Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > CPUs and Overclocking

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2014
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-07-2012, 08:53 AM   #126
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blckgrffn View Post
That's great for my crunchers, but what is that for most people?

To be clear, I have a number of dedicated Intel crunching machines and I can appreciate this some - but most distributed computing tasks don't even use AVX yet.
Gaming for example will see a moderate benefit, also socalled multimedia applications. Assuming its an exe compiled for it. But the benefit is that you can take existing SSE code and just recompile it for the AVX2 benefit and 256bit execution. So the work (and cost) from the developer side is basicly 0. So there is no excuse not to use it in all newer applications and games.

AVX2 is radically revolutionary due to providing vector equivalents of every scalar instruction.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 11-07-2012 at 09:09 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:00 AM   #127
blckgrffn
Diamond Member
 
blckgrffn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Blaine, MN
Posts: 6,639
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Gaming for example will see a moderate benefit. Assuming its an exe compiled for it. But the benefit is that you can take existing SSE code and just recompile it for the AVX2 benefit and 256bit execution. So the work (and cost) from the developer side is basicly 0. So there is no excuse not to use it in all newer applications and games.
Hopefully we see some awesome then
__________________
Crunch/Fold for the TeAm! http://forums.anandtech.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15

3930k @ 4.2 - GA-UP4 - 2x MSI TF3 7950 - 32GB EL RAM - Seasonic X650 - 840 250GB - U2913WM
blckgrffn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:10 AM   #128
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,039
Default

Plus remember unoptimized code brings another 10-15% on top of that due to other improvements. Branchprediction, double the L1 and L2 bandwidth and etc.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:17 AM   #129
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Default

Well those 10-15% is what the benchmarks will show( except maybe sisoft sandra). Intel needs to "help" developers use even AVX,let alone AVX2. It takes time when it comes to new ISA extensions ,it's just how the software market works.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:23 AM   #130
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by inf64 View Post
Well those 10-15% is what the benchmarks will show( except maybe sisoft sandra). Intel needs to "help" developers use even AVX,let alone AVX2. It takes time when it comes to new ISA extensions ,it's just how the software market works.
AVX2 you just need compiler support if you code is already SSE. And compilers already support AVX2.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 11-07-2012 at 09:26 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:27 AM   #131
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Gaming for example will see a moderate benefit, also socalled multimedia applications. Assuming its an exe compiled for it. But the benefit is that you can take existing SSE code and just recompile it for the AVX2 benefit and 256bit execution. So the work (and cost) from the developer side is basicly 0. So there is no excuse not to use it in all newer applications and games.

AVX2 is radically revolutionary due to providing vector equivalents of every scalar instruction.
You do know that that isn't true, right?

If you have code which uses SSE intrinsics, the compiler will not automatically map those to 256-bit wide AVX2.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:32 AM   #132
inf64
Platinum Member
 
inf64's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,058
Default

Yes but you need to recompile the code,hand tune the parts that cannot be just recompiled,then do test/verify process and at the end ship it to market. It takes time and you will see how "fast" the software market will react. Maybe in 2015 we will see some big software suits that rely on integer vector(a lot) gain support for the AVX2 ISA. That's my estimate at least.
__________________
ShintaiDK:"There will be no APU in PS4 and Xbox720."
ShintaiDK:"No quadchannel either.[in Kaveri]"
CHADBOGA:"Because he[OBR] is a great man."
inf64 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:40 AM   #133
pelov
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
14nm-XM excavator would at least have a shot at competing with the performance/watt and absolute performance of a Haswell (and possibly a Broadwell?) but it needs to come out in 2014, not 2015 or 2016.
GloFo has claimed that tape outs are set to happen in 2014 with products in 2015, so AMD will still be a year behind. Granted, Intel will be on 14nm for at least two years so we'll see how that works out ;P

I also think GloFo and AMD both may have a bit of trouble with the 14nm-XM node, as GloFo has been working very closely with ARM to tune it for their SoCs whereas AMD has been left out in the cold, so to speak. If Steamroller is cancelled/delayed then an Excavator chip at 14nm-XM wouldn't likely see release until late 2015
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Childs View Post
hahahahaha "Is this 911? John Travolta just stroked my shaft, call the president!"

Last edited by pelov; 11-07-2012 at 09:44 AM.
pelov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:45 AM   #134
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,039
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
GloFo has claimed that tape outs are set to happen in 2014 with products in 2015, so AMD will still be a year behind. Granted, Intel will be on 14nm for at least two years so we'll see how that works out ;P
Remember GloFos 14XM is low power only and is the size of 20nm.

If they tapeout the first one in 2014. Then products is more likely to come in 2016. Just look at 28nm. tapeout in 2010, products in 2012.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
I also think GloFo and AMD both may have a bit of trouble with the 14nm-XM node, as GloFo has been working very closely with ARM to tune it for their SoCs whereas AMD has been left out in the cold, so to speak. If Steamroller is cancelled/delayed then an Excavator chip at 14nm-XM wouldn't likely see release until late 2015
I am pretty sure Excavator is completely cancelled.
__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 11-07-2012 at 09:49 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:53 AM   #135
pelov
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,512
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
Remember GloFos 14XM is low power only and is the size of 20nm.
That's not exactly true, as the 14nm-XM uses 14nm FinFETs but with 20nm elements

Quote:
According to a statement, the chips will also incorporate elements of the 20nm LPM process.
GlobalFoundries' relatively early date for 14nm production is likely to be good news for ARM, with the chip design firm recently signing a multiyear deal for FinFET development.
Dipesh Patel, deputy general manager of the Physical IP Division at ARM, commented that FinFET would be integral to the next generation of mobile devices, while its partnership with GloFo would create a "platform which is well-suited for SoCs based on the next generation of ARM processors and GPUs for the mobile market”.


Read more: http://news.techeye.net/chips/glofo-...#ixzz2BYJxoTzl
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShintaiDK View Post
If they tapeout the first one in 2014. Then products is more likely to come in 2016. Just look at 28nm. tapeout in 2010, products in 2012.,
Well, they expected customer tapeouts in 2014, given a year that would mean products in 2015 would be a safe bet. Whatever AMD's high powered chip release dates are, they'll certainly be well behind the ARM SoC's on the same node. You're right, the 14nm-XM node at GloFo is being tuned for ARM rather than AMD.

Quote:
According to Mercury Research, worldwide shipments of x86 parts saw a sharp decline in Q3. Researchers claim the drop was the biggest seen in more than a decade, 9 percent year-over-year.
And that's why
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Childs View Post
hahahahaha "Is this 911? John Travolta just stroked my shaft, call the president!"
pelov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:53 AM   #136
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
GloFo has claimed that tape outs are set to happen in 2014 with products in 2015, so AMD will still be a year behind. Granted, Intel will be on 14nm for at least two years so we'll see how that works out ;P

I also think GloFo and AMD both may have a bit of trouble with the 14nm-XM node, as GloFo has been working very closely with ARM to tune it for their SoCs whereas AMD has been left out in the cold, so to speak. If Steamroller is cancelled/delayed then an Excavator chip at 14nm-XM wouldn't likely see release until late 2015
GloFo claims 14nm-XM tapeouts are happening in 2013:
Quote:
What is the status of the technology and when will it enter production?
Technology development is already underway, with test silicon running through our Fab 8 in Saratoga County, NY. Early PDKs are available now, with customer tape-outs expected in 2013.
Production is expected to hit in 2014 with the goal being to compete against Intel:
Quote:
Mike Noonan, executive vice president of worldwide marketing and sales at Globalfoundries, said the company pulled in its roadmap specifically to "intercept" Intel at 14-nm. "The goal is to give our customers the power and performance to compete with Intel," Noonan said.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 09:56 AM   #137
pelov
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 3,512
Default

Ha! Wow, then they've sped up? They only recently taped out 20nm late last year :/ Looks like they were serious about becoming profitable in the coming near future.

How viable is that 14nm-XM for AMD though? With regards to high power chips that is. Their Jaguar-or-whatever-follows SoCs could potentially benefit, but what about their high end Opterons and laptop parts? GloFo and AMD both have been pretty hush about that as of late. AMD roadmaps show absolutely nothing past 28nm next year
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Childs View Post
hahahahaha "Is this 911? John Travolta just stroked my shaft, call the president!"
pelov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:26 AM   #138
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
But 14nm-XM will bring benefits to the high performance ICs as well, its just not being emphasized by GloFo at this time because they have a mobile issue with their 20nm.
From what I get 14XM isn't a full fledged 14nm process, but a kind of hybrid process using 14 and 20nm elements, so not as good as a 14nm process, but slightly better than others 20nm process. Also while transistors are smaller, the size of the chip won't shrink because the chip structures will be 20nm, which means that AMD will lag in die size for the time being. At least 14XM should yields gains in power consumption.

If AMD can ship 14XM products by H214 they might be able to offer some competition to Intel at slightly better terms than they are offering now, if they somehow improve Steamroller faster than Intel is improving Core, but I think it's a stretch to bet that they will be able to run for the performance crown.

That said, they might have APUs ready by that time frame, but it is fairly safe to say that their server business will be toast by that time, as they won't be able to field something barely competitive at least until 2015. They can't stay two years without a barely competitive product. I wouldn't really have an idea of how their other business will fare against Haswell, but everything is pointing to a shrinking share on notebooks and desktops once Haswell arrives. In 2014 they will have to fight an uphill battle to break Intel momentum and claw back OEM share by the time Intel will be pushing Broadwell on the market. Not a good prospect here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Idontcare View Post
Look at it from this perspective - if GloFo's 14nm-XM does nothing to provide better performance for the high-power MPU industry then that means GloFo has abandoned the high-power MPU segment entirely because you can't just skip it for a node or two and not lose customers to TSMC who will be offering it.
Here's the cause of the big if. GLF screwed 32nm SOI, then screwed 28nm bulk and according to the info you brought here they screwed 20nm bulk too. Their track record does not show the bare minimum execution capacity, they are the AMD of the foundry world, always hyping, always delivering less than it should. Also remember that a very cash strapped company decided to pay a hell of a money to get out of a contract with them, something they wouldn't do if they were assured of their capacity of execute the proposed road map.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:32 AM   #139
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
Ha! Wow, then they've sped up? They only recently taped out 20nm late last year :/ Looks like they were serious about becoming profitable in the coming near future.

How viable is that 14nm-XM for AMD though? With regards to high power chips that is. Their Jaguar-or-whatever-follows SoCs could potentially benefit, but what about their high end Opterons and laptop parts? GloFo and AMD both have been pretty hush about that as of late. AMD roadmaps show absolutely nothing past 28nm next year
I don't expect 14nm-XM to enable higher GHz over that of 20nm for high-performance stuff, but I do expect it to dramatically lower power so that the performance/W goes up.

I base this on what I observed with the 32nm->22nm transition for Intel.

Those finfets don't seem to be all that great in improving Fmax at the top end, but they do enable much lower voltages for the same clockspeed which in turns dramatically lowers the power consumption.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 10:35 AM   #140
Idontcare
Administrator
Elite Member
 
Idontcare's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: 台北市
Posts: 20,467
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
From what I get 14XM isn't a full fledged 14nm process, but a kind of hybrid process using 14 and 20nm elements, so not as good as a 14nm process, but slightly better than others 20nm process. Also while transistors are smaller, the size of the chip won't shrink because the chip structures will be 20nm, which means that AMD will lag in die size for the time being. At least 14XM should yields gains in power consumption.

If AMD can ship 14XM products by H214 they might be able to offer some competition to Intel at slightly better terms than they are offering now, if they somehow improve Steamroller faster than Intel is improving Core, but I think it's a stretch to bet that they will be able to run for the performance crown.

That said, they might have APUs ready by that time frame, but it is fairly safe to say that their server business will be toast by that time, as they won't be able to field something barely competitive at least until 2015. They can't stay two years without a barely competitive product. I wouldn't really have an idea of how their other business will fare against Haswell, but everything is pointing to a shrinking share on notebooks and desktops once Haswell arrives. In 2014 they will have to fight an uphill battle to break Intel momentum and claw back OEM share by the time Intel will be pushing Broadwell on the market. Not a good prospect here.



Here's the cause of the big if. GLF screwed 32nm SOI, then screwed 28nm bulk and according to the info you brought here they screwed 20nm bulk too. Their track record does not show the bare minimum execution capacity, they are the AMD of the foundry world, always hyping, always delivering less than it should. Also remember that a very cash strapped company decided to pay a hell of a money to get out of a contract with them, something they wouldn't do if they were assured of their capacity of execute the proposed road map.
Yeah, I agree. I was just trying to be hopeful. I'm a process development engineer myself so I can convince myself that there is upside potential behind these press releases, that management is holding back just a bit to keep some positive news should all the toast land jelly side up in 2014.

But I can't deny the more probabilistic outcome here being that which you spell out above.
Idontcare is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:10 AM   #141
ShintaiDK
Lifer
 
ShintaiDK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Copenhagen
Posts: 11,039
Default

I will just leave this


__________________
Anandtech forums=Xtremesystems forums

Last edited by ShintaiDK; 11-07-2012 at 11:12 AM.
ShintaiDK is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:15 AM   #142
Khato
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Folsom, CA
Posts: 907
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
Here's the cause of the big if. GLF screwed 32nm SOI, then screwed 28nm bulk and according to the info you brought here they screwed 20nm bulk too. Their track record does not show the bare minimum execution capacity, they are the AMD of the foundry world, always hyping, always delivering less than it should. Also remember that a very cash strapped company decided to pay a hell of a money to get out of a contract with them, something they wouldn't do if they were assured of their capacity of execute the proposed road map.
Yup, it's always a possibility that we won't see a repeat of their track record with the 14XM process... but I'm not going to believe it 'til they have actual products rolling through the fabs in mass production. They're just now getting 28nm under control and want us to believe that they're going to have 14nm finfets in 2 years? It's not impossible, but it certainly does sound like it's something that they just finished cooking up in their labs and are now running it through the fabs to see if it actually translates to mass production - note the fact that when asked about the status they simply stated that test silicon is running through their fab without mention of whether or not it's looking good.
Khato is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 11:20 AM   #143
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pelov View Post
Ha! Wow, then they've sped up? They only recently taped out 20nm late last year :/ Looks like they were serious about becoming profitable in the coming near future.
Not likely. Globalfoundries was always seen as a long term investment, and not something they were going to have returns tomorrow. ATIC is sinking a lot of money there and I don't doubt that they will wait a few years before throwing the towel, that's the way that ATIC run its businesses.

But I do agree with your observations that this speed up is very suspect. They bought factories that acquired manufacturing processes from others, not a full fledged foundry, there is a lot to learn and expertise to develop internally before they are able to develop a custom process.

I don't think they should be aiming to compete against Intel or beat TSMC, but try to become a safe, reliable company to compete against TSMC and only then try to take on Intel. So far their current strategy generated a lot of negative cash flows and a shattered credibility, and once credibility is lost, it lost, as some smaller players cannot afford a 12 months delay in their product launch, they won't tie up with an unreliable partner.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 12:55 PM   #144
pablo87
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 303
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
Let put Pablo conspiracy theory in perspective:

If you were Otelini, would you go after a 3.5 billion gain in annual revenues from a company that is more likely to bankrupt itself out of sheer incompetence or try to break in a 50 billion market that is booming? No matter how good it would be to crush AMD, it isn't there that Intel efforts should be. The most lucrative parts are already with them.

But let's say that Intel is determined to crush AMD, is really necessary any additional efforts from Intel? Not really. Intel is committed to bring Haswell and future iterations of the Core architecture to tablets and convertibles, and more important, it wants every ultrabook to be a convertible. They have to have extreme focus on die size, power efficiency and performance, which in turn means lower ASP that will have to be compensated by smaller and more efficient dies in order to reduce COGS, exactly what Intel has been doing since Conroe but an order of magnitude bigger. So that theory that we are going to see increases of 100USD in notebooks prices is simply against their business strategy, as Intel must have a competitive package for tablets and convertibles, in other words, Intel is moving to a business model of smaller ASP, not higher. This is not a strategy to tackle AMD, this is an strategy to tackle ARM. The AMD issue solved itself in the day they launched Bulldozer.

With bulldozer they shifted to a higher ASP strategy. Intel is pretty much happy with prices where they are now, they are still getting 60%+ gross margins each quarter, while AMD went down to 38% (discounting the inventory impairment). Who needs better ASP here? The fact that they are still seen as the one that keeps Intel prices in check is more due to their inability to sell their products at the prices they want than anything else.

So when Pablo comes here stating things like "Intel's modus operandi ad vitam eternam has been to protect their amazing profits and high ASP's while causing pain for AMD in the value segment." it fails to capture, among other things, that Intel is transitioning to smaller ASP products and that AMD tried and failed to transition to high ASP products. All that is left is that Intel wants to destroy poor AMD, as if AMD wouldn't do the same if it could.
intel's cost structure is going up, not down. if you look at capex, it has literally doubled the past 2 years and as a result, depreciation has increased, and depn charge is the base cost of all intel processors. without growth, depreciation has to catch up to capex, or there will be a massive one time charge...Even if by some minor miracle capex returns to $5B annual, Intel would still have to depreciate $32B over a 4 year period, $8B annually, over 300MM processors, that is $26.67 per unit...More likely is capex will be much higher than this, intel will stretch the depreciation period to 5+ years, but the result will be similar.

If you add actual fab operating costs and packaging and overhead its easy to conclude Intel cannot make money selling parts for $50, they can only continue to do so by way of subsidy justified by the perfectly legal meetcomp. So already the balance between the subsidized parts and the subsidizing ones has to tilt in favour of the latter, if profits are to be maintained.

And then there is the grim competitive reality (as opposed to self inflicted wound as above) that ARM based tablets and smartphones are taking share from x86 and now you have a real problem: volume is going down which means based on simple overhead incl. depreciation allocation, costs have to go up. Ad so first things first, its better AMD cry than they do and so a gear shift from meet comp to meet volume (75MM units per quarter) has to be made and IMO, is being made.

Eventually, AMD will probably go out of business ($450MM per quarter + interest + whatever _____you have to take from Global Foundries becomes very very expensive and unsustainable when you're shipping less and less units at lower and lower prices - just try to model 10MM units per quarter at $30 and see how ugly the bottom line quickly gets).

But will x86 annual volume settle down at a 300MM per year equilibrium? If not, then Intel must replace that volume with tablet/smartphone biz which is much lower ASP so while they're doing that, they'll be raising prices on 286, Celeron, Pentium parts they previously had to sell below cost all these years) until there is no such thing as an x86 processor under $100.

Last but not least, what happens when high end corporate PC's that contain almost exclusively $200+ Intel processors become just another device to access corporate data (which I am told, is the IT vision these days)? More pain for Intel and, higher CPU prices for the masses still.

All that being said, I agree with MRMT that Intel is not doing anything unethical or untoward here, its just the market reality - there's been an inflection point with several aftershocks - first ARM, then iphone, then ipad, then Android, then Amazon and Google's business models.

The irony: intel's most lucrative and stable business after Server: high performance computers with DISCRETE video cards.
pablo87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:08 PM   #145
MisterMac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 759
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
intel's cost structure is going up, not down. if you look at capex, it has literally doubled the past 2 years and as a result, depreciation has increased, and depn charge is the base cost of all intel processors. without growth, depreciation has to catch up to capex, or there will be a massive one time charge...Even if by some minor miracle capex returns to $5B annual, Intel would still have to depreciate $32B over a 4 year period, $8B annually, over 300MM processors, that is $26.67 per unit...More likely is capex will be much higher than this, intel will stretch the depreciation period to 5+ years, but the result will be similar.

If you add actual fab operating costs and packaging and overhead its easy to conclude Intel cannot make money selling parts for $50, they can only continue to do so by way of subsidy justified by the perfectly legal meetcomp. So already the balance between the subsidized parts and the subsidizing ones has to tilt in favour of the latter, if profits are to be maintained.

And then there is the grim competitive reality (as opposed to self inflicted wound as above) that ARM based tablets and smartphones are taking share from x86 and now you have a real problem: volume is going down which means based on simple overhead incl. depreciation allocation, costs have to go up. Ad so first things first, its better AMD cry than they do and so a gear shift from meet comp to meet volume (75MM units per quarter) has to be made and IMO, is being made.

Eventually, AMD will probably go out of business ($450MM per quarter + interest + whatever _____you have to take from Global Foundries becomes very very expensive and unsustainable when you're shipping less and less units at lower and lower prices - just try to model 10MM units per quarter at $30 and see how ugly the bottom line quickly gets).

But will x86 annual volume settle down at a 300MM per year equilibrium? If not, then Intel must replace that volume with tablet/smartphone biz which is much lower ASP so while they're doing that, they'll be raising prices on 286, Celeron, Pentium parts they previously had to sell below cost all these years) until there is no such thing as an x86 processor under $100.

Last but not least, what happens when high end corporate PC's that contain almost exclusively $200+ Intel processors become just another device to access corporate data (which I am told, is the IT vision these days)? More pain for Intel and, higher CPU prices for the masses still.

All that being said, I agree with MRMT that Intel is not doing anything unethical or untoward here, its just the market reality - there's been an inflection point with several aftershocks - first ARM, then iphone, then ipad, then Android, then Amazon and Google's business models.

The irony: intel's most lucrative and stable business after Server: high performance computers with DISCRETE video cards.

Interesting viewpoint - but don't you think Intel has:

A. Plans to lower cost per wafer, per working CHIP etc etc - to loose some Gross margins but also lower costs to make the drop less noticeable.

b. If IT wants just a flat device to access corporate data - corporate needs big boxes to store data and handle all those simoultaneous compute requests in both networking and direct resources.

Which benefits intels cash cow in servers - which then in turn could make more use of MIC outside HPC for coprocessing of certain user workloads.


I can't believe Intel doesn't have several plans in order - with only a few required to succeed in order to continue to gain or stand neutral at ground in terms of revenue\profit\margins.


You tell me how many users can work on a E5 - and the cost of it versus X hp\dell boxes for the enterprise.
Intel would sell more expensive chips at a greater margin than they're business enterprise crappy pentium box workstations.

Result: Enterprise saves money - intel gains more revenue.
It's just moved from low end celeron\pentium to expensive xeon.

Something i'm quite sure intel would like.

Last edited by MisterMac; 11-07-2012 at 01:11 PM.
MisterMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-07-2012, 01:53 PM   #146
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
intel's cost structure is going up, not down.if you look at capex, it has literally doubled the past 2 years and as a result, depreciation has increased, and depn charge is the base cost of all intel processors.
That's rather obvious, as revenues are going up too. The ratio for operating profits is around 50%, not a bad rate by any standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
without growth, depreciation has to catch up to capex, or there will be a massive one time charge...Even if by some minor miracle capex returns to $5B annual, Intel would still have to depreciate $32B over a 4 year period, $8B annually, over 300MM processors, that is $26.67 per unit
I think there are a lot of wild assumptions here. First you are assuming that all Intel investment is in machinery that will depreciate in five years, which it isn't true. The fab itself and some other machinery are depreciated over far longer periods. Second, even if you have your asset fully depreciated but it still has value on it, you can go the impairment route. Third, the Capex isn't factories only. Acquisitions, patents and shares in other companies are also Capex but they don't necessarily depreciate at all.

So while your analysis has some merit in pointing out a risk, that investing too much might lead to overproduction risks, your numbers are overshot. You probably got that number from a trend that Intel depreciates 80-90% of the last FY Capex, but because of the factors I mentioned in the last paragraph this isn't a golden rule.

In 2011 they acquired McAfee and were building a new factory (the second item should impact this year CAPEX too), so to get a better estimative of how much they have to depreciate to keep the business running you have to exclude those two items.

Intel does not disclose the amount of money they are using in the factory, but we might have a very good idea looking their cash flows fillings in Q213. As a ballpark I would use 6.5 billion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pablo87 View Post
If you add actual fab operating costs and packaging and overhead its easy to conclude Intel cannot make money selling parts for $50
Intel fundamental unit cost isn't cost per chip, but cost per waffer, so Intel fundamental measure is cash flow per waffer. If they can manufacture one chip worth 100 out of a 50USD waffer, they are going to be in the same situation if they are selling two 50USD chips or 25 4USD chips. In the previous example ASP fell but Intel cash flow and gross margins were untouched. So the shift to smaller processor should allow smaller ASP for a given cash flow. This is where Atom, smartphones and tablets fit.

But if we are talking here about smaller cash flows, then things can become a little different, but with current volumes Intel could go as low as 46% in gross margins and still break even.

Last edited by mrmt; 11-07-2012 at 01:56 PM.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 05:10 AM   #147
NTMBK
Diamond Member
 
NTMBK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,556
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
but cost per waffer...cash flow per waffer... a 50USD waffer....
Wafer. It's spelt wafer.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximilian View Post
I like my VRMs how I like my hookers, hot and Taiwanese.
NTMBK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 06:01 AM   #148
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by NTMBK View Post
Wafer. It's spelt wafer.
Thanks
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:32 AM   #149
krumme
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrmt View Post
In the previous example ASP fell but Intel cash flow and gross margins were untouched. So the shift to smaller processor should allow smaller ASP for a given cash flow. This is where Atom, smartphones and tablets fit.
Well they fit, but there is no way the can generate the same profit as fx. the server market, or highend desktop market for the simple reason the good server cpu literaly brings money in your hand, being a cathalyst for the entire investment , while the Atom - well does the same as A15 just giving say a better experience in angry birds. How much worth is that? What exactly is it people is missing playing or using the A15?

Price per wafer is just going down. TSMC and Samsung is making sure of that. This is different from competing to ppt slides from GF - and that is reflected in the share price for Intel.

It is red ocean market, if you dont have any other technology or brand to build on after the die is cut. There is profit, but no where near the usual level Intel is used to. Intel will have to adjust and differentiate their cost structure.
krumme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2012, 11:51 AM   #150
mrmt
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 2,477
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by krumme View Post
It is red ocean market, if you dont have any other technology or brand to build on after the die is cut. There is profit, but no where near the usual level Intel is used to. Intel will have to adjust and differentiate their cost structure.
I'm not sure if I'd call CPU market a red ocean yet. The bottom market certainly is, nobody wants to develop a custom chip for a blu-ray player, but in cars, phones, tablets, convertibles, there is still a lot of space for differentiation. If you look at the biggest ARM players, Apple, Samsung, Qualcomm, Nvidia, every one of them is trying to grow by differentiation, not by making their operation more efficient as they would have to do in a true red ocean environment.

I see a weakness on the ARM business model. ARM chain is composed from an IP researcher, then a lot of people customizing designs with overlapping efforts and then a few foundries, some of them spending money on the same node but not sharing research... and everyone here wants higher margins.

There might be a lot of inefficiencies looking at the chain, and when facing other chains like MIPS the bigger player wins, but Intel is a different game. Intel as a vertical player can be very focused and deliver a fine tuned solution for a certain niche, and there isn't such thing as fight for margins internally, the final result is what counts.

But even if Intel can't get enough margins to keep its current business model, they can adapt. Intel overcame the 180nm debacle, then overcame netburst, then moved to tick/tock, then went for power efficiency.... every one of these events generated a different Intel. If business change again, they have both the cash and the technology to adapt.
mrmt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.