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.
The other PC partners seem less enthusiastic according to following Verge article.
Not really related to Intel, but considering the view that some have (myself included) that Microsoft is one of the biggest barriers to Intel achieving success with tablets and ultrabooks, I found this to be another excellent example of the clusterf*ck that is today's Microsoft management.
The anti-MS buzz among the gaming community is palpable. May Balmer and his underlings get replaced with people who are actually competent...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/insertcoin/2013/06/11/playstation-4s-price-and-policies-humiliate-microsofts-xbox-one-at-e3/
There are some kernels of truth to this IVR scare, but basing investment advice on such incomplete information is downright criminal. So here's a little inside info about this integrated VR stuff. I'm not involved with IVR technology, but I do have some insight into the Haswell project.
First of all, the primary benefit of an integrated VR is cost savings. It's integrating yet more things that used to be on a motherboard into the chip itself, and that means a lower BOM for OEMs. Not that there aren't other benefits as well, but those other benefits by themselves probably wouldn't be enough to take on the technical challenges (and they are numerous).
Secondly, there were indeed some problems identified with Haswell's integrated VRs when silicon came back over a year ago. You know who found those problems? The team in Israel. I've been told that the folks on that team do not like some aspects of the IVRs on HSW (I don't know if it's the implementation, or the whole concept, or whether they doubt the ROI, or what). One of the benefits of having two world class design teams at your disposal is that they are always pushing each other, always questioning each other, not to mention the friendly competition that always goes on.
Well, the folks in IDC wrote a funky power virus test that showed some holes in the IVR circuit performance on Haswell silicon. This did indeed cause an all-hands-on-deck response, and various circuit improvements that were already done on the Broadwell IVRs were pulled back into the Haswell design, along with some other potential fixes that were identified. I won't go into details on the problem, the impact, or the solution, but continuous improvements were put into each successive stepping, and my third-hand knowledge is that the problem is 99% contained. Meanwhile, Haswell's PRQ schedule marches on unabated.
It's worth noting that in the grand scheme of processor design, there really wasn't anything new here. This was by no means the first all-hands-on-deck emergency on the road to releasing a brand new processor, and it won't be the last. And it's also not the first time that a major problem was 99% solved instead of 100%. I think the reason this one got into the public domain is because it's likely that the next tock project that will be designed by IDC, Skylake, will probably not have IVRs (I don't actually know that, but it seems like a safe bet to me if they don't believe in the technology for whatever reason). Since this is a feature that directly impacts board and system manufacturers, I'm sure that many folks outside Intel asked "Why?". And if the person answering that question has some bias against the technology, there could be some bad-mouthing or doom-saying that slipped into the answer (or maybe that needs to be part of the answer to cushion the blow of removing a feature that is helpful to system makers). If you worry that maybe things like cost or power could get out of control with such a decision, remember that those two vectors are still priority #1 with Intel's processors, and you can bet they'll be pulling out all the stops to put out a killer product. Those folks over in IDC are no dummies, and if their ROI analysis tells them a project doesn't need IVRs to be successfull, I trust them. Again, I have no idea what is or isn't being included in Skylake and other future products, this is just my logical conjecture.
So that's what I know, along with my conjecture. It really is amazing how we've all become so jaded to the enormous complexities of building better and better microprocessors, as if new designs and products come out every year all on their own, with no hefty engineering challenges cropping up along the way. Most on this board know better, and know that it doesn't happen that way at all. The sausage-making can get pretty ugly sometimes, and nothing is ever easy. Intel is where it's at today because it responds to those challenges better than anybody, IMO. Have a little faith, folks...
Another factor that could have affected the negotiations is if Intel is a customer of Altera's products. I have no idea who supplies Intel's FPGA emulation needs for it's processor validation, but I know that FPGA modelling for fullchip validation tasks keeps playing a larger and larger role on each succeeding project because the software-only RTL simulation is getting too unwieldy; with increasing core counts, and increased integration of various components that all add to the long reset flows, 2-3 Hz in software simulation will only get you so far.
If Intel was able to lock in some sweet terms for FPGA emulation vehicles going forward for their validation teams, they may have decided it was worth killing two birds with one stone...
This is pure speculation on my part, I have no idea who Intel's vendors actually are...
This is good news. As long as Windows RT exists, it will be a drag on both INTC and MSFT. Here's hoping that other OEMs will come to the same conclusion (which they should).
Now that all the pieces are on the table, the correct tablet strategy for OEMs is crystal clear (including Microsoft, should they continue down the OEM path with Surface): Have a consumer Win8 tablet with a Clovertrail, and have a high-end enterprise "Win8 Pro" table with an Ivy Bridge/Haswell. Full x86 compatibility with no difference in functionality, only a choice as to whether the user prefers more mobility or higher performance. Then combine this with a concerted effort by MS and Intel to transfer as many x86 applications as possible to an "app" format that's available in the Windows store.
If Windows RT were out of the picture, then a re-combined Wintel alliance could focus the full brunt of their competitive forces on taking down Apple and the iPad. And I think they'd have a really decent shot at that.
Instead, MS and Intel are divided and trying to individually compete with Apple on different battlegrounds, while also trying to gain a foothold among all the ARM devices out there. And MS is even competing with itself as it tries to market its Windows RT by convincing folks they don't need real Windows.
It's folly. Windows RT needs to die.
Here's a comprehensive and very positive user review of the Clover Trail-based Samsung ATIV SmartPC.
http://www.umpcportal.com/2012/11/review-samsung-ativ-smart-pc-500t/
His closing comments:
"In comparison to the current iPad tablet, a 64GB iPad with no expansion slots, you would pay $699 plus $99 for a keyboard. The Samsung ATIV Smart PC with 64GB SSD storage and capable of using the microSD slot for an additional 64GB storage, a keyboard docking station with an internal battery to provide up to 16 hours of battery life can be purchased for $749.99, making the ATIV Smart PC a good buy for those that truly want to be mobile but yet have full Windows 8 with Metro apps as well."
These things may be in danger of actually creating some buzz...
Intel's latest ad for convertible ultrabooks:
In terms of temperature, it seems to get dangerously hot at the exaust vent during load, but otherwise is in the range of most devices.
Battery life is impressive, with 9.5 hours of idle time, and 5.5 hours of web browsing. Unfortunatly, the 1.5 hours of 3DMark06 looping implies maybe it wouldn't be such a good portable gaming system.
Interesting article on the status of the Windows app store.
http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2012/10/17/windows-8-app-landscape-where-will-be-by-december/
Expect a bunch of comparisons at launch about hundreds of thousands of Android and iOS apps and only a few thousand Win8 apps. My biggest concern about ultrabooks and Win8 is that there seem to be a lot of market headwinds going against it. There's no kind of market pull demanding a new kind of device, since people are perfectly happy with their smartphones or tablets running Android or iOS. I think the biggest challenge of the Win8 launch is making it feel like more than a "me too" product.
I'm glad that Microsoft is helping to support app development, and I would hope that Intel is bringing its considerable resources to bear on this axis as well...
Some Hands-on footage of the upcoming Toshiba Ultrabook with a sliding display. Also includes a demo of NFC, which I hadn't really seen in action before, but I can see how it could be pretty convenient.
http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/09/21/toshiba-u920t-hands-on-video-first-ultrabook-with-nfc/
I agree with the author that the weight is pretty impractical for much use as a tablet. Also, the price is pretty high. I think a device like this with a 9-10" screen would bring the size, weight, and price down to a pretty compelling level. I'm also not sure we'll see many "Wow" form-factors until Haswell hits the market next year.
But I sure like the direction things are heading...
Intel 14 nm Broadwell chip works
The embedded DRAM has been talked about before by Charlie when talking about Crystalwell. Here's an update from a couple days ago (although I'm pretty sure that Charlie is getting way ahead of himself in speculating about 1GB of DRAM):
http://semiaccurate.com/2012/09/10/crystalwell-is-very-wide-memory-for-haswell-gt3/
Here's some (raw) notes from the IDF presentation on the HSW uarch, for those interested...
http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/09/11/haswellfirst-insights-at-idf-2012-raw-session-notes/
Well, I am doing my part in the ultrabook ramp.
I ordered this a couple weeks ago to replace my wife's netbook (she plays Diablo 2 on it, and needs something to play Diablo 3...plus real work, of course ;), and it's all set to arrive tomorrow:
http://www.amazon.com/Samsung-NP900X4C-A03US-15-Inch-Ultrabook-Mineral/dp/B0082PZ1JU/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&qid=1342636854&sr=8-8&keywords=samsung+series+9
Core i7-3517U 1.9GHz Ivy Bridge
8GB RAM
256GB SSD
15" 1600x900 display
3.5 pounds
Price: $1,799
Amazon says it ships in 3-5 weeks, but it actually took more like 1.5 weeks.
I shelled out an extra $400 over the next-lowest model, which has a 128GB SSD and an i5 CPU. The bigger SSD will be nice (very nice!), but my main motivation for upgrading was the CPU. I think Intel could do a better job of marketing the fact that the GPU in the Ivy Bridge i7 runs almost 10% faster than in the i5 (1150MHz vs 1050MHz). Oh, and there's an extra MB of last-level-cache (4MB vs 3MB).
You don't find this info in any marketing specs (only CPU core speed), but I think a 10% across-the-board performance increase is signicant when the HD4000 graphics are right on the cusp of being able to play modern games (albeit at lower settings). I'm still getting mixed reviews on whether Diablo 3 is playable on HD4000 graphics (especially in later acts), but I feel better about my chances with the extra i7 performance.
Anyway, I'm looking forward to playing with our new toy tomorrow...
Here are the two Orange ads created for the French market. They're in French (of course), but still funny. Be sure to watch them in order!
His:
The first commercial from Intel's upcoming Ultrabook marketing campaign:
This Lenovo convertible Win8 Ultrabook was demo'd at this year's CES last January.
Somebody at Tom's Hardware gets it:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/medfield-krait-smartphone-mobile-soc,3117.html
It's long, but worth the read.
Summary:
Intel's SOC at 32nm is now equal to ARM at 45nm.
There are 2 areas of upside for both:
* Uarch performance:
ARM has to implement OOO from scratch, while Intel can simply upgrade from a Pentium baseline to a Core-like baseline.
* Process technology:
Intel's ramping 22nm now and can easily move SoC's there, while ARM is reliant on foundries to go to 32nm, some of which haven't mastered high-k technology like Intel has (and one of which is foregoing high-k completely).
Conclusion: Intel wins in 3 years. It's just a matter of time...
OT -
Sorry, but misquoting Jefferson on the internet is a personal pet peeve of mine. And this quote is false.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/jefferson/banks.asp
I whole-heartedly agree with you, however, that repealling Glass-Steagal was a cardinal sin (a pox on both parties for that one) that should be re-instated post-haste.
That's why I say the debt ceiling is completely artificial. Whether it gets lifted or not depends on which party controls Congress and the White House.
Quick story from the inside.
Normally I would never consider posting information from Intel's intranet in a public forum, but a while back there was a pretty cool "rah-rah" fluff piece on the high-level story of the company's reaction to the Cougar Point chipset issue, and now that any financial ramifications of this issue should be old news, I think it's worth sharing.
Obviously, there were herculean efforts involved in the debug, fix identification, mask edits, and wafer intercept to make metal-only fixes as fast as possible. But in addition to that, another cool aspect to this is that Intel used its corporate shuttle as its own personal courier service, transporting boxes of wafers from Chandler to Oregon for test and assembly almost 'round the clock (the limiting factor turned out to be FAA regulations on how many consecutive hours pilots could be on the job). One employee shared his story about how he had a 2am flight with just him, one flight attendant, and a cargo hold down below full of wafers.
The net result: the time from the first moment when an Intel employee looked at a returned part and said, "Hmmm, this doesn't look right, I think we might have a problem", until the first OEM had the first replacement part in their hands was a mere NINE DAYS.
I wasn't involved in any of this, I just think it's very impressive and deserves some public kudos.
- CG
One small bright spot here today: the market action in INTC today (flat) confirms one thing: everybody already expects Intel to have ZERO impact on the smart phone market. I'm sure we all guessed that already, but today should confirm it.
Anything they do from here on out, ANYTHING, even selling one smart phone with Intel Inside, will be regarded as a positive surprise.
And if they fail to do even that, then the downside risk to Intel share price is, well, pretty much zero.
If one thinks that Intel has even the remotest possible chance to get in the game at some point, in any capacity, holding INTC seems like a reasonable speculative play. And you'll get paid a decent dividend along the way, to boot.
Just an observation...
Hypothetical question:
Suppose that Nokia drops MeeGo and switches to Android.
Given how we are _this_ close to a MeeGo-powered phone using Intel silicon, would Intel be better off building and marketing its own phone at that point? Ya think there might be a market for an open-source Intel Phone?
I've heard a couple conflicting rumors about porting Android to run on Atom. On the one hand, I've heard that a big reason that Intel needs an OS like MeeGo is because it's open-source, and Intel folks have made many tailor-made changes to the guts of the OS to work in close harmony with the power states supported by Atom. So supposedly, some of the Atom's competitive power consumption is dependent on tightly-integrated OS support. The corollary to this rumor is another rumor that Google has expressed no interest in spending resources to help improve Android to run on Atom. This makes sense to me...why would they, when there is plenty of hardware out there that runs Android perfectly fine?
On the other hand, I talked to an Intel software guy about a year ago who said that such concerns are overblown, and he was confident that Intel could pull off an Android port.
I would love to believe that guy, but considering how there has been absolutely nothing out of Intel regarding even the possibility of Android, I have to wonder if the technical reasons to stick with MeeGo are just too compelling.
Who knows, maybe Intel has been doing a secret Android port and kept it under wraps so as not to upset their partners in Finland. It would be funny if Nokia has been thinking along the same lines, they announce a surprise on Friday that they have Android running on a Nokia phone, quickly followed by an Intel announcement that they have Android running on Intel silicon, and they quickly begin working together again...
“People in the mobile phone architecture do not buy microprocessors. So if you sell microprocessors you have the wrong model. They license them. So it’s not Intel vs. ARM, it is Intel vs. every single semiconductor company in the world.”
I'll take that bet...
I could write a headline titled, "Is Nokia dropping Symbian for Meego sooner rather than later?", and then parse those exact same quotes to make the case for this polar opposite premise.
It's gonna be interesting monitoring the phone market once Intel becomes a player here; my hype-meter will need to be adjusted.
Every time I go shopping for a new phone and look for user reviews, it strikes me how so many people are drooling in anticipation over upcoming products and spec sheets. You can see the fawning in the comments to this linked article, and now mas seems to have caught the fever.
Good grief, it's just a phone...
Then again, I guess this bodes well for a well-designed product to make a splash, even if it's late to the party...
There has been exactly ONE time in the past when any sort of "reset" was done on employee options, and even then it wasn't really a reset.
Shortly following the tech crash, around 2001 or so, when everybody's options were deeply underwater, management added a small stock option bonus to the compensation package that year. It basically consisted of calculating how many stock options you had that were above some high value like $40-$50 (the stock price was $25 at the time), and issuing a fraction of that number as new options at the present market price. This was in addition to what you'd normally receive. For perspective, looking back at my broker records, I received about 16% more stock option grants above what I normally would have received, and it was only in that one year.
The only other time that any action has been taken regarding underwater options is last year when all employees were given the choice to "trade-in" underwater options for new options with a new market strike price, but at equal value. They actually went through each stock option grant from the last 10 years, calculated their present value using Black-Scholles or some equivalent, and assigned a ratio that represented how many new options you could get by trading those in. So for example, if you had 900 underwater options and the number crunchers assigned a ratio of 3:1 for that particular grant, then you had the choice of trading those 900 underwater options for 300 new options with a strike price at today's market price.
It's worth noting that this is, in fact, something that ANY investor who owned INTC stock options could do themselves (ie rollover underwater options at depressed prices and buy fewer options at a lower strike price), and was billed to both employees and shareholders as a program that would be cost-neutral to the company.
(As a side-note, any new options granted from this program reset their vesting schedule, and thus did not vest until 4 years from the grant date. So any grants from 4 or more years ago were fully vested, but if you traded them in for new options then their vesting schedule got reset. There was a lot of complaining on the internal employee blogs from folks who plugged the numbers into Black-Scholes and found that that this new vesting schedule wasn't reflected in the value calculations, and feel that employees got short-changed on the assigned ratios. There was never any comment about this from management).
I recognize why there's a lot of negativity around stock options, and alot of it revolves around their misuse by some companies (including AMD). But I've always thought that Intel has been very responsible with their stock option grant program. I can assure you that the options I received in April of 2000 with a grant price of $61.82 expired quite worthless just this last April (these weren't offered as part of the option exchange because the ratio was so absurd, something like 1000:1).
I know the knee-jerk reaction is to roll your eyes and say, "Here we go again!", but there are signs that Intel is finally learning its lesson regarding acquisitions.
Granted, it's only one datapoint, but it's not a bad one: Wind River.
Intel paid $800 million for this software company, and has actually treated them like an independent subsidiary instead of trying to assimilate them into the borg. They've maintained their current product lineup and have retained most of their current customers, and reports inside the company are that last year they had their best year ever revenue-wise.
I think this is the direction that Intel needs to go: Buy successful companies and let them continue to do what they do best selling the products they have available, while simultaneously directing a part of their R&D to collaborate with other parts of Intel in all the x86 SoC stuff they've got going on.
It will be interesting to see if they can do this with a hardware company, where the urge to assimilate them will probably be a lot higher.
Here are the technical details from the press release (emphasis mine):
===========
"Collectively these new chips deliver significantly lower power including >50x reduction in idle power, >20x reduction in audio power, and 2-3x reductions across browsing and video scenarios – all at the platform level when compared to Intel's previous-generation product1. These power savings translate into >10 days of standby, up to 2 days of audio playback and 4-5 hours of browsing and video battery life3. When combined with 1.5-3x higher compute performance, 2-4x richer graphics, >4x higher JavaScript performance, and support for full HD 1080p high-profile video decoding and 720p HD video recording, these low-power innovations bring a rich, PC-like visual experience to powerful handheld computers4.
Building on the C6 state in the original Intel Atom processor design, the SoC incorporates new ultra-low-power states (S0i1 and S0i3), which take the SoC to 100 micro-watts5. At the platform level, Intel implemented a new, fine grain OS power management approach that manages the idle and active power states across all aspects of the system based on usage scenarios. This software-managed technique applies aggressive power and clock gating across the SoC's power islands and system voltage rails. Additionally, Intel used a new high-K 45nm2 LP SoC process to support a multiple transistor design with a range of high-voltage I/Os."
==========
Say what you want about Intel's lack of success in this space so far. Yes, there has been lots of floundering over the last decade. However, once the floundering stopped and a clear direction was set to go all the way with x86, my observation is that the execution has been as good as it could be over the last 4-5 years.
To me, Moorestown represents the conclusion of Intel's transition from a processor company to a SoC company (trust me on this, everything Intel's chip design teams do now is done with an eye on how different pieces can be integrated into future SoC designs). From this point on, it's all about doing what Intel does best: Cranking out new generations of both designs and processes, one after the other, relentlessly. I don't know if Moorestown will be a commercial success, but they don't really need it to be; all they need is a good baseline from which to build on, and all indications are that Moorestown is one hell of a baseline.
I fully expect Moorestown to turn some heads among handset makers, but the jury's out as to whether anybody will be enticed to build something around it. Moorestown should be "competitive", but that may not be enough. Going forward, Intel's goal for its follow-on 32nm and 22nm designs should be to go from "competitive" to "no-brainer". That seems well within the realm of possibility now that they've got the ball rolling with Moorestown and are on more familiar ground from here on out.
There are 3 sources of shares that are a part of employee compensation. What I don't know is whether all these shares are always created out of thin air by the company (thus adding to shares outstanding), or whether they are obtained on the open market. Below are my guesses.
Stock options - These are created, and only go to executives now that smaller numbers of RSUs are offered to the rank-and-file. These will increase the shares outstanding, but only when the option is exercised. Most options are underwater these days, with the possible exception of any that were granted in the last year or two. And since options vest over 4 years, I don't think there's much option exercising going on right now.
RSUs (Restricted Stock Units) - These are regular INTC shares that are awarded once a year to all employees in various amounts, and vest over 4 years at 25% per year. I think these are created and add to shares outstanding, but I'm not sure. This started 3 years ago, so this year everybody saw 3 years' worth of grants vest at 25% each. My total number of shares that vested this year came to 423 shares back in April when the stock was ~$15, which amounts to ~$6,500. My original thinking was that this is the source of all those new shares, however most RSUs are awarded and vest in April, so this should have shown up in Q2. But maybe there's a delay in when shares show up in total shares outstanding? Another possibility is that they don't actually add to shares outstanding until they are sold. I'm really not sure how these are accounted for.
SPP (Stock Participation Plan) - This is the plan that allows all employees to buy Intel stock at a 15% discount of the price either at the beginning of the 6-month SPP period, or at the end (whichever is lower). The purchase dates are in August and February, so the last purchase date fell in Q3. Furthermore, the price advantage to employees was the best it's been in some time, because the stock was so depressed back in February. I have always figured that SPP stock is bought on the open market, and thus doesn't affect shares outstanding, but it's possible that Intel issued new shares this time around because the buy and sell differential was so high (the purchase price for this latest August period ended up being ~$11 when the stock was at ~$17).
AFAIK, these are the only places where newly issued shares could end up. Given that any executive stock options that exist are either underwater or unvested, I would wager that most of what you are seeing is due to compensation to the general employee base at large. That's just an educated guess on my part, though.
-CG
Here's the other ad they released today. I like this one better...
I'm not sure about those details...
I should amend my statement to say that I'm not sure what market segment the 6-core part will be aimed for...I'm assuming dual-socket server, but I don't really know for sure.
But the 2-core Westmere definitely isn't a cripple-core design...
I can confirm that the initial Westmere product was designed as a 2-core product. Should be a killer mobile part...
The 6-core Westmere should follow several months after that for a killer server product...
Here is the preliminary proxy filing for Intel's proposed compensation changes.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000095013409005812/f50679prpre14a.htm
Page 62 includes a table of example exchange ratios using share price inputs from December 26, 2008.
Some highlights:
The good (for investors, ie a high exchange ratio):
For options granted in 2000:
Exercise price $32-$39 -> 66.8:1 (affects 15,760,000 existing options)
Exercise price $39+ -> 99.6:1 (affects 3,134,200 existing options)
For options granted in 2001:
Exercise price $25-$26 -> 5.9:1 (affects 23,175,400 existing options)
Exercise price $26+ -> 18.5:1 (affects 9,350,000 existing options)
The bad (low exchange ratio):
For options granted in 2004:
Exercise price $26-$27 -> 1.9:1 (affects 60,587,000 existing options)
Exercise price $27+ -> 2.5:1 (affects 1,801,600 existing options)
All told, in this example at least, if all employees opted into this exchange, 151,646,300 of the outstanding options would be reduced to 50,289,604 options with a lower strike price and a reset vesting period (4 years). There are more existing options than this, but it sounds like they aren't enumerated here because their strike price is lower than the 52-week high, and thus they aren't eligible for exchange.
Lots more info at the link. FYI.
This is how I understand this option exchange program will work.
Using a Black-Scholes model, all current employee options have some fair market value today. For something that is deeply underwater (which ALL employee options currently are), that value is very small. For example purposes, let's say an employee has some $30 stock options that are valued at 5 cents/share.
Intel now wants to roll-over those options over to a new strike price that is equal to the current share price. The value of those options will obviously be much higher. Again for example purposes, let's say the value of a new $15 employee stock option is $1.00.
This program would now allow employees, if they desire, to swap their underwater options for these new strike prices for an equal total value. Using the above example numbers, the employee could swap 20 underwater options for 1 new option at the new strike price.
What I think is worth emphasizing is that this is the exact same activity that can be done by ANY investor that has bought Call options in Intel (or any other company). Rolling over options to new strike prices, either higher or lower, is a very basic strategy in options investing. What is happening here is that Intel is giving employees a one-time option of doing this sometime in Q4. I think it's a reasonable request...
Disclaimer: I am an Intel employee, and speak only for myself. Personally, I've already written off all my underwater options, and don't expect anything of value from them, so I won't get worked up over how the shareholder vote comes out. Although, I am very curious to see what the exchange rate would be on my $65 options from 2000 that expire next year, compared to a new $15 option that expires in another 7 years. I think it'd be quite humorous to see a 1000:1 exchange ratio...
They're having a big launch party in China, with a worldwide webcast. Starts at 5pm Pacific time, I guess we're waiting for them to wake up over there...
Re: Unaligned access improvements
There may be other improvements in this area, but the big one I'm aware of is that Nehalem is once again able to do store-forwards to unaligned loads across 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 12 byte boundaries (ie forward data to unaligned loads without waiting for that store to complete its write to the cache).
This was implemented in P4 thanks to the additional pipestages that were available in that uarch, but Merom took a step back to the P6 days of only being able to forward to loads that are aligned to 8-byte boundaries (they may have added 4 and 12-byte alignment, I'm not sure).
Nehalem once again gets close to an alignment-agnostic state of being, which should close some performance glass jaws that exist out there today for Core 2 chips.
Existing Intel employees have always received option and RSU grants in the week following April 16th. There's no real significance to that date, I just know that performance reviews are always delivered by then, and any pay increases have always shown up in the mid-April paystub of exempt employees. Within a week after that, new option and/or RSU grants show up in employee stock accounts. There are sometimes mid-year promotions, and of course new-hires, but the bulk of the employee stock activity will occur in April (which is why you will often see old stock options getting exercised in the beginning of the year, before they expire).
RSUs began getting granted two years ago, and the grants always vest over 4 years, 25% per year. So in April of last year, the first 25% of that first grant vested. This April, we have a "double vest", where the 2nd 25% from 2 years ago vests, as well as the 1st 25% from last year's grant. In two more years, all employees will benefit from a "quad vesting", where 25% of 4 different grants will all vest at once. Of course, you need to stay at Intel 4 years to get that benefit (thus their benefit to the company).
I don't know if the automatic selling of RSUs for tax purposes would show up as insider trades. I know that I never see those shares in my name. Simultaneous to the shares vesting, the brokerage account automatically withholds those shares, and their FMV gets reported in W-2 tax withholding; I never see any of those shares in my name.
However, I will say that unlike stock options, from the employee's perspective there really isn't much incentive to hold on to the shares once they vest. With stock options, even a few-dollar increase in share price can cause a large swing in the total amount coming your way. Not so with RSUs, because they are so much smaller in number. I know that last year and this year, I have sold all my RSUs almost immediately upon vesting (though in both cases I also had an economic need).
I am skeptical how much impact this employee stock action actually affects the stock price. Even the total potential volume would seem to be dwarfed by one day's trading volume.
Anyway, that's how the whole thing works....
Did anybody notice the YoY revenue growth by region?
Asia: 8.0%
Europe: 8.2%
Japan: 3.6%
Americas: 16.7%
Just a random observation. I thought recessionary factors were supposed to weigh down on Intel sales in North America....
Not to mention this is another classic AMD pre-warning. A full week after the complete quarter is in the books, and less than 2 weeks before their "real" earnings report.
Don't they monitor their sales throughout the quarter? When the first 2 months come in below target, do they think some magic fairy dust is going to appear and make things better?
Hopefully the Intel AH action doesn't hold tomorrow. Would be a shame if it did, since Intel already reiterated their revenue guidance despite the lower GMs due to flash. This loss really should be Intel's gain...