Desktop volume down 16%, Notebook up 16% but ASP down 7%.
Q4 forecast is bad too, they are expecting 14% decline in revenue compared to Q4 last year.
You know, there are stats from Euope showing the sellers and quantities, AMD way ahead. There are stats on the top selling CPUs at =Amazon, AMD way ahead.. The stock for Intel has dropped from a high of about 70 this year to 48. AMD has gone up from about 50 to 82 over the same period.
But no matter what I post, and what I link to, your mind is made up, so think what you want.
Why don't you read the post above yours from Hitman928. His post includes information that anyone following threads knows. Its is well known and documented here that what he has posted is true, I don't need to repost all of that information that you refuse to read.Link please? Are you talking about that one dealer in Germany that every AMD person quotes as being the holy grail of numbers? LOL
"But no matter what I post". No, actually it matters. You make comments that you are STILL not proving with DATA.
"If you have FACTS on a thread, link to a reputable source and state your summation. Anything else not pertinent to a thread is probably infractionable."
Again, this is a financial thread.
You said "The only thing I have seen as new is a limited quantity of Rocket lake laptop chips that have mixed reviews. They are losing badly in server, HEDT, and in 2 weeks, desktop. And their laptops are fighting with the new Renior chips. "
Please show where Intel is losing badly in server, HEDT, "in two weeks desktop" and laptops".
Thank you for a response that actually includes some data. So it basically shows Intel still owns 80% of the consumer market and 90% of the server market.AMD is winning in all markets. That doesn't mean they will become the majority supplier overnight, but winning means they are actively taking share from the market leader every quarter. If you look at the below charts, obviously Intel is still in a very strong position market share wise, but AMD has been able to more than double their total x86 market share in the 3 years since Zen1 launched, and Zen1/Zen+ weren't even particularly strong products across all segments. AMD has even said that for Epyc, they didn't even try to go after certain server markets (e.g. HPC) until Zen2 and even then they don't expect a total market solution until Zen3. With Zen3, AMD will most likely be able to claim performance and performance/watt leadership across almost all segments, so the real question is, what is to stop AMD from again doubling their market share over the next 3 years? That's the big concern for Intel, not where they stand today.
AMD has been able to do this while also doubling their gross margins which means that they aren't just taking market share, a lot of what they are taking isn't the low margin value markets, it's mid-range and above. Intel is having to cut their own gross margins to try and prevent AMD from taking even more.
Thank you for a response that actually includes some data. So it basically shows Intel still owns 80% of the consumer market and 90% of the server market.
I will answer all of this, but I'm waiting on a response from someone not involved in this thread.
I will say, "AMD has been able to do this while also doubling their gross margins which means that they aren't just taking market share. There's a lot more to that than meets the eye. It's very easy to lower cost with increased pricing when you have someone else producing your product. They are no longer doing manufacturing and they are farming it out. Your cost of goods goes down when you do not have to run your own lines and have someone else doing the production.
That's a good idea in their case and it's a win because they are having a product manufactured to a higher quality (lower nm) than they could have done themselves. But it's a bit like saying "I've got the fastest car in the word, I just don't build it!". But that's a different discussion. Intel may ultimately have to move that direction.
Your post only shows why Intel could be in even more trouble than the numbers suggest. AMD and Intel are now within 10 pp of each other for GM. However, Intel has to fund their entire fab operation and R&D from that as well whereas AMD doesn't, that's already built into the price they pay to have their chips manufactured. On top of that, when Intel fell behind in fab technology to the point that they now struggle to make a competitively performing product, all of a sudden having these fab facilities costing tens of billions of dollars starts to look more like a liability than an asset. Intel is certainly not a lost cause at this point, but they are deep in the weeds and (personal opinion) I don't think they have the leadership to find their way back right now. We'll see what the next few years holds, but I'd be pretty nervous right now if I was a key stakeholder in that company.
Same reason you provide no data to support your claims with percentages and how AMD is dominating Intel in financial or market share. At least Hitman provided charts to show the truth and intelligent conversation. Not just pulling it out of thin air and arguing about it. Congrats to him. I have no problem with his argument and he makes good points.Why don't you read the post above yours from Hitman928.
What freaking CPUs are the 'Leadership products' in 21/22?I'm more worried about the fact they still don't sound entirely confident on 7nm even in 2023 if I'm honest. The financial figures I couldn't care about right now.
Even suggesting there's a chance of no 7nm products at all.
See my edit. If you were following the forums and threads, you would know this already, the rest of us do.Same reason you provide no data to support your claims with percentages and how AMD is dominating Intel in financial or market share. At least Hitman provided charts to show the truth and intelligent conversation. Not just pulling it out of thin air and arguing about it. Congrats to him. I have no problem with his argument and he makes good points.
I posted 5 mins ago and you edited 2 mins ago. I replied before your edit.See my edit. If you were following the forums and threads, you would know this already, the rest of us do.
I guess nobody can deny that execution of the manufacturing side of Intel has been pretty bad - slipping with 14nm (poor Broadwell), an epic catastrophy with 10nm (affected all post-Skylakes) and obviously struggling with 7nm.Your post only shows why Intel could be in even more trouble than the numbers suggest. AMD and Intel are now within 10 pp of each other for GM. However, Intel has to fund their entire fab operation and R&D from that as well whereas AMD doesn't, that's already built into the price they pay to have their chips manufactured. On top of that, when Intel fell behind in fab technology to the point that they now struggle to make a competitively performing product, all of a sudden having these fab facilities costing tens of billions of dollars starts to look more like a liability than an asset. Intel is certainly not a lost cause at this point, but they are deep in the weeds and (personal opinion) I don't think they have the leadership to find their way back right now. We'll see what the next few years holds, but I'd be pretty nervous right now if I was a key stakeholder in that company.
I guess nobody can deny that execution of the manufacturing side of Intel has been pretty bad - slipping with 14nm (poor Broadwell), an epic catastrophy with 10nm (affected all post-Skylakes) and obviously struggling with 7nm.
Like you said, the times when Intel simply dominated the industry due to their node lead are gone. So their competitive advantage has really became a liability. The cost of running that business is undoubtedly high. However, seeing their money cushion and deep entrenchment, they will do the traditional corporate shuffles, cuts, and outsourcing.
I just don't like seeing the classical knee-jerks like: "a single German retailer's data showing AMD as 80% of DIY desktop CPUs => Intel is facing bankruptcy".
I just don't like seeing the classical knee-jerks like: "a single German retailer's data showing AMD as 80% of DIY desktop CPUs => Intel is facing bankruptcy".
Would you rather see Intel at 95% and AMD at 5% marketshare across the board? Aren't you tired of reminding us how bad Intel is doing in every single Intel thread? Won't you like to see AMD build significant sustainable marketshare before Intel makes a comeback?My comments speak to their ability to continue to make money, so it is on-topic. And if you can't see the performance numbers from reading on the forums, and the internet, well, I pity you. I don't need to provide proof. You are ignoring the "negative equity" due to stock buybacks ? You are willing to ignore them losing market share becuase of inferior products ? All of these affect their continued ability to make money. It can't continue forever, you don't see that ? You don't think thats a bad thing ?
The reason that is in the rules, is for people that pull things out of the air and state it as fact. In the first place, you are not a mod. In the second place, as I said, those of us that follow the AMD threads know all of this, so I should not have to repeat it. Its been linked numerous times. The fact that you have not read these threads does not mean I have to repost the entire forum.I posted 5 mins ago and you edited 2 mins ago. I replied before your edit.
Yeah, I'm the problem.
EDIT: So, out of curiosity, are we allowed to make up data and claims and wait for someone else to post something relevant? Again, if I read the rules correctly, it says:
"If you have FACTS on a thread, link to a reputable source and state your summation. Anything else not pertinent to a thread is probably infractionable."
I don't see where it says I can rely on others and then say "you should know this, the rest of us do".
What I and most of the forum wants is competition IMO. We would like to see something like 60/40 (or something like that) where Intel is not a monopoly. THEN on a day to day basis, there is competition, not "AMD rules until conroe comes out, then Intel rules until Ryzen comes out". I don't know why everybody thinks that if Intel is doing bad right now, they are finished. They are in a slump, they will recover, but the question is how much do they loose before they come back ?Would you rather see Intel at 95% and AMD at 5% marketshare across the board? Aren't you tired of reminding us how bad Intel is doing in every single Intel thread? Won't you like to see AMD build significant sustainable marketshare before Intel makes a comeback?
Please, see @Hitman928 post above for the real data.
How long do you think it'll take for AMD to take 40% of the x86 marketshare? And that is assuming TSMC can supply that much wafer? TSMC is going to come under immense pressure because of their success and there's going to be strong competition for wafers. If Intel decides to move some production to TSMC that even puts more pressure on TSMC and limits what they can supply to AMD. This is the advantage Intel has over the competition. The volume of chips Intel supplies alone is why they are far from trouble.What I and most of the forum wants is competition IMO. We would like to see something like 60/40 (or something like that) where Intel is not a monopoly. THEN on a day to day basis, there is competition, not "AMD rules until conroe comes out, then Intel rules until Ryzen comes out". I don't know why everybody thinks that if Intel is doing bad right now, they are finished. They are in a slump, they will recover, but the question is how much do they loose before they come back ?
I really don't know. They have taken like 5-10% in 2 years and are ramping up. IF (and that is a big IF) Intel fails for 2 more years as suggested, they might hit that 40%. That would not only make Intel sit up and take notice, but be good for the entire community IMO.How long do you think it'll take for AMD to take 40% of the x86 marketshare? And that is assuming TSMC can supply that much wafer? TSMC is going to come under immense pressure because of their success and there's going to be strong competition for wafers. If Intel decides to move some production to TSMC that even puts more pressure on TSMC and limits what they can supply to AMD. This is the advantage Intel has over the competition. The volume of chips Intel supplies alone is why they are far from trouble.
The reason that is in the rules, is for people that pull things out of the air and state it as fact. In the first place, you are not a mod. In the second place, as I said, those of us that follow the AMD threads know all of this, so I should not have to repeat it. Its been linked numerous times. The fact that you have not read these threads does not mean I have to repost the entire forum.
Of course Intel isn't going to disappear, but the Intel we know today probably won't be the Intel of tomorrow. AMD right now has some of, if not the best, upper management in the industry.I really don't know enough about their current leadership to know if they have the right people in place. That said, yes, they have significant overhead compared to AMD. That said, they also still have 10X profit and 80 market share. The whole "Intel is on their deathbed" is way silly. They have to dig themselves out of the hole but it just amazes me that people forget history.
We have AMD in our house hold and was actually playing with them this weekend L4D and CSGO, old school!, and it was fun. But I'm not such a fan that I can't realize the benefits of both.
It's funny when you literally show someone that the developers and users are having issues with AMD CPUs on certain software, but those people recommend AMD without any research or even recognizing the issues from the developers mouth!!! Not even asking a single question about usage in some threads! It's just AMD is best, buy it!
Whatever man, it is what it is. Intel isn't going anywhere soon.
You are quoting my moderation rules, and trying to tell me that I am violating them. That is a mod callout. I explained nicely why is did not apply, and you are dismissing that, saying you never read such information. Are you also saying all the others that agree with me never read any of this ???Please show me where I said I was a Mod? Yes, those rules are for people who pull thinks out of the air. You did such and never provided any data to back it up.
Plus, "those of us that follow the AMD threads know all of this". I'm sorry, I would expect someone like yourself to follow threads from both vendors. You already recommended a CPU that actually developers have found incompatible with their product. You never took the time to ask what they were using and doing.
I have absolutely read those threads, but there is an obvious different between the threads that you have seen and what I have seen.
Isn't TSMC investing in Capex at a phenomenal rate? They obviously want to seize the moment and AMD is their top wafer buyer, who incidentally is competing in the widest range of markets.How long do you think it'll take for AMD to take 40% of the x86 marketshare? And that is assuming TSMC can supply that much wafer? TSMC is going to come under immense pressure because of their success and there's going to be strong competition for wafers. If Intel decides to move some production to TSMC that even puts more pressure on TSMC and limits what they can supply to AMD. This is the advantage Intel has over the competition. The volume of chips Intel supplies alone is why they are far from trouble.
Agreed. I think the thing is, Intel has the war chest, stockholders, partners and such to correct the issues. But, as Hitman commented, It's all up to leadership and if they have the right people in position to make the correct decisions. It's hard to tell at this point and may be 2 years.
If they do, what a lot of people aren't realizing, is their 10nm process is better density than the 7nm that AMD uses. So there's nothing to say that Intel can't catch up and right the ship in the next year or two. If Intel can move that process to TSMC, offload that cash burden from owning their own manufacturing, that could really change things. At this point though, they are going to continue losing for the next couple of years. That said, they can survive it based on name alone and their diverse portfolio.
I'm glad you are making assumptions on what "forum" members would want.What I and most of the forum wants is competition IMO. We would like to see something like 60/40 (or something like that) where Intel is not a monopoly. THEN on a day to day basis, there is competition, not "AMD rules until conroe comes out, then Intel rules until Ryzen comes out". I don't know why everybody thinks that if Intel is doing bad right now, they are finished. They are in a slump, they will recover, but the question is how much do they loose before they come back ?
? I'm sorry, those are your moderator rules?? I thought those were the FORUM rules? I was told by other higher-up mods that you were not allowed to respond as a mod, you could only respond as a participant of the thread. Are you threatening me with your mod status as a normal poster???? Do you not have to post as a normal person and follow the same rules as the rest of us?You are quoting my moderation rules, and trying to tell me that I am violating them. That is a mod callout. I explained nicely why is did not apply, and you are dismissing that, saying you never read such information. Are you also saying all the others that agree with me never read any of this ???
I'm glad you are making assumptions on what "forum" members would want.
I have to be honest, you have never said you don't want Intel to be
?
I'm sorry, those are your moderator rules?? I thought those were the FORUM rules? I was told by other higher-up mods that you were not allowed to respond as a mod, you could only respond as a participant of the thread. Are you threatening me with your mod status as a normal poster???? Do you not have to post as a normal person and follow the same rules as the rest of us?
I'm quoting your moderators rules NOT because you are a mod, but because you are VIOLATING them as a poster. So which is it???? You were NOT responding as a mod and I responded to you as a normal post.
Why, honestly? Please give me your logical reason and I'll consider it. Are my opinions not as important? I'm open to all criticism.Please stop.