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

[Phynaz]

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,

How incompetent AMD's leadership must be if they aren't screaming to anybody and everybody about this. Or Qualcomm, Nvidia, Marvel, etc. leadership teams for that matter. They must all be incompetent.

Or you could be wrong.

Which case do you really think is most likely?

 

[NTMBK]

I doubt Intel did anything illegal, especially after their close run in the P4 days.

 

[mrmt]

That should tell you something very obvious.

Obvious to who? Surely it is not obvious to AMD's legal counselors or public prosecutors/attorneys.

 

[TreVader]

Illegal or not Intel has shown itself to be incapable of innovating without imminent failure of the company as a whole. Hopefully for them they can do some soul searching and maybe invent something new for once in a decade.

 

[dahorns]

Illegal or not Intel has shown itself to be incapable of innovating without imminent failure of the company as a whole. Hopefully for them they can do some soul searching and maybe invent something new for once in a decade.

What? So you're saying that either Intel been at constant risk of failure for the last two decades, or that Intel failed to innovate for the last two decades?

If it ends up with 55 Billion in revenue and nearly 12 billion in profit, I'm sure there are a lot of companies that would be happy with either outcome.

 

[TreVader]

What? So you're saying that either Intel been at constant risk of failure for the last two decades, or that Intel failed to innovate for the last two decades?

If it ends up with 55 Billion in revenue and nearly 12 billion in profit, I'm sure there are a lot of companies that would be happy with either outcome.

Since core 2 duo Intel has done nothing that impressed me personally. The AMD64 fiasco was the peril that forced them to innovate there. And they had done nothing but ride netburst for the decade before.


I don't know if you are impressed with 5-10% efficiency increases every 2 years but I'm not. Apple certainly isn't either.

Intel can still make money of course but they need to just quit trying to get into mobile. Maybe move into vacuum cleaners.

 

[CHADBOGA]

Since core 2 duo Intel has done nothing that impressed me personally. The AMD64 fiasco was the peril that forced them to innovate there. And they had done nothing but ride netburst for the decade before.

In what bizarro world is Netburst's normal 5 year cycle, a decade?

 

[elemein]

Since core 2 duo Intel has done nothing that impressed me personally. The AMD64 fiasco was the peril that forced them to innovate there. And they had done nothing but ride netburst for the decade before.


I don't know if you are impressed with 5-10% efficiency increases every 2 years but I'm not. Apple certainly isn't either.

Intel can still make money of course but they need to just quit trying to get into mobile. Maybe move into vacuum cleaners.

Not an expert but... Pretty sure CPU improvements give diminishing returns the further process and design goes. When you add one simple ALU to a system that already has 3 per core, you get far less improvement than if you added an ALU to a system that only had two or less previously, and with less cores. Its harder to make improvements the better the design gets, and yes, while completely redesigning the arch from the ground up may get better overall performance, most software devs won't change their way of programming to suit your new arch. Just ask AMD. Next year they'll be using an arch much further away from a CMT based arch and more SMT1.5 directed. Like Intel's SMT2 design.

Even further on the process side, the size dimensions prove to yield less and less benefits the smaller you go (disregarding transistor design), and yet again makes it difficult to get massive "2x more performance!" we could have gotten a decade ago.

Its not that Intel's being lazy. Its just difficult to do. Can't fight nature.

 

[TreVader]

Not an expert but... Pretty sure CPU improvements give diminishing returns the further process and design goes. When you add one simple ALU to a system that already has 3 per core, you get far less improvement than if you added an ALU to a system that only had two or less previously, and with less cores. Its harder to make improvements the better the design gets, and yes, while completely redesigning the arch from the ground up may get better overall performance, most software devs won't change their way of programming to suit your new arch. Just ask AMD. Next year they'll be using an arch much further away from a CMT based arch and more SMT1.5 directed. Like Intel's SMT2 design.



Even further on the process side, the size dimensions prove to yield less and less benefits the smaller you go (disregarding transistor design), and yet again makes it difficult to get massive "2x more performance!" we could have gotten a decade ago.



Its not that Intel's being lazy. Its just difficult to do. Can't fight nature.

This is all true but at some point you have to give somebody different a shot at raising the performance ceiling.





Intel has stagnated. Their current 2015 quad cores don't even offer double the performance of their 2011 quad cores. That is dismal, and I don't think you could argue otherwise.





Apple has already matched intel's dual cores in performance at much lower wattage. What products currently use intel dual cores? Well, all of them can now be replaces with Ax processors





The last thing is intel has shown themselves to be deceptive, uncompetitive, and far more concentrated on it's own margins and profits than any sort of technological innovation. They are just a grimy, crappy company like Microsoft.

 

[elemein]

This is all true but at some point you have to give somebody different a shot at raising the performance ceiling.


Intel has stagnated. Their current 2015 quad cores don't even offer double the performance of their 2011 quad cores. That is dismal, and I don't think you could argue otherwise.


Apple has already matched intel's dual cores in performance at much lower wattage. What products currently use intel dual cores? Well, all of them can now be replaces with Ax processors


The last thing is intel has shown themselves to be deceptive, uncompetitive, and far more concentrated on it's own margins and profits than any sort of technological innovation. They are just a grimy, crappy company like Microsoft. Nobody will miss them, save their current employees. Sorry guys, find somebody else to work for. If you were any good you would've been poached by now anyway.

I'm gonna say it's not dismal. Firstly because; in some cases it has not only doubled its performance from is 2011 products but possibly tripled maybe more. I refer to emulation.

In the general scope of things? I'm still not sure I agree with you. Most consumer uses outside gaming can be capably done by those 2011 quads with no difference from the 2014 systems. Its hard to improve on something where software is the limit or the nature of the program (can't make the calculator app much faster no matter what CPU you got. Silly example, but more so abstract for my point.) In production is the only area I can say some more performance would've been nice; but I still dont say its dismal simply because; its hard to give double performance now. Just because we want something doesn't mean we'll get it. How long has humanity wanted wings? Dont think we'll get em anyday soon regardless of how much money we got in the world. Its hard.

Second on the Apple stuff; yes the Apple ARM chips are rightly great. But thats a trait of RISC CPUs. They're inherently more efficient than CISC CPUs in the current ecosystems; its not a opinion its a fact else most CISC CPUs wouldn't have RISC backends.

But still. Windows is on x86. They're likely not moving to ARM very soon AFAIK. Most of the market is with Windows. It doesn't matter if x company has a CPU that is 9999x better than the CPUs we have. If it can't run the software we love, we need and are familiar with, we dont want it.

 

[TreVader]

I'm gonna say it's not dismal. Firstly because; in some cases it has not only doubled its performance from is 2011 products but possibly tripled maybe more. I refer to emulation.

In the general scope of things? I'm still not sure I agree with you. Most consumer uses outside gaming can be capably done by those 2011 quads with no difference from the 2014 systems. Its hard to improve on something where software is the limit or the nature of the program (can't make the calculator app much faster no matter what CPU you got. Silly example, but more so abstract for my point.) In production is the only area I can say some more performance would've been nice; but I still dont say its dismal simply because; its hard to give double performance now. Just because we want something doesn't mean we'll get it. How long has humanity wanted wings? Dont think we'll get em anyday soon regardless of how much money we got in the world. Its hard.

Second on the Apple stuff; yes the Apple ARM chips are rightly great. But thats a trait of RISC CPUs. They're inherently more efficient than CISC CPUs in the current ecosystems; its not a opinion its a fact else most CISC CPUs wouldn't have RISC backends.

But still. Windows is on x86. They're likely not moving to ARM very soon AFAIK. Most of the market is with Windows. It doesn't matter if x company has a CPU that is 9999x better than the CPUs we have. If it can't run the software we love, we need and are familiar with, we dont want it.

Maybe it's not dismal, IDK. I'm not a CPU designer.


I can tell you that looking at the improvements made YoY in Apple's ARM processors and comparing them to the YoY improvements in intel's processors doesn't look good for intel. In features, speed, every single area Apple has made vastly larger improvements. And I know what you are gonna say: "Low hanging fruit", and that's true to a degree. But what if intel's architecture itself is a limitation? Why would a company not try something new?

They don't look any better when compared to samsung or qualcomm either.

Apple WOULD try something new. I think they asked intel to try something new, and intel wouldn't or couldn't do it. So they will try to do it on their own.


The absolute ceiling will certainly stay with intel for some time but I have 100% confidence that intel is currently holding Apple back in the CPU and ESPECIALLY gpu departments.

 

[elemein]

Maybe it's not dismal, IDK. I'm not a CPU designer.


I can tell you that looking at the improvements made YoY in Apple's ARM processors and comparing them to the YoY improvements in intel's processors doesn't look good for intel. In features, speed, every single area Apple has made vastly larger improvements. And I know what you are gonna say: "Low hanging fruit", and that's true to a degree. But what if intel's architecture itself is a limitation? Why would a company not try something new?

They don't look any better when compared to samsung or qualcomm either.

Apple WOULD try something new. I think they asked intel to try something new, and intel wouldn't or couldn't do it. So they will try to do it on their own.


The absolute ceiling will certainly stay with intel for some time but I have 100% confidence that intel is currently holding Apple back in the CPU and ESPECIALLY gpu departments.

This isnt the Apple being independent thread just in case you forgot

My answer to that is: eco system. Ask AMD why their performance didnt jump up wildly when they released PD and SR. The x86 eco system is undeniably different from ARM. ARM is fairly new in the consumer sense compared to x86. Perhaps it has less to do with Intel and Windows than it does x86. Windows RT, while a fairly in most senses, was fast. Period. The ISA does matter.

Again, as explained earlier; Intel doesn't wanna try something new simply because they've had the same design for years and there is one variable out of their control that is used to writing programs for a certain CPU ideology. Programmers. If you change your arch wildly to be better, thats great, but if programmers don't follow then your improvements do not matter. Ask AMD. In the ARM ecosystem, programmers are a bit more trendy simply because there's a bit less of them and they're used to programming for... Oh boy, how many major ARM archs are out there in phones and tablets? Must be over 10... VS on the x86 side where there's Intel's "improved P5" design from a long time ago and whatever AMD is messing about with at that current time. Oh, and VIA but that's just joke tbh.

They're different ecosystems parted by different ISAs and platforms.

 

[TreVader]

This isnt the Apple being independent thread just in case you forgot



My answer to that is: eco system. Ask AMD why their performance didnt jump up wildly when they released PD and SR. The x86 eco system is undeniably different from ARM. ARM is fairly new in the consumer sense compared to x86. Perhaps it has less to do with Intel and Windows than it does x86. Windows RT, while a fairly in most senses, was fast. Period. The ISA does matter.



Again, as explained earlier; Intel doesn't wanna try something new simply because they've had the same design for years and there is one variable out of their control that is used to writing programs for a certain CPU ideology. Programmers. If you change your arch wildly to be better, thats great, but if programmers don't follow then your improvements do not matter. Ask AMD. In the ARM ecosystem, programmers are a bit more trendy simply because there's a bit less of them and they're used to programming for... Oh boy, how many major ARM archs are out there in phones and tablets? Must be over 10... VS on the x86 side where there's Intel's "improved P5" design from a long time ago and whatever AMD is messing about with at that current time. Oh, and VIA but that's just joke tbh.



They're different ecosystems parted by different ISAs and platforms.

I just don't think x86 is viable at < 15 W and because innovations in heat dissipation and battery power are so slow, the easiest way to improve performance is efficiency. At some point Intel should have looked at x86 and realized it wouldn't be viable and made something different. Instead, they attempted to engineer a way around it with their process tech (Bay Trail).



I may be wrong and I know most think I am but I think this is an area where PC geeks have their minds clouded by irrational hatred for Cupertino.

 

[elemein]

I just don't think x86 is viable at < 15 W and because innovations in heat dissipation and battery power are so slow, the easiest way to improve performance is efficiency. At some point Intel should have looked at x86 and realized it wouldn't be viable and made something different. Instead, they attempted to engineer a way around it with their process tech (Bay Trail).



I may be wrong and I know most think I am but I think this is an area where PC geeks have their minds clouded by irrational hatred for Cupertino.

First and foremost; I don't have any hatred let alone an irrational one for Apple. Ive had an iPhone (two actually.), had an iPad and my family members currently have iPhones, iPads and even my pa has that new shiny iMac. It's neat.

I just personally don't use Apple hardware (anymore.), don't find them to have a particular draw (to me.) and think maybe they're on a bit of a different ecosystem (they... are.)

I agree. ARM has some inherent benefits over x86 in the <15W range. There's no getting around that.

But gotta stick something out front and center; Windows isn't on ARM. Sad to say it again but; if the software ain't there, neither are 99% of people. People don't walk around rendering on their Android tabs for a reason, and it's not because of the lack of power; it's because you feasibly can't on ARM. It's an entirely different ecosystem meant for an entirely different purpose. I'm not denying it: ARM has inherent performance and efficiency benefits in the <15W ecosystem. The proof is in the pudding. But the software unfortunately isn't on the ARM side and won't be for a very nice chunk of time.

Intel will have quite a bit of longevity with x86_64, atleast until Android or some other ARM-based OS (lets be real here though it'll be Android or iOS but most likely Android) has all the software most any consumer could want, which is sort of far away. Until then, I'll love window shopping W8 tabs yet likely not buying one because the form factors I want only come with 1GB DDR3 instead of the 2GB really needed to make the system fully usable (and trust me, the CPU isn't the issue here. It's OEM decisions to save a couple dollars to make an inferior product).

ARM has it's draws and benefits, and I can certainly see there being a day where I'm using an ARM-only device as my primary device, but until I get a Windows-like (ie. an experience where I get all the software I could want) experience in the ARM ecosystems, myself as well as most people won't be boarding the ARM train and will have to stick with x86.

Of which, Intel has a "bit" of the upper hand in.

Small tidbit; don't devalue process. For some reason people around here seem to think that using your lithography process' advantages is some kind of "you're cheating! That's not equal!" trick when in reality... Intel worked really hard to make a good process, and they have. Let them use the damn thing.

 

[TreVader]

First and foremost; I don't have any hatred let alone an irrational one for Apple. Ive had an iPhone (two actually.), had an iPad and my family members currently have iPhones, iPads and even my pa has that new shiny iMac. It's neat.

I just personally don't use Apple hardware (anymore.), don't find them to have a particular draw (to me.) and think maybe they're on a bit of a different ecosystem (they... are.)

I agree. ARM has some inherent benefits over x86 in the <15W range. There's no getting around that.

But gotta stick something out front and center; Windows isn't on ARM. Sad to say it again but; if the software ain't there, neither are 99% of people. People don't walk around rendering on their Android tabs for a reason, and it's not because of the lack of power; it's because you feasibly can't on ARM. It's an entirely different ecosystem meant for an entirely different purpose. I'm not denying it: ARM has inherent performance and efficiency benefits in the <15W ecosystem. The proof is in the pudding. But the software unfortunately isn't on the ARM side and won't be for a very nice chunk of time.

Intel will have quite a bit of longevity with x86_64, atleast until Android or some other ARM-based OS (lets be real here though it'll be Android or iOS but most likely Android) has all the software most any consumer could want, which is sort of far away. Until then, I'll love window shopping W8 tabs yet likely not buying one because the form factors I want only come with 1GB DDR3 instead of the 2GB really needed to make the system fully usable (and trust me, the CPU isn't the issue here. It's OEM decisions to save a couple dollars to make an inferior product).

ARM has it's draws and benefits, and I can certainly see there being a day where I'm using an ARM-only device as my primary device, but until I get a Windows-like (ie. an experience where I get all the software I could want) experience in the ARM ecosystems, myself as well as most people won't be boarding the ARM train and will have to stick with x86.

Of which, Intel has a "bit" of the upper hand in.

Small tidbit; don't devalue process. For some reason people around here seem to think that using your lithography process' advantages is some kind of "you're cheating! That's not equal!" trick when in reality... Intel worked really hard to make a good process, and they have. Let them use the damn thing.

I think people overestimate the value of x86-64 compatibility with windows in current Macs.

The assumption is: "If a person has a Mac, it works as both windows work PC and home PC! If the mac is not x86, then the person will go back to windows"...

What if the person just drops windows altogether? I think that is far more likely, given how important a macbook can be in a persons life. Who is going to drop their $1700+ Macbook Pro in favor of their $499 wintel box?


I think the estimation on the part of the tech people here is WAY too high. Apple is not a budget product, but it's all about priorities. If people want quality they have to pay for it. Look at Dell XPS, matching Apple quality ain't cheap.

 

[elemein]

I think people overestimate the value of x86-64 compatibility with windows in current Macs.

The assumption is: "If a person has a Mac, it works as both windows work PC and home PC! If the mac is not x86, then the person will go back to windows"...

What if the person just drops windows altogether? I think that is far more likely, given how important a macbook can be in a persons life. Who is going to drop their $1700+ Macbook Pro in favor of their $499 wintel box?


I think the estimation on the part of the tech people here is WAY too high. Apple is not a budget product, but it's all about priorities. If people want quality they have to pay for it. Look at Dell XPS, matching Apple quality ain't cheap.

Dont think anyone would drop their 1700$+ MBP for a 500$ Wintel, but that's literally the worst comparison I've ever seen. Now, a 1700$ MBP vs a 1700$ Windows laptop? Now that's a possible comparison.

Then there's also the argument that some folk can't afford to blow 1700$ on a laptop. I'm one of those folk, so I spent 1000$ to get a laptop smaller than the MBP with way more power. Made out well.

And no, I'm not overestimating at all Window's influence in the x86 ecosystem. It seems true for about...

92% of people. Wow. And that's not even taking into account that possibly 1/10th+ of Mac OS users are running Windows in a VM. Interesting. (not really.)

Again. Software. Windows has the software most everyone needs. Apple has tons but arguably not all of it; just blame the market for making programs for the most dominant OS. Now, shove Mac OS onto ARM and you get even fewer programs compatible with it + completely disabling access to Windows systems.

Damn. Sometimes, my friend, you do have to look at the numbers. Software really matters. Go out and get an i7-5960X system with some quad SLI 980 system or whatever. Amazing right? Now never install anything on it but your OS of choice, a browser, Skype and maybe a lil utility here and there. Wow, what a waste. That's what it feels like to not have the software you need. Sure, a gross overestimating and silly example, but oh boy does it matter.

 

[TreVader]

Hmm perhaps my location and finances have warped my perception of the presence of Macs vs PCs.

Apple isn't about marketshare, tho. It's not that much of a priority. And I don't think apple will ever be in a "majority" of devices merely because they aren't cheap and people like cheap.

 

[elemein]

Hmm perhaps my location and finances have warped my perception of the presence of Macs vs PCs.

Apple isn't about marketshare, tho. It's not that much of a priority. And I don't think apple will ever be in a "majority" of devices merely because they aren't cheap and people like cheap.

Was it this thread or the other thread where you said "ask IBM what happens when Apple drops your CPU."

They'll lose 8% of the market. Quite a hit but I don't believe Intel is gonna cave in under itself over it.

 

[TreVader]

Maybe not. I think it is at least going to be a wake-up call about x86 and low power.

 

[Essence_of_War]

Who is going to drop their $1700+ Macbook Pro in favor of their $499 wintel box?

These two choices aren't exhaustive or mutually exclusive.

 

[R0H1T]

How incompetent AMD's leadership must be if they aren't screaming to anybody and everybody about this. Or Qualcomm, Nvidia, Marvel, etc. leadership teams for that matter. They must all be incompetent.

Or you could be wrong.

Which case do you really think is most likely?

As I said earlier, just because they can get away with it on a technicality doesn't make it right.

In what world is selling your products below cost price legal OR ethical?
It's a rhetorical question & you really don't have to answer it, maybe some or most of you won't admit it here on a public fora but it's as clear as water to me.

 

[tential]

As I said earlier, just because they can get away with it on a technicality doesn't make it right.

In what world is selling your products below cost price legal OR ethical?
It's a rhetorical question & you really don't have to answer it, maybe some or most of you won't admit it here on a public fora but it's as clear as water to me.

America.

 

[Roland00Address]

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.

Also he is comparing products with completely different price points. IPad Air 2 should be compared to $500 to $600 tablets.

$200 to $250 tablets like the dell venue 8, ASUS Vivotab 8, should be compared to the very old IPad Mini 1st gen for the $250 and Ipad Mini 2 for $300.

Now beside speed the IPad is more useful for certain tasks like games and entertainment due to better apps (also better screen). For work though with writing I rather have an atom convertible with windows and a dock like the Acer switch 10 with Keyboard for $300 or the ASUS vivotab 10 with waccom stylus.

 

[R0H1T]

America.

Tbh it happens pretty much all over the world, not debate worthy topic in this forum but I just can't stand anyone trying to justify something that can (at best) be described as a grey area under the law. Calling a spade a spade is what I'd do in such cases but I can't force everyone to take the same stand especially if/when they have some personal stake in all of this.

I'll drop this issue right here but I'll reiterate that trying to justify something as more right than it actually is isn't what I do & will be something I'll always oppose, there's no grey area in my moral compass.

Also he is comparing products with completely different price points. IPad Air 2 should be compared to $500 to $600 tablets.

$200 to $250 tablets like the dell venue 8, ASUS Vivotab 8, should be compared to the very old IPad Mini 1st gen for the $250 and Ipad Mini 2 for $300.

Now beside speed the IPad is more useful for certain tasks like games and entertainment due to better apps (also better screen). For work though with writing I rather have an atom convertible with windows and a dock like the Acer switch 10 with Keyboard for $300 or the ASUS vivotab 10 with waccom stylus.

You do know that I was comparing the A8X performance wrt the best tablet chip Intel has right? That was just to prove a point that they've exceeded Intel in that department & that segment of market, in terms of absolute performance & probably performance/watt as well. Unless you have anything else to add I don't see why my argument is invalid? The price premium for Apple btw comes due to their brand, it has very little to do with their component cost.

 

[Idontcare]

As I said earlier, just because they can get away with it on a technicality doesn't make it right.

In what world is selling your products below cost price legal OR ethical?
It's a rhetorical question & you really don't have to answer it, maybe some or most of you won't admit it here on a public fora but it's as clear as water to me.

I have gathered from this thread that you are in a bit of an emotionally charged moral outrage type situation here, so attempts to address your position based on logic are probably wasted as they will fall on deaf ears as failing to assuage the outrage...but have you given any consideration to the possibility that you personally just might not understand the "contra-revenue" program correctly?

That possibly you are raging against some misguided concept that exists only in your mind?

History shows humans are pretty quick to decide something or someone is a demon, vilify first and don't think twice about it. Do you hold yourself as being above folly or misunderstanding?