AMD to Cut 5% of Workforce

[Phynaz]

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.

I think you are forgetting Intel already has about 98% of the x86 market.

Think of it this way...when was the last time Intel responded to a move by AMD with a price cut?

Intel already sells CPUs at "monopoly" prices.

 

[Fjodor2001]

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.

^^^ This.

 

[NTMBK]

I think you are forgetting Intel already has about 98% of the x86 market.

Think of it this way...when was the last time Intel responded to a move by AMD with a price cut?

Intel already sells CPUs at "monopoly" prices.

This. Since Sandy Bridge, they have spent the past 5 years reducing the size and cost of desktop chips without dropping their prices, with negligible performance improvements.

 

[ShintaiDK]

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.

If AMD got a 5960X product they wouldn't sell it for 400$.

Remember AMD tried to sell 9570 for 800$.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This. Since Sandy Bridge, they have spent the past 5 years reducing the size and cost of desktop chips without dropping their prices, with negligible performance improvements.

Desktop is dying, we know that.

How is the performance/watt improvement in mobile and server over that timeframe? Its quite significant isn't it? And this is what customers want.

 

[NTMBK]

Desktop is dying, we know that.

How is the performance/watt improvement in mobile and server over that timeframe? Its quite significant isn't it? And this is what customers want.

Bit of chicken and egg logic there Is it "Intel isn't improving desktop because no-one is buying it" or "No-one is buying desktop because Intel isn't improving it"?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Bit of chicken and egg logic there Is it "Intel isn't improving desktop because no-one is buying it" or "No-one is buying desktop because Intel isn't improving it"?

Intel is improving the desktop within the limitations there is. How fast can you make 4 cores? Then the next thing is IGP, platform, integration etc.

The new defacto desktop standard is also moved down to 65W now.

 

[NTMBK]

Intel is improving the desktop within the limitations there is. How fast can you make 4 cores? Then the next thing is IGP, platform, integration etc.

The new defacto desktop standard is also moved down to 65W now.

The other option is to, y'know, drop prices. They're down to tiny die sizes now, and Intel's 14nm process is the only one in the industry which has continued to drive cost/transistor down. Their cost/die for a 4-core desktop CPU with small IGP has to be considerably lower than it was in Sandy Bridge days, but that hasn't translated into savings for the customer. It's been translated into fatter margins for Intel.

If AMD actually came out with a competitive desktop chip, Intel has plenty of room to drop prices and undercut them.

EDIT: For comparison, look here: http://www.anandtech.com/show/9505/skylake-cpu-package-analysis i7-2600k was a 216mm^2 part, i7-6700k a 122mm^2 part. There has got to be some cost savings in there.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The other option is to, y'know, drop prices. They're down to tiny die sizes now, and Intel's 14nm process is the only one in the industry which has continued to drive cost/transistor down. Their cost/die for a 4-core desktop CPU with small IGP has to be considerably lower than it was in Sandy Bridge days, but that hasn't translated into savings for the customer. It's been translated into fatter margins for Intel.

If AMD actually came out with a competitive desktop chip, Intel has plenty of room to drop prices and undercut them.

Remember historical die sizes. The main increase tends to come with large integration. The next one will be the PCH. And you can buy a relatively big die in the Broadwell-C. And remember all the GT3 and GT4 parts.

 

[NTMBK]

Remember historical die sizes. The main increase tends to come with large integration. The next one will be the PCH. And you can buy a relatively big die in the Broadwell-C. And remember all the GT3 and GT4 parts.

And again, Intel made savings by having smaller dies for their chipsets (completely eliminating the northbridge). Have those savings been passed on to customers? Not that I have noticed.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And again, Intel made savings by having smaller dies for their chipsets (completely eliminating the northbridge). Have those savings been passed on to customers? Not that I have noticed.

A 143mm2 E6700 was priced at 530$ in 2006. Even the E6600 was 314$. This was the day of "glorious competition".

Today, 9 years later a ~120mm2 6700K cost 350$ and a 6600K 243$.

Chipsets actually dropped slightly in the same period from 48$ to 47$ for the top end mainstream.

Inflation for the time period is 18.2%.

 

[NTMBK]

And when's the last time you saw a news story like this? http://www.dailytech.com/More+Upcoming+Intel+Desktop+Price+Cuts/article3377.htm http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-pentium-price-cuts,8306.html

Since Sandy Bridge, there hasn't been any improvement in pricing. A 6700k costs more in 2011 dollars than a 2600k did at launch, despite being half the size. There's been no improvement in level of integration, it's the same CPU + PCH combination, just with a much better price structure for Intel. It's a massive stagnation.

 

[ShintaiDK]

And when's the last time you saw a news story like this? http://www.dailytech.com/More+Upcoming+Intel+Desktop+Price+Cuts/article3377.htm http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-core-pentium-price-cuts,8306.html

Since Sandy Bridge, there hasn't been any improvement in pricing. A 6700k costs more in 2011 dollars than a 2600k did at launch, despite being half the size. There's been no improvement in level of integration, it's the same CPU + PCH combination, just with a much better price structure for Intel. It's a massive stagnation.

Tick tock model removed the need for price cuts over time.

So what should Intel use more die size for in your view? Let me take a wild guess, more cores?

 

[NTMBK]

Tick tock model removed the need for price cuts over time.

So what should Intel use more die size for in your view? Let me take a wild guess, more cores?

I'm not advocating that, as you will know if you actually read my posts in this thread. More than 2 or 4 cores is excessive for consumer/mainstream workloads. Leave the high core counts to workstations where they belong. The sensible thing to add is more hardware accelerators, as Intel has been doing with Quicksync/camera ISPs/etc., and like the ARM chips have been doing for ages.

No, what I am advocating is a price cut. Straight up, lop a big chunk off Skylake prices across the board. But of course Intel doesn't have a reason to do it now, as they have no real competition from AMD.

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'm not advocating that, as you will know if you actually read my posts in this thread. More than 2 or 4 cores is excessive for consumer/mainstream workloads. Leave the high core counts to workstations where they belong. The sensible thing to add is more hardware accelerators, as Intel has been doing with Quicksync/camera ISPs/etc., and like the ARM chips have been doing for ages.

No, what I am advocating is a price cut. Straight up, lop a big chunk off Skylake prices across the board. But of course Intel doesn't have a reason to do it now, as they have no real competition from AMD.

Price cut for what? Even AMD dont want that. AMD want to raise prices. Its delusional to think competition will lower prices when cost keeps going up and volume keeps going down. (And no, price cut wont increase volume to make up for the loss). How did it turn out in the GPU segment recently? Right, price increases from AMD. Competition at its best!

If you really want to stagnate all progression. Then bottom prices is the way to go.

 

[NTMBK]

Price cut for what? Even AMD dont want that. AMD want to raise prices. Its delusional to think competition will lower prices. How did it turn out in the GPU segment recently? Right, price increases from AMD.

Prices used to drop, prices stopped dropping when competition vanished.

If you really want to stagnate all progression. Then bottom prices is the way to go.

Progression has stagnated anyway. We're getting the same thing we got in 2011, but we're paying more for it.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Prices used to drop, prices stopped dropping when competition vanished.

No.

Prices stopped being cut when the business model was changed in terms of product production.

Progression has stagnated anyway. We're getting the same thing we got in 2011, but we're paying more for it.

Rubbish. Maybe you should try compare a 2600K with a 6700K.

 

[NTMBK]

Rubbish. Maybe you should try compare a 2600K with a 6700K.

Behold, 4 1/2 years of progress! Compare to the jump from 2007 to 2011. It's pitiful.

 

[AtenRa]

SandyBridge Core i7 2600K die size = 216mm2 MSRP in 2011 at $317

Sakylake Core i7 6700K die size = 122mm2 MSRP in 2015 at $350 (without Heat-sink)

 

[ShintaiDK]

Behold, 4 1/2 years of progress! Compare to the jump from 2007 to 2011. It's pitiful.

Up to 50%.

Pitful because of what...did AMD do much better in the time period?

 

[ShintaiDK]

SandyBridge Core i7 2600K die size = 216mm2 MSRP in 2011 at $317

Sakylake Core i7 6700K die size = 122mm2 MSRP in 2015 at $350 (without Heat-sink)

And if I say a 377$ 5775C. What is the die size again plus EDRAM again?

 

[NTMBK]

Up to 50%.

Pitful because of what...did AMD do much better in the time period?

Up to 50% in niches, compared to up to 4X faster in niches and ~2X faster in almost all cases.

And AMD's lack of progress in this period might have just a bit to do with Intel's behaviour, no? Given that AMD is selling literally the same chip that they were in 2011, Intel has no competitive pressure.

AMD's lack of progress is extremely regrettable, but understandable given their lack of funds, loss of talent, and being tied to a massively inferior foundry who has repeatedly failed to deliver. Intel is one of the world's richest companies, with the world's most advanced chip manufacturing process and the world's best CPU design team(s). What have they done with their massive lead and resources? Improved their margins.

 

[NTMBK]

And if I say a 377$ 5775C. What is the die size again plus EDRAM again?

And we all know how hard it has been to get hold of one of those in many markets. Intel aren't pushing it, they are pushing the much cheaper to manufacture Skylake chips.

The 5775C is a perfect demonstration of what Intel could do if they had competition. If AMD were competing again, you can be damn sure Intel would find a way to ship a Skylake "Extreme Edition" with an enormous eDRAM cache and maximum CPU clocks at 95W, and doing it at a price that could compete with AMD's CPUs. They could do that today if they wanted, but they don't want to. They want to sit on that fat profit margin.

It's good business, as it's what makes sense in a monopoly. But that doesn't make it not suck for consumers.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Up to 50% in niches, compared to up to 4X faster in niches and ~2X faster in almost all cases.

And AMD's lack of progress in this period might have just a bit to do with Intel's behaviour, no? Given that AMD is selling literally the same chip that they were in 2011, Intel has no competitive pressure.

AMD's lack of progress is extremely regrettable, but understandable given their lack of funds, loss of talent, and being tied to a massively inferior foundry who has repeatedly failed to deliver. Intel is one of the world's richest companies, with the world's most advanced chip manufacturing process and the world's best CPU design team(s). What have they done with their massive lead and resources? Improved their margins.

If you want to play the niche game. A 6700K is way over twice as fast than a 2600K.

AMD didn't do any better. And the reason is performance/watt. Something that have improved massively. Servers went from 6 to 18 cores. Mobile went from 17W to 4.5W.

 

[mrmt]

Bit of chicken and egg logic there Is it "Intel isn't improving desktop because no-one is buying it" or "No-one is buying desktop because Intel isn't improving it"?

What's the desktop killer app? Games? They are happy going to mobile or consoles. Internet? Your phone can do it more conveniently. Office apps? Your notebook does it fine, and then there's the cloud.

That shift to mobile isn't happening today. Intel since last decade sells more notebooks than desktops, and I think even AMD, despite its powerhogs, has a product mix tilted towards mobile. People are voting with their wallets, and the desktop isn't getting elected.

The causes of it is that the desktop is becoming a no-man's land in terms of applications tailored for it, so even if Intel went with an ultra-fast desktop CPU tomorrow the majority of consumers would shun it big time.