Intel tops Q3 estimates

[Fjodor2001]

Yes, because 10nm must equal 10nm. Both in sizes and electrical properties. Samsungs 14nm isn't exactly showing anything good with the A9.

And for size.

Maybe you learn one day that the term nm is used...very lighthanded by everyone.

Samsungs 14LPE is 37% bigger than Intels 14nm(dense). TSMCs 16FF is 58% bigger and 16FF+ is 40% bigger. And then there is the materials/electrical properties to discuss.

We all know process techs from different companies differ in metrics even at the same node. Frequency, power consumption, cost, transistor density, TTM, yield, etc. That's why it is so hard to compare them and declare a winner in all aspects. Maybe Intel is paying the price of prioritizing some aspects (e.g. transistor density) on 14 nm with the yield issues they are having for example? So do you have data proving that Intel's 10 nm will be better in all metrics compared to the competition? And if so, by how much margin?

Even if we assume that Intel's 10 nm overall will be a bit better than the competition (which seems to be the general opinion), do you really still consider Intel to be 4-5 years ahead of the competition which you have claimed?

 

[mrmt]

Thank you.

OH Phynaz, and FWIW it seems that you were right and AMD clawed back some share this quarter. It was acknowledged by Intel on the QÄ that they undersupplied the market and that they had space for more sales. They said to be worried about inventory build up but I think the real culprit is the 14nm node, as it seems to be a little behind in the cost curve.

 

[ShintaiDK]

We all know process techs from different companies differ in metrics even at the same node. Frequency, power consumption, cost, transistor density, TTM, yield, etc. That's why it is so hard to compare them and declare a winner in all aspects. Maybe Intel is paying the price of prioritizing some aspects (e.g. transistor density) on 14 nm with the yield issues they are having for example? So do you have data proving that Intel's 10 nm will be better in all metrics compared to the competition? And if so, by how much margin?

Even if we assume that Intel's 10 nm overall will be a bit better than the competition (which seems to be the general opinion), do you really still consider Intel to be 4-5 years ahead of the competition which you have claimed?

You attacked me while thinking you was smart and got caught with your BS. Now you try to excuse it all with the usual goalpost shifts and burden of proof because you as always got none.

Your sick personal fixation of me gets in the way of any rational thinking you may have. You can take your personal problems that you obvious got with me in PM. Then we can talk about it there.

 

[ShintaiDK]

OH Phynaz, and FWIW it seems that you were right and AMD clawed back some share this quarter. It was acknowledged by Intel on the QÄ that they undersupplied the market and that they had space for more sales. They said to be worried about inventory build up but I think the real culprit is the 14nm node, as it seems to be a little behind in the cost curve.

We will see tonight if Phynaz is right when AMD delivers its result. Will also be interesting to see if any increased sales can offset any potential loss from the graphics part.

 

[mrmt]

We will see tonight if Phynaz is right when AMD delivers its result. Will also be interesting to see if any increased sales can offset any potential loss from the graphics part.

I think their GPU business has grown so small that only something close to a wipe out would generate such an effect.

 

[Arachnotronic]

OH Phynaz, and FWIW it seems that you were right and AMD clawed back some share this quarter. It was acknowledged by Intel on the QÄ that they undersupplied the market and that they had space for more sales. They said to be worried about inventory build up but I think the real culprit is the 14nm node, as it seems to be a little behind in the cost curve.

I don't think we can necessarily conclude this. Intel under-shipped PC demand, but I would think this is more of a case of the PC supply chain keeping their inventories quite lean rather than Intel necessarily losing share.

We will see, though. Tonight's AMD call should be interesting to tune into.

 

[Arachnotronic]

We all know process techs from different companies differ in metrics even at the same node. Frequency, power consumption, cost, transistor density, TTM, yield, etc. That's why it is so hard to compare them and declare a winner in all aspects. Maybe Intel is paying the price of prioritizing some aspects (e.g. transistor density) on 14 nm with the yield issues they are having for example? So do you have data proving that Intel's 10 nm will be better in all metrics compared to the competition? And if so, by how much margin?

Even if we assume that Intel's 10 nm overall will be a bit better than the competition (which seems to be the general opinion), do you really still consider Intel to be 4-5 years ahead of the competition which you have claimed?

There is little doubt in my mind that Intel has the superior 14-nanometer class process in terms of density and electrical characteristics. Good luck building something like Skylake 6700K on a TSMC 16nm/Samsung 14nm process.

But it is very clear that Intel is struggling with its 14-nanometer yields and they have made it clear that these struggles have come from their aggressive area scaling.

 

[rainy]

sick personal fixation

It's funny, that you're using such an argument: you show exactly that type of behaviour in your relentless crusade against AMD.
I wish to know why you hate them so much, however I'm not expecting to see any reasonable explanation.

 

[NTMBK]

It's funny, that you're using such an argument: you show exactly that type of behaviour in your relentless crusade against AMD.
I wish to know why you hate them so much, however I'm not expecting to see any reasonable explanation.

A Duron without thermal throttling caught fire and burnt his house down.

 

[witeken]

Doubt it. Until Intel can successfully integrate CDMA EV-DO into its modems, I don't think Intel has much of a chance of winning Apple biz.

That said they just bought the CDMA assets of Via Telecom, probably because they are dead serious about trying to compete for the Apple biz. It will be interesting if they can get those assets integrated into something that can intercept a 2017 iPhone.

Analyst in EETimes article is optimistic: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328009&.

 

[krumme]

Analyst in EETimes article is optimistic: http://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1328009&.

Intel entire org, culture, competences, and thinking is tuned at the fab way. Eating capex and hiding and safeguarding prior investment. They will probably try to go the modem way big time. It will look for them as the safe and only way.
I am not so sure. I think more integration and development of the software side both on dcg and business solutions is the way to go even if its more unsafe and difficult. They have to look at where they get their business today and look for solutions tomorrow. I think more consolidation and integration is needed here to make business development come more in focus instead of tech and traditional IT diciplines.

 

[Systems analyst]

April 2014, Intel reported $2 .8 billion earnings for 2014 Q1 PC group.
April 2015, Intel reported $1 .4 billion earnings in the combined PC + mobile group for 2015 Q1.
- This is a shortfall of $1 .4 billion earnings in a quarter.

July 2014, they reported $3.7 billion earnings for 2014 Q2 PC group.
July 2015, they reported $1 .6 billion earnings in the combined PC + mobile group for 2015 Q2.
- This is a shortfall of $2.1 billion earnings in a quarter.

October 2014, they reported $4.1 billion earnings for 2014 Q3 PC group.
October 2015, they reported $2.4 billion earnings in the combined PC + mobile group for 2015 Q3.
- This is a shortfall of $1.7 billion earnings in a quarter.



Projected 2015 Mobile/PC group shortfall c.f 2014 PC profits:
Q1 = 1.4, Q2=2.1, Q3=1.7, assume Q4=1.4
Total shortfall = 6.6 billion USD.
If 4.2 billion is attributable to Mobile,as per 2014, then PC shortfall for 2015 is 2.4 billion.
If 3.4 billion is attributable to Mobile, then PC shortfall for 2015 is 3.2 billion USD.

There are over 6 billion mobile phone accounts in the world; there are an estimated 2 billion smartphones, at present, but delivery is running at 1.4 billion units this year. With falling prices, more and more mobile phones will be 64-bit smartphones in the future, and each year they become more capable; for a lot of people, they may soon serve as a PC alternative, with a dock and full-sized keyboard and screen; alternatively, set-top-boxes could become an alternative to a PC.
We have been told for years that Intel have a superior production process; maybe they have, but it is for large complicated X86 CPUs, not for products in the mobile phone space; even now, in 2015, Intel are using TSMC for Sofia.
Intel may have lost up to 14 billion USD in mobile, over 4 years. This cannot go on - large investors will expect a change of strategy, I would think.
Intel need to drop X86 in mobile phones and tablets, and adopt ARM IP as an alternative.
There is an onslaught of new mobile IP coming from ARM, on a yearly basis; if you can't beat it, join it.
To make matters worse, ARM are gearing up for an onslaught in network and server processor IP. It can only get harder for Intel, without help from ARM.

 

[Fjodor2001]

Your sick personal fixation of me gets in the way of any rational thinking you may have. You can take your personal problems that you obvious got with me in PM. Then we can talk about it there.

Lol. Don't flatter yourself. The only thing I've got a fixation with is exposing BS when I see it. For some reason that often correlates with your posts though.

You attacked me while thinking you was smart and got caught with your BS. Now you try to excuse it all with the usual goalpost shifts and burden of proof because you as always got none.

I did not attack you! I just asked if you still considered Intel to be 4-5 years ahead of the competition in process tech at 10 nm. It's a claim you have made yourself before, remember:

It seems at 10nm that Intel may be 4-5 years ahead. Assuming that 10nm ever materialize for the foundries.

So the burden of evidence for that is upon you. Assuming you still believe it's true?

 

[Spungo]

Intel have a superior production process; maybe they have, but it is for large complicated X86 CPUs, not for products in the mobile phone space; even now, in 2015, Intel are using TSMC for Sofia.
Intel may have lost up to 14 billion USD in mobile, over 4 years. This cannot go on - large investors will expect a change of strategy, I would think.

Going after mobile seems like a waste of time. I've seen this before, companies trying to cater to the bottom tier, and it ends in disaster most of the time. For every 1 company like Walmart that does well selling to poor people, there are 10 companies like JC Penny that go bankrupt trying to do the same thing. In general, lower priced goods have lower profit margins than higher priced goods. On something like a phone, there probably isn't much profit to be had. It's nice to sell a billion units of something, but not if the profit is $1 on each unit. It's more lucrative to sell big $1000 processors for video editing, CAD, servers, etc. You won't be able to sell a billion of them, but you don't need to sell a billion if the profit is $500 on each one sold.

Think of it like this. In 50 years, will General Motors still exist? I really don't know. There is a lot of competition in the low end market for something like a car. Maybe they will exist, maybe they won't. Will Ferrari still exist in 50 years? I would be very surprised if Ferrari disappeared. Intel is currently in that Ferrari position, selling powerful products with very high profit margins. Will that mean fewer customers? Of course it will, but it doesn't matter. Cater to the people who have the most money.

 

[RampantAndroid]

No CDMA though.

I didn't think all of their phones had CDMA, actually? Last I looked, there were multiple SKUs worldwide, though only one existed in the US.

Can CDMA die already?

Edit: http://www.techwalls.com/differences-between-iphone-6-6-plus-models/

Not everything has CDMA.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I didn't think all of their phones had CDMA, actually? Last I looked, there were multiple SKUs worldwide, though only one existed in the US.

Can CDMA die already?

With iPhone 6s, all models have CDMA support.

 

[RampantAndroid]

With iPhone 6s, all models have CDMA support.

I edited too late. It looks like not all iPhone 6S models have CDMA:
http://www.techwalls.com/differences-between-iphone-6-6-plus-models/

Straight from Apple too:
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP706?locale=en_US

 

[Arachnotronic]

I edited too late. It looks like not all iPhone 6S models have CDMA:
http://www.techwalls.com/differences-between-iphone-6-6-plus-models/

Straight from Apple too:
https://support.apple.com/kb/SP706?locale=en_US

You're looking at the 6

 

[RampantAndroid]

You're looking at the 6

That's what I get for searching for the 6S and expecting Google to actually search for the term "6S"....

http://www.apple.com/iphone-6s/specs/

Yeah - they're almost the same phone. Looks like AT&T is the outlier with LTE band 30 (WCS LTE).

 

[Arachnotronic]

That's what I get for searching for the 6S and expecting Google to actually search for the term "6S"....

http://www.apple.com/iphone-6s/specs/

Yeah - they're almost the same phone. Looks like AT&T is the outlier with LTE band 30 (WCS LTE).

No worries! And yep, they're basically the same except for the LTE band 30 on the AT&T/SIM Free models.