Question Intel Q2 Results - Terrible

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,815
445
136
Apple has already stated on more than one occasion that when parts were in shortage they were prioritizing iPhone manufacturing over iPad and Mac, so it makes sense that iPad and Mac were the products seeing the declines.

Presumably the same is true for capacity issues in shipping etc. caused by the lockdowns.
Lockdowns were a bigger factor. If you are in any Mac forums, you'd see people complaining about how their Macbook Pro orders are sometimes 4-6 months out in Q2. I don't think Apple records the revenue until actual shipment so they can't claim the revenue for Q2.
 

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,815
445
136
Has this been your observation, that people wanted Macbook Pros and Macbook Airs that they couldn't find?

Hasn't been mine.

People, especially CEOs, say things.
Yes. Anyone who ordered any Macbook that wasn't the base model would have had weeks to 6 months delay in shipping in Q1-Q2.

Base models were easy to find. Custom models were not. It's much better now though since China eased lockdowns.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
Macro forces are driving 80% of the decline in sales across discretionary sectors, it shows up every day. Any high cost high volume discretionary category is getting hit. In my experience the masses \ media \ analysts won't recognize the trend change until it's hit bottom, at which point the cognitive dissonance and inertia of the narrative will work in the opposite direction (thinking it's going to get worse when it's actually going to get better). We clearly aren't there yet.

Some recent news of import to the PC industry. Who are TSMCs three biggest customers? Apple, AMD, and Nvidia.


"It states that TSMC’s three biggest customers are backpedaling on future orders for wafer capacity. Apple has already begun production of the iPhone 14, but has already cut its “first wave” order of 90 million phones by 10 percent. AMD reduced its order for 7/6nm by 20,000 wafers for the fourth quarter as well. However, it states order volume for 5nm wafers for PCs and servers is unchanged. "




"...$1.64 billion in sales, a roughly 28% decrease from $2.3 billion in sales in 2021. "
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
187
116
Again, I will be pleasantly surprised if AMD’s quarter is any good. From all evidence channel inventory is backed up, which means fewer orders from customers. Maybe that impacts them next quarter instead, we’ll see. Keep in mind that in order to justify its valuation, AMD needs to show rapid year on year growth. It’s taking share from Intel, but is that enough to counter market reality post pandemic? I doubt it.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,536
4,171
136
also came with the idea of Ultrabooks.


You mean the Ultrabook concept that Intel announced in 2011, THREE YEARS after Apple introduced the Macbook Air, for which Apple had to ask Intel to create a different CPU packaging form factor just for them?

My impression at the time was that it was OEMs who wanted to sell thin and light laptops to compete with the Air who pressed Intel to create a platform for them, not some guy at Intel coming up with the "concept" and creating the market.

The Ultrabook is a great example of Intel leading from behind, and having no clue what consumers want but having to be pushed into the future kicking and screaming.
 

KompuKare

Golden Member
Jul 28, 2009
1,092
1,153
136
You mean the Ultrabook concept that Intel announced in 2011, THREE YEARS after Apple introduced the Macbook Air, for which Apple had to ask Intel to create a different CPU packaging form factor just for them?

My impression at the time was that it was OEMs who wanted to sell thin and light laptops to compete with the Air who pressed Intel to create a platform for them, not some guy at Intel coming up with the "concept" and creating the market.

The Ultrabook is a great example of Intel leading from behind, and having no clue what consumers want but having to be pushed into the future kicking and screaming.
I sure wish less customer had wanted that though, as thin and light has led to all kinds of straight-to-landfill anti-consumer and anti-repair things like soldered RAM, glued in batteries and soldered SSDs (the latter madness is thankfully mainly an Apple thing for now).

Hey, but everything is fine, apple.com/environment/ says so.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,311
10,809
136
I sure wish less customer had wanted that though, as thin and light has led to all kinds of straight-to-landfill anti-consumer and anti-repair things like soldered RAM, glued in batteries and soldered SSDs (the latter madness is thankfully mainly an Apple thing for now).

Hey, but everything is fine, apple.com/environment/ says so.


Also super-whiney loud fans on tiny pathetic heatsinks and the potential to put scorch-marks on your lap!
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,196
260
126
You mean the Ultrabook concept that Intel announced in 2011, THREE YEARS after Apple introduced the Macbook Air, for which Apple had to ask Intel to create a different CPU packaging form factor just for them?

Since we are talking Macbook Airs

1st Generation was a Failure and was announced Jan 2008 at Macworld. It was a failure due to price and not having a SSD on any model till you paid an insane amount of money, while the 5400 rpm hard drive in a small chassis was extremely slow. There was a Generation 1.5 released 9 months later Oct 2008 with a Nvidia Chipset which with much better Graphics and other goodies.

2nd Generation of Macbook Air was Oct 2010 with a redesign chassis, a much better cpu, gpu (battery life wise), and a SSD on every model for the base model now has SSD. Enormous Success, can't even nail down how much it changed the industry for it became the industry over time. And while the industry changed Apple kept most of the profits of the larget marketshare, and the non Macbook Airs really became Macbook Airs but bigger over time such as the Macbook Pro with Retina Display starting in 2012, June for the 15" and Oct for the 13".

Ultrabooks were announced at Computex May 2011, aka 6 months later. OEMs and Intel were not ready 4 months earlier at CES but they waited till 6 months later for OEMs operate in quarter cycles to introduce new models.

Ultrabooks was a semi-successful thing, but also was kind of a disappointing failure at the same time. It was good to create a standard and try to shape a market moving towards SSDs but also it was an all or nothing for Intel wanted to create only 1 halo brand instead of 2 halo brands targeting the 600 to 800 market (decent) and the 1000 market for the price of SSDs in 2011 pretty much put everyone in the 2011 market. This is why Intel did revision on Ultrabook requirements in later years with Intel 3rd Gen, and 4th Gen processors, and while the revisions were good the OEMs were already frustrated with Intel by that time. Likewise Intel was subsidizing somewhat the OEMs where they get early adopter fees / rebate fund hoping to get them to build enough of these Ultrabooks that economy of scale will kick in. (This Intel Ultrabook Fund of $300 million did not start till Oct 2011.) This Ultrabook fund was 300 million spent over several years, the entire computer industry (including servers) was 260 billion in 2011, aka almost 1 in 900 but also a time mismatch for the Ultrabook fund was over several years not a single year.

-----

In sum I am Amibvalent over the Ultrabook concept, it was an important idea, and it had both successes and flounders, and the best Ultrabook success wise was the Macbook Air who did it first and was not officially licensed by Intel and thus could not use the name. [ and Apple did not care since they created the concept ]

Creating the concept Ultrabook was Intel trying to create a standard to say all devices with the name Ultrabook are good and not those slow netbooks from 2007 to 2012 which had damage the brand for Intel was not doing a good job separating in the customer's mind yes this runs Windows, and yes this is small and portable, but anything with the name Atom is slower than dirt, yet these Intel Core chips when they had a SSD and 4gb of Ram they are actually very nice. And yes we require all Ultrabooks to be thin even though this was the counterproductive part of the name definition (but Intel was trying to "sculpt" the market, with the thinness requirement.)

Likewise Intel was also trying to make laptops lighter for while thinness was not consumer demanded weight was so they were experimenting with metal chassis which were more expensive then (this changed over a period of 10 years for everyone switched over to this equipment, but it was super expensive at first when the Macbook Air did this with the 2nd generation in 2010.) Intel did figure out very light and cheap plastic cases that were sturdy but none of the OEMs took Intel up on these new designs besides a couple of test laptops for while these plastic cases were good, they were plastic and Human culture at the time associated plastic with inferior quality but also not something one would want to show off to others and thus this paragraph I am writting now Intel learned was not what consumers wanted and Apple was right to invest in those expensive unibody aluminum machines.

( I am agreeing with Doug S but also saying it is more complicated this time in the past )
 
Last edited:

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
25,789
14,822
136
Again, I will be pleasantly surprised if AMD’s quarter is any good. From all evidence channel inventory is backed up, which means fewer orders from customers. Maybe that impacts them next quarter instead, we’ll see. Keep in mind that in order to justify its valuation, AMD needs to show rapid year on year growth. It’s taking share from Intel, but is that enough to counter market reality post pandemic? I doubt it.
Well, the data is here, and its another record quarter for AMD , so you are wrong. 70% growth Y/Y ? Thats insane.
 

Captante

Lifer
Oct 20, 2003
30,311
10,809
136
Intel may have the fastest/best desktop CPU's at the moment but as far as servers go it's still all AMD all the time especially if you take price vs performance into account.

To be fair to Intel keep in mind re the "loss" is that Intel still has a vastly larger market-share then AMD outside of enthusiast-circles.

Most non-tech folks have MAYBE heard the name AMD that's it.
 

TheELF

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2012
3,998
745
126
Well, the data is here, and its another record quarter for AMD , so you are wrong. 70% growth Y/Y ? Thats insane.
Y/Y 37% lower net income with 70% higher revenue...record quarter...That really IS insane.
Net income ($M)$447$710Down 37%
Phew, what do you guys think, does this operating expense increase already include a bunch of new ZEN 4 production?
Because if that is still to come it's not going to be pretty.
Operating expenses ($M)$2,508$1,000Up 151%
 

turtile

Senior member
Aug 19, 2014
618
296
136
Y/Y 37% lower net income with 70% higher revenue...record quarter...That really IS insane.
Net income ($M)$447$710Down 37%
Phew, what do you guys think, does this operating expense increase already include a bunch of new ZEN 4 production?
Because if that is still to come it's not going to be pretty.
Operating expenses ($M)$2,508$1,000Up 151%

Isn't that from the cost of the Xilinx acquisition? In that case, it's just a great tax write off.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
187
116
The thing about AMD's growth so far is that its supply so far was dwarfed by the market demand, to the point AMD was essentially able to plan a steady high growth since it knew it wouldn't be able to satisfy all demand for quite some time to come despite all the growth. Now that market demand is going down, also for AMD, but when will AMD hit the point its supply matches or surpassed the actual demand? I think that's still off for some time, especially with the next gen of server chips being around the corner.

The hard thing for Intel is that it comes from the opposite end: It can't really gain market shares. It would need to expand the market itself. But the market is shrinking instead, while Intel is losing market share on top of it.

Agreed. Intel has a hard path ahead.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
187
116
Looking more closely, not all positive. Net income and gross margin are down, net income by a wide margin. Much better than Intel, but not great. Down 5% after hours.

96A2826A-00DA-428D-B5E4-C3D13966CDEC.jpeg
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,536
4,171
136
Since we are talking Macbook Airs

1st Generation was a Failure and was announced Jan 2008 at Macworld. It was a failure due to price and not having a SSD on any model till you paid an insane amount of money, while the 5400 rpm hard drive in a small chassis was extremely slow.


SSDs were not ready for prime time in Jan. 2008. The Intel X25M was the first SSD that didn't absolutely suck, and it came out a year later.

You might as well say the original iPod was a failure because it used a hard drive instead of flash. Yeah, it was a better product when it used flash, but that wasn't an option when it was introduced.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scannall

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,063
4,299
136
Looking more closely, not all positive. Net income and gross margin are down, net income by a wide margin. Much better than Intel, but not great. Down 5% after hours.

View attachment 65265

While this is certainly not the AMD earnings thread (so I hesitated to respond), you'll note AMD did not change full year guidance. This includes margins, so the margin dip appears to be temporary.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,196
260
126
SSDs were not ready for prime time in Jan. 2008. The Intel X25M was the first SSD that didn't absolutely suck, and it came out a year later.

You might as well say the original iPod was a failure because it used a hard drive instead of flash. Yeah, it was a better product when it used flash, but that wasn't an option when it was introduced.
Yeah and my point is you should not claim a 3 year lag, when it was a 6 month lag.