Intel profit sinks 27% on dreadful PC sales

[jpiniero]

Tablets and smartphones will be overall additive to Intel's revenues, because we are not going to see a 1:1 replacement of a laptop/desktop, with a tablet or smartphone.

Tablets replacing PCs is already happening. That's why Intel's sales are slumping. Now, it won't be the entire market, but it would be enough to cause serious problems for Intel if they don't get a big piece of the tablet market.

Intel doesn't have the quasi-monopoly of x86 patents to fall back on. That's their problem really, and probably why they still continue to push W8 when it's already been rejected by the market.

I expect in time that Intel's Atom SoC's will lead on performance/watt over its ARM rivals and too many people don't understand that if a $30 chip has a good margin in it, then it doesn't matter that it is only $30, unless it is directly replacing a more expensive chip.

I'm still very skeptical Intel can make the margins work, especially with their costs so much higher than everyone elses. And that's if they can even get into Samsung or Apple, which isn't a guarantee.

Also keep in mind tablet ASPs continue to tumble. Apple hasn't announced their results yet, but reports are the Mini is selling very well ... at the expense of the big iPad. This should pretty much end any hope that Intel had that expensive tablets would be sellable.

 

[dud]

Or maybe you're just jumping to conclusions and/or wildly misinterpreting what I wrote.

Yeah ... that could be it.

Or not ...

 

[CHADBOGA]

I'm still very skeptical Intel can make the margins work, especially with their costs so much higher than everyone elses.

On what basis do you claim that Intel's costs are much higher than everyone else's?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Tablets replacing PCs is already happening. That's why Intel's sales are slumping.

Why are tablet component makers then losing revenue as well? Not to mention that Apple misses its iPad targets by a huge margin. iPad Mini only made the Apple stock tank further.

 

[krumme]

As i understand it:
Intel have no choice but to expand and pay
For that to be profitable they need new business model like TSMC
That means more transparancy for prices and production cost
+That means customer and competitor slowly getting access to parts of the technology

Everyone and his brother is going to have a dual core A7, a total of 0.9mm2 for 75% of the performance of a dual core A9. It will get into android 4.2 tablets and phones that sell in xxx millions. Anyone care to calculate how many A7 (0.45mm2) you can make of a 300mm wafer? I dont even want to think about it.

If capacity is strategy, then thats the dilemma of 2013/2014

 

[jpiniero]

Why are tablet component makers then losing revenue as well?

Price pressure by Google and Amazon.

On what basis do you claim that Intel's costs are much higher than everyone else's?

I saw it on a website, somewhere. But it's not hard to imagine that their costs would be so much higher, it's the cost of being on the bleeding edge.

 

[blastingcap]

So long as Intel dominates servers, I wouldn't worry too much about them.

 

[Idontcare]

As i understand it:
Intel have no choice but to expand and pay
For that to be profitable they need new business model like TSMC
That means more transparancy for prices and production cost
+That means customer and competitor slowly getting access to parts of the technology

Everyone and his brother is going to have a dual core A7, a total of 0.9mm2 for 75% of the performance of a dual core A9. It will get into android 4.2 tablets and phones that sell in xxx millions. Anyone care to calculate how many A7 (0.45mm2) you can make of a 300mm wafer? I dont even want to think about it.

If capacity is strategy, then thats the dilemma of 2013/2014

The core size is of course not the die size, but the theoretical limit puts you at nearly 125,000 dies on a 300mm wafer if the die are 0.60mm x 0.75mm with 0.05mm spacing between the die.

Not sure on what the practical limit is for small die size but I have worked on and seen 8mm^2 die before (~8,000 per 300mm wafer).

 

[CHADBOGA]

I saw it on a website, somewhere. But it's not hard to imagine that their costs would be so much higher, it's the cost of being on the bleeding edge.

They also have volume like few others to amortize the cost of their fabs.

Intel will soon be in a position where they will have a 22nm Fab that has been completely paid off by desktop chips, that they will then be able to make various Atom variants on.

No one else is in such a fortunate position.

Also by fabbing in-house, Intel doesn't have to pay for another companies profit margin. Again, none of their fabless competitors have this luxury.

One only has to look at the debacle between AMD and GloFo for how this can really go wrong.

 

[SiliconWars]

One only has to look at the debacle between AMD and GloFo for how this can really go wrong.

One only needs look at TSMC to see that fabrication without chip design is the way ahead.

How much longer can intel hope to be the best, never slipping up? One mistake and they are done for. One more Netburst and they've had it - stuck with too many fabs and no product worth selling. Too big, too bloated, too stuck in the 90's mentality. This company is ready to collapse spectacularly when the next thing goes wrong. They are losing ground even with every advantage they have already.

 

[Homeles]

One only needs look at TSMC to see that fabrication without chip design is the way ahead.

How much longer can intel hope to be the best, never slipping up? One mistake and they are done for. One more Netburst and they've had it - stuck with too many fabs and no product worth selling. Too big, too bloated, too stuck in the 90's mentality. This company is ready to collapse spectacularly when the next thing goes wrong. They are losing ground even with every advantage they have already.

Wake up from your wet dream already...

 

[SiliconWars]

Wake up from your wet dream already...

Another quality post from Homeles. :thumbsup:

 

[Homeles]

Another quality post from Homeles. :thumbsup:

Aside from IDC and a couple others, you'd be hard-pressed to find better.

 

[SiliconWars]

Aside from IDC and a couple others, you'd be hard-pressed to find better.

Nothing quite as sad as a God-complex mixed in with sucking up to the moderators. Must be hard to be you with that contradiction going on in your head.

 

[Homeles]

Wasn't aware there were mods around anymore. If there were, you'd be long gone.

 

[Idontcare]

C'mon guys, let's not press our collective luck here :| Lighten it up already

 

[dbcoopernz]

An axe rather than a hammer?

 

[Idontcare]

An axe rather than a hammer?

Experience has taught me that when you extricate someone's manhood with a hammer it makes for a poor wall-mounted trophy.

 

[Haserath]

One only needs look at TSMC to see that fabrication without chip design is the way ahead.

How much longer can intel hope to be the best, never slipping up? One mistake and they are done for. One more Netburst and they've had it - stuck with too many fabs and no product worth selling. Too big, too bloated, too stuck in the 90's mentality. This company is ready to collapse spectacularly when the next thing goes wrong. They are losing ground even with every advantage they have already.

Why would they do that again?

I don't get how you expect them to fail.

They're still the best, by far.

 

[IntelUser2000]

This is good news, if it means what I think it means. (ie, Intel has fixed this problem --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/6194/asus-ux31a-putting-the-ultra-in-ultrabooks/8 )

I don't think this means fixing that "issue" as opposed to allowing much greater volume to be enabled at those power points to turn it into a mainstream part.

Right now the 17W ULV chips are specially binned parts. But because 22nm allows better operation at lower voltages, it means you can have those chips without doing so much binning as they do now. That turns into greater volume, which ultimately means lower prices as well.

Now I'm not saying you'll see that with 10W or 13W parts. Only the 15W part. When Intel said Haswell is designed for Ultrabook, that's one thing they mean.

 

[2is]

Another quality post from Homeles. :thumbsup:

He did describe your posts quite accurately.

 

[CHADBOGA]

One only needs look at TSMC to see that fabrication without chip design is the way ahead.

How does TSMC show this?

How much longer can intel hope to be the best, never slipping up? One mistake and they are done for. One more Netburst and they've had it - stuck with too many fabs and no product worth selling. Too big, too bloated, too stuck in the 90's mentality. This company is ready to collapse spectacularly when the next thing goes wrong.

What if ARM produces a Netburst?

Intel have had their wake up call.

They are losing ground even with every advantage they have already.

They have only recently begun to concentrate on the areas where ARM is strongest and in the semi-conductor field, it takes quite a while for your efforts to bear fruit once you change direction.

Intel's previous focus was solely on performance at all cost and competing head on with AMD. Now that AMD have been reduced to near irrelevance and probably won't be around in 5 years time, they are now focusing on ARM.

It is no good carrying on and pretending that Intel has spent the last 10 years targeting ARM, when they haven't been doing that, and thus calling Intel's efforts a failure.

 

[taltamir]

Maybe if intel released new chips that were more then 5% faster then their predecessors (for the modest fee of 300$ + new mobo because hey why not change the socket too!) then they will get more sales.
Its really hard to justify such "upgrades"

 

[Homeles]

It is no good carrying on and pretending that Intel has spent the last 10 years targeting ARM, when they haven't been doing that, and thus calling Intel's efforts a failure.

The first true answers to the ARM problem, Haswell and Silvermont, don't debut until next year.

 

[CHADBOGA]

The first true answers to the ARM problem, Haswell and Silvermont, don't debut until next year.

You might need to check your calendar, it is now 2013.