The real pressure to stick to 14nm is that every Intel 10nm wafer start hurts margins. Looks bad to investors.
Also ICL-U/TGL-U.
Also ICL-U/TGL-U.
Remember, they'll still selling 14nm laptop/desktop/workstation/server CPUs. IceLake-U and TigerLake-U represent some volume, but not anywhere near all of it.
The only reduction in pressure on their 14nm fabs comes from reduction in overall sales volume.
This is factually wrong because ICL-U is a mass product. The difference to CML-U isn't that big anymore.
As I was saying before, the majority of laptop sales aren't at retail. I'd have to think Corps are getting Comet. Picasso is probably more volume than ICL/TGL at this point. 14 nm Atoms definitely.
Do you have anything to back up that statement, i.e. what % are retail vs corporate?
Yes common sense. Have you ever worked at a Corp? Pretty much every employee is issued a laptop. Tiger Lake might get to something considered serious volume but it isn't now.
Even Intel's desktop sales are mostly to Corps, that's why they are having such a huge decline in volume as a ton of companies are not buying desktops due to WFH.
This is factually wrong because ICL-U is a mass product. The difference to CML-U isn't that big anymore. ICL-U/TGL-U together definitely isn't low volume. So unless you are saying CML-U is minor overall your posting doesn't make sense.
As I was saying before, the majority of laptop sales aren't at retail. I'd have to think Corps are getting Comet. Picasso is probably more volume than ICL/TGL at this point. 14 nm Atoms definitely.
It makes perfect sense. 10nm hasn't taken the burden of production away from 14nm anywhere entirely, certainly not to the point where Intel can scare up enough 14nm for a mass desktop release of tens of millions of PCs requiring dice up to the same size as 10c Comet Lake or 8c Rocket Lake.
Do you have anything to back up that statement, i.e. what % are retail vs corporate?
I don't know why people make statements like that without checking. Yes some corporate laptops like Dell Latitude and Thinkpad T-Series are still on 10th gen. But their E-series, thinkbooks, and X-series are on TGL / ICL. Dell's midrange business Vostro's are 11th gen and looks like all of HP's corporate ProBooks are on TGL/ICL.
Picasso more volume than ICL, you are really a shame. The volume of Picasso is super tiny compared to ICL-U. You should check the market situation before writing such nonsense, check some big price check sites or whatever.
So Intel is producing both Ice Lake and Tiger Lake laptops, and losing market share in all areas, yet this is not reducing demand for 14 nm?? Somehow that math does not add up.It makes perfect sense. 10nm hasn't taken the burden of production away from 14nm anywhere entirely, certainly not to the point where Intel can scare up enough 14nm for a mass desktop release of tens of millions of PCs requiring dice up to the same size as 10c Comet Lake or 8c Rocket Lake.
If Intel has experienced any reduction in 14nm demand, it's from customers ordering fewer HCC and XCC Xeon dice, which are massive and chew up a lot more wafer space than the mobile chips replaced by Intel's 10nm offerings.
I'm not with @DrMrLordX on this, but losing market share and producing a mix of 14nm and 10nm chips is not enough, you also need to know demand through 2020 (since this years is atypical). In theory demand could outstrip market share loss and node mix combined. For example, even though Intel was on a negative revenue trend last quarter, their consumer segment was still going up.So Intel is producing both Ice Lake and Tiger Lake laptops, and losing market share in all areas, yet this is not reducing demand for 14 nm?
ICL-U is widely available which means it lowers the pressure of 14nm
and losing market share in all areas,
I'm not with @DrMrLordX on this, but losing market share and producing a mix of 14nm and 10nm chips is not enough, you also need to know demand through 2020 (since this years is atypical). In theory demand could outstrip market share loss and node mix combined. For example, even though Intel was on a negative revenue trend last quarter, their consumer segment was still going up.
Personally I'm inclined to think Intel is under less pressure on 14nm since the 9700K/9900K price rebates that were seen in US also had a decent echo in my EU country during BF. In my book this wouldn't have been possible with high pressure on 14nm supply. (though socket compatibility may also trick us a bit here)
There was a big decline in Q1 2020 due to coronavirus, but it recovered by Q2 and has seen Y/Y growth in Q2 and Q3.IDK what you folks are on about.
The PC industry took a beating this year.
"Statistics show the laptop segment is expected to witness the biggest sales drop amid the COVID-19 crisis, with revenues falling to $116.3bn by the end of 2020, a 14.3% decrease year-over-year.
The sales in the desktop PC segment is forecast to plunge by 13.4% YoY to $50.2bn. Global tablet sales is expected to generate $35.6bn in revenue in 2020, 10.7% less than a year ago.
Statista data also indicate it will take three years for the PC industry to recover from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2021, revenues are projected to grow by 8.5% YoY to $219.5bn, $14bn below 2019 levels. By the end of 2023, global PC sales revenues are expected to rise to $235.2bn."
You can also see in this chart from Statista, Q1 and Q2 desktop sales were far below last year. Q3 looks like it caught back up to 2019.
View attachment 35285
Server sales are what exploded and caused supply issues for Intel for a Quarter or so. This is because of the shift to E-Comm. These are record breaking revenues for Intel.
View attachment 35286
Consumer net revenue increased 24% and Commercial net revenue decreased 12%.
Gregory Bryant, VP & GM of Intel's Client Computing Group on demand for the client PC market
Strong recovery in Q2 & Q3, even the desktop rebounded. Tiger Lake sales 30% above expectations.
Did me or the Intel rep claim the recovery was desktop driven? If you took the time to go over their financials, why selectively mention desktop being down 18% YoY but conveniently leave out the entire client computing group being 1% up YoY?From Intel's own financials, in Q3 Desktop volume was down 18% compared to last year. I wouldn't call that a "strong recovery"
Did me or the Intel rep claim the recovery was desktop driven?
If you took the time to go over their financials, why selectively mention desktop being down 18% YoY but conveniently leave out the entire client computing group being 1% up YoY?
My comment contained 3 separate pieces of information:I'm referring to the "even the desktop rebounded" talk. Didn't watch the video so I haven't seen what Bryant actually said.
Why should I care about their margins? I was adding to the discussion on Intel capacity for RKL-S, not reporting on their financial results.Because anything 10 nm is a margins disaster accounting wise right now. If they sold 30% more Tiger Lake, does that mean the pain will be worse or better?
Why should I care about their margins?