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.
Hi Guys,
Gee, I though INTC would be bankrupt by now, having followed this thread for nearly a decade wayback. Hope you are all happy as clams with your chip stocks. Intel has been great for me and pays a good dividend.
Well, gotta go..I don't want to stay in here too long and catch a bad virus or get bored to death.
Ciao,
Ahhh, another day of anti-Intel fake news, biased only in favor of the Greek Goddess, AMD, here on Investor's Hub fake news billboard.
duh
Who the H do you think you are? The Grand Inquisitor?
They have medications for people like you.
Hey Nimrod, I was shorting puts and buying MLP's, not INTEL.
Not going to waste time matching your long reply. Intel is a small part of my portfolio these days. While weedtrader was gurgling in his delusions I was selling. I foresee a major market meltdown in a year or so. Oil is and will be strong under the dictatorship, until the crash, so MLP's are a great place to be with relatively safe 10% or higher yields (eg, SUN, MPLX, .. there are better ones) . There is no yield to be had in any growth sector. The rest is in short (BIL) and long term (TLT) bonds. So, if you had a 10% ylding growth sector before, I highly recommend 70% in BIL and 30% MLP's.
Your AMD with a PE of 100 and the Sino-American trade war (which is the only policy of the dictator I agree with) will end in rubble. If I was in the position you claim to be I would sell and be happy.
Ah, so you are just an AMD fanbois ... I never would have guessed. I certainly do enjoy those divs (you misspelled div).
How do you like those AMD divs?
Buying Xk shares and shorting tens of puts.
How about you? Just squatting in your easy chair
pontificating, or actually doing something for a change?
seems youre the one who is too tightly wrapped
I never was worried about Intel.. I hope that didn't sound too positive.
Hey, you're not supposed to say anything positive about Intel in here... they will kick you off or cut you back to one post a day like they did me. Best you just take that positive spin of yours and get the heck outa here...this board is only for nattering naybobs of negativism.
Digi Times Research making stuff up again?
Hey weedtrader:
Unkwn probably knows a lot more about chips than you do.
But you are right.
whatever it is, it'll probably take intel a few days (hours, minutes?) to design around it. The patent system in the modern era is ludicrous and mainly a way for lawyers like "Just ask Saul" to make a little coin.
Fudzilla: https://www.fudzilla.com/news/pc-hardware/47754-intel-might-have-7nm-quicker-than-expected
Intel might have 7nm quicker than expected
Murthy Renduchintala, chief engineering officer and president of technology, systems architecture and client group at Intel is quoted to have said at the Nasdaq's 39th Investor Conference: “7 nm for us is a separate team and largely a separate effort. We are quite pleased with our progress on 7 nm… very pleased with our progress at 7 nm. I think that we have taken a lot of lessons out of the 10 nm experience as we defined that and defined a different optimisation point between transistor density, power and performance, and schedule predictability. So, we are very, focused on getting 7 nm out according to our original internal plans.”
Intel plans to start HVM production of client CPUs using its 10 nm process technology in 2019, with data center products following on a bit later. It will not skip any of its already announced 10 nm products, but its 7 nm products may arrive sooner than the four years generally expected for a production process change.
Renduchintala said: “One thing I will say is that as you look at 7 nm, for us this is really now a point in time where we will get EUV back into the manufacturing matrix, and therefore, I think, that will give us a degree of back to the traditional Moore’s Law cadence that we were really talking about,”
So far Intel has announced plans for only one 7 nm fab: the Fab 42 in Arizona. In addition, the company is going to have some 7 nm-capable capacity at its D1 facility used for development and trials (among other things).
Last modified on 07 December 2018
From SA:
"Intel is innovating fast enough to protect its dominant position in server and desktop processor. Intel is a buy-and-hold forever investment because of its patented innovations in x86 processor design. I am an Adobe creative professional and a video gamer. Believe me when I say that Intel’s Foveros 3D stacking designed Lakefield System-on-Chip [SoC] was the star of MWC 2019.
Foveros is a proprietary intellectual property, so there is essentially no risk that Intel's rivals can replicate or imitate it. The 12x12x1mm Lakefield SoC has long-term implications for the PC creative and video games industries. Intel’s idea of combining 1 powerful 10-nanometer Core Sunny Cove CPU with 4 low-power Atom processors in and Gen 11 integrated GPU in one die is inimitable right now.
Unless Ryzen designs can license 3D stacking chip architecture, the Foveros Lakefield SoC is a solid future tailwind for Intel’s $37 billion/year Client Computing Group (desktop x86 processors) and $22.99 billion/year Data Center Group (server processors, storage, and accelerators)."
So much for the AMD and other fanbois who love to graze in here.
AMD has orbited the Sun and is back to the pps I considered buying in at last July. Doesn't pay a dividend so no point in jumping in quick. This is the most unusual market I have seen in 50 years of playing this game. Insane, actually.
For this industry, people will have to accept the fact that Moore's law, in the classical sense, is finished. There are three directions to go in...the third dimension, topology, and qubits.
Value quantum computing, meaning having a market, is decades away. The only "problem" it solves is very large prime number factorization (this is a class of problems, like binary addition, which is the basic "problem" that a classical computer solves). Quantum computers will output a probability distribution, ie, Z=XY where X and Y are very large primes, but you only get an output range of many probable X's and Y's...you then check the results of candidate X times Y with a classical machine. Algorithmically
this can be exponentially faster than a classical sieve.
So, the industry will consist of finding apps for this problem paradigm.
The third dimension is a novel way of trying to stay on a Moore-like trajectory, and may even be faster. My guess is a chip can become a grain of sand, but thermodynamics becomes the limitation...theres a lot more entropy in D=3 than in D=2.
Topology is the really intriguing future way to go. Basic circuit design may change profoundly; Ohms law, normally framed with complex numbers, becomes a far more sophisticated thing when cast into quaternions , octonions, unitary groups, etc. electron spin will become part of the current; current carriers become topological collective modes..solitons, monopoles, etc. Edge states and winding numbers come into play. This generally involves the D=2/D=3 interface, so it is 3 dimensional in a sense, but the induced effects occur at the boundary. photons and electrons both participate in switch.
There's a future and it isn/t who has the smallest node.
It's all that diversity.
Heck, I can be showered , shaved, and on the street in 10 minutes.
Took my various wives an hour and a half. The BOD's are still putting on the mascara.
Theoretically, it is client to client financial transaction system without any kind of big middleman... it's basically a banking system that runs like Uber or AirBnB. Blocks are a distributed secure data storage technique...rather than storing all records at one point in space, you effectively make a fourier transform and distribute the records throughout all of space. I think getting sovereigns out of the way has many advantages. When you travel to Europe most of your expenses are hotels, typically $300/night and up , plus taxes, if you want any quality. AirBnB can give you equivalent quality for $100/night. No large corporate middleman. Quality credentials are client testimonial posts. Client-2-client model could destroy the corporation as we know it. Just think how disruptive client-2-client autonomous transportation will be. No more taxis, FedEx or truck drivers...you wont own a car, just subscribe to cars, won't need so much parking space, highly efficient (in principle no more traffic jams)..cars will become autonomous drones. Things will change. We really don't need so many people. Compare all of this Sears /K-Mart???
Either be patient or follow the doom&gloom squad. Personally, I do not think there are serious challenges to Intel's dominance in this business,
mainly servers, in the foreseeable future. I think the shrink wars end with Intel at 10nm and the others claiming to be at 7nm. Beyond that (oh maybe another 1/2 or so) it ceases to be practical to go in the scale dimension, maybe better in the third dimension. The rest has to do with all the other issues that are rarely discussed in here, such as power consumption, thermal limits, materials, etc., and wrt Intel, its foundry opportunities, IOT and automotive, etc. Is Intel a future Sears Roebuck? Maybe, but if so its way beyond my time horizon. I think it has a good 10x left in it while paying a boss dividend. It's a fool who sees it as a Sears/Kmart any time soon. With posters like that you should go read seeking alpha and not waste your time in here.
On SA Bill Maurer writes, in comparing the NVDA, AMD dump, to recent INTC pps stability,
"The main difference is that Intel was not so reliant on the cryptocurrency boom, which caused AMD and Nvidia results to spike in late 2017 and early 2018. Now those two are facing tough comps, and revenue growth has fallen sharply or even turned negative. On the flip side, Intel has guided to low double-digit percentage growth for revenues in Q4."
The cyptocurrency effect is a new one to me. Anyone have any insights on this? Is it horse puckey? Another Sa author Jonathan Cooper, wrote:
"Nvidia And AMD: Don't Overestimate The 'Time Bomb'"
"Mining pools may have added ~ $2.9 billion (retail) in GPUs and CPUs during NVIDIA's most recent fiscal year.
That is ~ 34% of AMD and NVIDIA's combined segment revenue.
Actual benefits to AMD and NVIDIA are much lower due to background mining, repurposed older cards, and high retail prices."
So much for the 7nm vs 10nm debate.
well, yesterday I dumped all stocks...with the exception of my Intel shares. Does that speak?
our lifeboats will swamp your little kayak.
Ummm, ever heard of demand? Many equations have more than one term.
No doubt, but that is something they would let the next CEO take credit for. Why are they waiting to announce a new CEO? Don't they have one yet?
duhhh...
Growth for Intel? Of course there will be growth for Intel, from data center, PC's, automotive, defense, AI, quantum computing, etc etc. They may even get your beloved 10nm to market sooner than you or that idiot demerjian prognosticate. If there won't be growth for INTC then god help those who are into AMD and others.
hope you bought it the other day when it was oversold. gee, it might go up.
"save" Intel? Comparisons to Sears and K-mart?
What brown likker have you been drinking, kid?
--some bad methanol Bourbons on the street these days.
hell yes. nice trade. I think I'll start selling Puts in mid October. There's a lot of crap going on out there .
BS.
No...I regret it. I also thought to buy in at $18 just a few
months ago. Not that I don't think that AMD is way over valued, but a flyer is a flyer and finding them is some part of investing.
Well, let's see...that Bohr article was back in 2012, and what a disaster it would have been to buy Intel at $23/share back then, and to have suffered through those 24 dividend payments...
AMD is hot now, but with a PE of 100 there's no margin for error.
You certainly wrote a lot...a regular "War and Peace."
But it's pretty informative and detailed I must admit.
Thanks for your effort.
I still think Mark Bohr is right about transistor density
(per mm^2) as a valid metric. The "10nm" or "7nm" all
seem to agree is meaningless.
(eg, lots of talks he's given over past few years)
"So you're finally admitting that your "competition only shrinks in one dimension" was made up BS from you and you finally read some actual facts about the latest process generation. That's good, really!"
NO! I insist that it is true..maybe you don't understand what these number actually mean.. few people do.
What I have consistently said is that
there's no basis for competitors to claim they are at 7nm
and Intel is only at 10nm when the transistor densities
are comparable (maybe you actually agree with this..). So "7nm" is pulled out of a hat...
one dimension of one feature may be 7nm, but the rest of it is much larger. Noone's chip is spherically symmetrical. Noone has a 3-d cubic lattice.
This is true for Intel as well, but they use a well defined and "honest metric" to define density. However, that said, "10nm" is
still an arbitrary normalization figure.
"Now, regarding transistor density: There really is not such a thing."
BS... Who is making things up here? You take the total number of transistors on the device and you ask what is the smallest volume that contains all of them. You then divide the number of transistors by that volume. That defines a transistor density. There is no more fundamental measure than that. And, btw, there's plenty of room to cheat here.
This density is shape independent. And it defines a length scale.
It would essentially defines the average inter transistor spacing on
a cubic lattice. How big would be this lattice spacing?
If indeed it was a 3-dimensional cubic lattice then we would convert 100 million per cubic mm = 10^8 mm-3 = 10^17 m^-3
(that's per cubic meter). Take the inverse of the cube root of the transistor density, which is 2.15 x 10^-6 m which is 2,150 nanometers. This is 200 times bigger than 10nm!!! It's about the same for all manufacturers. Why is this length scale larger than 10 nm for all manufacturers? WTF does "10nm" mean?
The point is that the shrink that leads to tighter transistor spacing is not 3-dimensional. Instead it is effectively 2-dimensional. There is a (complex) layered substrate of some aggregate thickness ("pitch"), d, and this implies an effective three dimensional density of transistors that is (number/(Area x d)).
The number/Area is roughly the number per gate pitch (and then some; you can use any of the pitches here..there all comparable) squared. Transistor gate pitch, or better MMP (and then some) is about 100nm=10^-7 m. So the area density is about 10^13/m^3. d, the substrate pitches combined, is about 10^-4 mm. So we get 10^13/10^-4 = 10^17 /m^3
which is the 100 Mega/mm^3 that Intel quotes. Intel tells
you what this number is...they could factor out pitch scales and get a much larger number. They don't.
[by the way..these are very rough estimates...I know you'll jump on me for that..but there are limits to everyone's patience and I don't want to waste too much time on this]
What you should have said is that transistor density doesn't
refer to volume, rather to area divided by aggregate pitches.
Now just look at a table of all the pitches of all features on all the devices of all manufacturers. No pitch for 10nm ever gets close to 10nm. The transistor density is a reliable metric, but it is a two dimensional scaling law. So what does 10nm mean?
Really, nothing,
It's essentially some cherry picked smallest feature size at some
period in time, and marketeers have run amok with it...
for example, the fin width. I think Intel's fin width is smaller than 10nm at 10nm (about 7nm..so Intel should claim they
are at 7nm!) It can be defined as a process wavelength like
EUV.
So where 10nm or 14nm or 7nm comes from is
quite arbitrary, quite meaningless. Given how tricky it
is to estimate a metric advantage of X over Y, I simply
don't buy the balderdash of claims by GloFo and TSMC and SS.
And all the analysts are ninnys.
But a volume shrink involves a simultaneous shrink in 3-d ie, the 2d inter transistor spacing and (all pitches) together. This is what Intel claims to do...it is not what others do. I bet a few shares that TSMC shinks d and not inter-spacing. I'm not sure that pitches are universally unambiguously defined either.
As far as the rest of your spew post goes..well you do make some
good points, but mainly you espouse the usual gloom and doom wrt Intel. The sky is falling on Intel, but all others are smoothly sailing along!!! Wow, I have a bridge in my town that I'll sell you for $100.
I am down by more than 90% of my original core position in Intel because of these points as of a year ago...unfortunately before the run up from $38 to $55+. No plans to sell more. I considered buying AMD at $16, but regretably didn't...but AMD is a short-term flyer and we will see about how timely their products arrive.
Only transistor density matters.
Intel 10nm achieves a transistor density of
100 Million/mm^3 = 10^8 mm^-3 That is a 2.7 increase from 14nm.
That will also increase, even at 10nm format.
Now, 2.7 = (14nm/10nm)^3. So Intel's transistor density scales
as volume^-1, which is what "full volume shrink" means.
[[Do you understand the concept of scaling? ]]
In comparison, TSMC transistor density at 7nm is **estimated**
at 116 Million/mm^3, and Samsung at 127 Million /mm^3.
[[These are semiwiki estimates...
https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/content/6713-14nm-16nm-10nm-7nm-what-we-know-now.html . Note that Semiwiki overestimates, eg they
quote Intel at 103 when it is 100.8; I'd like to hear what Intel says are the TSMC and SS densities; until then its fake news]]
7nm is not yet shipping in CPU's.
Intel's 10nm is shipping in mobile Cannonlake CPU's.
Therefore, these numbers for TSMC and Samsung at 7nm are
comparable to Intel at 10nm transistor density. In fact
the TSMC and SS ARE just 10nm. Claiming its 7nm and not
10nm is a lie.
If they were true volume shrinks these densties should be larger
by another be a factor of (10nm/7nm)^3 = 2.8 .
ie TSMC and SS should be at densities of about 300 M mm^-3.
They aren't. The claim others lead Intel process is BS.
Volume shrink is the only honest shrink. Intel is not only achieving it, but they are paving the way to do it again at other node
scales, such as honest 7nm and honest 5nm.
The moderators only allow me one post per day. That's great
as it moderates me from wasting time interacting with clowns such as yourself. You should go read some basic math books, and get your
nose out of Investors Business Daily.
Intel at 10nm should be compared to "others" 7nm.
They are shipping. The "others" are not (in CPU's).
This tempest in a tea cup is Demerjian-Ragson-Essa balderdash
and presents a great buying opportunity for INTC.
Duh, duh duh!
The minimum gate pitch of Intel’s 10 nm process shrinks from 70 nm to 54 nm; the MMP (minimum metal pitch) shrinks from 52 nm to 36 nm.
And, yes, fins are always bigger than this stupid meaningless number
that is so important to Ragson, Demerjian and Aessa: "5nm 7nm 10nm.." Say it again...you sound so pro...
The number "x nm" is just an advertising ploy created by losers like GloFo, Taiwan semi (they ship 7nm process only in memory to date)
THE COMPETITION DOESN'T REPORT TRANSISTOR DENSITIES!!!!
This is the only meaningful metric.
Competitions 7nm transistors are less dense than Intel's 10nm! Intels "hyper scaling" acheives transistor density of 10^8 per mm^2 which is (14nm/10nm)^3 = 2.7x higher than than previous and other industry 10 - 7 nm technologies. This is "hyperscaling" = full volume shrink. I repeat this is higher than 7nm of the others. Intel has a is full volume
shrink; Intel remains ahead in processor lead. I have posted this a half dozen times on this site but it always gets removed by the moderators.
Intel has already released the 10-nanometer processor (for mobile applications+: the Core i3-8121U, Cannon Lake.
Intel is having trouble shrinking its graphics architecture down to 10nm and is one of the reasons why volume production of Cannon Lake keeps getting pushed out. (Last time I checked in there are no graphics structures in anyone elses "7nm" memory checks) I am quite sure that in 6 mos this will be resolved.
Intel is well into R&D on hyperscaled 7nm and even 5nm (full volume shrinks) But what the idiot squads of analysts don't understand is that somewhere between 10 nm and 3nm the shrinking stops. An atom
is only 0.1 nm in diameter. You certainly won't get to transistors smaller than an atom. 1000 atoms in a transistor is probably the limit for CMOS based tech..that's 1nm, and it won't be cost effective. I don;t care if you use EUV, Xrays, GammaRays or quarks to manufacture it...Moores Law ends and it is ending now.
You can take that to the bank, but you will have competition claiming "0.1 nm" since there are atoms on their processors that are that small.
Oh No..the sky is falling on Intel again!!!
They'll be bankrupt in a year!!! Can't compete..their (only delivered-in-small-beta-quantities) of 10nm silicon (that's 10nmx10nmx10nm) can't possible compete with the (only-promised-to-deliver) 7nm of the likes of glofo (that's 7nmx14nmx20nm). What will we do??? Omigod, the sages of Dermijian, Ragson, Aessa, are pumping out the sputem on Intel. We'll all be killed!!!! Wiped out in a few quarters... And, what oh what will we do without that CEO BK??? How horrible that he got MeTooed out on his keesters leaving us rudderless with no leadership..what will happen to all those drone shows??? Will AMD steal drone shows from Intel's future??? Omigod...It's hopeless..we're all ruined...
But almost time to start selling puts again.
Yepp..a great quarter, but now the cacademons, Ragson and his wrecking crew, will start whacking away. I think $42 is in the cards.
This is the new upside down world of ninnys who don't know anything. Intel 10 nm is better than product B's 7nm, but never mind.
Of course this has nothing to do with President Traitor's new
tariff policy. Why the Europeans should just roll over for that one.
I bet you'll see a lot more of these "socialist" policies kick in
responding to Traitor's policies. I bet Google gets great treatment from our dear esteemed brother Putin.
Oops. pardon me, I meant "Trump" and not "Traitor" . My finger slipped on the keyboard... it's sort of a double negative.
So guys, please tell me how the wheels are coming off Intel today. My day is not complete without Grave or Unkwn or Colonel Sarah (maybe even Phud, but that's scraping the bottom of the cask) or other of you intellectuals telling me that 10nm is a disaster, all the other foundries are whipping Intel in Data Center, the PC is dead, APPL is finished with Intel, that AMD is eating Intel's lunch, too much diversity, etc etc etc etc etc. I need my fix of Intel horror stories, and that's why I keep coming back in here for more. Hopefully you can be a little more creative today and dream up a new plot. Maybe Charlie Demerjian has cooked up some new rumors that you can spread in here? Or maybe just recite some of Rasgon old diatribes? I need my Intel horror fix... c'mon, bring it on.