More good news about Intel

john_More good news about Intel

Your post reminded me of the Itanic. When I went to look for a good Itanic graphic, I found this gem with sinking ships in the logo. Lol!



Edit: The AMD and Intel test platform notes are hilarious!

john_More good news about Intel

And we dont want AMD-TSMC monopoly either.

ChaitanyaAnd we dont want AMD-TSMC monopoly either.

The reason Intel is going out of business is because the industry is SUPER competitive right now and they have been unable to provide solutions that beat these competitors (consoles, smartphones, data center, crypto, AI, cellular communications, SoCs, GPUs, etc). Remember, the tech industry is not just large desktop RGB gaming rigs that run X86 Windows. Even when Intel is gone, all players will still have to compete like crazy.

The way Intel is going I hope they stop giving them subsidies, they really should stop giving those period. If Intel can't manage without them it should be allowed to die or shrink.

DavenThe reason Intel is going out of business is because the industry is SUPER competitive right now and they have been unable to provide solutions that beat these competitors (consoles, smartphones, data center, crypto, AI, cellular communications, SoCs, GPUs, etc). Remember, the tech industry is not just large desktop RGB gaming rigs that run X86 Windows. Even when Intel is gone, all players will still have to compete like crazy.

There were many opportunities to be part of that market and Intel didn't wish to do so. They were so focused on record high profits, they took a nap and are now surprised everyone else is ahead. This is not good news. Intel had really good manufacturing technologies. It's their implementation what was lacking.

tommo1982There were many opportunities to be part of that market and Intel didn't wish to do so. They were so focused on record high profits, they took a nap and are now surprised everyone else is ahead. This is not good news. Intel had really good manufacturing technologies. It's their implementation what was lacking.

"There were many opportunities to be part of ANY market and Intel didn't wish to do so."

Fixed that for ya.

DavenThe reason Intel is going out of business is because the industry is SUPER competitive right now and they have been unable to provide solutions that beat these competitors (consoles, smartphones, data center, crypto, AI, cellular communications, SoCs, GPUs, etc). Remember, the tech industry is not just large desktop RGB gaming rigs that run X86 Windows. Even when Intel is gone, all players will still have to compete like crazy.

Super competive in HPC and the datacenter market, but the mainstream PC marketshare still put Intel in a very dominant position, with the third competitor being a footnote still dealing with various compatilibity issues.

Arm still got a very tough road ahead of them before we see them in profesionals/heavy duty computers. Thin and light for people who don't much beside browinsg and office stuff sure, but the other segement? AMD will just become the de facto replacement for intel without having to do anything beside existing. It's going to be a very unbalanced market for a long time if Intel kick the bucket without ARM windows becoming at least as good the Mac lineup both in formfactors, and software compatibility.

Daven... beat these competitors ....

I would say they are stuggling to compete in equal terms which is the bigger problem.

Their chips are more expensive to produce, inferior in terms of Perf/Watt and their only distinct benefit is slightly superior IPC/Single threaded performance which matter in certain areas but again is niche in comparison to everywhere else that is benefiting from AMDs superior MT advantages.

dyonoctisSuper competive in HPC and the datacenter market, but the mainstream PC marketshare still put Intel in a very dominant position, with the third competitor being a footnote still dealing with various compatilibity issues.

Arm still got a very tough road ahead of them before we see them in profesionals/heavy duty computers. Thin and light for people who don't much beside browinsg and office stuff sure, but the other segement? AMD will just become the de facto replacement for intel without having to do anything beside existing. It's going to be a very unbalanced market for a long time if Intel kick the bucket without ARM windows becoming at least as good the Mac lineup both in formfactors, and software compatibility.

The way you are thinking is the reason Intel is failing. Doing what you say will lead to AMD going out of business as well. Haven’t we all learned by now that taking any competitor for granted leads to failure. Intel learned this lesson the hard way starting with the loss of Apple to ARM.

Some of you are STILL not getting it.

DavenThe way you are thinking is the reason Intel is failing. Doing what you say will lead to AMD going out of business. Haven’t we all learned by now that taking any competitor for granted leads to failure. Intel learned this lesson the hard way starting with the loss of Apple to ARM.

Some of you are STILL not getting it.

I think that they produce negative comment with hope Intel stocks to go low and to buy many. After that will make silence or positive hype to make stocks expensive for big profit.

ChaitanyaAnd we dont want AMD-TSMC monopoly either.

AMD is NOT a monopoly. They are at 10% in GPUs and Intel still sells more CPUs in servers, laptops and desktops.
Nvidia is a monopoly. TSMC is a monopoly.

Obviously TSMC being a monopoly is not good. Unfortunately Samsung keeps rising the bar trying to beat TSMC not create a long lasting profitable node. They jump from one node to the next. Intel unfortunately under it's new CEO seems to have as a goal to try to do the same. Instead of focusing on 18A to start building competitive CPUs and GPUs and gaining experience, they try to rush to the next node to beat TSMC, hoping to secure Apple and Nvidia as customers. Because trillion-dollar companies like Nvidia and Apple will happily take the risk on investing in Samsung or Intel manufacturing, because both Samsung and Intel have perfect manufacturing records. This CEO that the morons in Intel board chose, is playing Intel's future the same way someone would be playing someone else's house in the roulete. He probably thinks "If I secure Apple or/and Nvidia I will gain the CEO title of the year, maybe even for the decade. If I don't and Intel goes bankrupt, who cares? I'll find work elsewhere."

Tan and Intel's board of directors are right now the biggest threat to Intel's future, in my opinion.

DavenEdit: The AMD and Intel test platform notes are hilarious!

Indeed. A 500MHz Athlon? LOL. That's 1999, while Itanium 2 was 2002. AMD had 3-4 times faster CPUs than that in 2002. Not to mention the rest of the specs. The slowest IDE driver vs faster and bigger SCSI drives (in RAID I suppose). Is this real or a hoax?
I love that "Don't do at home" in the end.
I am also not surprised to see "Tom's Hardware" and "contract" in the same sentence.

john_Indeed. A 500MHz Athlon? LOL. That's 1999, while Itanium 2 was 2002. AMD had 3-4 times faster CPUs than that in 2002. Not to mention the rest of the specs. The slowest IDE driver vs faster and bigger SCSI drives (in RAID I suppose). Is this real or a hoax?
I love that "Don't do at home" in the end.
I am also not surprised to see "Tom's Hardware" and "contract" in the same sentence.

I'm pretty sure the whole thing was mean to be a joke at Intel's and Tom's Hardware's expense. I found the graphic in a posting on quora.com.

DavenThe way you are thinking is the reason Intel is failing. Doing what you say will lead to AMD going out of business as well. Haven’t we all learned by now that taking any competitor for granted leads to failure. Intel learned this lesson the hard way starting with the loss of Apple to ARM.

Some of you are STILL not getting it.

I merely stated that the market, who's finally somewhat balanced interm of choice after more than a decade of massive unbalance, will become unbalanced again if Intel quit in the very near future. I would rather have Intel dip once the heat get real in the mainstream market, with a very strong third player, than them quitting right about now as you have suggested many times. It's never been an issue when a player had to dip from a market because they've been kicked by a stronger competitor in that market. What's happening now seems to be a bit different:

It's looks like that massive HPC or phone revenue is pretty much mandatory to stay in the mainstream chip market wich sounds kind of scary. Even if Intel manage to make a good client CPU in the next few years it won't prevent them from having to leave the market if they can't get more money from HPC/datacenter. And look at zen 5, meager gains for the client, but great arch for the datacenter. So still a money maker either way.

It's insane to think that the company who still got over half of the marketshare in client CPU might not be able to stay in that market. Their client revenu alone was bigger than the total revenue of AMD the last that time I checked. Having the biggest client CPU revenu in the market isn't enough to stay in that market. Imagine still massivelly outselling your competitors, but having the futur looking dire because you don't do as well in other sectors. The client segment doesn't super healthy from a conssumer pov, since it doesn't seem to be a sector sustainable as a standalone.

Its turning into the digital camera market: none of the players who survived to this day in that segment have that market as their sole breadwinner. Its their other activities that pays for it. Wich explain how brands like Nikon managed to stay afloat even though they've been so complacent, people really thought that they gave up on competing in the camera sector at some point.

dyonoctisI merely stated that the market, who's finally somewhat balanced interm of choice after more than a decade of massive unbalance, will become unbalanced again if Intel quit in the very near future. I would rather have Intel dip once the heat get real in the mainstream market, with a very strong third player, than them quitting right about now as you have suggested many times. It's never been an issue when a player had to dip from a market because they've been kicked by a stronger competitor in that market. What's happening now seems to be a bit different:

It's looks like that massive HPC or phone revenue is pretty much mandatory to stay in the mainstream chip market wich sounds kind of scary. Even if Intel manage to make a good client CPU in the next few years it won't prevent them from having to leave the market if they can't get more money from HPC/datacenter. And look at zen 5, meager gains for the client, but great arch for the datacenter. So still a money maker either way.

It's insane to think that the company who still got over half of the marketshare in client CPU might not be able to stay in that market. Their client revenu alone was bigger than the total revenue of AMD the last that time I checked. Having the biggest client CPU revenu in the market isn't enough to stay in that market. Imagine still massivelly outselling your competitors, but having the futur looking dire because you don't do as well in other sectors. The client segment doesn't super healthy from a conssumer pov, since it doesn't seem to be a sector sustainable as a standalone.

Its turning into the digital camera market: none of the players who survived to this day in that segment have that market as their sole breadwinner. Its their other activities that pays for it. Wich explain how brands like Nikon managed to stay afloat even though they've been so complacent, people really thought that they gave up on competing in the camera sector at some point.

I understand what you are saying. But you can bring a horse to water but you can't make it drink. As much as you might want otherwise, the board, the executives, the shareholders, the corporate culture, the project teams, etc., almost none of the internal structure at Intel wants to try and compete. And you know what, I can't even say why it's that way. Maybe they think they are better than everyone else. Maybe they can never get the votes to move in any other direction. Maybe there is just too much in fighting. But whatever the reason, there will be no Intel in the very near future and NO action they have taken in the last five years or the next five years is going to stop that. And it won't be anyone's fault but their's.

Intel had the best part of a decade with little to no competition. Now that there is valid competition they are collapsing from the ground up.

Its going to take a hell of a rework from the top down to get back to being competative IMO.

BoxCutterThe way Intel is going I hope they stop giving them subsidies, they really should stop giving those period. If Intel can't manage without them it should be allowed to die or shrink.

It is shrinking, this thread is literally about that.

The way I look at this news

dyonoctisI merely stated that the market, who's finally somewhat balanced interm of choice after more than a decade of massive unbalance, will become unbalanced again if Intel quit in the very near future. I would rather have Intel dip once the heat get real in the mainstream market, with a very strong third player, than them quitting right about now as you have suggested many times. It's never been an issue when a player had to dip from a market because they've been kicked by a stronger competitor in that market. What's happening now seems to be a bit different:

It's looks like that massive HPC or phone revenue is pretty much mandatory to stay in the mainstream chip market wich sounds kind of scary. Even if Intel manage to make a good client CPU in the next few years it won't prevent them from having to leave the market if they can't get more money from HPC/datacenter. And look at zen 5, meager gains for the client, but great arch for the datacenter. So still a money maker either way.

It's insane to think that the company who still got over half of the marketshare in client CPU might not be able to stay in that market. Their client revenu alone was bigger than the total revenue of AMD the last that time I checked. Having the biggest client CPU revenu in the market isn't enough to stay in that market. Imagine still massivelly outselling your competitors, but having the futur looking dire because you don't do as well in other sectors. The client segment doesn't super healthy from a conssumer pov, since it doesn't seem to be a sector sustainable as a standalone.

Its turning into the digital camera market: none of the players who survived to this day in that segment have that market as their sole breadwinner. Its their other activities that pays for it. Wich explain how brands like Nikon managed to stay afloat even though they've been so complacent, people really thought that they gave up on competing in the camera sector at some point.

Here's a number to tell you how bad it it......Intel now has 62% of datacenter market to AMD's 33%, but AMD's revenue is more than Intel's in the same market. Yes, they're still moving chips, but at steep discounts. Core Ultras are now hitting 40% off of list just to move them, and it's still not working.

I wonder if Tan's scrapping of Intel marketing includes their IDF marketing slush fund. It's probably waht's keeping them alive with the OEM's.

dumbest move this new guy has done yet.

Glass substrate's neat. Here's a short video from Intel last year highlighting the perks of it

Oh, how the mighty had fallen....

How the mighty has fallen.

SRB151Here's a number to tell you how bad it is …
Intel now has 62% of datacenter market to AMD's 33%, but AMD's revenue is more than Intel's in the same market.
Yes, they're still moving chips, but at steep discounts.

Of course! That's the Intel way of doings things – Throw enough money at a problem, in noble hope it somehow sorts itself out.
Since what's a more profound and efficient way to burn through mountains of cash for naught, than to sell at cost or even at a loss, only to try at least maintaining their market-share? Yet it's still not working and their market-share is still steadily declining – Their Batlle Royale tilting at Windmills.

The funny thing is, Intel has done this from day 1!
As soon as anything Ryzen was launched, Intel immediately started to hand out huge rebates to fight AMD, the same sneaky and backhanded way Intel has always done and never really stopped. Intel even bragged about it before OEMs and ODMs at some event in Far East, that they could count on being seriously and richly compensated for sticking with Intel, as always.

Remember that slide from back then? Informed ones knew it from the get-go, that Intel was bribing outlets and OEMs to explicitly not use anything AMD.
TechSpot.com – Intel is using heavy discounts on Xeon CPUs to stop AMD from eating its server lunch (September 2021)
ServeTheHome.com – Intel is Serving Major Xeon Discounts to Combat AMD EPYC (September 2018)

They even paid OEMs massive slash-sums, to make them not release any AMD-boards for socket AM4, or at least stall adoption by intentionally delaying shipment for months. The whole reason forwhy there were basically slim to none AM4-boards for months (and those, which were in fact available, were of utterly inferior quality while being overtly expensive), is Intel and it always has been ever since …

SRB151Core Ultras are now hitting 40% off of list just to move them, and it's still not working.

Who wants a product, which is at least as expensive as competitor-products, yet doesn't offer the same performance, while coming with shockingly worse efficiency?
And we're not even talking about the fact, that ARL was often slower than its direct predecessor. It wasn't even as fast as the last refresh. It was a regressing refresh. It was a Regresh!

Also, Arrow Lake came again with higher adoption costs for another new board which was already dead-end by the time it came to market – Let's f–ck over consumers even harder!

SRB151I wonder if Tan's scrapping of Intel marketing includes their IDF marketing slush fund. It's probably waht's keeping them alive with the OEM's.

I hope so and since years actually just still wait for the day, that Intel might actually acknowledge in a flash of sudden genius, that the days of their bribing are necessarily over, since they're just burning through mountains of money that way … and killing themselves financially.

Yet I also know, that the moment Intel ever stops their actual bribing for real for once, their market-share would be in free-fall from that point forward, and basically implode within months.
Especially in their current competitive situation (or rather the very lack thereof). So most definitely not happening …

I bet, Intel would rather go bankrupt than to stop bribing for pushing even their last shipped single CPU out the door, to be taken before anything AMD due to actual natural competition …

Smartcom5Of course! That's the Intel way of doings things – Throw enough money at a problem, in noble hope it somehow sorts itself out.
Since what's a more profound and efficient way to burn through mountains of cash for naught, than to sell at cost or even at a loss, only to try at least maintaining their market-share? Yet it's still not working and their market-share is still steadily declining – Their Batlle Royale tilting at Windmills.

The funny thing is, Intel has done this from day 1!
As soon as anything Ryzen was launched, Intel immediately started to hand out huge rebates to fight AMD, the same sneaky and backhanded way Intel has always done and never really stopped. Intel even bragged about it before OEMs and ODMs at some event in Far East, that they could count on being seriously and richly compensated for sticking with Intel, as alwaysRemember that slide from back then? Informed ones knew it from the get-go, that Intel was bribing outlets and OEMs to explicitly not use anything AMD.
TechSpot.com – Intel is using heavy discounts on Xeon CPUs to stop AMD from eating its server lunch (September 2021)
ServeTheHome.com – Intel is Serving Major Xeon Discounts to Combat AMD EPYC (September 2018)

Ehh I wouldn't call those discounts bribery. Any CEO who would have persisted with selling their product at a much higher price when the competition is heating up would have been fired by the board. (Pat still got fired by the board, but that would have happened even faster.) Intel still lost a significant amount of market share in the server space, still had to fire, a lot of people, and sell off parts of the company.

AMD also responded in kind to those rebate:
www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-starts-aggressive-partner-program
www.crn.com/news/components-peripherals/amd-brings-aggressive-cpu-rebates-to-vars-with-new-partner-program-exclusive

AMD’s new invite-only partner program for commercial systems sellers includes volume incentive rebates that two top partners described as ‘aggressive.’ ‘Intel’s program is strong, but these guys have taken a bigger, aggressive investment to help us grow our business and reward us for that growth,’ one partner says.[...] AMD is offering rebates in the program on a per-CPU basis, and partners make more money if they are in the program’s Elite and Executive tiers, which are determined by the partner’s annual sales of systems that use AMD processors. The rebates, which also have training requirements, scale up for processors higher in the stack, too, particularly those with higher core counts.

[...]Rob Schaeffer, president and COO at Orange, Calif.-based CBT, No. 232 on CRN’s 2021 Solution Provider 500 list, told CRN that AMD’s volume rebates for CPUs are “much higher” than what his company receives from Intel. He said while rebates aren’t the biggest factor that determines preference between AMD and Intel, it helps the conversation.

I find it amusing that AMD is still perceived as a lost, naive puppy, despite having a strong portfolio and being very aggressive in business strategy and building customer loyalty. And in the end, the customers win. They get Epyc CPUs for cheaper because both companies decided to enter a price war (and one of them did it while still making a benefit, while the other is still bleeding money )