Intels in trouble..

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Eureka

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
3,822
1
81
Intel is doing fine on the business side of things, clearly. You can't misinterpret their massive revenue.

However, speaking to the future, I hope we don't start accepting "good enough" when it comes to CPUs, not until compute reaches a FLOP density orders of magnitude higher than current designs.

/Anxious for Haswell

The problem is, we've reached the good enough for consumer use, which is likely to be held for a long time now until some major breakthrough forces everyone to upgrade. What does Ivy Bridge or Haswell do for Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, or League of Legends that a fast Core 2 Quad can't? There's nothing driving advancement in terms of desktop processing power, other than people wanting to upgrade. The push is towards efficiency, with devices shrinking. Take the ultrabook... charging $1000 for what's basically C2D-level of performance with these ULV processors. You still have scientific and ethusiast users who still demand raw power, but the big market, the teeming billions of consumers, want longer battery life, lighter devices and the ability to perform basic tasks on their devices, not raw FLOP performance.
 

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
i find it funny how everyone tries to interpret what i they think i am saying.

The point im trying to make here is that for the first time in history nearly every game is going to be made for AMD technology Both GPU and CPU. Intel may sit at the top due to its single threaded advantage today but do you think its a coincidence that the consoles are both getting 8 core CPU's? There has to be some strategy here from AMD.

Intels superior single threaded performance really starts to become less relevant when all games have 8 threads. Plus they are going to be optimised for AMD from the ground up. For the first time games are being made for AMD and AMD alone.

Intels market is shrinking already and they have nothing in the mobile space and have nearly no partners in the tablet space either. No way can intel maintain 60% margins going forward.

So if mobile belongs to ARM and then maybe gaming goes to AMD (obviously speculation) Intel is basically going to have to go after low end laptops and the server market?

If intels prospects were so healthy then its share price wouldnt be down 33% in 1 year i suppose?
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
So if mobile belongs to ARM and then maybe gaming goes to AMD (obviously speculation) Intel is basically going to have to go after low end laptops and the server market?

Delirium would be a more adequate term.
 

MaxPayne63

Senior member
Dec 19, 2011
682
0
0
Clearly AMD has Intel exactly where they want them. Bleeding money and staff all these years was just a very clever ruse.
 

fixbsod

Senior member
Jan 25, 2012
415
0
0
Winning the console war means less today than ever. Console relevancy is continuing to diminish but at a FASTER pace than the desktop --> portable/mobile transition happening in the PC market. Still a feather in AMD's cap, but no doubt a result of their focus on cheaper, more economical products than intel.
 

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
Winning the console war means less today than ever. Console relevancy is continuing to diminish but at a FASTER pace than the desktop --> portable/mobile transition happening in the PC market. Still a feather in AMD's cap, but no doubt a result of their focus on cheaper, more economical products than intel.

270 million consoles disagree with this point. Also the decline is end of cycle decline and until the next gen goes on sales we cant tell if its actually declining.

Id say desktops are in far more trouble than consoles. I love my desktop PC but apart from play PC games on it it barely gets used these days.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
270 million consoles disagree with this point. Also the decline is end of cycle decline and until the next gen goes on sales we cant tell if its actually declining.

Id say desktops are in far more trouble than consoles. I love my desktop PC but apart from play PC games on it it barely gets used these days.


Looks to me that PC gaming is fine:
Picture12.png

Picture21.png
 
Last edited:

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,578
9,268
136
intel is shrinking power useage. Thats it. Haswell is going to be a bust for the gaming market and the desktop market as a whole and IPC wont really move much either. When was the last Intel Powermove? Conroe? Nehalem?

Did we read the same reviews? Because I'm pretty sure everyone except the frothing fanboys saw the Sandy Bridge line-up completely pummel the competition, with many benchmarks showing the i3-2100 outpace everything in AMD's stable. AMD's Bulldozer then failed to bulldoze its predecessor let alone the competition.

Intel have led the way since the Core 2 Duo's debut.

AMD has one possible interesting lead in the 'low end gaming' category, but that's hardly an area of massive market share expansion. AMD landing a console deal (maybe more than one) is good for its bottom line as well, though if Sony acts anything like Apple does, AMD shouldn't hope for much profit from it.

Don't get me wrong, I sincerely hope AMD becomes competitive again. PC users would have been screwed if it wasn't for AMD in the days of the Athlon 64/Pentium 4, and the Phenom II was a reasonable alternative price-wise to Intel's offerings if one wasn't looking for top-of-the-line performance.
 
Last edited:

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
Looks to me that PC gaming is fine:
Picture12.png

Picture21.png

Sorry i know PC gaming is healthy but desktops in general arent.

I think i said earlier that the gaming PC is important to intel and thats kind of my whole point here.

If AMD can use the consoles to match or beat intel in 3D gaming for the PC then thats a nice market for AMD to make some money. Their GPU's are already very good and they will get even better for this next gen phase.

AMD is about to shape the next generation of games for the next 7 years at least.
 

Charles Kozierok

Elite Member
May 14, 2012
6,762
1
0
The point im trying to make here is that for the first time in history nearly every game is going to be made for AMD technology Both GPU and CPU.

Yes, you keep saying that. And everyone keeps telling you that it doesn't bloody matter.

Intel may sit at the top due to its single threaded advantage today but do you think its a coincidence that the consoles are both getting 8 core CPU's? There has to be some strategy here from AMD.

Yes -- it's called "get a deal, any deal, where people buy lots of our CPUs, so we have a prayer of surviving another year".

Intels superior single threaded performance really starts to become less relevant when all games have 8 threads.

Which.. they don't.

And gaming is not the bulk of Intel's market. Never has been.

Plus they are going to be optimised for AMD from the ground up. For the first time games are being made for AMD and AMD alone.

Snore. You keep making this ridiculous claim also.

You actually think any sane game developer is going to make anything that runs on AMD x86 chips but not Intel ones?!

Intels market is shrinking already and they have nothing in the mobile space and have nearly no partners in the tablet space either. No way can intel maintain 60% margins going forward.

And now you're just making stuff up.

If intels prospects were so healthy then its share price wouldnt be down 33% in 1 year i suppose?

And AMD's stock price collapsing 70% in one year is somehow a sign of great financial health?


This thread is a joke.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
Sorry i know PC gaming is healthy but desktops in general arent.

I think i said earlier that the gaming PC is important to intel and thats kind of my whole point here.

If AMD can use the consoles to match or beat intel in 3D gaming for the PC then thats a nice market for AMD to make some money. Their GPU's are already very good and they will get even better for this next gen phase.

AMD is about to shape the next generation of games for the next 7 years at least.

You still dont have any idea what you talk about do you? Reread the thread, there are plenty of corrections on your delusional views.

Let me give you the last hint. x86 code runs faster on AMD CPUs using the Intel compiler than any other compiler.
 

Fx1

Golden Member
Aug 22, 2012
1,215
5
81
You still dont have any idea what you talk about do you? Reread the thread, there are plenty of corrections on your delusional views.

Let me give you the last hint. x86 code runs faster on AMD CPUs using the Intel compiler than any other compiler.

Well no one can tell the future but im going to save this thread for when things start to change. Ill come back and say i told you so :)
 

Pheesh

Member
May 31, 2012
138
0
0
i find it funny how everyone tries to interpret what i they think i am saying.
I know what you are saying, but in your enthusiasm you are taking it too far, and making too grandiose conclusions about it. It is really good to see that AMD has a play here, but you're extrapolating so much and taking it so far.
Understand that people have said what you are saying now, with as much conviction about numerous 'market shifts' that were bigger than the one you have attached yourself to here. They have been wrong for a host of reasons, usually because they look at the markets too simplistically.
The point im trying to make here is that for the first time in history nearly every game is going to be made for AMD technology Both GPU and CPU. Intel may sit at the top due to its single threaded advantage today but do you think its a coincidence that the consoles are both getting 8 core CPU's? There has to be some strategy here from AMD.

Intels superior single threaded performance really starts to become less relevant when all games have 8 threads. Plus they are going to be optimised for AMD from the ground up. For the first time games are being made for AMD and AMD alone.
That's a good thing for AMD and it gives them a play going forward, but there is really no barrier of entry for Intel to excel at more cores.
Many console games will be made for the specific configurations of those consoles, some of those will be ported to PC and maintain some optimizations that utilize more threads. But a lot of optimizations for those consoles aren't going to translate to the PC market since they are specific to the configurations of those consoles, and those that do will most often benefit both. More use of threading is ultimately good for both AMD and Intel. It may actually drive more demand to Intel's higher end desktop offerings that otherwise wouldn't be as strong. Intel isn't exactly a fish out of water here..

Intels market is shrinking already and they have nothing in the mobile space and have nearly no partners in the tablet space either. No way can intel maintain 60% margins going forward.

So if mobile belongs to ARM and then maybe gaming goes to AMD (obviously speculation) Intel is basically going to have to go after low end laptops and the server market?

I'm not sure you understand what the mobile space is unless you think it means mobile phone. Intel has a large presence in mobile, and Haswell with it's emphasis on lower power consumption is completely targeted towards the mobile market. There is no barrier to entry for Intel to make headway in tablets, nor can you assume that there is going to be clear divides going forward between a 'tablet' and a 'laptop'. Increasingly people want a product that functions as both a tablet and a traditional laptop (i.e. any of the early convertible designs out there). Intel has a clear play there with the x86 software ecosystem. ARM is increasingly having to increase performance to keep up, while Intel is scaling down and are improving drastically in power consumption (if early indication of haswell are true).
 
Feb 20, 2013
28
0
0
I agree with what people are saying;

Intel is in no trouble at all. It's just they focus on a different section of the market all together. AMD is the one in real trouble here, since even their own video cards perform slightly better on an Intel platform verses there own...
 

pyjujiop

Senior member
Mar 17, 2001
243
0
76
So intel is getting killed in mobile also desktops and laptops are in decline...
I think you're going to find that the supposed demise of standard PC's is greatly exaggerated.

Gaming PC's are growing and intel just let AMD put a 8 core x86 64 bit CPU inside every Sony and MS console...

Does anyone else see that this is going to hurt intel when every game under development from 2013 onward is going to be coded for AMD CPU's and GPU's
Every game under development is going to be coded for x86-64 CPU's. I believe Intel makes those too.

We have seen just how much difference in FPS there is when you code for AMD or Nvidia bias. In Dirt a 7970 can match a Nvidia Titan!
And once Nvidia gets its drivers mature for the Titan, I bet that will no longer be the case. A 7970 was noticeably slower than a 680 until AMD got the drivers correct. You can't compare a one-day-old card to a one-year-old one from a driver standpoint.

I wonder if this same bias can be had when coding for the CPU also? Game developers are about to become VERY friendly with AMD architecture for both CPU & GPU..

I really hope this does help AMD because everyone wins when intel gets owned like the days of P4.

AMD has 8 core parts on the market today and intel wants you to pay for hexacore CPU's for its weight in gold..
AMD has 8-core parts on the market today that are no faster than Intel's quad-core mainstream part. Intel's hexacore parts are much faster than an FX-8350, which is why they cost more. And gamer developers already code with AMD in mind, which is why games like BF3 and Crysis 3 exist that can fully utilize eight-core FX CPU's.

Look, I own an FX-8350, but I'm honest about what it is. It trades blows with a 3570K. AMD has a lot of work to do if it ever plans to challenge Intel again. Those console wins are a big deal for them and will bring in much-needed revenue. But they're not a threat to Intel's position. AMD needs to make a quantum leap forward technologically, like the original Athlon and Athlon 64 parts, to threaten Intel.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
And if I find a way to turn stupid forum threads into gold, I'll be rich.
I have been trying to refrain from replying to this thread, but I can't stand it any longer.
The ops posts are so full of fallicies that I can't even keep straight what he is saying, but I will address a couple of things.

First, he is vastly overestimating the impact of the gaming market on PC sales. Unfortunately for us PC gamers, anything more intensive than Facebook/casual games is a small part of the total PC/server market.

Secondly, he somehow thinks that console ports will somehow run on amd cpus only. What is amds portion of the desktop, maybe 35pct?

Does he really think that a developer that ports a console game to the PC will eliminate 2 thirds of his market by making it run poorly on Intel processors?
 

MisterMac

Senior member
Sep 16, 2011
777
0
0
If you figure that out then you need to talk to Anand, seriously he's pondering the same damn thing. He'd probably make you a senior partner :D

Well - i'm quite sure this will happen just around the same time FX1 digs up this thread and says " i told you so!".


That would coincide fairly well - with all the money Anand would then make to invest into AMD's future success ;)
 

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
FX1 is right guys. Since the IBM cell processor (as it was used in the PS3) is obviously featured in every mobile product on the planet, we can see how the PS3 influenced all electronics manufacturers to switch to cell processing. Following that line of thinking I fully expect every macbook on the planet to feature a full 8 core bulldozer processor henceforth.

Sent via tapatalk on my cell processor phone
 
Status
Not open for further replies.