at above 100% design capacity, so for AMD to get more, someone else would have to reduce their allotment. TSMC aren't going to build more 3 and 4nm node fabs when they are already working on GAAT N2 and A16 nodes.

To give you an idea, the 3 and 5nm node foundries started to be built in 2016, with a budget cost of around 17b dollars for the first fab. It took 5 years to build, equip and start production on N3 nodes 

[Ha-Satan]

1 minute ago, jordanbuilds1 said:

but a good question is how old these pcs are, bc we will never know if these will be accepted until companies upgrade.

You're right that it's currently a wait-and-see thing, but in addition to what @GOTSpectrum mentioned about fab capacity, I think we can look at Dell's current lineup of Optiplex and Latitude machines to get a good sense of what we'll get in our next upgrade cycle - and they're *all* Intel, except for a couple Snapdragon-based Latitudes (which, like I said, I think is very unlikely to get sent out to big institutional clients any time soon).

 

Look at the Precision lineup, there's one Threadripper-based option and that's it when it comes to AMD.

[OddOod]

Can and will. 
It's a common cycle large companies go through:
Find a breakthrough that makes them king of the product segment
Ride that high for a while
Install a money/advertising person as CEO
Stock price goes through the roof making all execs a TON of money
Ignore engineering and product fundamentals
Company stagnates and loses top tier crown
Board finally notices that their foundations are cracking
Install an engineer as CEO
Eventually find another breakthrough and restart the loop

 

[jordanbuilds1]

2 minutes ago, Satan_Prometheus said:

You're right that it's currently a wait-and-see thing, but in addition to what @GOTSpectrum mentioned about fab capacity, I think we can look at Dell's current lineup of Optiplex and Latitude machines to get a good sense of what we'll get in our next upgrade cycle - and they're *all* Intel, except for a couple Snapdragon-based Latitudes (which, like I said, I think is very unlikely to get sent out to big institutional clients any time soon).

 

Look at the Precision lineup, there's one Threadripper-based option and that's it when it comes to AMD.

i guess were also gonna have to wait and see what snap dragon (as well as Nvidia) are gonna do in the market soon, because they were only introduced more recently and only have one chip so far.

[monopoly_hater]

Just now, OddOod said:

Can and will. 
It's a common cycle large companies go through:
Find a breakthrough that makes them king of the product segment
Ride that high for a while
Install a money/advertising person as CEO
Stock price goes through the roof making all execs a TON of money
Ignore engineering and product fundamentals
Company stagnates and loses top tier crown
Board finally notices that their foundations are cracking
Install an engineer as CEO
Eventually find another breakthrough and restart the loop

 

This would have never happened if they hadn't installed those morons Ottelini/BK/Swan as CEO. Pat seems to be doing a decent job so far but there is still far too many bean counters/marketing people at Intel. What is even the point of marketing/bean counters to society?

[GOTSpectrum]

1 minute ago, OddOod said:

Can and will. 
It's a common cycle large companies go through:
Find a breakthrough that makes them king of the product segment
Ride that high for a while
Install a money/advertising person as CEO
Stock price goes through the roof making all execs a TON of money
Ignore engineering and product fundamentals
Company stagnates and loses top tier crown
Board finally notices that their foundations are cracking
Install an engineer as CEO
Eventually find another breakthrough and restart the loop

 

I think it's quite impressive that not only had Lisa Su managed to do exactly that, but at the same time has the support of the majority of the shareholders. Meaning she probably isn't going anywhere for a while. ESPECIALLY if she can keep up the pace of EPYC development, which is where AMDs highest profit margins are. 

 

Also helps that AMD have a stranglehold on consoles, but with intel making GPUs and Nvidia moving into ARM processors, that stranglehold may not last into the next generation or two

[jordanbuilds1]

3 minutes ago, GOTSpectrum said:

I think it's quite impressive that not only had Lisa Su managed to do exactly that, but at the same time has the support of the majority of the shareholders. Meaning she probably isn't going anywhere for a while. ESPECIALLY if she can keep up the pace of EPYC development, which is where AMDs highest profit margins are. 

 

Also helps that AMD have a stranglehold on consoles, but with intel making GPUs and Nvidia moving into ARM processors, that stranglehold may not last into the next generation or two

something tells me 10th gen consoles might be a crazy time, might even be a sudden death match for companies. it obvious nintendo is gonna stay because its still marketed to families, and families most likely dont want to play super mario bros 4 with rtx on, so that leaves us with xbox and PS, but then i think they might branch out into the handheld market, thats the sudden death part.

[Ha-Satan]

3 minutes ago, GOTSpectrum said:

Also helps that AMD have a stranglehold on consoles, but with intel making GPUs and Nvidia moving into ARM processors, that stranglehold may not last into the next generation or two

I think the backwards compatibility push for gaming will keep AMD chips in the consoles for quite a while, simply because I don't think Sony, Microsoft, or game devs will want to deal with x86 emulation layers for 8th and 9th gen back-compat. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and this is easier than I think it is, or maybe Nvidia will be able to provide chips that are such a huge leap in performance that the pros will outweigh the cons.

[AAVVIronAlex]

Honestly people saw the downfall for a very long time, long before they were actually creating defective CPUs and long before Zen 2 was out. I am quite sad that intel is going down, I hope they come back because them competing with AMD was what was holding x86 in it's firm position. I use Linux and I know really well how using translation layers for archaic Windows programs can be, not saying that tools like Rozetta are not good, but for those edge cases we still want x86 to exist, until it can be emulated properly.

[jordanbuilds1]

Just now, Satan_Prometheus said:

I think the backwards compatibility push for gaming will keep AMD chips in the consoles for quite a while, simply because I don't think Sony, Microsoft, or game devs will want to deal with x86 emulation layers for 8th and 9th gen back-compat. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and this is easier than I think it is, or maybe Nvidia will be able to provide chips that are such a huge leap in performance that the pros will outweigh the cons.

nvidia is technically already in the game market with the switch, and it might be the next step in making nvidia a staple in console gaming, if they play their cards right with nintendo.

[GOTSpectrum]

1 minute ago, Satan_Prometheus said:

I think the backwards compatibility push for gaming will keep AMD chips in the consoles for quite a while, simply because I don't think Sony, Microsoft, or game devs will want to deal with x86 emulation layers for 8th and 9th gen back-compat. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and this is easier than I think it is, or maybe Nvidia will be able to provide chips that are such a huge leap in performance that the pros will outweigh the cons.

For Xbox at least, the windows compatibility layer, which is improving could be used for the console, because it runs on a modified windows OS anyway 

[jordanbuilds1]

1 minute ago, GOTSpectrum said:

For Xbox at least, the windows compatibility layer, which is improving could be used for the console, because it runs on a modified windows OS anyway 

playstation might make the jump to nvidia too, i can tell they see they can get an audience out of 1. good game selection and 2. juicy graphics, and what do you know, the most know gpu make is making cpus!

[GOTSpectrum]

5 minutes ago, jordanbuilds1 said:

playstation might make the jump to nvidia too, i can tell they see they can get an audience out of 1. good game selection and 2. juicy graphics, and what do you know, the most know gpu make is making cpus!

I don't think we will see Nvidia in consoles, they charge a premium, the only reason they are in the switch is, at the time of development there was nothing else that could really do what they needed. 

AMD has been the king in consoles because they are good enough, a one-stop shop and relatively cheap. Intel would have to compete on performance, efficiency AND cost. Not only by a little bit either, Sony and Microsoft aren't going to burn the decade long partnerships they have with AMD, who make completely custom chips for them, unless there is either a major performance or major cost benefit to going intel 

[podkall]

There are way too many Intel fanboys for it to completely fall out, all they need is a reasonable CPU that matches AMD in performance and doesn't require it's own personal PSU and A/C unit.

[Ha-Satan]

25 minutes ago, podkall said:

There are way too many Intel fanboys for it to completely fall out

I don't think it really has anything to do with "fanboys" since AFAIK the DIY market is a pretty small percentage of the overall market for computer chips. I would think that corporate clients (datacenter clients and large prebuilt OEMs) are significantly more important, though if somebody has data suggesting otherwise that would be cool to see!