AMD to Cut 5% of Workforce

[ShintaiDK]

In a high-innovation areas like CPUs and GPUs they necessarily are.

Actually the opposite. High cost risk gives low innovation/change. Same reason we pretty much only can pick between x86 and ARM. And only 5 companies actually design cores. (Qualcomm, Apple, ARM, Intel, AMD.)

You can make a new CPU tomorrow that is 10x better in all metrics than the best ARM/x86 CPU. But if its not ARM or x86 compatible your chance of selling any is incredible tiny.

 

[dahorns]

In a high-innovation areas like CPUs and GPUs they necessarily are.

Why? A monopoly could mean that a company could offer better products for less due to the volume advantage. It also means a company is likely to have more resources to throw into R&D on new products and can afford to take more risks. Being big isn't necessarily bad for consumers. That being said, it is obviously also easy for a monopoly to take advantage of the situation, which is why laws exist to regulate monopolies. But, importantly, being a monopoly isn't illegal (at least not under US law).

Cheating is anything that is anti-competitive because it promotes socialism and undermines capitalist competition.

Cheating by definition involves the violation of a rule. That rule may well be that "anti-competitive" practices are not allowed, but there must be a rule. Assuming in arguendo that you have identified the correct rule, you would still have to establish that the actions in question violated the rule.

Query: What does anti-competitive mean?

Situation: By using contra-revenue, Intel was able to compete in a new market. This increased competition in that market. However, the same actions may have lessened AMD's ability to compete in the market.

Are Intel's actions anti-competitive because they lessened AMD's ability to compete, or are they "pro-competitive" because they increased overall competition in a market?

lol

Identify a law that has been violated.

 

[MiddleOfTheRoad]

Why? A monopoly could mean that a company could offer better products for less due to the volume advantage.

It has never happened and never will. A publicly traded company's (like Intel) #1 objective is maximizing shareholder value. So management will maximize the profit margin per unit. With only 1 supplier in an industry, they will gouge the consumer every time (since there are no viable alternatives available) -- which is exactly why monopoly laws were written in the first place.

I remember the old days -- when IBM sold their original PC desktops for around $5000 (adjusted for today's dollars). They were by themselves before the clones arrived. Trust me -- you don't want to give Intel that kind of pricing power.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It has never happened and never will. A publicly traded company's (like Intel) #1 objective is maximizing shareholder value. So management will maximize the profit margin per unit. With only 1 supplier in an industry, they will gouge the consumer every time (since there are no viable alternatives available) -- which is exactly why monopoly laws were written in the first place.

I remember the old days -- when IBM sold their original PC desktops for around $5000 (adjusted for today's dollars). They were by themselves before the clones arrived. Trust me -- you don't want to give Intel that kind of pricing power.

You already pay the max price. AMD have been pretty much irrelevant for the last 10 years. Same goes for servers. Even if Opterons was 0$ the market share wouldn't change. The price doom used as an excuse for AMDs presence is simply silly.

 

[tential]

It has never happened and never will. A publicly traded company's (like Intel) #1 objective is maximizing shareholder value. So management will maximize the profit margin per unit. With only 1 supplier in an industry, they will gouge the consumer every time (since there are no viable alternatives available) -- which is exactly why monopoly laws were written in the first place.

I remember the old days -- when IBM sold their original PC desktops for around $5000 (adjusted for today's dollars). They were by themselves before the clones arrived. Trust me -- you don't want to give Intel that kind of pricing power.

Putting prices sky high doesn't mean you'll sell more or make more money.

Have you seriously never studied the elasticity of demand?

 

[Arachnotronic]

Putting prices sky high doesn't mean you'll sell more or make more money.

Have you seriously never studied the elasticity of demand?

I think a prerequisite to these business discussions should be successful completion of Econ 101.

 

[jpiniero]

I would be afraid of nVidia raising prices more than Intel.

 

[tential]

I think a prerequisite to these business discussions should be successful completion of Econ 101.

I mean, I'm an economics nerd but I mean everyone should read economics in one less if you want to actually to understand what's going on in the world.
Otherwise, we're not having a remotely interesting conversation.

So many things posted here break basic rules of economics and it makes me want to cry.

 

[Phynaz]

I would be afraid of nVidia raising prices more than Intel.

Me too.

 

[frozentundra123456]

You already pay the max price. AMD have been pretty much irrelevant for the last 10 years. Same goes for servers. Even if Opterons was 0$ the market share wouldn't change. The price doom used as an excuse for AMDs presence is simply silly.

So do you think that if AMD brought out (hypothetically) 8 core zen that was as fast as 5960x and priced it at 400.00 Intel would not lower prices?

I dont buy the doom and gloom scenario that if AMD goes under prices will skyrocket, but I do think if they become more competitive, Intel would lower prices in some segments or at least give a better product for the same price.

 

[Arachnotronic]

So do you think that if AMD brought out (hypothetically) 8 core zen that was as fast as 5960x and priced it at 400.00 Intel would not lower prices?

I dont buy the doom and gloom scenario that if AMD goes under prices will skyrocket, but I do think if they become more competitive, Intel would lower prices in some segments or at least give a better product for the same price.

By the time AMD is able to put out an 8 core Zen @ $400 that is actually close to a 5960x , I suspect that 8 core CPUs from Intel will be around that price range.

 

[DrMrLordX]

The only Mullins faster than BT-T is the A10-6700T (CPU-wise)

You're forgetting that all Beema chips are also Mullins, and that all Carrizo-L are also Mullins . . . and thanks to Bay Trail-T creeping into spaces where allegedly you do not find it, all three Mullins variants must inevitably compete against it.

Now ST in Cinebench is not the metric of performance ??

I find the ST and MT Cinebench 11.5 scores you posted to be interesting, and a bit confusing. Am I missing something here? Why is 1.5 GHz quad Jaguar beating 2.2 GHz Puma+ in anything? That should not happen unless there's throttling on the 6700T.

Regardless, I'd take Carrizo-L - very much a Mullins processor - over Bay Trail-T any day of the week in anything.

Lol, Mullins in tablets. I see the same nonsense continues. Yet another flawless AMD product not used because of all the other evil companies.

http://www.bungbungame.com/en/products/products.aspx?name=Photon2&Tab=2

Bungbungame to the rescueeeeeeeeeee! Not available in the US, ever. Blah. Also it's been out for awhile so it's not exactly a new product.

 

[frozentundra123456]

By the time AMD is able to put out an 8 core Zen @ $400 that is actually close to a 5960x , I suspect that 8 core CPUs from Intel will be around that price range.

Well, notice I said "hypothetically". What I am trying to say is that if AMD fails, I think it will have little or no effect, because they already have very little influence on the market. But if they suddenly became more competitive, they might force intel to lower prices moderately, or give a better product for the same price, which they certainly can afford to do.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You're forgetting that all Beema chips are also Mullins, and that all Carrizo-L are also Mullins . . . and thanks to Bay Trail-T creeping into spaces where allegedly you do not find it, all three Mullins variants must inevitably compete against it.



I find the ST and MT Cinebench 11.5 scores you posted to be interesting, and a bit confusing. Am I missing something here? Why is 1.5 GHz quad Jaguar beating 2.2 GHz Puma+ in anything? That should not happen unless there's throttling on the 6700T.

Regardless, I'd take Carrizo-L - very much a Mullins processor - over Bay Trail-T any day of the week in anything.



http://www.bungbungame.com/en/products/products.aspx?name=Photon2&Tab=2

Bungbungame to the rescueeeeeeeeeee! Not available in the US, ever. Blah. Also it's been out for awhile so it's not exactly a new product.

Not available...at all:

 

[ultimatebob]

Jeez dude, AMD hasn't offered anything remotely competitive with Intel in PC CPUs in years and Intel's pricing has basically stayed the same.

If Intel were to jack up prices on its CPUs as you suggest, it would see lowered demand for its chips.

If AMD went bankrupt tomorrow, Intel would still have to contend with its two largest "competitors": the products it sold you yesterday and the fact that people are shifting their tech dollars to devices other than PCs (smartphones and tablets).

Like them or not, AMD is keeping price pressure on Intel's lower cost processors. Unless you're looking forward to paying $150 for your Celeron/Pentium class processors five years from now, you should be rooting for AMD to survive.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Like them or not, AMD is keeping pressure on Intel's lower cost processors. Unless you're looking forward to paying $150 for your Celeron/Pentium class processors five years from now, you should be rooting for AMD to survive.

The market wouldn't bear $150 Celeron/Pentium class chips. System prices would be too high at that level and customers would find little value in buying new systems at those prices.

 

[jpiniero]

Like them or not, AMD is keeping price pressure on Intel's lower cost processors. Unless you're looking forward to paying $150 for your Celeron/Pentium class processors five years from now, you should be rooting for AMD to survive.

That's about what the MSRP is for those mobile parts btw. I would think Intel would want to keep the <100 price points but either use Atoms or rebadge older products.

 

[ultimatebob]

The market wouldn't bear $150 Celeron/Pentium class chips. System prices would be too high at that level and customers would find little value in buying new systems at those prices.

Notice that I said five years from now, and not six months. Intel would probably slowly raise their prices about 10 to 15% a year in order to avoid issues with government regulators.

A good comparison would be your cable bill or your health insurance. They didn't double in cost overnight, but they likely have over the past 5 to 10 years.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Notice that I said five years from now, and not six months. Intel would probably slowly raise their prices about 10 to 15% a year in order to avoid issues with government regulators.

A good comparison would be your cable bill or your health insurance. They didn't double in cost overnight, but they likely have over the past 5 to 10 years.

Cable TV/internet isn't a market that is in secular decline. PCs are. Raising prices in an environment where demand is waning (assuming no additional value is created; I'm not talking about mix shift upwards but actual price hikes sku-to-sku) would be an outright dumb business move on Intel's part.

 

[Sonikku]

Why? A monopoly could mean that a company could offer better products for less due to the volume advantage.

It could. But it won't.

 

[tential]

Notice that I said five years from now, and not six months. Intel would probably slowly raise their prices about 10 to 15% a year in order to avoid issues with government regulators.

A good comparison would be your cable bill or your health insurance. They didn't double in cost overnight, but they likely have over the past 5 to 10 years.

Look how many people are canceling cable.....
The prices kept rising, people were dissatisfied. They dropped Cable. So you're kind of disproving your own point lol....


Health insurance is government mandated now so not much you can do when you're being held hostage there.

Cable TV/internet isn't a market that is in secular decline. PCs are. Raising prices in an environment where demand is waning (assuming no additional value is created; I'm not talking about mix shift upwards but actual price hikes sku-to-sku) would be an outright dumb business move on Intel's part.

You're clearly out of touch with how businesses work if you don't think Intel wouldn't raise their price of SKUs by 60%+ in 5 years.

Think about it. Intel is struggling to move PCs now in a declining market. But if they raise their SKU prices by 60%. People will buy more PCs. THEY HAVE TO!
Remember, PC computing needs are constantly increasing, so the vast majority of consumers constantly upgrade.

Also, ARM can NEVER compete with x86 for the average consumer. NEVER. Sure, Apple has a great design with the A9x, but they'll NEVER make that design better in the long run. I mean, ARM+Android would NEVER come together for the average consumer in General computing laptops/tablets if there was a massive opportunity to exploit that in a low end market that Intel left wide open.

You truly just have no idea what will happen. Intel will raise prices, because monopoly, because x86 rules everything, because Windows is a 100% priority for every single consumer in the world.

/sarcasm

 

[ultimatebob]

Well, I'm glad that everyone here thinks that Intel is such a benevolent company that they wouldn't dare to exploit their monopoly powers to slowly raise prices if AMD disappeared, and that ARM's experience in developing tablet and phone processors will allow them to build competing desktop and laptop processors that are 10x faster than anything they have now in just a few short years.

I mean, hey... just because Intel is a giant publicly traded company doesn't mean that their investors will want them to exploit an obvious opportunity to increase their profit margins, right? Nah, this new Intel will suddenly start acting like Salvation Army and keep pumping out $75 gaming processors with razor thin profit margins because they like us.

That's how you do sarcasm, tential.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well, I'm glad that everyone here thinks that Intel is such a benevolent company that they wouldn't dare to exploit their monopoly powers to slowly raise prices if AMD disappeared, and that ARM's experience in developing tablet and phone processors will allow them to build competing desktop and laptop processors that are 10x faster than anything they have now in just a few short years.

I don't think Intel, or any publicly traded company, is "benevolent" and wouldn't take any and all opportunity to extract as much money as possible from consumers.

What I am saying is that if Intel were to raise its prices to absurd levels as you suggest, then consumers would basically significantly slow the rate at which they upgrade their PCs and shift their dollars elsewhere. Some people might be able to ditch Intel completely in this case, as they might find ARM-powered Chromebooks or even phone/tablet/phablet sufficient for their computing needs.

I mean, hey... just because Intel is a giant publicly traded company doesn't mean that their investors will want them to exploit an obvious opportunity to increase their profit margins, right? Nah, this new Intel suddenly start acting like Salvation Army and keep pumping out $75 gaming processors with razor thin profit margins because they like us.

Investors want Intel to find any and all ways to maximize profit. But doing what you suggest would be a great way to crater sales and overall total profits -- something that would have shareholders headed for the exits.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You're clearly out of touch with how businesses work if you don't think Intel wouldn't raise their price of SKUs by 60%+ in 5 years.

Think about it. Intel is struggling to move PCs now in a declining market. But if they raise their SKU prices by 60%. People will buy more PCs. THEY HAVE TO!
Remember, PC computing needs are constantly increasing, so the vast majority of consumers constantly upgrade.

Also, ARM can NEVER compete with x86 for the average consumer. NEVER. Sure, Apple has a great design with the A9x, but they'll NEVER make that design better in the long run. I mean, ARM+Android would NEVER come together for the average consumer in General computing laptops/tablets if there was a massive opportunity to exploit that in a low end market that Intel left wide open.

You truly just have no idea what will happen. Intel will raise prices, because monopoly, because x86 rules everything, because Windows is a 100% priority for every single consumer in the world.

/sarcasm

:biggrin:

 

[positivedoppler]

After reading this thread, I am convinced that if Intel is the sole supplier of x86 cpus, the consumers are the ultimate winner. Intel will outpace Moores expectation and offer faster processors at an even greater discount once AMD is out of the way. I cant wait for AMD to go bkr and stop holding back intel.