News Intel 2Q24 Financial Results

[NTMBK]

Hey, does anyone else remember when Globalfoundries announced that they were skipping 10nm and going straight to 7nm? Anyone remember how that worked out for them?

 

[adamge]

3.5 years into new management. Let's see what we got.
-Completely flubbed on demand expectations. Somehow expected the artificial increase to continue
-Cancelled Falcon Shores hybrid until who knows when? Now a GPU only variant is maybe 2025, which AMD/Nvidia has already.
-Intel 3 was supposed to offer density gains at the high performance line too. The actual Intel 3 is only 10% gain, if you chose the "HD" variant with lower performance
-18A was supposed to be 10% over 20A, and 20A was supposed to be 15% over Intel 3. Now we find out 18A is only 15% over Intel 3, with a disappointing 30% density gain. So really rather than 5N4Y, which with extra performance and density was somewhat justified, we have: 7, 4, 4+, 20A, 20A+, or 3N4Y, assuming we count 7, which makes no sense anyways but let's give them that.
-Qualcomm left, Softbank left, and now Broadcomm is on a thin line.
-The whole IDM 2.0 was about separating the two enough, not eventual goal of complete separation of the business. Big fail there. Since Pat also failed demand projections this one is also on him.

The GPU division has tried and failed to become a player in the discrete consumer GPU market.

 

[adroc_thurston]

The GPU division has tried and failed to become a player in the discrete consumer GPU market.

They need better IP for that.
GPGPU roadmap/execution is a far bigger flub.

 

[Joe NYC]

There were two 6+8 tiles, one on N3B and 20A. What's interesting is that AFAIK there was a small number of ARL samples shipped to OEMs/AIBs using the 20A 6+8 tile, so it was a working node, but perhaps cost/yield was much better on N3B.

There is an issue of placing the order with TSMC and get allocation. If decision to can 20A just took place, Intel may not have an allocation for sufficient volume of 6+8 dies from TSMC.

 

[H433x0n]

I don't share your pessimism. I think it could be significantly better. Wintel has dominated too long already, and needs to go IMO. If Nvidia shows up with an all team green gaming PC, it'll likely be as Valve did it; with their own OS.

Everyone repeats the same tropes. 1. We need company XYZ for competition. 2. Don't root for other corpos, none of them are your friends. My responses are -

1. It's late 2024, other competition is already here. May the best ones win.

2. The one in question has proven to be anticompetitive and anti-consumer to the level of being an active enemy. The other corpos don't need to be my friends. They just need to conduct biz without resorting to what amounts to bribery and intimidation, provide good end user service and support, and they are already a superior alternative. Hell, I'd settle for just being the "lesser evil".

What do you think happens to DIY PC and x86 if Intel goes bankrupt? If 70% of the x86 market goes under, that’s basically the death of x86. The transition to ARM would be rapid at that point. I don’t really care about the x86 ISA in particular but rather the DIY PC market that’s attached to it. If x86 winds down, I’d guess the DIY PC market as it is today changes (probably for the worse).

There’s other intangibles as well, who invents the next USB, PCIe, ATX, etc? The way AMD operates currently is optimized for being the 2nd largest x86 license holder. They stick back and produce less volume at higher margins, allowing Intel to take the brunt of the major investments and volume of sales for x86. If AMD continued to make x86 after Intel left the market, their role and how the company operates would have to change.

As far as lesser evils and what not, you’re kidding yourself if you think there is something morally superior about AMD or that Intel is uniquely evil. Intel operated how a near monopoly typically behaves, this isn’t unique to Intel. I don’t think AMD keeps the pricing on something like the 7800X3D at <$400 when they have monopoly power, that’d be a disservice to their shareholders if they did.

 

[Joe NYC]

What do you think happens to DIY PC and x86 if Intel goes bankrupt? If 70% of the x86 market goes under, that’s basically the death of x86. The transition to ARM would be rapid at that point. I don’t really care about the x86 ISA in particular but rather the DIY PC market that’s attached to it. If x86 winds down, I’d guess the DIY PC market as it is today changes (probably for the worse).

Easy there, with the crack pipe. Intel is 10% of DIY:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1830548301692711181

Similarly on Amazon, where Intel has only 1 CPU of top 15 CPUs - at #14

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Computer CPU Processors

Discover the best Computer CPU Processors in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Computers & Accessories Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

There’s other intangibles as well, who invents the next USB, PCIe, ATX, etc? The way AMD operates currently is optimized for being the 2nd largest x86 license holder. They stick back and produce less volume at higher margins, allowing Intel to take the brunt of the major investments and volume of sales for x86. If AMD continued to make x86, their role and how the company operates would have to change.

With extra $7 to $10 in quarterly revenue, that's a lot of money to fund research into new technologies - of which Intel has done less and less as of late.

All while pocketing a large part of that $7 to $10 billion quarterly revenue mainly due to market distorting monopolistic practices.

As far as lesser evils and what not, you’re kidding yourself if you think there is something morally superior about AMD or that Intel is uniquely evil. Intel operated how a near monopoly typically behaves, this isn’t unique to Intel. I don’t think AMD keeps the pricing on something like the 7800X3D at <$400 when they have monopoly power, that’d be a disservice to their shareholders if they did.

The way Intel operated as an evil monopoly is not unique. Microsoft, Google have been behaving in equally evil ways, and NVidia is catching up.

But there is another extreme, TSMC, which is an example of a benevolent monopolist.

On a scale of -10 of most evil, where Intel is to +10 where TSMC is, my guess AMD would be in a positive territory.

 

[H433x0n]

Easy there, with the crack pipe. Intel is 10% of DIY:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1830548301692711181

Similarly on Amazon, where Intel has only 1 CPU of top 15 CPUs - at #14

Amazon Best Sellers: Best Computer CPU Processors

Discover the best Computer CPU Processors in Best Sellers. Find the top 100 most popular items in Amazon Computers & Accessories Best Sellers.

www.amazon.com

With extra $7 to $10 in quarterly revenue, that's a lot of money to fund research into new technologies - of which Intel has done less and less as of late.

All while pocketing a large part of that $7 to $10 billion quarterly revenue mainly due to market distorting monopolistic practices.



The way Intel operated as an evil monopoly is not unique. Microsoft, Google have been behaving in equally evil ways, and NVidia is catching up.

But there is another extreme, TSMC, which is an example of a benevolent monopolist.

On a scale of -10 of most evil, where Intel is to +10 where TSMC is, my guess AMD would be in a positive territory.

When I say 70% of x86 market, I mean 70% of x86 CPUs shipped across all segments - which is still the case (although probably not for much longer). That’s nothing to do with a “crack pipe”, that’s the current market share.

Also, TSMC is an extreme outlier to say the least. I would argue it’s not exactly analogous either since it’s not an American company that suffers from the toxic MBA culture and there’s geopolitical considerations at play that moderate any potential excesses.

Edit: You also didn’t address the effects on the x86 ISA if/when Intel ceases to exist. The market position of x86 is already in decline, if you don’t think Intel exiting the market wouldn’t have a drastic effect on the x86 and current ecosystem I think that’s unrealistic. Neither Intel or AMD can carry the x86 mantle on their own, like it or not they’re co-dependent.

 

[Joe NYC]

When I say 70% of x86 market, I mean 70% of x86 CPUs shipped across all segments - which is still the case (although probably not for much longer). That’s nothing to do with a “crack pipe”, that’s the current market share.

You started with "What do you think happens to DIY PC".

Regarding the well over 70%, close to 80% market share in client PC while the underlying quality of the product doesn't justify even 50%, a better question is: what happens to the market for CPUs when the corrupting influence of Intel is removed from it.

I, for one, am curious to find out.

 

[H433x0n]

You started with "What do you think happens to DIY PC".

Regarding the well over 70%, close to 80% market share in client PC while the underlying quality of the product doesn't justify even 50%, a better question is: what happens to the market for CPUs when the corrupting influence of Intel is removed from it.

I, for one, am curious to find out.

DIY PC would not be the same because x86 would no longer be the dominant ISA. As of today there is no market for creating an ARM based DIY PC. Perhaps that changes but who knows what that looks like.

As I said in an earlier post, Intel and AMD are the ying-yang of x86, they’re intertwined and co dependent. Neither Intel or AMD alone would have the market power to keep x86 as the dominant ISA. I get it, you and most of this forum are still angry because of something Intel did 20 years ago abusing their market position. That ugly history doesn’t change the fact of what I’m saying though.

If Intel does go down and if this forum still exists, I hope I’m still here to bump this post after the fallout takes place.

Edit: Also, what happens to the gaming dGPU market? That entire segment relies on the DIY x86 duopoly. I’m not saying this market disappears but it definitely changes in some way or another.

 

[reaperrr3]

There is an issue of placing the order with TSMC and get allocation. If decision to can 20A just took place, Intel may not have an allocation for sufficient volume of 6+8 dies from TSMC.

That shouldn't be too much of an issue, actually.

Going by rumors, the 20A tile was only going to be used in some desktop models, and not at all in mobile, indicating volume of this tile wasn't going to be that high in the first place.
And in desktop, they can mitigate volume constraints by controlling DIY demand for the 6+8 TSMC models through price (keeping price and margin a tad higher than they otherwise might have) and fill any remaining volume gap by continuing to make 65W 6+8 Raptors. I mean, in the price region of 6+8 models, their competition from AMD is mostly 6C and 8C models without V-Cache.

That being said, I wonder if demand for the 6+8 models is really going to be so high that their booked TSMC capacity would be insufficient. I have my doubts, even if ARL turns out relatively good.

 

[Joe NYC]

DIY PC would not be the same because x86 would no longer be the dominant ISA. As of today there is no market for creating an ARM based DIY PC. Perhaps that changes but who knows what that looks like.

It seems like you have some mental block preventing you from conceiving a reality in which Intel is a not a dominant player. As if the possibility of Intel losing hegemony over client PC = end of the world, end of DIY, end of x86.

As if TSMC could not just allocate more wafers from Intel CPUs to AMD CPUs, and everything else stays the same.

It seems that you can conceive of a possibility of TSMC shifting more wafers to Arm, buy you can't conceive the possibility of TSMC shifting more wafers to AMD.

As I said in an earlier post, Intel and AMD are the ying-yang of x86, they’re intertwined and co dependent. Neither Intel or AMD alone would have the market power to keep x86 as the dominant ISA. I get it, you and most of this forum are still angry because of something Intel did 20 years ago abusing their market position. That ugly history doesn’t change the fact of what I’m saying though.

It's Karma

If Intel does go down and if this forum still exists, I hope I’m still here to bump this post after the fallout takes place.

I don't think Intel goes down to the point of disappearing. Intel "Products" can operate as a fabless company, in the worst case scenario.

A very healthy outcome would be the market shares just flipping.

Edit: Also, what happens to the gaming dGPU market? That entire segment relies on the DIY x86 duopoly. I’m not saying this market disappears but it definitely changes in some way or another.

Again, end of dGPU (in addition to end of all the other things I mentioned above) if Intel can't have hegemony.

 

[Joe NYC]

That shouldn't be too much of an issue, actually.

Going by rumors, the 20A tile was only going to be used in some desktop models, and not at all in mobile, indicating volume of this tile wasn't going to be that high in the first place.
And in desktop, they can mitigate volume constraints by controlling DIY demand for the 6+8 TSMC models through price (keeping price and margin a tad higher than they otherwise might have) and fill any remaining volume gap by continuing to make 65W 6+8 Raptors. I mean, in the price region of 6+8 models, their competition from AMD is mostly 6C and 8C models without V-Cache.

That being said, I wonder if demand for the 6+8 models is really going to be so high that their booked TSMC capacity would be insufficient. I have my doubts, even if ARL turns out relatively good.

Simply, going by Raptor Lake breakdown between 8+16 and 6+8, I think majority, maybe 80/20 split is for 6+8 dies. Commercial desktops are likely nearly all 6+8 dies.

If the assumption is that Intel wants to continue keeping this market for Commercial desktops, similar ratio of ARL would be desired.

As far as selling (force feeding) Raptor Lake CPUs in 2025, I think it is going to start to be an uphill battle for Intel.

If we can guess main reason for all the panic at Intel since Q2 earnings day continuing to today, I think it is Intel's confidence they can continue to go on selling Raptor Lake and customers would continue to buy it.

It was not stated overtly, only when Intel referred to the "product mix", as a negative gong forward. Meaning, Raptor Lake remaining in that mix.

What was the reason why Intel decided to shift production of Meteor Lake to Ireland fab, causing higher expenses, yield hit? Intel wanted to accelerate transition from Raptor Lake to Meteor Lake. It was worth missing the Q2 earnings (and hit subsequent to that). All in order to get out of Raptor Lake.

 

[Doug S]

There is an issue of placing the order with TSMC and get allocation. If decision to can 20A just took place, Intel may not have an allocation for sufficient volume of 6+8 dies from TSMC.

So there's another possibility.

Maybe Intel committed to buy x number of wafers from TSMC, but losing market share to AMD means that they need to cut back on their internal sourcing to be able to hit the order commitment to TSMC. In that case, killing 20A which was dual sourced made perfect sense since they already had the designs done for TSMC and they could save money to boot.

 

[H433x0n]

It seems like you have some mental block preventing you from conceiving a reality in which Intel is a not a dominant player. As if the possibility of Intel losing hegemony over client PC = end of the world, end of DIY, end of x86.

As if TSMC could not just allocate more wafers from Intel CPUs to AMD CPUs, and everything else stays the same.

It seems that you can conceive of a possibility of TSMC shifting more wafers to Arm, buy you can't conceive the possibility of TSMC shifting more wafers to AMD.

It's not a mental block, I was replying to a comment that said this: "Wintel has dominated too long already, and needs to go IMO."

Your post is arguing a point that I wasn't attempting to make. I wrote my posts arguing that the market wouldn't be better off if Intel were to exit the market entirely. That's entirely different than Intel lost majority marketshare and has to go fabless. In that scenario I think x86 would still survive (albeit weakened even further), whereas if Intel went under and AMD had to shoulder x86 alone, then that would be the end of the x86 ISA. In that scenario I think AMD would pivot to creating ARM chips.

Karma

I think hoping for comeuppance or "karma" is a fool's errand. I'm not going to let the perception of being an "underdog" effect my viewpoint of a corporation nor view them as morally superior because they've never been given the opportunity to abuse a dominant market position. My viewpoints are affected by my attachment to the DIY PC market, which exists as a result of the current x86 duopoly.

Edit:

Also this isn’t even specific to Intel. I’d argue the same points if any of the following companies were in jeopardy of going under:

TSMC - Semiconductor manufacturing
Nvidia - Consumer graphics
Apple - SmartPhones
Microsoft - Personal PCs
Airbus or Boeing - Commercial aircrafts
Zeiss - EUV lens
ASML - Lithography equipment

And of course:

Intel - x86 processors
AMD - x86 processors

 

[adroc_thurston]

Maybe Intel committed to buy x number of wafers from TSMC, but losing market share to AMD means that they need to cut back on their internal sourcing to be able to hit the order commitment to TSMC. In that case, killing 20A which was dual sourced made perfect sense since they already had the designs done for TSMC and they could save money to boot.

Desktop 6+8 would amount to relatively meagre volumes.
Unlikely to impact the overall scale of TSM wafer purchases if it's canned.

 

[deasd]

WOW. I would be shocked if this come true. Qualcomm x86 on the way?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/qualcomm-has-explored-acquiring-pieces-intel-chip-design-business-sources-say-2024-09-06/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-qualcomm-explored-acquiring-pieces-034158034.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1fa5wi1/exclusive_qualcomm_has_explored_acquiring_pieces

 

[FlameTail]

Qualcomm x86

Surely not.

 

[DrMrLordX]

WOW. I would be shocked if this come true. Qualcomm x86 on the way?

Intel's stock price is cheap. Anyone can try to snap up a few shares if they think it'll give them leverage. Buy enough shares and you can force a spinoff of the fabs.

 

[Thibsie]

WOW. I would be shocked if this come true. Qualcomm x86 on the way?

https://www.reuters.com/technology/qualcomm-has-explored-acquiring-pieces-intel-chip-design-business-sources-say-2024-09-06/

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-qualcomm-explored-acquiring-pieces-034158034.html

https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/1fa5wi1/exclusive_qualcomm_has_explored_acquiring_pieces

They'd buy the teams, they wouldn't get an x86 license any day.

 

[Kepler_L2]

They'd buy the teams, they wouldn't get an x86 license any day.

I think AMD would approve of an x86 license transfer to Qualcomm. Competing against one x86 CPU design company is easier than competing against many ARM CPU design companies.

 

[NTMBK]

They'd buy the teams, they wouldn't get an x86 license any day.

They just bought the Nuvia team, why would they buy yet another CPU design team just to make ARM CPUs (and start over from scratch)? Without an x86 license and their existing designs the team is significantly less valuable. If Intel is serious about selling them off to raise cash they should include the license.

 

[gdansk]

I thought it would be the team which co-designs laptop boards with OEMs?

It wouldn't be strictly necessary for Intel and probably costs a bit while obviously Qualcomm (or AMD) would want to acquihire that group.

But it says chip design so probably not. But who knows which chips they're talking about.

 

[FlameTail]

I thought it would be the team which co-designs laptop boards with OEMs?

Yep- stuff like that, I'd guess.

Qualcomm already has a decent suite of IP- Oryon CPU architecture, WiFi/Bluetooth chips, 5G modems, Spectra Image Signal Processors, Hexagon NPU, etc...

What they seem to be struggling with is delivering a product with all that IP to the PC industry. The PC industry operates very differently to the smartphone industry, and since Qualcomm is coming from a smartphone legacy, it's not surprising.

 

[jpiniero]

If Intel is serious about selling them off to raise cash they should include the license.

They can't.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I kinda agree with @H433x0n in that Intel has been responsible for some important industry standards, like Thunderbolt, USB 4.0, PCIe and probably CXL(?). I don't think AMD has enough of an R&D budget to improve the peripheral devices aspect of x86 (everything AROUND the CPU) including RAM technologies. I AM kinda concerned about what will happen to Intel's future technologies portfolio like silicon photonics and neuromorphic computing. I wanted Intel to SUFFER, not DIE. Heavens forbid, never would I want them to die. They shot their own feet with their stupid focus on trying to compete with TSMC and now they are barely able to stand. Intel just needs better management, from top to bottom. But whose gonna do that dirty work of fixing the management issues when the CEO himself is a fool and hasn't been able to weed out the bad middle management? I wonder if he even tried...