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.
Bozo
is that like drinking from the T
I wouldn't know. I'll just have to take your word for it.
Bozo
Intel thought they were out to get em, delusional
No, when you consider the many dirty tricks by AMD, Intel was spot on.
Bozo
Did you know paranoia is a mental disorder, isn't that amazing?
In your case I'm sure that's true but more generally speaking I think it's a mental state, not necessarily a disorder...
TCaE
Perhaps FPG was. I was referring to Bozo.
TCaE
That bill of materials delta between Intel's solutions and competing solutions was evidently higher than the SoC cost itself, hence Intel was recording negative revenue from these tablet chip sales
You're talking about much more recent events where Intel wasn't a dominant player. That's not what he's whining about. He's[Bozo] been whining for many years about Intel's rebates to Dell in the 2000s.
TCaE
More to the point: please explain how Intel was "paying" customers to "buy" products (implying that the products were being sold at low/negative margins) at the time while at the same time raking in solid profits
And also, how do you bribe someone with their own money?
You must think like a crazed Intel hater to get that one. I don't recommend it. It's not good for the brain.
Bozo
There were no bribes. Rebates are perfectly legal and no Court of Law anywhere in the world has ever found Intel guilty of any illegal activity. You need to get over this nonsense. It's been over for many years and you waste time on this obsession. AMD's gotten over it. You need to too. Intel's management has changed and AMD's management has changed too. Put it to rest and move on.
TCaE
The only adjustments you can really make in that short of a timeframe is, perhaps, in the SKUs you decide to bring to market, how aggressively you bin for frequency/power, and pricing
Exactly.
Koog
There'd be a long line...
diversity hires when Intel folks are swamped with work because workers are being laid off
They're filling the swamp instead of draining it.
If BK's response is 5 new diversity hires, and a drone show in Vegas, I'm outa here
I think you can drop the "if".
It's time to drain the swamp.
IMHO
That's an oxymoron.
fpg
it[this message board] reverberates with the mantra that Intel has no worthy opponents, no competition worthy of consideration.
Like just about everything you post, that's nonsense. There's plenty of descent and diversity of opinion here. In fact, there's more negativity lately than there has been for a long time, and probably for good reason. You're here to do your Intel hating so post away but at least get your facts straight.
A post by Andy Grave was deleted by IH Admins as off topic and for the life of me I don't know why. It was process related and seemed very on topic. In my opinion it was uncalled for to delete that post. An explanation would be appreciated.
flumoxed
Please don't start the political thing. The pissing will never end.
morrowinder
Please don't inject your personal politics into the conversation.
.....Intel brethren cower in "stunned disbelief"
I think you're getting a little carried away there Andy...
Andy
does sound like new competition in the server market although not explicitly mentioned
That question was raised in the Q&A and addressed by Diane B. She said competition was always factored into future projections. In the past it was ARM, which never materialized. Now it's AMD. So yes, it's factored in.
02:32 PM EST, 02/09/2017 (MT Newswires) -- Intel (INTC) is down almost 2% in afternoon trading after Data Center General Manager Diane Bryant told analysts operating margins in the data center business would decline to low-to-mid 40% range compared to the previous expectation of the high 40% to 50% range, according to a report from Reuters.
The report quoted Bernstein analyst Stacy Rasgon saying, "I think people were not expecting the direct hard reset."
The chipmaker made the remarks during its annual analyst day presentation.
Price: 35.75, Change: -0.63, Percent Change: -1.75
http://www.mtnewswires.com Copyright © 2017 MTNewswires. All rights reserved. MT Newswires does not provide investment advice. Unauthorized reproduction is strictly prohibited.
You probably drive by it every week
No, I'm 4 hours away down where Geronimo and Cochise were a scalping and a killin...
borusa
I don't know about fitting out the Fab, it might happen, but I have my doubts
The Fab was already built. What do you think they're doing if not "fitting it out"?
Andy
so in addition to dusting off a fab shell that has been sitting idle for "three to four years", they dust off the same reason they gave for its justification "three to four" years ago
So what does that suggest to you?
What more of an update do you want? They just said demand for Stratix 10 is strong
They said the demand pipeline is strong. His point is still valid.
salasidis
Thanks for the clarification.
TCaE
Intel is pitching 3DXP based DIMMs for servers as a big selling point for its platforms
I'm confused. I thought 3DXP didn't have the R/W lifecycles to work in a DIMM memory application?
Andy
Like all things AMD, I consider it talk until something real materializes.
Pyscho
I think he was making a joke.
You mean for AMD?
Actually I meant both. This was pushed out much later in the month than normal.
What was the justification for the extended delay in releasing the earnings?
So says Bozo...
techno_bull
It's like having our own personal reporter on the ground!
Make that the front lines...
The mainstream media hasn't even got wind of this yet...
Border Report from the Great SE Corner of Arizona
The Border Patrol has been as thick as flies down here for the last 2 days. They are everywhere. I have never seen them out like this. I think we are finally defending our boarders instead of rolling out the welcome mat to the drug cartels and the human smugglers as we have for the last 8 years...
I am thrilled!!!
Colonel
We only have cherry picked benchmarks so far
And samples.
TCaE
Intel's historical process strength has been transistor performance/adoption of new materials before others (HKMG, FinFETs, air-gapped interconnects, etc.), not really density (which is an important factor for cost)
Have you seen any transistor performance numbers for TSMC at 10nm & 7nm? Also I wouldn't be surprised to see some other surprises at 10nm from Intel. We're due...
TCaE
SRAM Cell size is not the only metric and unfortunately we don't have access to the analyst's report to see how they came to their conclusion.
VeeCee
I think the new standard is that it's ok to use a scaling factor as the new norm for naming a process generation. The problem is there is no accepted standard by which all processes are being compared to, so TSMC is applying their scaling factor to themself. So yes, it's a valid shrink of their own prior bogus claim. I use the term bogus if we compare their process designation to Intel's. The article makes the point that TSMC's 7nm process essentially brings them equal or only slightly ahead of Intel's 14nm although it doesn't go into any detail as to how that's measured.
http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2016/11/25/intels-still-ahead-of-the-pack-in-chip-process-says-linley-group/
Intel’s Still Ahead of the Pack in Chip Process, Says Linley Group
In an editorial this week by Linley Gwennap, the head of the eponymous research firm Linley Group, Intel (INTC) comes out as still ahead of foundries Taiwan Semi (TSM) and Samsung Electronics (005930KS), no matter what the marketing spin the latter spout.
(Paid subscription required to read Linley Group research.)
Gwennap notes that foundries such as TSM stopped following standard nomenclature for naming their new chip manufacturing technology several years ago. The result is that new advances claimed by Taiwan Semi and Samsung, and by Global Foundries, aren’t what they seem, and aren’t ahead of Intel.
TSM, for example, is moving to “10-nanometer” chip production, and already designing its “7-nanometer” techniques. But, whereas in past these advances doubled the density of transistors with each step, today’s “nodes” in some cases bring little or no transistor density increases, he observes.
As Gwennap writes, around the time of 45-nanometer chips, “the marketing team decided the node label didn’t need to be a strict indicator of den- sity, which is based on measurable parameters such as metal pitch, gate pitch, and SRAM-cell size.”
As Gwennap sees it, the “16-nanometer” technology of TSM and the others “is really 19-nanometer,” and the planned 7 nanometer “will be about 13-nanometer relative to Intel processes.” Intel, he concludes, is a “a full node” ahead of the foundries, “Just as they have been for the past decade.”
Gwennap argues that past 5 nanometers, where there’s “no clear plan” in industry as to how to proceed, “Intel will likely be the first company to find” the physical limits to further scaling of transistors.
TCaE
Some notable quotes from that old article:
naming conventions for nodes these days hide the underlying details of the processes....
.
.
.
So if they stay on schedule, in 2017 TSMC will be in production on a 10nm process that is equivalent to the 14nm technology that Intel began producing in 2Q15. At that rate, even though Intel has slipped 10nm to 2H17, they will remain at least a year ahead of TSMC
Translation: It's all Marketing bullshit.
TCaE
10nm is a full shrink from TSMC's 16nm (~0.52x scaling)
Where are you getting that from?
TCaE
It's not going to be good for Intel's public image if all of its competitors are using "7nm" technology while Intel is trying to field "10nm" technology
Maybe but I'm inclined to think that's the minor player who's anti Intel in the first place.