Question Intel Q2 Results - Terrible

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

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.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
187
116
Thinking about this some more, this is really a remarkable crisis for Intel. A good turnaround needs a hard reality. Intel needs to get themselves in order fast. A lot of axes will fall I think, unfortunately, on Intel management.
 

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,129
15,274
136
Thinking about this some more, this is really a remarkable crisis for Intel. A good turnaround needs a hard reality. Intel needs to get themselves in order fast. A lot of axes will fall I think, unfortunately, on Intel management.
I have said this for YEARS here, that Intel needs to stop relying on their reputation or bad things will happen. NO I don't think they will go under, but it may be time for the monopoly to end, and be a 50-50 race, and thats only if they get their act together in the next couple of years. I mean Alder lake has a few strenghts, but a lot of weaknesses also, and using it in their SPR server chip is hurting badly, hence them being like 2 years late.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,744
4,670
136
Yeah and my point is you should not claim a 3 year lag, when it was a 6 month lag.

You're redefining when the Macbook Air was introduced based on standards unique to you to try to excuse Intel's total failure to recognize market trends? Whatever you need to do to defend them I guess.
 

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,095
2,635
106
glued in batteries
Please check your facts before commenting. The batteries in the MacBook Air 2022 and MacBook Pro 2021 are not glued in.
Apple includes pull tabs to remove the batteries and they come out cleanly and safely with no damage.
1659486336462.png
2021 MBP
1659487104450.png

1659487491475.png
2022 MBA.
Source: iFixit.


Valve is considered to be a company that does no wrong among the PC community and let's see how their portable products are.
The Steam Deck has a glued in battery with no pull strips and is nearly impossible to remove
and can also cause a safety hazard as you need a heatgun. Valve could have used pull tabs like Apple like they do on their ultrabooks and iPhones.
Last time I checked you don't need a heatgun to remove batteries on Apple's laptops and iPhones.

Didn't gamers/consumers want a replaceable battery in the Steam deck? If so then why did Valve glue it in.

1659487546608.png
Source: iFixit
Apparently Valve is eco friendly that they did not use plastic in the packaging of the Deck but they somehow glued the batteries in. Valve okayed this knowing it would impact the environment.

This forum has the Apple "evil" mentality and everyone else doesn't do the things Apple do and it's makes you look silly to put it nicely.
oh other companies do "evil" things but they don't get the clicks like Apple does.
_______________________

Going back on topic Intel is a failure of a company now. It really needs to gets it act together and Raptor Lake is looking like a fail in terms of actual meaning improvements. Just more e-cores to pump up Cinebench scores with no proper IPC. I know it always meant be like this but Intel is just playing catch up with AMD until late 2023.
 
Last edited:

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,433
229
106
You will see a downturn there as well, it will be milder and will happen later.

Have you used an iPhone 13? I have a pro max and it outclasses every other phone I have owned. It is no surprise to me they are selling like hot cakes.

Serious question as I am a dual platform user and have used 8/11/12, what make 13 so special?
 

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
You're redefining when the Macbook Air was introduced based on standards unique to you to try to excuse Intel's total failure to recognize market trends? Whatever you need to do to defend them I guess.

That wasn't my point anyway. Samsung is a follower and they are doing great in the Smartphone market. Also inventing a category is good, but you can do better in revisions.

You have companies like Framework that has replaceable motherboards and they sell replacements for every part. You have many mini PC vendors coming up. It's ripe with new ideas even though it's a very established market. The mentality Apple has towards repair is still pretty bad by the way.

You may complain about the market created by Ultrabooks but it did result in higher quality systems and sort of stemmed the tide into more and more Netbooks. Yes it didn't get as big as they expected but now we see the benefits. I am a big fan of ultra light(2.5lbs or under) convertible laptops for example. You've got many more choices into form factors than you did then. Also note that the average joe consumers don't care about the things we do.

What do you call the super light and portable systems aimed for the Japanese market? Did Apple really invent it or they did they market it really well so people think they did? Previous to Airs and Ultrabooks no company in NA cared to make one. Yet in Japan the local companies did because their people liked very portable systems. Laptops like Portege way predate the Macbook Air.

We have lots more choices now. That's why Apple vs rest argument still exist. Even Apple is another choice.

Anyway if everyone is smart, no one is. If everything is innovative then none are. The truly innovative thinkers are often once in a generation thing. Steve Jobs did a good thing. But now he's dead and gone!

Maloney would have resulted in a far better result for them. But it did not work out. Now Pat has to work first to reverse the decline rather than in the alternate timeline where he could have spent all the time strengthening it.
 
Last edited:

mikegg

Golden Member
Jan 30, 2010
1,835
459
136
I have said this for YEARS here, that Intel needs to stop relying on their reputation or bad things will happen. NO I don't think they will go under, but it may be time for the monopoly to end, and be a 50-50 race, and thats only if they get their act together in the next couple of years. I mean Alder lake has a few strenghts, but a lot of weaknesses also, and using it in their SPR server chip is hurting badly, hence them being like 2 years late.
Once again, I wonder why you keep making it sound like you're the only one who saw Intel's problems on the internet. People were bearish on Intel on any tech forum on the internet. Literally everyone was saying the same as you about Intel.

Everyone knew Intel was in trouble and that COVID gave them 2 more years of growth that they really didn't deserve.
 

Doug S

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2020
2,744
4,670
136
That wasn't my point anyway. Samsung is a follower and they are doing great in the Smartphone market. Also inventing a category is good, but you can do better in revisions.

You have companies like Framework that has replaceable motherboards and they sell replacements for every part. You have many mini PC vendors coming up. It's ripe with new ideas even though it's a very established market. The mentality Apple has towards repair is still pretty bad by the way.

You may complain about the market created by Ultrabooks but it did result in higher quality systems and sort of stemmed the tide into more and more Netbooks. Yes it didn't get as big as they expected but now we see the benefits. I am a big fan of ultra light(2.5lbs or under) convertible laptops for example. You've got many more choices into form factors than you did then. Also note that the average joe consumers don't care about the things we do.

What do you call the super light and portable systems aimed for the Japanese market? Did Apple really invent it or they did they market it really well so people think they did? Previous to Airs and Ultrabooks no company in NA cared to make one. Yet in Japan the local companies did because their people liked very portable systems. Laptops like Portege way predate the Macbook Air.

We have lots more choices now. That's why Apple vs rest argument still exist. Even Apple is another choice.

Anyway if everyone is smart, no one is. If everything is innovative then none are. The truly innovative thinkers are often once in a generation thing. Steve Jobs did a good thing. But now he's dead and gone!

Maloney would have resulted in a far better result for them. But it did not work out. Now Pat has to work first to reverse the decline rather than in the alternate timeline where he could have spent all the time strengthening it.


I wasn't necessarily trying to claim Apple invented the category - they are the best there is at being a "better follower" and taking something others have done half assed and refining it into something people want. That's what the iPod, iPhone, and iPad are after all.

I was just replying to the claim that some guy at Intel (who the poster thought would have done a better job as CEO than Krzanich) "invented Ultrabooks" when no one at Intel did anything of the sort. Whether Steve Jobs invented the concept or got the idea from seeing mini-notebooks in Japan is irrelevant to my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: scineram

Markfw

Moderator Emeritus, Elite Member
May 16, 2002
26,129
15,274
136
Once again, I wonder why you keep making it sound like you're the only one who saw Intel's problems on the internet. People were bearish on Intel on any tech forum on the internet. Literally everyone was saying the same as you about Intel.

Everyone knew Intel was in trouble and that COVID gave them 2 more years of growth that they really didn't deserve.
Well, maybe you didn't see the roasting I got from several posters that did not believe as we do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drazick

IntelUser2000

Elite Member
Oct 14, 2003
8,686
3,786
136
Intel canceling ARC wouldn't really surprise given their history with GPUs. And with ARC I mean the gaming architecture not the compute/datacenter products. The gaming part however always has the benefit of getting some more money from the same core R&D but also incurs additional cost. Not sure it is a net positive.

The enterprise retreat typically fails. Because the volume is not there and they treat like there's less requirement by the customers. By surviving the fiery test that is client, where you have to perfect multiple disciplines including price and perf/w, you get a longer term success out of it. The enterprise being derived from it is a bonus.

Remember what happened in the server market too. The Xeon MPs were substantially behind the client chips. And I mean not like today you can spin it off as HEDT after increasing clocks by 20%. No, you were talking 1.5GHz Xeons while Pentium 4's were at 3GHz. Aside from large banks that require multiple CPUs, high memory capacities and TPC-C workloads they were really slow. Anandtech couldn't show the benefits back then.

Back when there was more graphics vendors some older guys like 3DLabs wanted to enter by using enterprise GPUs. Where are they now? Nvidia took over all. Gaming cards gobbled up SGI workstations that were using CPUs for 3D work. That was in the 3dFX era where 90% of the effects were done at fraction of the cost. When you are constrained like that the human mind thinks of alternate ways and that turns into innovation.

With server CPUs that all changed starting with Nehalem and culminating in Xeon E5 chips in the Sandy Bridge era. The server chips were no longer crippled chips. Sure they were slower in client workloads, but within reach. See how the many cores era is moving the market away from 4 and 8P to 2P and even single processors!

So the enterprise benefitted from taking advances from client, not the other way around. It was starting in the Nehalem era when their marketshare grew. It took them over a decade to get the marketshare by making good choices. They didn't have that overnight. Never happens that way. It wasn't just the QPI and IMC part. It was the features like single thread performance and high clocks needed for client because they raise all boats and doesn't benefit niche cases. Now their server chips are used everywhere. And why they have high clock versions.

So I hope the new management has foresight to deal with this and keep the gaming GPU line. Because I assure you if they don't they'll pull ALL dGPU efforts in a few years.
 
Last edited:

poke01

Platinum Member
Mar 8, 2022
2,095
2,635
106
I said that. And without his push we wouldn't have the Ultrabook category at all. Plus he was said to be few in the company who thought mobile devices would be a thing while most at Intel were content with success of Core.
It was really Apple that really pushed the ultrabook to popular levels with the MacBook Air in 2008.
Linus Torvalds used the Macbook Air back then because it was the only thin and light around.
 

pakotlar

Senior member
Aug 22, 2003
731
187
116
On topic: interested in seeing what this materializes as
Server compute GPUs are completely different from gaming gpus now. There shouldn't be much of an overlap.

I think it would be really said if they avoided a high margin market (gaming and mining gpus) simply because they couldnt be bothered to fix consumer gpu drivers, especially given that they cannot get away from making APUs with built in GPUs, unless they get out of laptops. I would hope they could unify dGPU and iGPU drivers.
 

eek2121

Diamond Member
Aug 2, 2005
3,100
4,398
136
Serious question as I am a dual platform user and have used 8/11/12, what make 13 so special?

Battery life. Brighter screen. Smaller notch. Better cameras. My 12 Pro Max would barely last a day. My 13 Pro Max lasts 1.5-2 days.

Anyways, it is good to see AMD doing well as we move into a recession, but I am personally concerned about their launch schedule. Genoa and Bergamo aren’t dropping until next year, and Zen 5 in any chip won’t land until 2024. A lot will happen between now and then, and I expect that on the desktop side of things AMD will have issues with Intel.
 

desrever

Member
Nov 6, 2021
170
452
106
Battery life. Brighter screen. Smaller notch. Better cameras. My 12 Pro Max would barely last a day. My 13 Pro Max lasts 1.5-2 days.

Anyways, it is good to see AMD doing well as we move into a recession, but I am personally concerned about their launch schedule. Genoa and Bergamo aren’t dropping until next year, and Zen 5 in any chip won’t land until 2024. A lot will happen between now and then, and I expect that on the desktop side of things AMD will have issues with Intel.
Desktop is dead during recession.
 

shady28

Platinum Member
Apr 11, 2004
2,520
397
126
The 15-year period requirement is strictly for tax purposes and is not required for GAAP reporting and most companies won't follow a 15 year schedule for financial reporting purposes. Companies determine themselves both the schedule and method of amortization in financial reporting. Without knowing what they are amortizing or the method, it's impossible to know how this line item will be handled going forward. For instance, even if they decided to have a 15 year amortization schedule for these expenses, they could choose to do a declining balance method and heavily front load the cost such that it gets reported over 15 years but the vast majority of the cost is reported in the first few quarters and becomes basically negligible after that. We have no idea how it is structured or what value AMD is placing on these intangibles. I absolutely do not expect AMD to keep a heavy amortization line item for 15 years from these acquisitions. They'll most likely want to get them off the books sooner than later so most likely they will front load the costs but stop short of reporting an operating loss. I'd be very surprised if they have report high numbers on this line item for more than a few quarters.

With that said, this is completely irrelevant from the point I was making. The point is, that while companies can use non-GAAP to put together some shady numbers sometimes (and even GAAP isn't immune), it is easy to see why the GAAP and non-GAAP numbers for AMD are so different this quarter and it makes sense why they are reporting non-GAAP the way they are. They are using it to show how the business performed without the costs of the recent M&A included which is very useful information. I'm not going to go into the small details of AMD's earnings report in an Intel thread so if you want to continue to discuss AMD, I suggest you post about it in that thread, but what AMD's results do show us is that they were able to take market share from Intel, especially again, in the more lucrative markets. The macro environment effected Intel and AMD very differently and so it gives light to Intel's own earnings report.

You can leave the "we" part out of that, that's you that thinks you don't know and that would be because you haven't looked.

You might want to look up what Additional Paid in Capital means before you speak.


1659540421883.png

1659540471591.png

1659540522576.png

The idea that you are going to count amortized depreciation of non-tangible assets over time as if it were income is ridiculous.

What Lisa Su has done here is basically hose AMD shareholders. She's diluted the stock by 34%, effectively making the stock holders pay an enormous sum (~35B) using new shares (dilution) for a company (Xilinx) whose revenue was only 3.2B/year and profit was around 0.32B/year, and brought in another 1.5B in debt.

Xilinx would need 100 years - literally - of its 2021 profit to break even on that deal. And its 2021 profit was down from 2020.

What this tells me, personally, is that AMD sees its shareholders as something to be used not as co-owners. Xilinx didn't cost AMD anything, because it was able to use its stock as a piggy bank. The result was a 55% loss in share value at its bottom, and now it is 'only' down about 40% and its real EPS is down 58%.

There's another company that did this recently when emotional people invested in it and drove its shares to stupid levels - AMC.