Trying to derive any real world economic sense from the stock market is a waste of time.
Any alignment with reality is pure coincidence.
Any alignment with reality is pure coincidence.
If ever there was a better proof of "word of mouth" marketing. News spreads fast, bad news spreads even faster!AMD dominates chip sales on Amazon — top ten best selling CPUs all come from Team Red, Intel’s highest entry sits at 11th place
Dominating!www.tomshardware.com
Not even in the top ten anymore.
Pat should be on his knees now in front of Lisa, asking, "Just give us your business. We'll let you use our fabs and then you can decide what you want to pay us. But please, give it to us. Just give it!".If ever there was a better proof of "word of mouth" marketing. News spreads fast, bad news spreads even faster!
The article actually mentions AMD as a possible merger, but I don't see it as realistic. Or desirable for AMD.
No, just no. Nvidia cannot make CPUs they are inherently horrible at them. Ever wonder why they use stock ARM cores instead of custom ARM cores because they are only good at graphics and networking.Of course, Nvidia taking over Intel
Lisa could make the combined company more focused. But to do that, she may need to lay off 2/3 of the Intel workforce since if it comes to choosing between employees with overlapping functions, she is more likely to prefer her own employees rather than the sick company AMD merges with. At this point, there seems to be little hope other than ripping the band-aid off and amputating a few limbs of the Intel 800 pound gorilla. But gorillas are strong. I think Intel would survive just fine with one armWell, AMD might be interested by CPU engineering teams, some techs too but acquiring the whole company with all its problems ? I don't see how AMD would want that burden. That would just jeopardize their growth.
Nvidia could have success at designing CPUs with GPU strengths, that is, SMT4 or even SMT8. CPU designers without GPU experience have a glaring blindspot with respect to crazy parallelization and excellent workload distribution techniques.Nvidia cannot make CPUs they are inherently horrible at them.
AMD did that back in the day with ATi, took over company with problems ... Took them 10 years to make it work, but in the end I think it was worth it.Well, AMD might be interested by CPU engineering teams, some techs too but acquiring the whole company with all its problems ? I don't see how AMD would want that burden. That would just jeopardize their growth.
Canceling the Intel x86 license (after takeover) would be bad for competition and anti-trust. They might want some restriction on the buying company though. Maybe.
Of course, Nvidia taking over Intel would be bad for AMD and they should opposé to that without some guarantee.
Is there a source for this? Or is it one of those rumours that have been repeated over and over again so many times, that it has come to be accepted as fact?Buried within all the X86 cross-licensing agreements between Intel and AMD, there is mutual language that deals specifically with transfer of X86 licenses.
Apparently, if either Intel or AMD is acquired by another company, the remaining company retains the right to cancel the X86 license of the acquired company.
No, just no. Nvidia cannot make CPUs they are inherently horrible at them. Ever wonder why they use stock ARM cores instead of custom ARM cores because they are only good at graphics and networking.
It’s better if Samsung thought Intel.
Edit: maybe not Samsung. Just turn Intel into a consortium
Nvidia could have success at designing CPUs with GPU strengths, that is, SMT4 or even SMT8. CPU designers without GPU experience have a glaring blindspot with respect to crazy parallelization and excellent workload distribution techniques.
Is there a source for this? Or is it one of those rumours that have been repeated over and over again so many times, that it has come to be accepted as fact?
It is a minority of the desktop market which is a minority of the x86 market .... so truly a little sliver.You think ARL is a "disaster" because it doesn't get any performance increases in games. That's a minority of the market. For most non-gaming benchmarks it does get a nice gain over the previous Intel CPUs, especially when taking power into account. Whether you have confidence in 18A has no bearing on the stock market. If respected analysts they listen to start sounding alarm bells then it'll impact the stock. But it may turn out fine, despite your lack of confidence.
AMD has slashing prices has nothing to do with gaming performance of non-X3D parts, but rather the overall weak market for PC's and especially desktop PC's. Interesting that you feel gaming has some effect on processor price overall in a market dominated by corporate laptop sales.Gaming may be a "minority" of the market, but it is highly visible and influences the perception of the rest of the line, IMO. You of course will probably disagree, and more power to you. AMD has already slashed prices on non-x3D versions of Zen 5 due to lack of performance improvement. ARL is even more disappointing than Zen 5, and I think they will have to cut prices drastically to move the product. And they dont have an equivalent to the x3D chips to hold up prices on at least part of the line.
Totally agree. LNL is a pretty good laptop chip (especially for thin and light), unfortunately for Intel, the loss of confidence from OEM's and the cost of making the chip to Intel is kinda like being stuck between a rock and a hard place. I think that ARL-H is going to face strong competition from AMD offerings in both performance, and most definitely in pricing.Bigger variable, short term, than ARL poor performance in some application is loss of confidence by big OEMs in stability of Intel chips, after the Raptor Lake fiasco. Intel had a virtual monopoly on corporate desktops, and that is going away.
Intel's lost $457m in desktop revenue in Q3 (6.2% of total client revenue of $7.3 billion). That's going to leave a mark. We will see if it is only a 1 quarter scratch, or a permanent mark.
2nd variable is higher cost of ARL CPUs. There will be much less room for Intel to offer sweetheart deals on ARL vs. 6+8 RPL.
So, it is one, two punch: Loss of reputation of stability + price increase.
ARL (desktop I assume) performs pretty well in everything but games. I really do think that Intel's bigger issue is cost.OK then, I will rephrase the question: why would anyone buy ARL for any reason (except price)? Its the proverbial "dead man walking". I think Intel will have to cut prices to the bone, or give some sort of rebate or incentive to move the product, which is not exactly what you want to be doing for a company that is, to put it mildly, strapped for revenue. Hell, even last gen RL is probably a better deal for business/consumer use where stability should not be an issue on the lower skus.