Intel has $55.9B record year, ships 46M tablets

[Phynaz]

Still they make lots and lots of money from Desktop/Notebook/Servers but even with contra revenue they didnt reach the 50M tablets mark for 2014.
Cherrytrail will have a tough year, i fail to see how they will sell 70M tablet SoCs in 2015 without contra revenue.

How many tablet SOCs did AMD ship in 2014?

 

[Phynaz]

Not sure this math works. Sales != shipments. Look at the unit trends because PC unit decline may have slowed as a result of cheap computers with lower ASP chips gaining traction.

Yeah, it may not work. Like I said, back of the napkin from one news source. I didn't go any deeper.

I also qualified my statement with "may"

 

[Phynaz]

That s made up numbers of yours, from where do you extract the 1 bn figure.?.

It s 4.1 bn out of wich 3 bn are thrown on subsides, that s 3000/46 = 65$ for each chip shipped, the cost of the chip can be evaluated to 15$, rest is 50$ cash given with each chip.

Lol, talk about made up numbers.

 

[Phynaz]

This is plain wrong:

PC CPU division performance: Revenue +3% Y/Y to $8.9B. Volumes +6%, ASPs -2% (mix shift to Atom). Desktop volumes +1%, ASPs flat. Notebook volumes +11%, ASPs -3%. Op. profit +18% $3.98B.

http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/INTC/news

I'm using Q/Q.

Edit:
Nothingness beat me to it.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I'm using Q/Q.

Actually, hmm...

Intel says that notebook platform volumes declined 6% Q/Q from Q3 to Q4 this year, but ASPs increased 5%. Desktop volumes decline 2%, but ASPs up 1%.

CFO Stacy Smith claims that this was due to inventory burn of Bay Trail at OEMs (i.e. they may have built up too much of it earlier on), but that things returned to normal later in the quarter. Note that Intel's PC chip shipments were way up last quarter and ASPs were down because of the high amount of Bay Trails shipped.

 

[R0H1T]

Some facts:

1) Objectively speaking, Intel's 14nm transistor is about 1.5x smaller.
2) TSMC's and Samsung's 16/14 nodes have only a first generation FinFET transistor, while Intel's been in volume production of their second generation since mid-'14. Transistor power and perf will be similar to Intel's 22nm, which entered HVM in... 2011: that's 4 years later (with iso yields).
3) Mark Bohr, Intel fellow, said (at IEDM last month) 10nm won't have problems because they learned from 14nm. You wouldn't say that if you weren't so confident (because Intel refuses to say much about 10nm except that it will have better cost per transistor reduction than historically, which is something no other company can claim.

5) TSMC and Samsung 10nm will go into meaningful production 1-2 years later and why they call is actually a glorified Intel 14nm node. So they will be much later and have much worse transistor.

1) Does the transistor size matter when you compare absolute perf & perf/watt ? Why does it matter now because those 14nm GF/Samsung products aren't gonna ship x86 chips for your desktop, you can always compare how well they've done using something like this ~

Unless now you say that iOS is much superior to win8 running on Baytrail Atom, in which case please see the other thread ->

2) Again why does it matter that its first or second gen FinFET, it;s not like they're competing in the same market since Intel clearly trails every other major chipmaker in the mobile arena even with their superior nodes!

3) Forgive me if I don't take an Intel employee's word on face value, I'm no shareholder & I'm not obliged nor inclined to go that route & history, the recent past & concurrent events both, shows us that Intel is certainly not infallible in this regard.

4) So remind me when did we see the first 14nm products based on Intel chips & btw that token release in Q4 is the worst I've ever seen from Intel ever. Apple's products will launch in bulk & at a steeper rate (as in ramping up) than any other computer/device maker in the history of consumer electronics, because that's what they've been doing for close to a decade now!

 

[dahorns]

1) Unless now you say that iOS is much superior to win8 running on Baytrail Atom, in which case please see the other thread ->

Umm, why are you comparing products released in the last 2 quarters against Bay Trail? For what you're trying to do, at least use Moorefield or hell, Core M.

 

[Piroko]

You are lost because they never said that. They said they would stop losing money in mobile. That's all they said.

That may be true but I kinda doubt Investors would accept that as status quo. And are they willing to drop the whole line if anything more profitable comes up? Would customers accept that risk?

Frankly the real play here is to drive volume to Intel fabs vs TSMC/GloFo. Leading edge fabs are getting more expensive and if Intel can drive enough profit out of their competitors fabs they will slow the node progression. That will eventually allow Intel to sell chips with better margins / lower prices simply by the fact that they will be much smaller than the competition.

That would assume though that they can undercut their competitors with sufficient volume, but so far Intel is delaying new Fab capacity (Fab 42) and their competitors are expanding (GloFo Fab 8, TSMC Fab 15) - or am I wrong? TSMC specifically is now about half the size of Intel, growing by 50% y/y with record profits, record spendings and large gains in margins. And that is despite 20nm being late.

 

[R0H1T]

Umm, why are you comparing products released in the last 2 quarters against Bay Trail? For what you're trying to do, at least use Moorefield or hell, Core M.

I assume you have numbers for Moorefield ? As for core M why not, we just slap the A8X in an MBP with active cooling & an extra core to see it fly.

 

[witeken]

1) Does the transistor size matter when you compare absolute perf & perf/watt ? Why does it matter now because those 14nm GF/Samsung products aren't gonna ship x86 chips for your desktop, you can always compare how well they've done using something like this ~

You said Intel's lead is shrinking. Stop moving the goalposts.

2) Again why does it matter that its first or second gen FinFET, it;s not like they're competing in the same market since Intel clearly trails every other major chipmaker in the mobile arena even with their superior nodes!

Same comment. It's not nice practice to move the goalposts. It's irrelevant.

3) Forgive me if I don't take an Intel employee's word on face value, I'm no shareholder & I'm not obliged nor inclined to go that route & history, the recent past & concurrent events both, shows us that Intel is certainly not infallible in this regard.

It isn't just this comment from him, and yes you should take his comment very serious: he's an engineer, not a marketing guy.

But besides, what do you say about the fact that Intel's starting the factory satrt-up for 10nm exactly 2 years after 14nm and 4 years after 32nm? They will be ready to start HVM in Q1 or Q2.

4) So remind me when did we see the first 14nm products based on Intel chips & btw that token release in Q4 is the worst I've ever seen from Intel ever. Apple's products will launch in bulk & at a steeper rate (as in ramping up) than any other computer/device maker in the history of consumer electronics, because that's what they've been doing for close to a decade now!

Don't you remember from who you knew first that Intel's 14nm cycle was delayed by 3 -- it turned out to be 6, which Brian admitted just yesterday and 2 earnings call ago too -- months? From Intel itself.

They had problems, they're fixing them and learning from them for 10nm.

 

[witeken]

On another note:

Ross Seymore - Deutsche Bank
And I guess as my follow-on in somewhat similar. We talked a little bit about this at CES, to see want to get your view. Broadwell is launching in the fourth quarter and then starting to ramp now. Skylake, it sounds like you want to continue to have that be on time and I guess the early part of the second half of this year. To the extent of the Broadwell, duration is shorter than normal. What sort of business implications, whether it’d be on the revenue, the COGS, etcetera line should we think of to hit the financials throughout the year?

Brian Krzanich - Chief Executive Officer
Well, this is Brian. Let me first kind of answer how we are looking at this and we are not going to slow Skylake down. We said it will be a second half of this year. I don’t want to slow it down because it brings a lot of innovation, a lot of new capability to this market. We think we’ve managed between the SKUs of what SKUs we are bringing out on Broadwell to really refresh the 2-in-1 devices, the Chrome books. We wanted to bring Core M out which I think in the first part of this year with changed New Year, the back-to-school season having the super-thin and light devices is going to be critical.

So missing that by doing something else with Braodwell would have been in the stake. And I think getting that volume is a good thing. We think we managed the transition on the number of SKUs as Broadwell will have and how will transition the market to Skylake now moving forward from a margin or COGS standpoint. But remember they are on the same technology, the same piece of silicon, it’s the same factory. All we do is change the piece of glass in the scanner to get a different product. So there is not a change or revamp of our factories that needs to occur for this.

Stacy Smith - Chief Financial Officer
Yeah. That last point is important both for 14-nanometer products for us. So it doesn’t change our factory profile. And just generally the faster we bring out new features and cool stuff to the market, the better off we are. So we are not planning to slow down Skylake if that was at the heart of your question.

Quote: http://seekingalpha.com/article/282...h-on-q4-2014-results-earnings-call-transcript

 

[R0H1T]

You said Intel's lead is shrinking. Stop moving the goalposts.


Same comment. It's not nice practice to move the goalposts. It's irrelevant.


It isn't just this comment from him, and yes you should take his comment very serious: he's an engineer, not a marketing guy.

But besides, what do you say about the fact that Intel's starting the factory satrt-up for 10nm exactly 2 years after 14nm and 4 years after 32nm? They will be ready to start HVM in Q1 or Q2.

Don't you remember from who you knew first that Intel's 14nm cycle was delayed by 3 -- it turned out to be 6, which Brian admitted just yesterday and 2 earnings call ago too -- months? From Intel itself.

They had problems, they're fixing them and learning from them for 10nm.

Not sure what you mean by that, I always meant node & never did explicitly specify FinFETs, you can reread my comments.

As for your last point it's more logical to think that since the 14nm node was more expensive & problematic than 22nm, it'll take more time for Intel to recoup their R&D costs ergo the delay in launching 10nm products. Just like how skylake will never (completely) cannibalize Broadwell.

 

[dahorns]

I assume you have numbers for Moorefield ? As for core M why not, we just slap the A8X in an MBP with active cooling & an extra core to see it fly.

There are few designs using it. I know you can find some numbers on Venue 8 7840.

I'm not sure your point on active cooling. Core M runs in fanless tablets. There is obviously a price differential, but I thought all you were comparing was performance per watt?

 

[Arachnotronic]

As for your last point it's more logical to think that since the 14nm node was more expensive & problematic than 22nm, it'll take more time for Intel to recoup their R&D costs ergo the delay in launching 10nm products. Just like how skylake will never (completely) cannibalize Broadwell.

Do you think Intel will shoot itself in the foot from a competitive perspective to "recoup" already sunk R&D costs?

That makes literally no financial or strategic sense.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

Do you think Intel will shoot itself in the foot from a competitive perspective to "recoup" already sunk R&D costs?

That makes literally no financial or strategic sense.

Actually, yes, if they think they're on the verge of a breakthrough.

 

[Puppies04]

I guess Intel has been long established as the Microsoft of microprocessors now .

Good for them. Let's hope they don't pull a windows 8 anytime soon. xD

I really hope they aren't taking any advice from microsoft, we will be renting our CPUs before long if they are....

 

[R0H1T]

Do you think Intel will shoot itself in the foot from a competitive perspective to "recoup" already sunk R&D costs?

That makes literally no financial or strategic sense.

Not sure what you mean, my point simply was that they won't ramp up production through the new fabs as aggressively as some think they'll do. Besides weren't they gonna go mobile first & it's not like their mobile strategy is any good atm & I don't see them making any tangible profits from that sector or IoT anytime soon either. So tell me what major incentive they have to replace their leading edge products (devices really) already on the shelves with something on an even better node & probably questionable yields, apart from the obvious fact that they plan to hand out another ~10 billion or so over the next few years trying to get an even bigger share of the mobile market.

 

[witeken]

14nm won't go away any time soon. Many new DCG products will only be released in H2 and beyond. Those 14nm fabs will generate more than enough money, but PCCG and now MCG always move earlier to new nodes, which will be at ~CES '16, a good few months less than 2 years after 14.

Btw, they're actually doing very good in IoT with lots of room to grow and lots of design wins. But investments are often long-term, obviously.

 

[dahorns]

I don't see them making any tangible profits from that sector or IoT anytime soon either.

I mean, what's tangible? IoT reported 2.1 billion in revenue and 616 million in operating income last year.

 

[R0H1T]

14nm won't go away any time soon. Many new DCG products will only be released in H2 and beyond. Those 14nm fabs will generate more than enough money, but PCCG and now MCG always move earlier to new nodes, which will be at ~CES '16, a good few months less than 2 years after 14.

Btw, they're actually doing very good in IoT with lots of room to grow and lots of design wins. But investments are often long-term, obviously.

You don't have to sugarcoat it anymore, we all know what it means ~ short term pain for long term gain so on & so forth.

Look I don't really care what Intel does or doesn't do so long as they aren't driving their competitors out of business with these illegal tactics, again nothing to sugarcoat. I certainly enjoy their perf & perf/W but not at the expense of legitimate businesses getting steamrolled by monopolies under the guise of shady tactics like contra revenue & stuff, sure no major chipmaker has gone bankrupt as yet due to this but if it does continue then I'm not buying any of the Intel inside (mobile) products anytime soon & will advice anyone & everyone I know to do the same.

Word of mouth is a powerful thing & never should you ever underestimate the power of bad PR. I'm not anti Intel per se but I cannot & will not support any business that drives their competition into bankruptcy just because they can but mostly because they can get away with it !

 

[Arachnotronic]

You don't have to sugarcoat it anymore, we all know what it means ~ short term pain for long term gain so on & so forth.

Look I don't really care what Intel does or doesn't do so long as they aren't driving their competitors out of business with these illegal tactics, again nothing to sugarcoat. I certainly enjoy perf & perf/W but not at the expense of legitimate businesses getting steamrolled by monopolies under the guise of shady tactics like contra revenue & stuff, sure no major chipmaker has gone bankrupt as yet due to this but if it does continue then I'm not buying any of the Intel inside (mobile) products anytime soon & will advice anyone & everyone I know to do the same.

Word of mouth is a powerful thing & never should you ever underestimate the power of bad PR. I'm not anti Intel per se but I cannot & will not support any business that drives their competition into bankruptcy just because they can but mostly because they can get away with it !

You don't think Intel's management consulted thoroughly with their highly paid legal team before green-lighting the "contra-revenue" program?

 

[R0H1T]

You don't think Intel's management consulted thoroughly with their highly paid legal team before green-lighting the "contra-revenue" program?

Does it matter, what do you think it's fair/unfair OR legal/illegal ? Just because you can get away with murder, on a technicality, doesn't make you any less guilty of that crime.

Businesses (& people) in this day & age should exhibit a certain level of fair play otherwise why'd you think this world is going in the direction that it's seemingly headed towards? Yeah I know it's way off topic but for me anything unethical is simply not acceptable, I don't condone such things & I can't say it any differently !

 

[witeken]

Intel is not doing anything illegal. You can ask Idontcare: he's talked to Intel folks. You can ask AMD: they have not said any bad words, just that it's competitive:

Yes. Hans, we have discussed this a little bit before. I think it is definitely true that there are some aggressive competitive dynamics, particularly in the low-end. Couple of quarters ago, we made a decision about how we're managing that. We are certainly competing in the low-end, but we are not going after business that's not profitable. And so if you look at the mix of our business, you see our ASPs up in mobile. And the reason for that is we're actually making good progress at the higher end of the product stack, and at the very, very low-end, we are choosing not to go after a bad business.

In fact, Intel publicly announced their "illegal" contra-revenue at their investor meeting and aren't ashamed to talk about.

 

[R0H1T]

Intel is not doing anything illegal. You can ask Idontcare: he's talked to Intel folks. You can ask AMD: they have not said any bad words, just that it's competitive:

Yes they are.

In fact, Intel publicly announced their "illegal" contra-revenue at their investor meeting and aren't ashamed to talk about.

That should tell you something very obvious.

 

[dahorns]

Yes they are.
That should tell you something very obvious.

I'm not trying to attack you, but I'm not sure you understand what "illegal" means.

Legality isn't about morality or ethics or any other behavioral standard. The question is simple: is the conduct proscribed by law. The fact that Intel has been very open about contra-revenue and the fact that there have been no enforcement actions against them highly suggests that Intel's conduct is not illegal.

If you're going to continue to assert that it is illegal, I think the burden is on you to cite a statute, court ruling, or regulatory rule.