BonesThis is what I was thinking as possibly being the case when I saw the article.

Intel could (Note I say could, not is) be banking on it's current market share to stay loyal to the brandname.
Those that love Intel have done this before, refusing to go with AMD simply because it isn't an Intel and in turn paying more for these chips. Gamers make up at least a decent share of the PC market for them and the gaming guys will pay, esp if they happen to be Intel-loyal and Intel knows it.

Even other customers involved with other parts of their overall market can be brandname loyal too and subject to this, BTW I do know directly Intel WILL make deals to sell chips cheap to certain parts of the market (Think server) just to edge out AMD, passing the cost towards other parts of their market to make up the difference.... And you can guess which part(s) of the market ultimately pays for it.

Creating a shortage to leverage prices isn't something out of bounds for Intel to do with their known history of business practice in terms of it being anti-competition, they've been doing this for years now and I don't see anything changing anytime soon on that.

To be fair, they all do these "Things" related to grabbing and keeping market share but with Intel's recent woes and AMD still coming on strong, it's not exactly a smart move to make if that's what they're up to.

I do know one thing - The next build I do will be an AMD setup no matter the outcome of this.

Can't complain about this current build (7700K - Maximus IX Hero) because it's been doing great as a DD and was able to score parts for it cheap, it's just I'm wanting to keep things current and to do a build once done will be viable for at least a few years down the line.

This is my case. When i buy a cpu to max out my monitor refresh rate, I dont look at the brand. I want frames, I want the performance I choose for my personal experience. Amd does not deliver it so I got Intel. Simple as that.

Companies competition is none of my business as a consumer.

No mention here that the rumors of new CPUs being available before AMD's launch? That may be restraining the current supply.

BonesThis is what I was thinking as possibly being the case when I saw the article.

Intel could (Note I say could, not is) be banking on it's current market share to stay loyal to the brandname.

It's not brand loyalty. It's usually just lack of interest in the subject. People don't care that much what's inside their PCs. They want them to work. Life is too interesting to waste time on reading PC reviews.

You have to consider how weak brand AMD has right now. How unknown are the products.
Even people on this forum are confused. Just look around. People (even die hard AMD fans) are mixing Zen and Ryzen generations all the time. :-)
A typical PC buyer knows that i7 CPU is better than i5, which is better than i3. That's all they need. And you can't really say they're loyal to the Intel brand, when it's the only CPU brand they know. CPU == Intel.

BTW:
Companies analyze something called price elasticity of demand (a derivative of demand in respect of price). In other words: what happens to sales if you raise or lower the price.
And they really know this pretty well. If Intel raises prices, it means they're earning more. No other reason.

notbIt's not brand loyalty. It's usually just lack of interest in the subject. People don't care that much what's inside their PCs. They want them to work. Life is too interesting to waste time on reading PC reviews.

You have to consider how weak brand AMD has right now. How unknown are the products.
Even people on this forum are confused. Just look around. People (even die hard AMD fans) are mixing Zen and Ryzen generations all the time. :-)
A typical PC buyer knows that i7 CPU is better than i5, which is better than i3. That's all they need. And you can't really say they're loyal to the Intel brand, when it's the only CPU brand they know. CPU == Intel.

BTW:
Companies analyze something called price elasticity of demand (a derivative of demand in respect of price). In other words: what happens to sales if you raise or lower the price.
And they really know this pretty well. If Intel raises prices, it means they're earning more. No other reason.

Did you read last part of the news ?
"Some of the demand for Intel's entry-level Atom processors has turned to AMD, while some others have opted for Core i3 processors," the report reads. AMD's market-share among OEMs increased from 9.8% in Q1-2018 to 15.8% in Q1-2019.
"

notbBad news for all the "hurray AMD" people. You do understand that "shortage" happens when demand for products is higher than supply, right?

And it's even worse if Intel is doing this on purpose - to raise profit margin. That would mean Ryzen is not an attractive mass product and Intel can apply even more aggressive price policy than in the FX era.

Except we know that Ryzen is selling (very) well (look at reports from AMD's recent earnings calls) and that Intel is moving some products back to old nodes to free up fab capacity. Sure, this "confirms" that there's still high demand for 14nm Intel chips (after all, it's not like they've reduced 14nm output), but nobody is contesting that - Intel still has a dominant market position. At the same time Intel's die sizes have increased dramatically - the 4c8t 6700k was a far smaller chip than the 8c16t dice making up the current 9000-series and the 6c12t 8000-series (especially since transistor density has gone down for 14nm+ and 14nm++ to increase clocks). In other words, Intel is getting fewer CPUs per wafer they're processing, effectively lowering output unless fab capacity increases to match. It's reasonable to expect that Intel is currently shipping a lower number of CPUs than two years ago, even if they're mostly at higher prices.

Also, Intel's consumer lineup has grown a lot more complicated (in terms of manufacturing) due to recent competition. As recently as 7th-gen, every single desktop chip (and a lot of mobile ones) were based on the exact same silicon, just binned heavily. A 2c2t Celeron and a 4c8t i7-7700K were both simply different bins of the same silicon, as that was cheap, easy, had high yields, and dies were small enough for there to be plenty per wafer. Now, thanks to dramatically increased die sizes, that's not a feasible production plan any longer, forcing Intel to prioritize between high-end (6c or 8c) dice vs. low-end desktop/mobile (4c and lower). A single wafer can't provide the entire product stack any more - which means that they have to choose, which again affects output. Prioritizing the high end cuts production for low-end chips, but also overall output as there are fewer dice per wafer. The opposite cuts margins, as high-end products have higher margins. And so on.

As for Intel doing this on purpose - I wouldn't really put it past them given their history of illegal and anti-competitive business practices, but it seems unlikely. While taping out a chipset die on an older process could feasibly be done as "proof" for not having enough capacity, it's a very expensive endeavor. Not to mention that Intel is obligated to inform shareholders of production issues and fab output as well as sales data, making it very difficult for them to lie about this - after all, it wouldn't take a genius to compare the two to see if they're holding back stock or running fabs below capacity during this shortage. Fab output is a known number, as is dies per wafer, and sales.

ValantarAs for Intel doing this on purpose - I wouldn't really put it past them given their history of illegal and anti-competitive business practices, but it seems unlikely.

I think you misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with pushing prices up if there is a potential. Intel *should* be doing this. This is what shareholders expect.

notbIt's not brand loyalty. It's usually just lack of interest in the subject. People don't care that much what's inside their PCs. They want them to work. Life is too interesting to waste time on reading PC reviews.

I agree with some of this, it's true in the end all you really want it to do is work BUT the definition of "It Works" can be different between individuals based on their own personal wants/needs. As for caring about what's in the machine, if that was so then the term "Fanboy" of a certain product name woudn't exist.
I personally know guys that won't even touch an AMD and a few that are the same about Intel, I mean it doesn't entirely make sense but it's real.

As for reviews I rarely pay any attention to those myself, they do have their uses if there are questions to be asked but normally when I do a build I already know what I want.

notbYou have to consider how weak brand AMD has right now. How unknown are the products.
Even people on this forum are confused. Just look around. People (even die hard AMD fans) are mixing Zen and Ryzen generations all the time. :)
A typical PC buyer knows that i7 CPU is better than i5, which is better than i3. That's all they need. And you can't really say they're loyal to the Intel brand, when it's the only CPU brand they know. CPU == Intel.

AMD is not weak, anything that's gaining market share as they are doing isn't weak by any means because you can't do that if you're weak. As for the only brand they know, I can assure you unless they've been under a rock all this time they have heard about AMD, esp as of late.
AMD CPU's are a known quantity and it's well known they've been kicking Intel's backside with Ryzen. If talking about AMD's GPU lineup that's a different thing I'll admit but even Nvidia isn't exactly doing "Great" right now.

notbBTW:
Companies analyze something called price elasticity of demand (a derivative of demand in respect of price). In other words: what happens to sales if you raise or lower the price.
And they really know this pretty well. If Intel raises prices, it means they're earning more. No other reason.

I'm aware of how companies do these things and have been around those involved with boardroom meetings and the like..... They do as you say and more, and I mean much more.
I've even been involved a few times in how things are done in this way so it's not like I haven't been there because I have.


When it comes down to it, the shareholder is the ultimate goal; That is to keep them happy no matter what, above and beyond all else and that (Unfortunately) for some does equal doing things they shoudn't and will do just that to satisfy that end.

notbI think you misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with pushing prices up if there is a potential. Intel *should* be doing this. This is what shareholders expect.

Only if you believe that the fundamental purpose of any enterprise is to make money - which IMO is a rather absurd concept, as it entirely fictionalizes what money is, and actively serves to undermine the relation between actual value of an object and its monetary value. The fundamental purpose of any enterprise is to produce a product or service that is useful to someone - this is what gives it value. Of course the denial of this principle is the very foundation upon which the "financial industry" (the only industry in the world that produces nothing!) is based, but it's a concept that's fundamentally harmful to people, the economy (both small and large scale) and people. Whether you're a capitalist or not, this belief is antithetical to functioning economic systems - and it's certainly not compatible with "self-regulating" market thinking, as this is the very opposite of self-regulation. This is the foundation of the strip-and-sell (or bankrupt) practices that have decimated the American retail sector, among other things, and should definitely not be applauded.

notbWhy do you think they're losing market share because of shortages? Maybe it's about extra CPUs not included in the forecast? :)

But not because of these shortages. AMD gained share because they have good products in some segments.

In some segments, yes.

I think they were afraid. AMD holds the key patents to x86. For years they were worth under 10 bln USD. They went as low as 2 bln in 2015 - that's 1/3 of Mallanox - an IT company most people on this forum haven't heard about until last week.
If Intel raised problem back then, how long would it take before someone like Amazon, Microsoft or Google would buy AMD and start making their own CPUs (or even worse: sell them)?

Today, with AMD somehow stable financially and much bigger (23 bln USD), it a different situation.
But AMD is still behind in many aspects. Intel may rise their prices by 10% and that could mean just 1% less market share.
Even if this is just a temporary action (until Zen 2 arrives) that's still a lot of money to be made.
They analyze it and they know best.

In all your bullshit you forget to mention the vast majority of business users using Intel parts want security.
For that they HAVE to upgrade on a yearly cycle atm If they stick to intel, or their security or performance will be compromised going forward, many will stay with their alleged safe bet company they dealt with already for year's rather than change to amd and some couldn't anyway.


As for the shortage two years running ,wtaf intel ,you cant compete in any way on value as it is.
At this rate they're passing sales to Amd.

notbI think you misunderstood. There's nothing wrong with pushing prices up if there is a potential. Intel *should* be doing this. This is what shareholders expect.

@Valantar
Actually...... This is the purpose of a company, of any company you could put a name to.

The other things mentioned in your post are HOW they go about doing this. The purpose of an enterprise is indeed to make things that are of value that's of use and you are correct with that but even this still doesn't overrride the basics of it having to be profitable or there's no point of even being in business in the first place.

You can't make at least a little profit, you get 0 return period and all it means with 0 return is while the cost of making something gets covered well..... That's it.
If you owned a company you have to make sure everyone gets paid for what they do.

All the materials used and consumed in the process of making these products is covered, the very tools and machinery used are paid for and maintained/repaired/replaced as needed, energy required to do the job, sortation of product, retrieval of product from being warehoused and paying those that retrieve the product for sorting along with the equipment they use along with upkeep on all that equipment, transportation costs from manufacturing plant to distribution..... The list goes on and on.

And all that doesn't even counting costs to the facility (Building) itself to even be there, whether it's being built or maintained over time along with taxes on the facility, equipment, inventory and other various expenses too.

All that equals the same basics - You don't make enough profit, you're just done and the shareholders on top of ALL THAT expect to get something in return for their investment so yes - The shareholders are the thing because it's their money that pays for it all and they have expenses of their own too.

Bones@Valantar
Actually...... This is the purpose of a company, of any company you could put a name to.

The other things mentioned in your post are HOW they go about doing this. The purpose of an enterprise is indeed to make things that are of value that's of use and you are correct with that but even this still doesn't overrride the basics of it having to be profitable or there's no point of even being in business in the first place.

You can't make at least a little profit, you get 0 return period and all it means with 0 return is while the cost of making something gets covered well..... That's it.
If you owned a company you have to make sure everyone gets paid for what they do.

All the materials used and consumed in the process of making these products is covered, the very tools and machinery used are paid for and maintained/repaired/replaced as needed, energy required to do the job, sortation of product, retrieval of product from being warehoused and paying those that retrieve the product for sorting along with the equipment they use along with upkeep on all that equipment, transportation costs from manufacturing plant to distribution..... The list goes on and on.

And all that doesn't even counting costs to the facility (Building) itself to even be there, whether it's being built or maintained over time along with taxes on the facility, equipment, inventory and other various expenses too.

All that equals the same basics - You don't make enough profit, you're just done and the shareholders on top of ALL THAT expect to get something in return for their investment.

You're confusing revenue and profit. Profit is what is left over when everything you're describing is paid off - which is also why companies looking to maximize profits are heavily invested in cutting operating costs in any and all ways possible. Also, your logic is off - you say profit is the purpose of enterprise, but present it as a requirement for maintaining said enterprise - those two are not identical, even disregarding the above conflation of terms. Recouping costs is indeed a requirement for doing anything with an inherent cost, but that doesn't make recouping cost the purpose of the activity - that's circular reasoning.

theoneandonlymrkIn all your bullshit you forget to mention the vast majority of business users using Intel parts want security.
For that they HAVE to upgrade on a yearly cycle atm If they stick to intel, or their security or performance will be compromised going forward, many will stay with their alleged safe bet company they dealt with already for year's rather than change to amd and some couldn't anyway.

What...?

Spectre, meltdown, spoiler? Pretty sure the likes of AWS, Azure, Google, FB, Alibaba would be tearing their collective hairs patching all those systems! Also in most, if not all the cases "not patching" is not an option.

ValantarOnly if you believe that the fundamental purpose of any enterprise is to make money - which IMO is a rather absurd concept, as it entirely fictionalizes what money is, and actively serves to undermine the relation between actual value of an object and its monetary value. The fundamental purpose of any enterprise is to produce a product or service that is useful to someone - this is what gives it value.

Not since the XX century. What you've said is what we believed in the past. I mean: economy evolves all the time. There are different approaches, or philosophies which clash all the time.
There was a philosophy that assumed companies are there to provide goods. There was a philosophy that assumed profit is immoral. And so on.

Today we believe a company is meant to make a profit. This is what shareholders expect. This is also what the government expects. Profit is the driver, making a product someone needs is a way of getting the profit.
Profit describes the ultimate target of business activity and balances all other aspects (like boosting sales and cutting costs).

Of course the denial of this principle is the very foundation upon which the "financial industry" (the only industry in the world that produces nothing!) is based

If you think financial industry produces nothing, you clearly don't understand economy very well. And the products of this industry in particular. But this is not a place and I won't go further unless asked (an I can give simple examples that prove you're wrong).

Manu_PTPlot twist, If you overclock your 3770k it is almost as good as a Ryzen chip

true, for a ryzen 1200. :roll:

ValantarYou're confusing revenue and profit. Profit is what is left over when everything you're describing is paid off - which is also why companies looking to maximize profits are heavily invested in cutting operating costs in any and all ways possible.

I know the difference and profit can only be derived from revenue - Without revenue you can't have profit.

Speaking of shareholders, They don't contribute anything to the process, only the $$ to do it with.

ValantarAlso, your logic is off - you say profit is the purpose of enterprise, but present it as a requirement for maintaining said enterprise - those two are not identical, even disregarding the above conflation of terms. Recouping costs is indeed a requirement for doing anything with an inherent cost, but that doesn't make recouping cost the purpose of the activity - that's circular reasoning.

However profit is the reason because it's already understood that costs paid out to do business comes from revenue itself - Doing it all at cost is pointless, you must have profit on top of your revenue for it to be worth doing.
Cost and all else doesn't matter, flatly covering all the bills for the enterprise alone just won't cut it, you have to make a little on top.

Honestly - We may have different ways of viewing it and that's OK, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything, that in itself would be foolish.
Not going to argue about it either :toast:, I'm not part of Intel or the CEO of any company to even worry about it all.

And BTW, all this is headed a little off topic but still relevant to it.

All I can add is in the case of Intel, the shortage would be a reason to want more per chip if the demand is there and probrably will be. Doesn' t mean things woudn't change because they always do, just hope their customers (You) won't get the shaft because of it.

DeathtoGnomestrue, for a ryzen 1200. :roll:

Ryzen 5 2500X easily. And 3770K will gain more through OC.

notbWhat...?

The list of INTEL securty issues grows monthly

see

www.google.co.uk/search?q=how+many+intel+security+issues+now&oq=how+many+intel+security+issues+now&aqs=chrome..69i57.9597j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

business users need security

they'll need to swap chips for security

that's a sale to intel in a lot of cases

all these security issues happened in the last two years since rowhammer

intel is now unable to meet demand


in bullet points it's hardly f*****g rocket science is it



<ON TOPIC and it doesnt need a page of hyperbole ,bullshit or personal financial guidance and lifestyle corrections based on your blinded to others perspective(biased).

They have been stuck at 14nm and refuse to adjust their prices to compete with AMD. That is why the R5 2600 is the number 1 selling processor on Amazon.com, a good for AMD is that the RX 570 is also the number selling GPU on Amazon.com. The 3rd gen if it can go to 5 GHZ will definitely put Intel on a more defensive tangent than what they have already been doing.

notbIt's not brand loyalty. It's usually just lack of interest in the subject. People don't care that much what's inside their PCs. They want them to work. Life is too interesting to waste time on reading PC reviews.

You have to consider how weak brand AMD has right now. How unknown are the products.
Even people on this forum are confused. Just look around. People (even die hard AMD fans) are mixing Zen and Ryzen generations all the time. :)
A typical PC buyer knows that i7 CPU is better than i5, which is better than i3. That's all they need. And you can't really say they're loyal to the Intel brand, when it's the only CPU brand they know. CPU == Intel.

BTW:
Companies analyze something called price elasticity of demand (a derivative of demand in respect of price). In other words: what happens to sales if you raise or lower the price.
And they really know this pretty well. If Intel raises prices, it means they're earning more. No other reason.

It almost seems like you argue both points here. People both don’t care what their CPU is, but that Intel has brand recognition and AMD has little to none. I don’t think both can be true. Instead, I think what matters today is what online (customer) reviews say and if the laptop fits the price point. If customers rate the computer well enough and the price is right, then the product sells. If they walk into a B&M store, then it’s all down to the advice of a sales guy.

I think the same problems persist with your major OEMs though. They usually put less effort into AMD machines they sell than they do the Intel ones—like shipping AMD machines with single channel memory or only offering low density batteries or sub-par displays. I don’t know how AMD can overcome this, or if maybe Intel’s contract indirectly encourages it. There was a history of that.

Darmok N JaladI don’t think both can be true

Why not, people know of the core (i) series & then when you ask them about Zen or AMD they go :wtf:

It's like the time when Apple was the only smartphone maker in town, except in the PC world time has stagnated virtually for a decade - in part due to AMD's own incompetence!

Then you go explaining to people what's a GPU & some of the reactions are :D

notbNot since the XX century. What you've said is what we believed in the past. I mean: economy evolves all the time. There are different approaches, or philosophies which clash all the time.
There was a philosophy that assumed companies are there to provide goods. There was a philosophy that assumed profit is immoral. And so on.

Today we believe a company is meant to make a profit. This is what shareholders expect. This is also what the government expects. Profit is the driver, making a product someone needs is a way of getting the profit.
Profit describes the ultimate target of business activity and balances all other aspects (like boosting sales and cutting costs).

If you think financial industry produces nothing, you clearly don't understand economy very well. And the products of this industry in particular. But this is not a place and I won't go further unless asked (an I can give simple examples that prove you're wrong).

So you're a believer in Milton Friedman's school of economics - good to know, I guess. You're right that this is the dominant ideology in the US (and by extension also most companies doing extensive trade with/in the US), but that doesn't mean it's actually sound thinking or policy. Recent history demonstrates quite clearly how short-sighted and destructive this thinking is, as this thinking has only in the past couple of decades fully taken hold of law and business, and has subsequently fostered extreme monopolization, predatory business practices where companies are bought, stripped for assets, and then sold or bankrupted for profit, dramatically increased hoarding of wealth among the already super-rich, further impoverishment of the already poor, stymied class mobility, and caused a financial collapse - soon to be two, if financial analysts are to be believed - by allowing the financial industry to play fast and loose with other people's money through massive deregulation. If you want an example, look into the causes of the downfall of Sears. It ain't pretty, and it's all down to neoliberalist thinking and Friedmanian economics.

The short of it: people are fully capable of believing horribly harmful and bad things, and the idea that business exists to "produce profit" is one of these ideas, particularly when taken as literally as it is in current US law. There is no "balancing" of "aspects" when the only motive for shareholders is maximising short-term profits - and stockholders are almost universally in it for the short term, as that's how you make a profit in the stock market. As for the financial industry, they provide two valuable services: loans and safe handling of people's money. Other than that - and the vast majority of their business - they're mainly looking to find ever-increasingly complex ways to bet, gamble, sell and lend other people's money to other people with the same interests with the ultimate goal of creating more money than there was in the first place, which is where the fictionalization of value comes into play. But you're right - this isn't the place, but feel free to DM me if you like.

BonesI know the difference and profit can only be derived from revenue - Without revenue you can't have profit.

Speaking of shareholders, They don't contribute anything to the process, only the $$ to do it with.

However profit is the reason because it's already understood that costs paid out to do business comes from revenue itself - Doing it all at cost is pointless, you must have profit on top of your revenue for it to be worth doing.
Cost and all else doesn't matter, flatly covering all the bills for the enterprise alone just won't cut it, you have to make a little on top.

Honestly - We may have different ways of viewing it and that's OK, I don't expect everyone to agree with me on everything, that in itself would be foolish.

Absolutely agree on that - healthy and civilized discussion is how we all learn and grow :) I have to point out one key disagreement, though (sorry, but I have to!): doing it all at cost is not pointless at all, as "at cost" obviously wages for every single person employed in the company. In other words, everyone actually involved in the labor of producing the product is being rewarded if a business is run at cost. It also includes paying off loans (i.e. external financing) and agreed-upon returns on direct investments in the company (but not shareholder payouts, which are AFAIK based on profits, partially due to most shareholders not actually having ever invested money in the company, just traded other shareholders money for stocks), so even those "behind the scenes" are rewarded fairly if a business runs at cost. This is of course complicated by the need to save up for future R&D and similar long-term/future investments, but in general, a business run "at cost" can do just fine - the main problem today is that running "at cost" would cause your shareholders to freak out and flee en masse, causing stock prices to plummet and the "value" of your company to be dramatically diminished, despite nothing actually changing. This is the nature of capitalism being based on the logical fallacy of eternal growth - that if growth stops, people panic. But again, as above - I agree this isn't the place, though it's absolutely an interesting discussion :)

R0H1TWhy not, people know of the core (i) series & then when you ask them about Zen or AMD they go :wtf:

It's like the time when Apple was the only smartphone maker in town, except in the PC world time has stagnated virtually for a decade - in part due to AMD's own incompetence!

Then you go explaining to people what's a GPU & some of the reactions are :D

This is definitely a point - Intel has a massive mindshare advantage, for a whole host of reasons. Part of it is Intel's long-term performance dominance (and AMD's failed gamble with the heavy machinery architecture series), partly it's due to establishing themselves as a dominant market actor through illegal business practices, partly it's because of people generally not giving enough of a damn about the components that make up their "boxes". Who among us knows who made the ABS system in our cars, as long as they work? The issue is that AMD has a (rather sticky) reputation as "the cheap brand" or possibly "the slow but cheap brand", the latter of which isn't true any more, but that doesn't really matter when they start off at a (large) disadvantage - and Intel knows to capitalize on this in a whole host of ways. Intel's massive cash hoard and advertising subsidies to OEMs don't exactly hurt them either. And if people believe (whether it's true or not) that Intel is the only high-performance alternative, they'll pay and/or wait for the opportunity to buy Intel unless they're thoroughly convinced otherwise - which isn't easy.

thankgod, there will be plenty amd cpus around.

Look on the bright side everyone, at least DRAM prices will continue to fall.

FordGT90ConceptHow...could Intel...let this...happen!?!

It's simple, they couldn't do anything about it. The manufacturing side of their business has grown too large and it's starting to become unsustainable. There used to be a time when designing your chips was the biggest hurdle and the silicon itself was relatively cheap and plentiful given the size of the market. But times changed, foundries are becoming the biggest money pits in the industry, this is the price you need to pay for being a leading IC manufacturer.

The reality is that no one else tries to do what Intel does on this scale and we are now finding out why.