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.
oems will lag on market trends by at least a year or more due to the time it takes to prep and validate a mobile design. desktop can be faster but customer/tech support still has to set up training. ryzen 3000 has been out a bit over a year and dominates diy. the oems may have needed to see consistent customer demand to justify shifting purchasing amounts/sourcing changes. with zen3 seemingly taking the gaming single threaded crown there is no way for oems to ignore that. but that is still only in the consumer market.I Have to say I'm surprised seeing AMD still having only 20% of the desktop market and even more surprised mobile where the advantage is much less pronounced has the same marketshare. Since there is no DIY mobile market AMD's OEM market share for desktops must be even lower than mobile. Can't wrap my head around that.
if we assume the DIY market is indeed about 80% AMD and 20% Intel (as MindFactory and Amazon figures suggest) this means, if we assume OEM vs DIY volume is about 90% vs 10%, 87% of all OEM desktop systems is still Intel. if the DIY fraction is larger Intels OEM desktop market share goes very quickly towards 100%.
Since a large proportion of OEM desktops are gaming PCs I find this very hard to believe...something is off in that desktop market share chart.
The top three risks Intel faces seem to be:
1. TSMC have a superior production process.
2. AMD have superior micro-architectures for X86.
3. In the medium term, ARM's architecture may evolve to be an increasing threat to X86.
Intel may end up like IBM, with a legacy role, and some interesting new developments, but no longer dominant. They probably need to focus on fewer things.
Actually both, focus on fewer things and at the same time diversify. As example they could the Atom line of cores finally discontinue and use the freed engineering resources for other things.
Ha, that brought a laugh, "They probably need to focus on fewer things". I see stores in my country claiming that they specialize on about 20+ lines of products.The top three risks Intel faces seem to be:
1. TSMC have a superior production process.
2. AMD have superior micro-architectures for X86.
3. In the medium term, ARM's architecture may evolve to be an increasing threat to X86.
Intel may end up like IBM, with a legacy role, and some interesting new developments, but no longer dominant. They probably need to focus on fewer things.
Buybacks were illegal for a long time for good reason.Selling off parts of the Company to fluff the Stock Price seems ominous.
Kind of like Nokia and we know how that turned out.This is getting dangerously close to some form of burning platform memo...
Thank Apple for this. Also Intel has much of the blame telling Apple they weren't interested in making the processor for the iPhone.TSMC is the last game in town for leading edge digital nodes. If I were the US Government I'd be sending more soldiers to Taiwan. Although I'm not sure anyone in D.C. has even an inkling of how important this shift is... Intel missing the mark on fab tech so badly is becoming a national security issue. While it's good for competition now (AMD, Arm, etc), it's not going to be good for the US in the long run. It must be pretty weird being the CEO of TSMC, which now also means being the head of (possibly) the most important private company on earth.
Not sure I would agree with number 2. Intel has some good architectures, they just lack the process tech to utilize them.The top three risks Intel faces seem to be:
1. TSMC have a superior production process.
2. AMD have superior micro-architectures for X86.
3. In the medium term, ARM's architecture may evolve to be an increasing threat to X86.
Intel may end up like IBM, with a legacy role, and some interesting new developments, but no longer dominant. They probably need to focus on fewer things.
Well Superfin and Enhanced Superfin is supposedly fixing that, so all we have to do is monitor what happens over the next year and a half or so to decide whether or not process node is Intel's only problem.Not sure I would agree with number 2. Intel has some good architectures, they just lack the process tech to utilize them.
Actually both, focus on fewer things and at the same time diversify. As example they could the Atom line of cores finally discontinue and use the freed engineering resources for other things.
Dear god no, please not the one team at Intel that have an actually interesting roadmap and can actually execute. Anything but them!
We got Jasper Lake and Lakefield from them this year - something you would not even want to put into a phone 2 years ago - performance wise - and power wise.. This is as far as the consumer front is concerned - maybe the Atoms do better in IoT.
One weak quarter doesn't mean anything, intel had similarly weak 2nd and 3rd quarters in 2019 but yearly they still raked in the mullah.So, you are the only one here that thinks Intel is doing fine. I won't argue that they are making money, but with their product stack, that can't go on forever. Especially when Zen 3 and Milan come out. Right now at least they have the gaming crown. That will end very soon, then what do they have ????
And it doesn't need to go on forever, why would anybody even think that? I know that you think that intel can't tell a computer chip from a potato chip but I'm sure they can.I won't argue that they are making money, but with their product stack, that can't go on forever.
Intel will still have the volume crown and with the new fab now working they will have even more volume.Especially when Zen 3 and Milan come out. Right now at least they have the gaming crown. That will end very soon, then what do they have ????
That has been so for a long time.are now net negative in terms of liquid assets to debt (i.e. they've burned through their cash reserves to prop up their stock price and are now officially overall in debt). They are now down to $18.3 billion cash on hand with a total debt load of $36.6 billion.
They wouldn't need to sell that, they made 50bil net income in the last 3 years, they can easily afford to pay the buybacks from that.So, now they are selling a piece of their company in order to be able to afford another $9 billion stock buy back to try and keep their stock price up.
Because "lead" is just a gimmick to sell more product and intel is already selling all of the product they can make.Why aren't they investing more into manufacturing to take the lead from TSMC?
If they are losing in the same way they lose in desktop then they are losing in things nobody cares about or in things that people have migrated to specialized hardware gpus or arm.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.
Because "lead" is just a gimmick to sell more product and intel is already selling all of the product they can make.
Yes AMD is paying for TSMCs fab operation and R&D and margin on top of everything else while intel doesn't.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.
This would make sense if intel wouldn't be making 4 (to 6) bil a quarter, clean money in the pocket, from these fabs.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.
The top three risks Intel faces seem to be:
1. TSMC have a superior production process.
2. AMD have superior micro-architectures for X86.
3. In the medium term, ARM's architecture may evolve to be an increasing threat to X86.
Intel may end up like IBM, with a legacy role, and some interesting new developments, but no longer dominant. They probably need to focus on fewer things.
One weak quarter doesn't mean anything, intel had similarly weak 2nd and 3rd quarters in 2019 but yearly they still raked in the mullah.
And it doesn't need to go on forever, why would anybody even think that? I know that you think that intel can't tell a computer chip from a potato chip but I'm sure they can.
If you have a business and you keep making the same amount of money (twice actually) without changing anything, why would you change anything?
Intel will still have the volume crown and with the new fab now working they will have even more volume.
10nm (well the CPUs they are going to make on 10nm) will have more IPC (more transistors) and more cache (more transistors) so overall it's probably going to be very close as far as overall volume goes.They can't make more product because they haven't shrunk their process. 10nm's yield/cost is so bad that it isn't viable until now.
Maybe Intel should just stay at 14nm forever. Everything lower is a 'gimmick'. Yeah, tell that to server customers...