add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube

Is Intel getting desperate?

AdreeN

8 months ago

Anyone smell desperation from Intel by launching yet another refresh of cpus based on 14nm? Not that they won't be solid cpus, but ryzen 2 must be a massive threat to their short term market share if they need to release this in the interim instead of focusing on 10nm.

June/July is shaping up to something spectacular where Intel finally has a legit threat to the throne!

Can't wait to see all the deals and the drool worthy benches. Seeing the 2600x drop to 220~ CAD bundled has got me itching to build now.

Comments

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

If you don't want immediately a new computer, you may wanna wait for the newer and better Ryzen 3000 CPUs. :)

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Yup back to early-mid 00's when AMD were top dog for enthusiasts. Did not last long though, Intel will be back. I am not expecting Zen 2 to be a massive step up on Intel, probably will draw parity or slightly outperform Intel core for core. Main draw really will be price. $250 for an 8 core Ryzen 5 that performs similar to an i9-9900K. This is going to do it, I am not all that excited about AMD's other chips, particularly the ones that peddle more cores - i.e. 12c/24t and 16c/32t.

As for 10nm, Intel been promising this since 2016. R&D theory vs fabrication causing hold up. I work in R&D, par for the course. Promise something, hold ups common.... Intel will release when ready....

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Anyone smell desperation from Intel by launching yet another refresh of cpus based on 14nm?

I doubt Intel feels the pressure. They can't make enough CPU to satisfy demand and AMD hasn't been able to capitalize on their weakness even when the odds are stacked in AMD's favor.

As for the size of the process it is meaningless these days past hype as AMD showed 7nm cores are not really different in size to the 14nm cores on current Ryzen.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

They can't make enough CPU to satisfy demand and AMD hasn't been able to capitalize on their weakness even when the odds are stacked in AMD's favor.

Intel doesn't need to feel the pressure, but AMD did have a huge increase on their profits (and no one can deny that) and that's a good thing, as monopoly does not offer any gains as consumers concerns.

And there is where AMD did strike back, hard.

https://segmentnext.com/2018/10/26/amd-ryzen-cpu-sales/

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

but AMD did have a huge increase on their profits (and no one can deny that)

Might want to check Intel's numbers for the same quarters and remember AMD counts console sales in CPU business.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

You are making a mistake.

You try to compare Intel vs AMD like an apple to apple comparison.

While AMD has increased their market share from Intel, Intel managed to get a revenue increase by holding their CPU prices high.

And AMD market share doesn't threatening Intel market share at all.

Intel still dominates this market, it's just that AMD remains competitive this time around and has cut a small piece from Intel's market share. That's all.

If you compare the market share of revenue vs the market share of units from these two companies, it looks like this.

Market Share Intel Desktop vs AMD Desktop

Units Intel: 90.41% / Revenue Intel: 95.64%

Units AMD: 9.59% / Revenue AMD: 4.36%

Source: Intel 2018 10-K

Do you see the discrepancy between units sold and profits acquired?

Intel's market share of revenue is much higher than its sold units.

And that's because Intel is a cutthroat as pricing concerns.

So while Intel may have lost some unit market shares to AMD, their revenue is in a healthy state because the inflated CPU prices!

That policy just destroys the user market. And really, don't give a damn about Intel revenue numbers.

And that's why my next PC upgrade (whenever this happens) and that applies to my closest friends as well, will definitely not be an Intel processor.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

AMD caught a gain in profits from holiday pre-orders for consoles they are no longer paying a penalty on.

And the above only highlights just how poorly AMD is doing in the market proving my point of even with the odds in their favor AMD has been unable to benefit from the situation.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Don't compare a BIG company vs a smaller one.

Being small, even the slightest profit gain makes a difference.

And according to the below, AMD seems to be satisfied with their profits.

Our new products gained share and significantly expanded gross margin, leading to our most profitable year since 2011,” Su said. ”

AMD’s market share has historically been small in x86 processors, but it has grown. Market researcher Mercury Research said that AMD’s third quarter 2018 market share for x86 processors (for personal computers) was 10.6 percent, compared to just 8 percent in the fourth quarter of 2016.

That may not sound like much of a gain, but it’s the main reason AMD reported revenues of $6.28 billion in 2018, up 23 percent from a year earlier.

So if they are satisfied, why do you care how much profit they have gained. :-P

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

There's a big difference between being a monopoly and the far larger of a duopoly. Also, AMD has been completely out of the server market (market share 0%) for years, but Epyc is starting to shove its way into the datacenter and server room (don't expect Epyc1 to be used for anything critical, Epyc2 might change that).

Intel certainly has to worry about producing enough 14nm product to feed demand, but it doesn't mean that they get the price benefit of decreased supply, especially if AMD starts shipping demonstrably better chips.

Intel's long term success has been largely due to their fab power. Historically they've been a node ahead of the competition, and been able to produce faster, cheaper, cooler chips. Their inability to get 10nm out the door makes investors, customers, and competitors wondering what else Intel can't do that they've always done before.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

EPYC 1 is more likely to see a large scale adoption now then EPYC 2 after AMD sold it lock, stock, and barrel to the Chinese government.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Intel's still got all the market share, and the performance lead. Ryzen 2's performance is unknown. Call me when there's legitimate 3rd party benchmarks. And and all the fuss over fabrication size when it's become a meaningless marketing fluff doesn't concern anyone with any serious knowledge. After all why isn't the Radeon VII destroying the 1080 ti or the 2080 ti despite it being "7nm" compared to 16nm and 12nm respectively..., it's only competitive with the 1080 ti and 2080...

I mean I hope Ryzen 2 is good and AMD remains competitive. But everyone imagining any time Intel might not be an absolute monopoly that causes them to get desperate is a bit too optimistic for their own good.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

Who knows? Intel's original i9 response to threadripper (mostly in the motherboards, the chip seemed fine if overpriced) smelled of desperation. Pentium 4 wasn't desperation, just a bad design (I'd say the same with Bulldozer, only moreso).

The only guys at Intel that ought to be desperate are the ones bringing up 10nm. That looks bad and unhealthy for Intel. The 14nm chips are doing fine, although shipping yet another 14nm chip implies that they started this a year ago and didn't believe the official dogma that 10nm was going to be on track then.

Intel isn't just worried about AMD, they also have to worry about the ARM world. ARM is starting to make some CPU designs that could start to make inroads on Intel's (and AMD64's) market dominance, even if Epyc isn't all that competitive (which I doubt).

Andy Grove (co?-founder of Intel) wrote a book called "Only the paranoid survive". I'm not sure Intel has kept the level of paranoia it needs to maintain their monopoly. It has largely been thanks to superior (chip manufacturing) processes, but it may well be that TSMC has gone past them.

  • 8 months ago
  • 1 point

I've been out of the loop for at least an earning call or two on the Intel stock, but last I heard AMD was taking a nice chunk out of Intel's server market. It was relatively small in the grand scale, but snowballs grow quickly.

Sort

add arrow-down arrow-left arrow-right arrow-up authorcheckmark clipboard combo comment delete discord dots drag-handle dropdown-arrow errorfacebook history inbox instagram issuelink lock markup-bbcode markup-html markup-pcpp markup-cyclingbuilder markup-plain-text markup-reddit menu pin radio-button save search settings share star-empty star-full star-half switch successtag twitch twitter user warningwattage weight youtube