How would they report how much ICL inventory they'd sold through Q3 in the Q1 or Q2 earnings report?It was either in the first or second quarter financial results. Check the calls and 8k/10qs
How would they report how much ICL inventory they'd sold through Q3 in the Q1 or Q2 earnings report?It was either in the first or second quarter financial results. Check the calls and 8k/10qs
Because inventory build is typically a quarter before sales/rev recHow would they report how much ICL inventory they'd sold through Q3 in the Q1 or Q2 earnings report?
Intel's 'work in process' inventory increased from 4.76bn to 5.61bn while 'finished goods' inventory remained stagnant from q1 to q2. Even though the earnings call mentions that the increase is due to 10nm, there is no way of knowing whether Ice Lake falls under work in process or finished goods. Standing in q2 with sales expected in q3, I would imagine it's the latter. So where is this 500mn figure for Ice Lake coming from?It was either in the first or second quarter financial results. Check the calls and 8k/10qs
Witeken is a big Intel guy, so I don't really doubt his numbers.Standing in q2 with sales expected in q3, I would imagine it's the latter. So where is this 500mn figure for Ice Lake coming from?
It doesn't actually cost that much. The raw wafer is only like 100-150 bucks and electricity, personnel, etc doesn't really add that much more to it if you are going at full bore and not just screwing around. What "costs" money is depreciating the tools and the fab (that's why TSMC charges 15k a wafer), and the costs to design the chips in the first place. So on the surface they aren't losing money as those costs were already spent whether they produce product or not. Cook the books a little bit and you can hide the depreciation costs... good thing they have a former CFO as CEO, right?While I will say they are having serious problems with the 10nm process, some claims are pure exaggeration. Like if they are having 20% yields, the cost of production per Icelake chip would be $100, up from $15 it would cost normally.
Not only a big Intel guy, but also the kind of person who values facts over proving a point. He may (still) be wrong, but he doesn't deserve the kind of cheap shots I've seen thrown around here lately.Witeken is a big Intel guy, so I don't really doubt his numbers.
IMHO Cannonlake was made with less than 20% yields. Remember it was a 70mm2 die and yet they could not make the iGPU work on enough of them to produce a 2+2 SKU.While I will say they are having serious problems with the 10nm process, some claims are pure exaggeration. Like if they are having 20% yields, the cost of production per Icelake chip would be $100, up from $15 it would cost normally.
I don't believe this. I could believe that for Cannonlake, but that caused the product to get canned. They are as a whole too financially conservative to be selling that many chips that cost $100 to produce.
I really wouldn't dare going back in that purgatory: their contra revenue was EXACTLY that crazy, they paid OEMs more money than they made through sales. It was so bad they even shuffled Mobile and Comm segment in the company structure to hide further losses.Even their contra revenue wasn't that crazy, and that cost them the entire market.
Careful, you're talking to a big time investor.Intel's 'work in process' inventory increased from 4.76bn to 5.61bn while 'finished goods' inventory remained stagnant from q1 to q2. Even though the earnings call mentions that the increase is due to 10nm, there is no way of knowing whether Ice Lake falls under work in process or finished goods. Standing in q2 with sales expected in q3, I would imagine it's the latter. So where is this 500mn figure for Ice Lake coming from?
Alright, no more cheap shots. I can fully support that and am also happy to make amends, but..... in his tweet, he practically states as a fact, that shipped ICL volume is higher than Zen2 as a whole. In the same tweet. I'm still not sure how am I supposed to take any of it seriously after this.Not only a big Intel guy, but also the kind of person who values facts over proving a point. He may (still) be wrong, but he doesn't deserve the kind of cheap shots I've seen thrown around here lately.
IMHO Cannonlake was made with less than 20% yields. Remember it was a 70mm2 die and yet they could not make the iGPU work on enough of them to produce a 2+2 SKU.
Moving back to ICL, reductio ad absurdum for production cost doesn't work as intended here. The fabs are built, the machinery cost is sunk, as @jpiniero already mentioned. Even if Intel makes $0 from the sale of an ICL chip, it's still better than nothing and still better for their bottom line. Whether their yields are actually so low is another story entirely, personally I doubt it considering I'm seeing good availability even for G7 chips in local stores, but I don't know what kind of volume Intel is able to pump through their 10nm fabs, so absolute numbers of devices or ICL chips sold is only half the story.
I really wouldn't dare going back in that purgatory: their contra revenue was EXACTLY that crazy, they paid OEMs more money than they made through sales. It was so bad they even shuffled Mobile and Comm segment in the company structure to hide further losses.
In 2014 Intel reached their goal of 40 million tablets, so they were selling lots of chips yet this is how their balance sheet looked like:
![]()
They were selling more chips and losing more money. It doesn't get any more clear on how far Intel is willing to go.
Retail at this point is easily a minority of sales. Most of Intel's sales come through corporate accounts like using a sales rep or something.Moving back to ICL, reductio ad absurdum for production cost doesn't work as intended here. The fabs are built, the machinery cost is sunk, as @jpiniero already mentioned. Even if Intel makes $0 from the sale of an ICL chip, it's still better than nothing and still better for their bottom line. Whether their yields are actually so low is another story entirely, personally I doubt it considering I'm seeing good availability even for G7 chips in local stores, but I don't know what kind of volume Intel is able to pump through their 10nm fabs, so absolute numbers of devices or ICL chips sold is only half the story.
I guess it depends on how much $$$ the corporates are willing to spend, those who spend a lot might get ICL.Retail at this point is easily a minority of sales. Most of Intel's sales come through corporate accounts like using a sales rep or something.
To give you an idea, this is Amazon's Top 10 "Best Sellers" for Traditional laptops right now:
- One Ryzen laptop, which happens to be #1 right now using the 3200U
- Two Chromebooks with a 5 year old MediaTek processor, one with a 3+ year old Atom, and one with a Sandy Bridge U processor (seriously)
- Two cheap Windows laptops, one with Bristol Ridge, the other another 3+ year old Atom
- The 2017 MacBook Air
- One laptop with the 8265U and yes one with Icelake, the i5 1035G1.
I imagine most Corporate Accounts are being fed Whiskey Lake. Maybe some lucky ones are getting Comet.
This depends on Zen 2's volume too, how many Zen 2 units have AMD shipped to date? Would 2 million be a fair estimate? Because if so in the grand matter of things a million or two million is not that much of a difference at all. Given the sales a million ICL units shipped to OEMs sounds about right.Alright, no more cheap shots. I can fully support that and am also happy to make amends, but..... in his tweet, he practically states as a fact, that shipped ICL volume is higher than Zen2 as a whole. In the same tweet. I'm still not sure how am I supposed to take any of it seriously after this.
Even with Cannonlake I have doubts if its purely defect density. Reports were that it had problems making the iGPU. iGPU is actually much easier than the CPU portion in terms of defects because it has lots of redundant areas and look more like caches.IMHO Cannonlake was made with less than 20% yields. Remember it was a 70mm2 die and yet they could not make the iGPU work on enough of them to produce a 2+2 SKU.
The contra revenue program wasn't just about giving $10-20 rebates for using their chip. They practically built everything around them for the manufacturers to use. Other than maybe the chassis, the manufacturer could just use Intel's design and brand it their own. So that's why we had few dozen Chinese manufacturers come up with one.In 2014 Intel reached their goal of 40 million tablets, so they were selling lots of chips yet this is how their balance sheet looked like:
That goes both ways, you could see that also as 'even the GPU part was hard to produce'.Even with Cannonlake I have doubts if its purely defect density. Reports were that it had problems making the iGPU. iGPU is actually much easier than the CPU portion in terms of defects because it has lots of redundant areas and look more like caches.
Actually no. It was specifically talking about the GPU.That goes both ways, you could see that also as 'even the GPU part was hard to produce'.
A good friend. For that matter, I should add that the entire Oregon Core (capital C) team was liquidated as the culmination of Ocean Cove. Sunny Cove is from IDC, as is Willow Cove, and Golden Cove, and the one after that, and the one after that.Where did you hear that?
Slide 24 sir.I'm sorry man, I can't really take him seriously. Please if you can find this particular piece of info somewhere else, I'm really interested and ready to seriously reconsider what I think.
At first glance, even if what he says is 100% correct, that just means intel managed to dump enough wafers to satisfy a market presence. That says still nothing about yields.
I also thought it was obvious that I didn't literally mean tech demo... sorry if I wasn't clear about that - that goes to @IntelUser2000 too.
As for ICL >= Zen2 in volume?
This would require a whole new Parody & Fantasy World subsection on AT forums.
What's the page number of the document?Slide 24 sir.
Why do you assume that all of the 530mn non-qualified products are Ice Lake? Comet Lake also launched in q3, so it must have been 'non-qualified' in q1 as well.Slide 24 sir.
https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2019/Q1/03.30.2019-10Q-Document_FINAL-FILED.pdf
Commentary: "we intend to qualify the 10-nanometer part in the second quarter. So what that means is in the first quarter, all of our 10-nanometer cost is flowing through cost of sales. When we qualify, it goes on the balance sheet. And then when we sell those previously reserved units in the third quarter, those units go out with no cost. So the dynamics imply low Q1 and a much stronger Q3, but through it all, fairly stable at roughly 60% level."
Thank you for clarifying that you have no way of actually proving what you wrote in your tweet.Slide 24 sir.
https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2019/Q1/03.30.2019-10Q-Document_FINAL-FILED.pdf
Commentary: "we intend to qualify the 10-nanometer part in the second quarter. So what that means is in the first quarter, all of our 10-nanometer cost is flowing through cost of sales. When we qualify, it goes on the balance sheet. And then when we sell those previously reserved units in the third quarter, those units go out with no cost. So the dynamics imply low Q1 and a much stronger Q3, but through it all, fairly stable at roughly 60% level."
Interesting if true but without a public news I don't know if I could believe this good friend story. In case it's true how can you say Ocean Cove is dead when IDC could continue the work on Ocean Cove?A good friend. For that matter, I should add that the entire Oregon Core (capital C) team was liquidated as the culmination of Ocean Cove. Sunny Cove is from IDC, as is Willow Cove, and Golden Cove, and the one after that, and the one after that.
A very reasonable position to take. All I can say is that time will vindicate me. Indeed, if there's a new architecture day this year, it may not even take very long.Interesting if true but without a public news I don't know if I could believe this good friend story.
The core idea behind Ocean Cove was deemed unnecessary, hence why the team wasn't needed any longer. Future designs may inherit parts of the work on Ocean Cove, but they will not be Ocean Cove. Of course, this was all under BK, so draw your own conclusions about the wisdom of such a move.In case it's true how can you say Ocean Cove is dead when IDC could continue the work on Ocean Cove?
Was Ocean Cove supposed to be a revolutionary design that Intel felt eventually wasn't needed? Or was it supposed to be a modified Golden Cove?A very reasonable position to take. All I can say is that time will vindicate me. Indeed, if there's a new architecture day this year, it may not even take very long.
The core idea behind Ocean Cove was deemed unnecessary, hence why the team wasn't needed any longer. Future designs may inherit parts of the work on Ocean Cove, but they will not be Ocean Cove. Of course, this was all under BK, so draw your own conclusions about the wisdom of such a move.
The first.Was Ocean Cove supposed to be a revolutionary design that Intel felt eventually wasn't needed? Or was it supposed to be a modified Golden Cove?