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.
FPG,
Intel's biggest problem, IMHO, is the effect ASPs that ongoing competition with ARM will have.
FPG,
A PC the size of a credit card is not "mobile" if it needs to be plugged in.
Tim, I know what you're talking about, and I feel the exact same way you do.
The thing is, there's a lot of talk about how Intel is trying to enter the market for mobile computing, but the PC is ALREADY mobile.
And like you pointed out, you don't even have to try hard to shrink the form-factor of the PC down to something that can be hidden in a monitor, or in the passenger seat of a car, or maybe even a toaster (LOL).
Tenchu
Tim,
I'm pretty skeptical in general about "kickstarter" products.
Andy,
I was a lead engineer for the FEOL of the .25um CMOS process at IBM............by the way, Lisa was the device designer for that generation.
Saturn,
Another analyst projecting a PC decline in Q4
FPG, I may have to backtrack what I've been arguing all this time.
If Intel were simply selling parts below cost, then my original argument stands. That is NOT a "subsidy."
But if Intel is paying OEMs the difference in BOM and not deducting that from mobile revenues, then yeah, that's a subsidy, and that means Intel's mobile chip revenues are not truly representative of the demand that is out there for Intel-based mobile products.
Tenchu
Muzosi,
when was that claim ever made in this discussion?
Andy,
well in about the same time it took YOU to advance to your current position as lead Intel internet poster and one of the founding members of the famed SI tejek board, Lisa managed to get three degrees from MIT and become AMD CEO...........other than that......nothing remarkable
FPG,
I have characterized Intel's contra-revenue in mobile as "subsidies." I don't know why you're so hung up on that word
[OFF TOPIC] Muzosi,
i am not sure if this is the forum for this but this is really not true. with extra registers, the data doesn't have to get to l1 or memory, as they define an extra layer in the memory hierarchy between named registers and l1 cache just as not everything in the l1 cache has to go to memory.
Saturn, well that came straight out of left field. Rory was appointed CEO in August 2011. Three years later and now he's gone.
Who's Dr. Lisa Su? Looks like she was a senior VP and is now the new CEO. She better be a miracle-worker, or else her tenure as AMD CEO will just be resume-dressing.
Tenchu
FPG, I think it's clear that you haven't "quit."
The only reason why you characterize Intel's losses in mobile as "subsidies" to the OEMs is because you're still stuck in the past.
You're still treating Intel as a "monopoly" that has to abide by an arbitrary set of rules. If Intel sold anything below BOM, you'll cry foul because you think Intel is leveraging its dominant position in PCs in order to enter new markets. And in an "ends justify the means" world, that cannot be allowed.
Hence the reason why you call them "subsidies." Deny it all you want, but it's the only explanation I can think of for your silly statements like "fake revenue" or "wrapping $120 around every chip."
Tenchu
Muzosi, register renaming takes care of "false dependencies," which helps to find inherent parallelism in code that would otherwise be stalled because instructions have to reuse the same architected registers.
However, it doesn't change the fact that when code is compiled, a lot of swapping still needs to take place between the L1 cache and the registers. This is because the assembly code itself does not have access to the large register file that register renaming provides for. Otherwise, the assembler can just store data within registers, leave it in there for a bit, then access them later on without having to write it to memory.
As for trace caches, they're rather nice in that they reduce the penalty of mispredicted branches. This was a necessity in Pentium 4, where the pipeline was extremely long and a mispredicted branch would have led to a refilling of the entire pipeline. But with its trace cache, only the portion of the pipeline after the decode stages would have to be refilled.
But trace caches have little to do with CISC vs. RISC. Both can employ trace caches, and both can get performance benefits thereof.
Tenchu
FPG,
NOW you're going to quit, after literally 1000's of posts arguing?
Elmer,
What do you estimate the additional transistors add to the total count. 1% -2%? What?
Borusa, maybe one of these days, you and the TFH crowd can discover the "bribes" that Intel MUST be paying Apple, Google, Facebook, and others to keep ARM out of their server farms.
Tenchu
P.S. - "TFH" stands for something made out of aluminum ...
GB,
Never met any with decision making authority who were "anyone but Intel."
Muzosi,
actually if you look at the actual execution engine of a high performance x86 cpu these days, you would find that it is a high performance risc processor. the decoder is the only block which needs to see the cisc stuff; after that everything is converted to micro-ops which are risc.
Elmer, there is one reason why I believe ARM represents a more credible threat to Intel's server business than traditional RISC. And that is the relatively low cost of ARM-based CPU designs.
But I believe that is the only advantage ARM brings to the table. There might also be a small advantage in power consumption, but that's theoretical and based on the whole notion that RISC is inherently better than CISC.
Hence it might not be worth it for companies to leverage ARM into servers. But hey, there are plenty of upstarts out there working hard to prove me wrong, so we'll see.
Tenchu
P.S. - Never underestimate the willingness of customers to go with "Anything But Intel." Just look at some of the regulars on this thread, for instance.
FPG, your claims are getting wilder by the post.
First you claim that Intel's revenues in the mobile chip market are "pretend revenues."
Then you claim that Intel is subsidizing the OEMs by selling mobile processors at a loss.
Now you're insinuating that Intel is actually wrapping $110 around every mobile chip it sells.
I suggest you take a break and get some fresh air. You may have had a valid point or two, but now you're trying way too hard to negatively spin Intel's mobile chip business.
Tenchu
Dmcq,
And that too is the reason ARM is starting to mount a credible threat to the Linux server market.
FPG,
Intel showed that if you can control the huge PC market with virtually no competition, you can pump enough money into R&D to overcome any platform deficiency.
FPG,
Since you're so hung up on the word "subsidy", I'll just call them "contra-revenue payments".
Unkwn,
Why do you think Intel can't fix that anytime soon?
FPG, let me give you a lesson on Econ 101.
Revenue and expenses are independent of one another.
Expenses is a function of a company's production, innovation, and execution.
Revenue is a function of market demand. Even if revenue cannot match expenses, it doesn't matter. You sell your products at prices that will maximize revenue and minimize losses.
For Intel to be able to grow its mobile chip revenue is a good sign. Now all Intel has to do is reduce expenses and continue growing the revenue.
There is no "subsidy" here. I say that over and over again, but you keep bringing up OEMs not having to pay the "extra cost" as if they EVER had to. That's just boneheaded stubbornness on your part.
Tenchu
FPG, now you're going into the weeds ...
But don't cheer about pretend revenue...
Do you honestly believe Intel's revenue share would be exactly the same if they hadn't been subsidizing OEMs?
FPG,
Twist all you want, but the fact remains that Intel is paying OEMs what it takes to make Intel a viable choice
AG, if you haven't noticed, the whole market was down today.
The only "green stock" showing up on my list is QLGC.
Tenchu
Michael,
Her Android Phone has a bug which results in fast battery drain. Google dropped support for it and Jelly Bean was the last update - it's know of shameful that they did this as we bought the phone from Google assuming that they would provide updates for it - that's a major complaint about buying from carriers - it takes forever to get updates, that is, if you're lucky enough to get them at all.
FPG,
You misunderstand me.
I'm sure most Intel investors would like to NOT be losing over a billion dollars a year on anything.
Wthdik2,
anyways..I'm going to leave you guys alone now.
FPG,
Should Intel be losing over a billion dollars a year chasing the mobile rabbit?
Wthdik2,
the more tablet chips they ship..the more money the mobile group seems to lose.
TB,
Here's another guy that just doesn't understand that all you need to do to be productive on your tablet or phone is attach an hdmi cable, usb keyboard/mouse oh and find some productivity software and storage in the cloud and away you go.
FPG,
given that TSMC's 20nm process is already at least as dense as Intel's 14nm
Michael,
Of course the time-frame is open-ended so that they can never be wrong.
IdealInv,
Unfortunately, he lives under the illusion he achieved everything in life himself, so he can "pass judgment" on everyone else.
Muzosi, how long has it been predicted that Apple would move Mac to ARM? How long do you think this has been evaluated and debated, both inside and outside of Apple?
It hasn't happened yet. Ask yourself why that is, rather than muse over why it would be so good for Apple.
Then ask yourself what would need to change before your prediction becomes a reality. Maybe when ARM actually matches up to the real performance of x86 (outside of smartphones)? Maybe when Intel no longer delivers advantages that Apple cannot find in ARM (just like when PowerPC no longer delivered and Apple made the transition to Intel)? Maybe when those oh-so-secret bribes Intel is obviously making to Apple is discovered by the government?
The only one who is trying to avoid having to defend himself is you.
Tenchu