Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Trust me. They know how to sell at the system level. That ain't it.
Smooth
Don't think so. I believe others are indicating that the process is producing more than they thought...
Smooth
Intel to Slash Energy Use by Chips
Power Consumption to Drop 41%; Goal Is Thinner Laptops, Longer Battery Life
By SHARA TIBKEN
Intel Corp. INTC -0.88% expects to slash the energy consumption of its flagship chip line by 41%, the Silicon Valley company's latest move to make mobile computers thinner and operate longer on a battery charge.
Enlarge Image
image
image
Intel
A Dell XPS Duo 12 Ultrabook, which employs Intel's chip architecture.
The company, at an annual developer conference that kicks off Sept. 11 in San Francisco, plans to provide some of the first details about a more power-efficient line of microprocessors arriving next year. Intel's announcements come as demand has slowed noticeably for conventional laptops and as a new category called Ultrabooks so far have failed to gain much traction.
Intel supplies processors for more than 80% of the world's computers but long has struggled to move its technology into smartphones and tablets. Those products are typically powered by chip designs licensed by ARM Holdings ARM.LN +0.47% PLC, in large part because of their lower power consumption.
The chip maker, while targeting those products with a low-end line called Atom, also is improving its mainstream PC chips to help blur the lines between the categories. Intel at the event plans to demonstrate new thin and light laptops that convert into tablets, which it calls "Ultrabook convertibles," as well as systems with features such as gesture, voice and facial recognition.
Intel says the fourth generation of its widely used Core line, code-named Haswell, will have greater performance, more sophisticated graphics and stronger security capabilities. But the biggest change is in power consumption, with the new chips drawing 10 watts versus 17 watts for comparable existing chips.
"Basically it means we can make devices even thinner, even lighter and with an even higher battery life while still giving a full PC experience," said Kirk Skaugen, general manager of Intel's PC client group, in an interview. "Once and for all, you will feel comfortable walking out of your house and not carrying your power brick."
The company, following feedback by customers such as Apple Inc., AAPL -0.41% announced in May 2011 that it was redrawing its chip road map to reduce power consumption more quickly. At that time, the company put its long-term goal at 15 watts, a target exceeded by Haswell.
Besides a more sophisticated design, Haswell benefits from a novel manufacturing process that uses a transistor design that first was used to make the third line of Core chips. Intel expects to produce small batches of the third-generation chips, which also draw 10 watts and will hit the market in the first half of 2013, Mr. Skaugen said.
Haswell is expected later in the year, though Mr. Skaugen declined to specify a precise date or specific performance details. He did say Intel originally thought Haswell would draw about 17 watts. "But what we've been able to do is have a better design and better manufacturing results than we thought," he said.
Patrick Moorhead, an analyst with Moor Insights & Strategy, said Intel needs to get power consumption down to around four watts for tablets that have no cooling fans, like Apple's AAPL -0.41% hit iPad. But Haswell-powered products can use less-obtrusive fans and be considerably thinner than existing Ultrabooks.
"It's going to be a killer part for convertibles and a killer part for notebooks," Mr. Moorhead said.
Even with improved features and performance, the computer market faces an uncertain future. Global PC shipments were flat in the second quarter from a year ago, according to research company Gartner, hurt by the weak economy and consumers shifting spending to tablets and smartphones.
Ultrabooks, a brand created by Intel for thin laptops with a range of new features, have remained at higher price levels than other portable PCs and have sold slowly. "People like the form factor, but when it comes down to if they're going to put down the dough for it, they're hesitating," said Roger Kay of tech research firm Endpoint Technologies.
Mr. Skaugen said the number of Ultrabooks being developed is exceeding Intel's expectations, and the devices should gain more traction with buyers when Microsoft Corp.'s MSFT -0.28% new Windows 8 operating system and touch capabilities are available. He added that pricing will continue to decline but acknowledged that models with touch screens will command higher pricing, with a likely premium of about $100.
—Don Clark
smoothh20, what do you mean by "gamers are going to be really interested in the 2.4C"? Do you mean Celeron? If so, then no way - there is absolutely no way to run the Doom III game on the 2.4 Ghz Celeron. The 2.5 Ghz P4 or Athlon 2500 is the absolute minimum, just to get medim-detail picture on medium resolution.
No, the 2.4C is a 2.4GHz P4 with 800MHz FSB and HT.
Smooth
Pay with cash and employees can go elsewhere. Pay with options and they stay (and work very hard to keep their jobs at Intel) to reap the rewards of stock appreciation in future years. Sounds good to me. Oh, yeah, forgot. That stock appreciation... what did the outside shareholder do to earn it besides buy the stock?
What you guys are forgetting, is that stock options work to grow the company in highly competitive tech industries. If you want dividends, sell Intel, buy GM.
Smooth
Bankrupt: guess which 2.5 "Ghz" cpu they will choose for that money?
Intel?
No, seriously. I have not seen so much information on OCing Intel and so little on *anything* about OCing AMD.
Secondly, don't you think that a lot of gamers are going to be really interested in the 2.4C? I think it's suppose to OEM for $150? And it OC's to 3.5?
Smooth
Don't agree. Managers (those promoted from positions at which they excelled but have no particular management expertise) need options to attract employees that excell. Just b/c they were "promoted" doesn't mean they shouldn't participate. I am now a "CEO" having worked for managers in my day, but there is no way I wouldn't participate if they do. I'm not the best CEO, but a lot of them couldn't do what I do, either. Not that they would want to. Not that there's anything wrong with that...
Smooth
Saturn: its impact can be assumed as a 2% hit on earnings.
And that's about where this situation will resolve itself, IMO. Something fair to both company and stockholders. The impact to the stock will probably be larger than the end of the war. But to be real fair, there needs to be an accounting in the other direction if so.
Smooth
Spoke: They are two distinct events with two distinct numbers.
Well, yeah, we all agree, it's not exact. But it's not a total cost the other way, either.
Stock is bought to "fund" the option program and the options are given in that year pretty close to the price at which they are bought. So...
*it's <pretty near> a wash*
Smooth
Dew: For tech companies which are heavy option grantors, it is more common for them to buy back shares to offset option exercises when they realize that option exercises are apt to cause non-trivial expansion of the share base during the current fiscal year –i.e. when the stock price is comparatively high.
And that's where your're wrong. This has been an ongoing program at Intel, sinceever.
If you want to call the difference between today's exercise price and today's stock price an expense, then you are causing an expense due to the stock's appreciation, essentially penalizing the company for it's performance. Using the same logic, the unexercised options should be a credit. The problem rests with the requirement to account for all costs and expenses with the current year when in fact the real costs are not within the current year. As Andy says, "there is no good way to evaluate the costs of options".
In fact, Intel cannot trade its stock on the open market. It holds the stock in reserve for the option programs. When it is given to the employee (for the amount it cost),
*it's a push*.
Smooth
Smooth -
Ummm, and personally, my guess is that there's not a lot of "strongarming" that Intel can do to IBM. Pleading, maybe.
It was a joke.
Whew! Thank God! My faith is restored!
Smooth
wbmw:
Elmer, interesting news. How many years has Mike Splinter headed Intel's sales and marketing group? It seems like a long time.
Agreed, I thought that Mike was in pretty good alignment.
However, what they are paying CEO's these days....
OTOH, from what I've experienced, Mike should be well set.
Smooth
Golds:
They'll support Opteron for the same reason.
Sorry, don't agree. I see no reason that IBM would need to support Opteron. I don't think they will bother.
Smooth
Elmer:
Personally my guess is that Intel strongarmed IBM into doing it...
Ummm, and personally, my guess is that there's not a lot of "strongarming" that Intel can do to IBM. Pleading, maybe.
Smooth
Chip: Logic guys would get called back to help with
functional errors but for the most part the logic design doesn't change in a shrink.
Where K9 will run into resource issues these days is with circuit and layout people.
Chip, you are painting a nightmare scenario if you are saying that the functional groups are being switched back and forth between K8, K9 as required, or worse. I can't imagine how complex that would be, to return to a new design after 4-5 weeks and pick up where you left off. That would really stretch out intros and complicate everything.
Intel has separate teams and well scheduled. Usually, these teams tax fab resources and need to synch with other designs as they reach their max margin/performance tradeoffs and estimated volume sales.
Pretty big difference.
Smooth
Chip: RIght now I would presume the micro-architects at AMD have long completed
the K9 and are busy defining and simulating K10 and kicking around ideas for
K11. The K9 is probably well along in detailed logic and circuit design with some
experimental layouts for critical elements done for feedback to the circuit and logic
people. Some circuit and most layout and test guys are probably still busy cleaning
up odds and ends for 130 nm K8 and getting ready for 90 nm K7 and K8.
That may be true at Intel, but I doubt it's that involved at AMD. It takes a lot of money to develop multiple designs as you lay out. I think the process is much more subdued at AMD and their design cycles are longer than at Intel. Intel has these designs running and then cancels some of them. I would think that AMD is maybe one cycle ahead but most of their effort is in designing proliferations of the present architecture. Give that they are having problems with scaling the Operton, this would severely complicate future designs. It doesn't sound like AMD moves processes along like Intel does with their SRAM.
Smooth
Want: I don't think AMD has executed until they deliver Operton and clawhammer in volume, and they can scale the frequency. BTW, what are AMD's chances of funding a K9 design? Do they have enough cash?
Well, I think everyone would agree. Execution in scaling and the ability to capture large design wins at the OEMs so you can deliver in volume are key. Key to making money, that is. That done, there is no problem in funding K9. But they could do that anyway. They have designers on staff that are moving in that direction now.
The real question is what they do in the interim. They HAVE to generate profits by at least sometime in '04 or they will run out of cash. You can't run a business without cash.
Smooth
Elmer: Although we are all impressed by the excellent benchmarks Opteron posts, there are still many unknowns. Can AMD produce it and if not, what makes you so sure IBM can?
If IBM can't, who can? Isn't that, by definition, the limit to which you could produce it. I can't think of anyone better. This is truly a strategic move by AMD. One only wonders about the price. If $45M is the only fee, it's a lot less than a new fab.
Smooth
Golds: Smooth, the more we discuss this topic, the more we agree. Yet you still insist that I am making up something. Curious. I'm not sure why you have to insist on repeating an insult, but that is your problem. I'm just glad we agree on the fundamental premise: The AMD/IBM relationship that we see now can reasonably lead to important followup cooperation as time goes by, perhaps even a manufacturing licensing arrangement.
Sounds good. Nothing made up here, to be sure.
Smooth
Joe: Obvoiusly AMD will use Dresden before outside foundry. But AMD can sell more than Dresden can make, IBM foundry deal would be a way to increase production. It'ssomething very hypothetical, since it has been probably 3 years since the last time AMD was capacity constrained.
Right. If Opteron really takes off, and becomes supply constrained, IBM would be a great source. To me, there are many factors besides capacity that would drive demand.
Smooth
Dew: I would say Barrett is the one who is being disingenuous. Craig, option expensing is a fait accompli. Get with the program and stop wasting time on your lobbying efforts. It makes little difference whether options should be expensed; it will happen because the investing public is insisting on it.
I don't agree. This is a very complex issue for corporations (such as Intel) and needs a better solution than has been supplied to date. I think you will see resolution, but the issue is far more than simply "expensing".
Smooth
Golds: Didn't the deal include jointly building a 65nm 300mm factory? Not hard to do a little joint manufacturing with that start, is it?
No it didn't, and yes it is.
The "deal" as you put it was to help AMD find a path to 65nm so they could transfer the technology to Dresden. That's not so simple. Believe me, I was there when Motorola tried it. Nothing says IBM has to give you the latest technological improvements, they sure didn't to Mot.
Golds: They don't have to. In 2002, IBM had gross revenue of $81.2B. AMD had gross revenues of $2.7B. Let that sink in a minute - it would take 30 AMDs to equal one IBM! A small part of IBM business would keep AMD quite busy, thank you.
I don't have to let this "sink in". You're making things up again. There is no relationship between what IBM makes and AMD does not make. The part of business AMD "may" get, is only the uP business, and not all the services and other businesses that go into that 82B.
Golds: Now, I simply speculated based on the facts we know and extended it to a scenerio that is reasonable. You read things I never posted and seem woefully misinformed on the subject, hence your statement on 65nm.
You speculated on speculations you made. That's making things up. If I were you, I wouldn't pretend I was teaching people things.
Smooth
Golds: A year exclusive on Opteron may be the biggest thing IBM got with their manufacturing deal with AMD. When 65nm happens then the two of them can merrily sell to everyone else.
Uhhh, aren't we forgetting some things here?
AMD PAID to get the manufacturing expertise (manufacturing expertise, not a manufacturing deal, mind you) from IBM. IBM were not fortunate to get Opterons. More pointedly, IBM is not turning their entire line over to Opterons, quite the contrary. Also, there has been no statement about 65nm, much less 90nm for that matter. This is a pretty good example of "making up things".
Smooth
EP:
That's really good. If AMD and Motorola do exit the market, you'll be left with two powerhouses that aren't afraid to charge high prices for their products. The price of computing will go up just ever so slightly, enough not to make it worth anyone's effort, except of course...
I wonder what message that would be for Hector?
Smooth
Dan: What's your take on AMD's sudden, aggressive attack on Intel's desktop market? What's going to happen to Intel's ASPs?
Wow! If this is any indication of the prices at volume, AMD just dropped their knickers and bent over. If this follows into the volume market, AMD will be posting some very large losses. I doubt Intel will be giving up market share any time soon. There is only one reason AMD would drop pricing like this.
I know, I for one, am upgrading the entire client computer system in my business. I just had my systems provider assess our situation with respect to the computers we installed prior to Y2K (never did believe that story, either) and they are at the minimum recommended speed except for an additional 128K of low speed ram. Dell is the only business choice I see, and we have been Gateway prior to. Our service provider gives us his reseller discount less $20 margin he adds on. The price of the recommended system on Dell's web site is $750 (with monitor). Cheeze, how can you say no?
Think about it from my viewpoint. There is NOTHING in my decision to buy Intel/Dell that has anything to do with speed. Not a dollar. Why would I even care. Will I buy the fastest computer? Well, the $750 computer is 2.8GHz... There's a TON of businesses out there in my situation. The real questions might be, who will be around?, and who can supply the volume and support, and who do you trust when moving to WinXP? I don't think quality is an issue, but I do think that Dell is one of the best.
Smooth
Not so, it's actually quite an old word...
I never ever use it, however...
Smooth
Main Entry: ir·re·gard·less
Pronunciation: "ir-i-'gärd-l&s
Function: adverb
Etymology: probably blend of irrespective and regardless
Date: circa 1912
nonstandard : REGARDLESS
usage Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that "there is no such word." There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.
www.m-w.com
j3: I'm not sure what you are saying...
Are you saying that there are no coallition troops within 100 miles of Baghdad?
Smooth
Eco:
Yes, except that Intel owns 90% of the market and can do what they damn well please. Even if Intel is priced above AMD, AMD will not gain significant share. AMD knows this.
Smooth
Edgar,
Take your rants to the Intel board (I hate rants) where they might do some good. Those on this board (and the Intel board) pretty much call it as they see it.
Intel invented the architecture, AMD copied it. Intel does a great job marketing what is otherwise common knowledge. They also spend $$ in the right places for marketing and developing resouces that make products successful. They are also in the front of the market and make decisions in directions that are unknown at the time. And that's what it takes.
AMD does great with what is left of the market. Either they will be successful in this (maybe the last cycle) or they won't. Better companies have failed, and worse have succeeded. Time will tell, we are all waiting. (I hate rants).
Smooth
Itanium servers:
Cheez, is that number greater than the number of AMD systems builders? I don't think I could mention that many.
Smooth
Check out the new AMD board.
Smooth
Keith,
Best of luck. I mostly lurk but add a few comments here and there. Hopefully, you will be able to keep this on-topic. We are heading for quite a battle and the tale will be told shortly. Intel has become quite a competitor and AMD is under a lot of pressure to perform.
Smooth
Found the link, most .09 technology to be delayed until 2005. Of course, Intel has a need for the .09 and beyond technology, but here is a good place where they could make use of older .13 fab technology:
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=720818
Smooth
I don't remember hearing that, only that they might use different steppers...
I'm pretty sure what I read was that those who needed to move from .13 silicon couldn't b/c of cost. Therefore there would be a huge demand for .13 process technology beyond what was available.
Smooth
Possibly. For sure, we need to contemplate what Intel plans to do with this capacity. There is also a need to consider the future effects of depreciation of all these equipments.
***********
Pretty sure I read (can't remember where, but it wasn't here)that b/c of the high costs of masks at .09u and beyond, that many designs can only afford to go to .13 (b/c other processes would drive the manufacturing costs too high for thier market) and that will put a lot of demand on .13. That could be one reason that Intel is not concerned about excess .13 capability.
Smooth
"This investment is consistent with our belief that Moore's Law is alive and well," Baker said, referring to Intel co-founder Gordon E. Moore's theory that the number of transistors on a computer chip would double every year or two.
*******
Well, this is $2B toward the 2004 budget for capex. Apparently, Intel is fully convinced that high volume production is about to kick in. 2004 capabilities could well be handled with the 7.5B, 4.5B, 3.5B of preceding years, except that even more capability is anticipated, thereby needing the new conversion. Things must be looking pretty good at Corporate.
Smooth
Maybe SOI just isn't the miracle process everybody thinks it is?
Duh... Yup, I'm thinking that that wasn't very clear about two years ago, but as "visibility" is clearing up in <many> things, this is also.
A market analyst put it this way, "Compare this economy to a beach ball that is being held under water. The further you hold it under the higher it goes when released".
Smooth
Regarding SOI: I seem to remember a lot of people indicating that AMD was going to "bury" intel with their early adoption of SOI, and that AMD would run rampant with high-frequency CPU's... while others disagreed and believed that AMD was trying a "hail mary" with SOI, and that the risks were substantial. I think it's clear who was right on that discussion...
*********
Just maybe, the statement on the Intel web page a few? years ago about the P4 architecture being "the right way to go" could have been the outcome of many, many R&D $$ spent in the right place...
D'ya think?
Smooth
RE: Now Hot, WLAN Chips Could Cool Off Fast
Well, this scenario is no different than what's happened over the last 20 years. uP mfg (Intel) has strived to assimilate external technologies on the motherboard into uP silicon. So what's new? The fact that things are moving faster (that is, as stated in the article) means that Intel should benefit even more by moving to .09 this year (as opposed to others that either can't afford it, or don't have customers that can assimilate the technology- Intel is its own best customer- unlike Motorola, for example that bids for technology from within and from any other silicon manufacturer, and... the "others" are winning...could that be their downfall....?).
FWIW, even at $35 for the additional "functionality", don't you think that $35 to the bottom line of uP margins less the cost of the additional chip square footage amortized by the cost of R&D/volume is worth it?
Smooth
RE: Wonder why HP’s new Tablet isn’t going to be using Centrino…
Dew:
Could it be that Centrino wasn't ready in time for the launch? Seems tight to me.
At any rate, I was in a CompUSA and happened to try a Tablet PC. Maybe I just don't get it, but most of my work is either sitting in front of a notebook on a cable modem reading email, generating web graphics, typing strategic plans and other information or drawing on a whiteboard in a meeting. Don't get me wrong, but the fastest PC's I can get makes everyone happy as I explained before, b/c of the accounting software that "runs" the company. That determines how fast we can get orders in. So... I wasn't very impressed with the Tablet idea. I guess I would have to upgrade everyone with wireless tablets and draw on a shared screen in the meeting...
<Looking to upgrade me and my partner with new notebooks this year, from 300MHz to 2.4 to 3 GHz?...>
Smooth