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.
No.1, either option. I know Bolduc is a God to some people here but there have been many clear cases in the past where he has been very economical with the truth the most blatant examples of which I have documented over the years.
No.2 option does not compute, TSA have not got the time or inclination to get involved in intra-competitor price politics. FPDS is completely legit to the nearest cent, if there are more costs to orders they then get added in supplementary orders or original order is amended.
The bigger question now is whether warranties and consumables get charged to the IDIQ or to another cost centre in which case the latter would be a good thing as it means the IDIQ will have a revenue multiplier effect.
The $21m is obviously the raw basic metal price of the ETDs without support/warranties/consumables etc and can't be really disputed as FPDS is accurate, you can't really expect old list prices of single units to apply years later when you are bidding for thousands against now desperate competitors. The question in my mind now is whether the $162m IDIQ refers to just a total of raw basic prices of ETDs or also includes ancillaries, I suspect it is just the raw metal price which means the true business value of the IDIQ if fully won is probably closer to $250-300m. Sheesh, I'm spreading nothing but good news these days .
Last quarter's revenue was very impressive considering it was basically all ECAC. The CEO and the rest of the executives also dropped their aloofness and reconnected with their shareholders concerns at the CC which was needed and a re-fi was finally publicly accepted as necessary. It's been a good few days if you are a Long.
No, even the passively cooled 11" Dell Venue 11 Pro 7140 (smaller than iPad Pro) exhibits comparable GB3 compute performance and better in integer if you do not consider SHA encryption instructions to be what is normally considered to be integer and which are accelerated in A9X.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/3427162?baseline=4149721
That's poor, they should be in Skylake as originally intimated.
A9X hangs with Core-M in GB3 although Skylake-Y will have SHA instructions that will put it back ahead in what GB3 considers to be 'integer'.
http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/compare/4149721?baseline=2593326
Analyzing Intel Core M Performance: How 5Y10 can beat 5Y71 & the OEMs' Dilemma
http://anandtech.com/print/9117/analyzing-intel-core-m-performance
You are not thinking straight. Kill Atom and suddenly the case for WindowsRT comes back. How many ARM tablet vendors has Atom already killed when it was supposed to be the other way round according to popular prevailing opinion at the time with Nvidia being the most noteworthy casualty. In your perfectionist desire to see Intel always have the biggest and best you overlook that some cpu plays are of a defensive nature which Atom has always really been. It really does not have to make any money in the long run just not lose it to be a good defensive linebacker of the IA line to protect Core's back from the cheap ARMy and crowd them out of the market.
I get that iPad Pro could satisfy professional designers well which hearkens back to Apple's past but this is a niche market and Cook's attempts to then portray the Pro as a complete PC replacement is disingenuous and just highlights that he is a complete amateur as a prognosticator. Any i7 and most i5s will destroy it in performance and there will be cheaper PCs of equivalent performance with bigger screens to choose from never mind much cheaper Atom tablets whose multi-threading performance would not be embarrassed by the Pro. I get that he is loudly selling his product to the world but you also have to keep it real and not jump any sharks .
You can get a cheaper/bigger/more powerful All-in-One PC to use as a big productivity tablet if that is your preferred platform.
Work backwards. What perceived market gap is iPad Pro designed to fill ? At the same cost what will it replace in volume and why ? To me it just looks like a company ego vanity product to put an overclocked A9 chip in.
An iPad-shaped peg for a Mac-shaped hole
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/11/ipad-pro-review-mac-like-speed-with-all-the-virtues-and-limitations-of-ios/
Size/cost/power limitations can all be eventually overcome with smaller process sizes. The basic fact is that what the mobile market needs next are not gimmicky expensive niche smart watches but wearable communication devices like a watch with basic feature phone capability. As Intel is not an entrenched smartphone player with territory to defend this is where it can steal a march on its competitors if it is bold enough and forward looking enough.
It used to hover in the teens/twenties only a few years ago so it has gone somewhere.
Intel has upgraded the front end of the Skylake core to allow a dispatch of six micro-ops at once, up from four on Haswell. This allows the queue to be quicker, but also the dispatch of micro-ops from the queue to the execution units has increased to six.
This will allow for fatter dual threads in a core which has for example improved throughput by over 20% in a spec subtest.
http://www.myce.com/news/skylake-cpus-have-inverse-hyper-threading-to-boost-single-thread-performance-77011/
p.s. this subtest also has been decomposed to work on more than one core in single-thread mode.
The apple watch is just a gimmick until it can become a watch-phone, then it will becomes the next stage in ultra-mobility, but I don't think Apple will be brave enough to do it i.e. they will shield the iPhone from internal competition but others will.
The problem with the iPad pro is ... it's a mini-Emperor with no clothes
“Yes, the iPad Pro is a replacement for a notebook or a desktop for many, many people. They will start using it and conclude they no longer need to use anything else, other than their phones,” Cook argues
If consumers only wanted Core-M level capability on a small screen then they already would have made that choice. It is obvious that computing devices have followed the same historical pattern for many decades now, a spectrum range of heavier, immobile, hotter, powerful bigger screened devices down to lighter, mobile, cooler, weaker smaller screened devices. This will never change, only the relative market share of each band in the whole spectrum ever changes. All Apple can do is decide what part of the computer spectrum it will compete in and quite frankly it has chosen to compete in all of them, just not all with their own application processors which is why it chooses to denigrate those it does not fully control which is just sheer company self-interest and has very little to do with computer market realities.
Cook is no visionary leader like Jobs who genuinely saw new untapped markets, just an efficient overall executor/enabler of what his designers come up with and his attempts at predicting the computer future are laughable on the level of say Warren East's were.
Xeon is hanging with Power 8 in the multi-thread, multi-core, multi-socket performance too using less power. If that's the best RISC has got the ARMy have no chance apart from niches.
Peter Schiff is just sore that his gloom and doom stories of hyper-inflation with the resultant price spike in his beloved Gold did not take place. I have always though he was a clueless idiot and nothing has changed my opinion of him.
Here's the deal about fiat money, there is nothing sacrosanct about its value, it is just a tool whose value at any time is a snapshot of conflicting pressures/requirements in your economy and a Central Bank has the mandate to manage it as it sees fit under its Government instructions. The fact that Japanese have had so much QE without inflation shows that their deflation is structural. In fact I think the current global deflation is structural primarily due to lower energy prices as the global inflation that lasted three decades from the 70s was structural IMO and caused by higher energy prices i.e. Oil.
As long as you don't have abnormal inflation QE is a free ride that everyone can benefit from apart from savers. Obviously once inflation returns that will hit everyone again but even then it will have a side benefit of reducing the value of your debt and QE unwind can also help then to reduce the money circulation dampening the inflation. Deflation is not a completely bad thing if your economy is still growing and money supply is healthful and can be considered a mark of how you are making products fundamentally cheaper than before which is surely a good thing for everyone. Shale Oil/Gas has basically given the world a break from high inflation and we should not be so ungrateful unless you are a doom and gloom Gold Bug like Schiff .
I think it is totally stupid for Intel to suddenly pull the plug on android x86 forever locking itself out of merchant mobility and it will be permanent as the developers would not believe Intel if they said they were coming book after a break having been bitten once.
Surely for the most popular general public software it is used as that cost is minimal if you sell in the thousands/millions ?
and A9 has a bigger server-type three level cache hierarchy too.
the sub-test that people say is least "game-able" by compiler trickery
If some of this 'trickery' is applicable to general application usage then it is not necessarily invalid. Most of the SpecCPU suite subtests are not affected by this anyway so the whole suite is still more valid than say GB3.
re: http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/11/04/just-how-fast-is-the-apple-inc-a9-cpu.aspx
In this article it was not pointed out that GB3 favors A9 with its specialized encryption instructions which C2D does not possess. Maybe GB2 would have been a better benchmark to compare these two processors more validly, at least on the integer (due to the x86 FP denormal bug) side ? As for the SpecINT2000 comparison that shows that A9 is probably more equivalent overall to a 2.0-2.3 GHz C2D which is still a fine achievement.
Finally can you perhaps see now that giving up on android x86 is not a good long-term strategy as it will prevent any future potentially good x86 mobile processors from taking hold due to software negligence ? Intel spent $5+bn with its discounts getting the current android foothold and it would be fiduciarily negligent just to give up on that now just because Atom is not the absolute best mobile processor at this moment in time. Atom guarantees software volume which should not be taken for granted.
Sure but why should the reader be required to compute it when it is standard practice to reveal the topline score both base and peak ?
Although you gave a different solution I think we are agreed Intel needs to expand its cpu lines with another line. So would you start Core light with Skylake shrinks optimizing for power and roughly what specification would your Core heavy look like to offer enough differentiation ?
I don't care if Intel uses ARM
Then it loses its proprietary advantage of being able to differentiate on ISA which I don't really need to remind you modern day servers/pcs are standardized on x86 after brutal decades of open competition. Once you start giving up on x86 in mobility what will be its long term future when you see how mobile volume has transformed ARM and Apple ? x86 will then become the niche Server Risc of the future. This is where your short-term strategy will lead Intel.
I know you like to rag on Atom but it is still only a dual-issue cpu competing against triple-issue A57/A72 and hex-issue A9, there really is so much future potential scope to develop both Atom and Core with the latter still only a quad-issue cpu and as Intel can change its ISA at the same time it can maximize the performance increase rather than waiting in line like everyone else for the next release of ARMv8.
You have noticed that Intel's 10nm is late and 14nm yields are still poor so add to that Intel becoming an ARM shop as well, its chips may well end up inferior if it ever loses its process advantage building generic licensed cpus whereas it is shielded to a big extent by the x86 walled garden. It's a slippery slope you are advocating once you work out all eventual possibilities to their conclusion. x86 everywhere really is the best strategy to keep the FABs full and humming.
I really could see Core-M in a phone eventually if Intel choose to put it there maybe at 10nm-7nm. The way Core has developed lately is that it has lost power more than it has gained performance which is fine for the moment and good for its eventual use in phones but I really could see the eventual need of a third line of x86 cpus, say a 6-issue desktop/server cpu specialist of say Itanium ipc levels as the performance distinction lines between x86 and ARM are definitely getting blurred with each new ARM generation.
That's the beauty of SPEC_CPU, you can go back in time and compare to any historical cpu of any platform and I am pleased Anandtech take the time and trouble to use it. My only criticism of them is that they don't appear to list a total score.
I don't even think Apple's own CPUs are a threat to Intel's position in the Mac. The performance is now pretty much there and Apple isn't exactly telling developers to prepare to port everything to ARMv8, so I doubt such a transition will happen unless Intel really screws up, IMO.
Take the 3-core version of Twister, shrink to 10FF, add multi-threading as they are purporting to be doing and the performance case for replacing dual-core Core-Ms in MacBooks become very strong.
They seem to have managed the very difficult neat trick of taking Cyclone and shortening its pipeline and latencies whilst also increasing the usually conflicting aspects of clockspeed and cache sizes. I have not looked at old SpecCPU2000 scores but this must be at or better Alpha EV7 performance levels now. FinFETs helped get Core into fanless tablets but it has also helped A9 turn into a Excavator desktop level performing cpu in a mobile phone form factor. It's pretty neat for Intel that Apple is a self-contained proprietary ecosystem that Windows is relatively shielded from because A9 in a desktop format could be quite a threat and especially in laptops.
Apple A9 performance : http://anandtech.com/show/9686/the-apple-iphone-6s-and-iphone-6s-plus-review/4
In what way would this serve to cut Intel off from non-Windows mobile devices "probably forever?" ARM compatibility on Android, especially in high performance native applications, is still superior to x86 compatibility (although Intel has seemingly done a good job of trying to tackle such compatibility issues).
Android software vendors would just stop developing/porting their code to x86. That means no future chance of Atom or even Core being in mainstream phones ever again just on software grounds. Really, is that what you are advocating for the very short-term gains promised in that article especially after all the heavy lifting Intel did to get Android developers interested in x86 ?
Atom CPU cores are not smaller than competing ARM cores, even when Atom has a process advantage, so the Atom CPU cores are not inherently "cheaper."
There is not much in it and anyway the cores are not usually the biggest part of the SoC, the gpu is which is also other Intel IP that would be discarded in your suggestion. Once the 14nm Sofias are here Intel's mobile strategy will make more sense i.e. mostly Intel IP made on Intel's own FABs to give unbeatable and profitable performance/price. In your way Intel's modem would be left to market forces as well as the gpu as a byproduct of ditching Intel IP and just picking the perceived, to you, best.
moving to higher performance ARM cores that take roughly the same die space would in this case only serve to enhance the "performance" portion of the performance/price equation -- allowing it to maximize its revenue/profit per chip.
at the cost of strengthening a rival hardware/software ecosystem which will have a far more counter-productive effect in the long run. Do you really want Intel's leading-edge FABs to be used for this purpose ? That's a defeatist strategy against a multi-headed set of rivals whose main expansionist aim is to take Intel's rich PC/Server profit dollars. Don't forget, Intel x86 android strategy has already forced some ARM vendors to get out of the generic tablet business and they need the business more than Intel.
In terms of performance/watt, A57 has proven itself to fit nicely into a mobile power envelope while offering better performance than Silvermont on both Samsung 20nm and Samsung 14nm.
A57 because of throttling issues hardly seems any better than A15/Silvermont at least at 20nm. It is not a quantum jump over either in mobility environments which is why A72 was developed.
A57 and A72. Atom is currently roughly in the A15 league although of course it varies in applications and can compete with A57 in some cases.
Another inane AE idea after which android x86 software development ceases totally cutting off Intel from non-Windows mobile devices probably forever. I suppose he gets paid for producing a steady stream of articles regardless of quality and it often shows. As to the subject he brought up it does not matter if Atom is not the absolute performance leader in mobility it just has to be competitive in performance/price and performance/power and it is in both cases.
iPhone 6S review: a very good phone ruined by rubbish battery life
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/oct/06/apple-iphone-6s-review-camera-3d-touch-screen-faster-processor-fingerprint-sensor-rubbish-battery-life
That TSMC fake 16nm process is obviously a doozy
It's only about $5m of the compounded debt that is 8c convertible, about 60m shares. The rest is mainly straight credit with a few million convertible over a dollar.
Of course DMRJ would like the pps to be as high as possible too but they also don't want to dip their own hands in their pockets when IMSC ask for cash every quarter so they pickpocket retail shareholders instead for that and you can see from the amount they have converted over the years that it roughly matches. It's a balance.