Question Intel Q2 Results - Terrible

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Doug S

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2020
1,558
2,320
106
Apple's revenue was more than expected. It's iPhone line actually went up by just a bit. Mac was down due to supply chain and lockdowns in china.

Apple's profit was $19 Billion and revenue was $83 billion. These are impressive. Most thought the iPhone will go down. Tim Cook is a supply chain wizard.

Intel can survive if it focuses well and does not delay anymore.

I think Apple was able to insulate iPhone from supply chain issues by redirecting components that were in shortage from iPad and Mac. That strategy makes sense since iPhone is their most important product responsible for almost half their revenue. Not only are the initial sales important, but the 2nd and 3rd owners of iPhones are important to the installed base and potential services revenue growth. So getting new iPhones into the hands of those who want them as quickly as possible matters for getting them to sell/trade theirs to the next owner.

Intel's issues aren't supply chain related, they were present before the pandemic so they really have nowhere to point the finger but themselves.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
20,654
9,764
136
They spend all the cash they made this quarter on building new FABs, 7.19 bil on "net additions to property and equipment"
Making it look like they are loosing money will probably have some positive effect on taxes in the future.
You're overlooking the significant reductions in shipping volume. They're genuinely losing revenue while also increasing spending on volume. Kind of an awkward time to be doing that.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,851
658
126
You're overlooking the significant reductions in shipping volume. They're genuinely losing revenue while also increasing spending on volume. Kind of an awkward time to be doing that.
They are losing revenue compared to the last few years where they had significantly higher revenue due to everything that happened, that was known by everybody and most by intel themselves.
If they are losing revenue compared to pre 2018 where they had twice the net income every year since compared to 2017 then they might be in trouble.
A bubble deflating is not a problem and it's not an awkward time or a reason to stop your long term plans, your long term plans are not based on short term hype things, they didn't decide to make more FABs after the shortages hit they had decided to do that before that. Same for the GPUs, they didn't decide to make GPUs for the short term to ride the mining bubble, they decided to make GPUs for the long term because every GPU sold by someone else is money they aren't making.
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
4,318
6,554
136
To sum up the call and Intel's situation:

"Intel is fine as long as it can pay me."
Did he at least offer to voluntarily reduce his colossal salary at least temporally due to these circumstances?

They should add a requirement that the money is for foundries only, not IDM, to require Intel to decide whether they want to spin off the fabs and get money, or keep everything in house and do it on their own.
Shouldn't that be one of the very first requirements of Intel? And it's confirmed it isn't?
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,183
251
126
"Intel is fine as long as it can pay me."
Did he at least offer to voluntarily reduce his colossal salary at least temporally due to these circumstances?
You may find what I am about to say unsatisfying but he gave up a large amount of VMware shares and that pay package in order to work at Intel. And of the remaining pay package, to get the full amount of the conditional pay, and the conditional pay is 79% of the pay package it requires him to triple Intel’s market cap* over 5 years to $403 billion (*triple at the time of his hiring, the market cap as of now is $148.47 billion.) But he may get some of that 79% if he meets lower targets.

In sum Pat Gelsinger is going to get a whole lot of money regardless due to having making VMWare a lot of money and the Intel Board made him whole (even though the stock vote said no but the board can over rule.) And if Pat does the impossible (he will not) he will be insanely rich, 5x over.

Anotehr way to look at it is Pat has had only 3 jobs. First at Intel and he was shut out of leadership so he left to go to EMC (2009) and then VMWare 3 years later (2012) and now he is back at Intel. Yes it is still obscene but wallstreet is obscene in general and Intel was asleep at the wheel for all those years Pat was gone and his pay package is a Hail Mary play.

Edit: to be more clear.
 
Last edited:

Exist50

Golden Member
Aug 18, 2016
1,974
2,226
136
You may find what I am about to say unsatisfying but he gave up a large amount of VMware shares and that pay package in order to work at Intel. And of the remaining pay package 79% of it requires him to triple Intel’s market cap* over 5 years to $403 billion (*triple at the time of his hiring, the market cap as of now is $148.47 billion.)

In sum Pat Gelsinger is going to get a whole lot of money regardless due to having making VMWare a lot of money and the Intel Board made him whole (even though the stock vote said no but the board can over rule.) And if Pat does the impossible (he will not) he will be insanely rich, 5x over.

Yet Pat has had only 3 jobs, Intel and he was shut out of leadership so he left to go to EMC (2009) and then VMWare 3 years later (2012) and now he is back at Intel. Yes it is still obscene but wallstreet is obscene in general and Intel was asleep at the wheel for all those years Pat was gone and his pay package is a Hail Mary play.
Do you have a source for the specifics of his compensation package? I can't find anything about that 3x in 5 years deal.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,183
251
126
Do you have a source for the specifics of his compensation package? I can't find anything about that 3x in 5 years deal.

$100 million is about matching performance metrics, with the highest metric being 3x stock price in 5 years. That is $45 million of that $100 million but since those performance metrics are in stages more modest increases will get him some of that $100 million.

Likewise Pat gave up VMware $50 million in their package for his old job.

-----

I am not saying I am happy with this current situation. I am angry at the whole wall street situation, our taxes, things involving FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate), etc. But Pat does not stand out as an individual, in this messed up "system."

But Intel paid CEO Bob Swan at 67 million per year in 2019 (and at the time of the writting did not announce his 2020 performance. That number is from this below link which was released when Intel hired the new guy Pat.)


Note I am not trying to change anyone's mind here, **I am not satisfied myself**. It is what it is, and I am a mixture of ambivalent and angry for I can hold multiple pieces of info in my head and heart at the same time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vattila

Saylick

Platinum Member
Sep 10, 2012
2,363
4,441
136
Jeez, CEO salaries are obscene. I am just an armchair engineer but a part of me feels like after 10 million per year, CEO salary simply does not scale up with their skill and/or talent. I mean let's be real: Pat could have worked 24/7 for every week of his current tenure as CEO of Intel but I highly, highly doubt those extra hours could have averted the disaster which was the Q2 Earnings Report. There's simply so many engineers at Intel who are far more important to Intel's execution, or lack thereof, than Pat Gelsinger. If Pat and the executive team wrote down the 5 year game plan, which includes laying out particular milestones along the way, and then dipped out of there after a month, who's to say someone else couldn't guide the ship?
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
4,318
6,554
136
I am not saying I am happy with this current situation. I am angry at the whole wall street situation, our taxes, things involving FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate), etc. But Pat does not stand out as an individual, in this messed up "system."
Pat is still the best paid CEO everywhere. He could even give up a significant chunk of that without losing that distinction. I guess we already know he won't.
 

Exist50

Golden Member
Aug 18, 2016
1,974
2,226
136
Fwiw, all of the "old Intel" people I've heard from seem positive/optimistic about Gelsinger as CEO. It's a low bar indeed, but he at least seems willing to make the big moves necessary to turn the company around, contrasted with his predecessors' complacency to ride out the company's decline. Absurd that that's a unique selling point, but nonetheless.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,183
251
126
Absurd that that's a unique selling point, but nonetheless.
Yep that is pretty much my feelings, on Pat as an individual and this specific company and sector. (this is me going myopic in thoughts and feels)

And I am not going to get political and talk what I think should be wealth tax on individuals, income tax, etc for I think as a class what we do is kind of obscene but this forum is not the place for that. (zooming out and taking in the bigger picture)

I am done with this topic (I think)
 

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
4,318
6,554
136
Fwiw, all of the "old Intel" people I've heard from seem positive/optimistic about Gelsinger as CEO. It's a low bar indeed, but he at least seems willing to make the big moves necessary to turn the company around, contrasted with his predecessors' complacency to ride out the company's decline. Absurd that that's a unique selling point, but nonetheless.
I'm personally still pretty positive that he does the right moves for Intel's future. Unfortunately this doesn't help the immediate present as well as his outspoken personality, both which continued to help obfuscating the precarious situation Intel was and is in. I'd like to think there was a better precautionary way to go about that instead just waiting for the numbers to crash like it seems to happen now. I guess that's moot now.
 

Tuna-Fish

Golden Member
Mar 4, 2011
1,228
1,174
136
what determines what a company reports in their financial statements?
There are basic legal requirements, but most public companies reveal much more than the law requires them to. They have no need to split the results by segment at all, they could just report the whole company as one unit. The fact that they are splitting finely by segment like this is a choice.

(Edit: ) Also, if AMD meets their own expectations, they will be >42% of Intel by revenue. Even if they miss by quite a lot, they will likely still have a lot of relative growth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vattila

moinmoin

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2017
4,318
6,554
136
During the big shortages where there was very little RDNA2 availability compared to Ampere, I remember wanting to get an idea of how good a deal the console manufacturers were getting and trying to work out the margins there. AMD's report were totally opaque on this.
The reason AMD is totally opaque on this is that AMD itself doesn't want the console manufactures to know. After all if their own contract conditions are know and the overall numbers are know the competitor's contract conditions can be deduced. And Sony and Microsoft are pretty fierce competitors in that field, to the point that it's actually surprising how much both of them rely on the same hardware supplier in AMD.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
186
116
I'm personally still pretty positive that he does the right moves for Intel's future. Unfortunately this doesn't help the immediate present as well as his outspoken personality, both which continued to help obfuscating the precarious situation Intel was and is in. I'd like to think there was a better precautionary way to go about that instead just waiting for the numbers to crash like it seems to happen now. I guess that's moot now.
The only thing I don’t like about him is his boisterous statements. “AMD in the rear view” is going to bite him.
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
8,871
5,235
106
“AMD in the rear view” is going to bite him.
It's already biting him, considering how furious Intel is at the Raptor Lake leaks. People have been turned off by how little improvement it brings compared to ADL. Not good when you are a few months away from launch. The leaks are just going to convince people to jump on AM5.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
186
116
All the leaker said was that Intel's investigating, which is probably standard for all but planted "leaks". It's not like Raptor Lake had much room to wow anyway. It was always going to be an Alder Lake refresh, and perform accordingly.
Yeah tho as refreshes go it seems pretty great. Better perf/w, 50-100% more cores, better IPC for things that need copious L2. Thats more than we used to get for gen on gen.
 

Doug S

Golden Member
Feb 8, 2020
1,558
2,320
106
Shouldn't that be one of the very first requirements of Intel? And it's confirmed it isn't?
I haven't read the bill (nor do I plan to, unless I insomnia strikes and I need something certain to put me under) so I can't confirm anything, but I feel certain that if such a requirement was in the bill it would have been mentioned in one of the many articles that have been written about it. That would have to be pretty newsworthy for the tech press don't you think?
 

igor_kavinski

Diamond Member
Jul 27, 2020
8,871
5,235
106
I would prefer to see the space taken up by E-cores to be replaced with cache so they can have their own 5800X3D clone. But no, it would be too much for Intel to do the sensible thing. They just want to force things down our throats that we don't really want. They had AVX-512 before and just when it became useful in an emulator, they killed it. Now it's E-cores. Burn E-cores, burn! :mad:
 

KompuKare

Senior member
Jul 28, 2009
903
684
136
AVX-512 is a great proxy of what's gone wrong with Intel. B
efore it came out, various Intel evangelists proclaimed it would put Intel so far ahead of all competitors they may as well as pack up and go;
then once it was out it ran so hot and it's adoption suffered from the usually Intel market segmentation;
and now that big.LITTLE Intel-style is the next best thing ever, Intel have dropped AVX-512 altogether (from mainstream).
Kudos to Intel's marketing though as they sure are able to get things hyped up.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY