This is not a good picture Charlie's painting of whatever's left of Intel's roadmap.
For the record, this is also significantly worse than any expectations I ever had as well. Far, far worse.
Need I go on ?
There is a difference between saying that some of it inaccurate, and saying there is "major bias". I even said some may not be true, but 80% true does not seem like "major bias". Your first comment that started this was that,Oddly enough, you do have a user, exquisitechar, who is flat out saying "Some of this is inaccurate..." But I don't see you asking him to provide proof that any of this is false? Not to throw exquisitechar under the bus, as I don't think he did anything wrong.
Seems odd that you're so hyped up trying to "prove me wrong" and ask for proof, when I never said anything other than the opinion that the person being interviewed runs a site that is very anti-intel. If you google the site name, you will see many threads on people talking about such. I simply said to take it with a grain of salt. As you should any interview with someone with an obvious bias. Truth or not, I never said it was either way.
But you didn't jump up and discuss the issues of someone saying exactly what you are accusing me of. I find the whole thing odd; especially since I did no such thing.
There is a difference between saying that some of it inaccurate, and saying there is "major bias". I even said some may not be true, but 80% true does not seem like "major bias". Your first comment that started this was that,
Then in post 21, you called me out. You just seem to defend Intel at every juncture. Right now, they have no defense. And everyone here seems to agree for the next 2 years or so.
Except you.
I'll finally get that price increase?
Seriously, I hope AMD manages to make as much cash as possible by the time Intel starts to react.
I would think if that timeline for Icelake Server was true they would just scrap it and roll with Saphhire Rapids.
Reading this... How can the man live with himself.... The sheer amount of negativity and joy over their failures
The man creates nothing
Icelake notebooks are everywhere it doesnt look like capacity problem
He may be correct though.
How many are actually selling to the public? What's the volume? Remember, there are entire announced SKUs (such as the top-end SKU) that you can't even buy right now.
Can I ask you to tell me if this is a correct summation ? and correct me with what I don't understand. The only 10nm chips shipping are low end laptop chips.Icelake mobile is no worse than Cometlake mobile for volume. They seem to be in about equal number of systems.
The Core i3 of Icelake is also the chip they were using on the HP black friday $300 system. Sometimes, you got i5's with the system too.
Dell has bunch of new Inspirons split between ICL and CML. There's a $599 cdn system with 256GB SSD and Core i3 1005G1. That's pretty cheap. Acer has Swift 3 and 5 with 1065G7. Lenovo has Ideapads with Icelake too. Of course, can't forget HP with their simple no-name "HP 14" or "HP 17" systems.
The top end SKU doesn't even matter. It's a 28W SKU that almost no one used in previous generations. The HP Spectre for example uses a "15W" SKU but has two settings, one a quieter 18W, and another, a 28W one. Who needs a 28W SKU then?
Yea, Icelake is limited, and it would be misleading to say they are shipping in volumes they wanted. But its also a lie to claim it only exists in flagship systems and in extremely small volume. Go outside, get some Best Buy or Walmart flyers and peruse through them. You'll see some Icelake systems too.
S|A also claimed 10nm was cancelled. Later when it was found it wasn't I think he gave bunch of excuses such as "10nm is cancelled, but 10nm+ is not" or whatever. I think what really happened is Intel found out who the leaker was and told him wrong info to discredit him.
Icelake mobile is no worse than Cometlake mobile for volume. They seem to be in about equal number of systems.
Can I ask you to tell me if this is a correct summation ? and correct me with what I don't understand. The only 10nm chips shipping are low end laptop chips.
Icelake mobile is no worse than Cometlake mobile for volume. They seem to be in about equal number of systems.
Intel's volume was down 10% in laptop and 11% in desktop in the 3Q mostly because of the 14 nm shortage. Kind of get the feeling looking back that they had no choice to use what they could produce on 10 nm to help alleviate it.
Oddly enough, you do have a user, exquisitechar, who is flat out saying "Some of this is inaccurate..." But I don't see you asking him to provide proof that any of this is false? Not to throw exquisitechar under the bus, as I don't think he did anything wrong.
Seems odd that you're so hyped up trying to "prove me wrong" and ask for proof, when I never said anything other than the opinion that the person being interviewed runs a site that is very anti-intel. If you google the site name, you will see many threads on people talking about such. I simply said to take it with a grain of salt. As you should any interview with someone with an obvious bias. Truth or not, I never said it was either way.
But you didn't jump up and discuss the issues of someone saying exactly what you are accusing me of. I find the whole thing odd; especially since I did no such thing.
S|A also claimed 10nm was cancelled. Later when it was found it wasn't I think he gave bunch of excuses such as "10nm is cancelled, but 10nm+ is not" or whatever. I think what really happened is Intel found out who the leaker was and told him wrong info to discredit him.
That reason is because the deprecation involved taking three of the four fabs that were slated to produce 10nm CPUs and moving them to different processes.
The number of designs do not represent the number of actual chips shipped.Icelake mobile is no worse than Cometlake mobile for volume. They seem to be in about equal number of systems.
The Core i3 of Icelake is also the chip they were using on the HP black friday $300 system. Sometimes, you got i5's with the system too.
Dell has bunch of new Inspirons split between ICL and CML. There's a $599 cdn system with 256GB SSD and Core i3 1005G1. That's pretty cheap. Acer has Swift 3 and 5 with 1065G7. Lenovo has Ideapads with Icelake too. Of course, can't forget HP with their simple no-name "HP 14" or "HP 17" systems.
The top end SKU doesn't even matter. It's a 28W SKU that almost no one used in previous generations. The HP Spectre for example uses a "15W" SKU but has two settings, one a quieter 18W, and another, a 28W one. Who needs a 28W SKU then?
Yea, Icelake is limited, and it would be misleading to say they are shipping in volumes they wanted. But its also a lie to claim it only exists in flagship systems and in extremely small volume. Go outside, get some Best Buy or Walmart flyers and peruse through them. You'll see some Icelake systems too.
S|A also claimed 10nm was cancelled. Later when it was found it wasn't I think he gave bunch of excuses such as "10nm is cancelled, but 10nm+ is not" or whatever. I think what really happened is Intel found out who the leaker was and told him wrong info to discredit him.
Your statement is true but not an answer to his question, as U does not mean low-end.Intel's volume was down 10% in laptop and 11% in desktop in the 3Q mostly because of the 14 nm shortage. Kind of get the feeling looking back that they had no choice to use what they could produce on 10 nm to help alleviate it.
Even looking at retail, Whiskey Lake appears to be easily the majority of the volume out there, probably because Intel is prioritizing it over Comet because it's a smaller die. Hence why Dell is upset because they want Comet Lake because it's newer.
Corporate uses fleet sales through OEM sales channels mostly, and that's easily the majority of laptop sales. But they are likely being fed Whiskey Lake too.
The U parts are Intel's biggest seller by a large margin.
Your statement is true but not an answer to his question, as U does not mean low-end.
Intel isn't in trouble though, not even close. Even if they were never able to retake the lead, they are diversified enough that they would continue to exist.
Ahhh Lobz you must be a wall st dude (such as myself). Thanks for spreading Charlie’s fud. He actually blocked me on Twitter because he refused to admit he gets paid by wall st. to share his crap.
anyway - hope you have better resources than Charlie and anandtech forums. 10nm yields are good. Just sent one of my analysts on a trip out in Asia to confirm that. Also have pretty good look into the consumables folks that supply intel.
but thanks for spreading that garbage lol
Problem is Intel is burning through their cash hoard buying back stock. And the fab business is extremely capital intensive.
I mean...Ahhh Lobz you must be a wall st dude (such as myself). Thanks for spreading Charlie’s fud. He actually blocked me on Twitter because he refused to admit he gets paid by wall st. to share his crap.
anyway - hope you have better resources than Charlie and anandtech forums. 10nm yields are good. Just sent one of my analysts on a trip out in Asia to confirm that. Also have pretty good look into the consumables folks that supply intel.
but thanks for spreading that garbage lol
10nm yields are good.
I personally consider Charlie's reporting/rumor mongering reflecting worst case scenarios for Intel.
The problem with such scenarios is that even if they are true Intel (or any other sane company really) will never ever publicly admit them as such and always try to package it in some way that make it look like they are in full control and their range of product at a given time is a result of deliberate decisions.
And that's alright as long as Wall St. continues to eat it up. I guess with liahos1 we have our very own barometer for that.