Intel's response to RyZen.

[Arachnotronic]

"Special promotions and incentive rebates" are what cost them 1 billion and 1.4 billion respectively in the past....

So you are saying Intel should not cut prices for customers in response to competition and should instead keep prices where they are and let AMD undercut them.

Riiiighhht. I'm starting to think the whole, "competition is good for the consumer" spiel I've been hearing has really just been, "we want AMD to provide products so I don't have to buy them from Intel."

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, but I wish they wouldn't mask what they actually mean.

 

[SlickR12345]

LOL at people saying 4 cores is enough. That is laughable. Pretty much every program these days takes advantage of as many cores as available, most games as well are starting to benefit from more cores.

We've been stuck on 4 cores for the past 7 years, its time for 8 cores to become mainstream!

 

[formulav8]

So you are saying Intel should not cut prices for customers in response to competition and should instead keep prices where they are and let AMD undercut them.

He probably means how Intel used to do it for OEMs to limit or not even use AMD. Not sure the rebates/cuts given to the computer makers are passed to the customers that often. There is a difference.

 

[french toast]

I thought competition was good for the consumer? Isn't lower prices/incentives exactly what competition should drive?

-1 like

 

[bjt2]

I thought competition was good for the consumer? Isn't lower prices/incentives exactly what competition should drive?

Lower prices only if you don't buy AMD is blackmail.
Lower prices inconditionally is sane competition.

 

[scannall]

Lower prices only if you don't buy AMD is blackmail.
Lower prices unconditionally is sane competition.

That's it exactly. OEM's have been taking it in the shorts from both Intel and Microsoft for a decade or more. The lions share of profit goes to them, with small scraps for the OEM. One reason your shiny new computer comes with so much bloatware, is the OEM's trying to monetize their sales a little better.

 

[Glo.]

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/835585680554196992

 

[AnandThenMan]

"Special promotions and incentive rebates" are what cost them 1 billion and 1.4 billion respectively in the past....

I'm sure Intel considers such fines a good investment, meaning they will keep up the same tactics until it doesn't make financial sense.

https://twitter.com/BitsAndChipsEng/status/835585680554196992

Chop chop, we win.

 

[Crumpet]

I'm sure Intel considers such fines a good investment, meaning they will keep up the same tactics until it doesn't make financial sense.

Chop chop, we win.

That might be the problem, maybe they won't stop until countries start barring them from trading.. And then we all lose.

 

[eddiechi]

Where did this pmurphy post come from?

 

[Crumpet]

Where did this pmurphy post come from?

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-fear-intel-ryzen-reprisal

Top comment

 

[eddiechi]

surprised at the lack of comments on this post but this comment stood out......

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...1924a011ddfcd1a41b1c3ee5742885b96d387113b.png

 

[Yakk]

"Special promotions and incentive rebates" are what cost them 1 billion and 1.4 billion respectively in the past....

Wouldn't be surprised if Intel took a $5 billion fine on the chin in order to secure $50+ billion for the next 10 years to let them overcharg their customers who will have no choice.

Intel can definitely out spend AMD into the ground, it's more a matter of cost for them and who would replace AMD as their official "competition".

 

[Yakk]

surprised at the lack of comments on this post but this comment stood out......

https://uploads.disquscdn.com/image...1924a011ddfcd1a41b1c3ee5742885b96d387113b.png

That's pretty common in the industry...

 

[AnandThenMan]

Wouldn't be surprised if Intel took a $5 billion fine on the chin in order to secure $50+ billion for the next 10 years to let them overcharge their customers who will have no choice.

Wouldn't surprise me either. The question being, how thin is the ice Intel is skating on. If they go too far they may end up with a government foot up their ***.

 

[itsmydamnation]

Intel can definitely out spend AMD into the ground, it's more a matter of cost for them and who would replace AMD as their official "competition".

I wonder what Mubadala/UAE would have to say about this, OPEC wants to cut oil production, UAE hasn't been im sure they would look out for their investments, "Hi small hands, like oil prices where they are? Then please stop your companies being anti competitive D***s to our investments, k thax".

Alternatively GF could give AMD wafers at a reduced price and AMD could see at 30 % GP and then that would be an absolute blood bath for intel, funny thing is this would probably still be an improvement in financial position for AMD.

I think a lot of people are failing to understand the OPEX position of both companies.

Or we could all be a little less melodramatic........

 

[Arachnotronic]

I think a lot of people are failing to understand the OPEX position of both companies.

Or we could all be a little less melodramatic........

I think a lot of the people who point to Intel's higher opex forget that this opex isn't spent without purpose.

 

[itsmydamnation]

I think a lot of the people who point to Intel's higher opex forget that this opex isn't spent without purpose.

Sure it is, that's called inefficiencies, when your a 500lb gorilla who hasn't had much in the way of competition, you tend to have a lot of it.

So what value does that other 100k of employees add when a 10K employee company can produce a single SOC that will complete with you from high-end desktop to 32 core , 2P servers. Thats only like 20-25B USD TAM and then the next SOC (RavenRidge) is going to compete with you for the other ~20-25 billion TAM.

If intel has to drop is price across all its CPU based segments by 15% and doesn't lose total shipment numbers without reducing OPEX or manufacturing costs intel no longer makes a profit....

59 bill rev
23 bill cost of rev
23 bill opex
2 bill tax

10 bill bottom line


50 bill rev ( -15%)
23 bill cost of rev ( assumes same manufacture rate)
23 bill opex
no idea about tax 1 bill?

3 bill bottom line.

If AMD can complete in all major markets it is a problem for intel.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Sure it is, that's called inefficiencies, when your a 500lb gorilla who hasn't had much in the way of competition, you tend to have a lot of it.

So what value does that other 100k of employees add when a 10K employee company can produce a single SOC that will complete with you from high-end desktop to 32 core , 2P servers. Thats only like 20-25B USD TAM and then the next SOC (RavenRidge) is going to compete with you for the other ~20-25 billion TAM.

Is this a rhetorical question or are you really interested in the answer?

 

[Sven_eng]

I think a lot of the people who point to Intel's higher opex forget that this opex isn't spent without purpose.

But everybody can see it's being spent without results.

PC and datacenter was the only thing Intel ever won in and now they are even...where is all that money going?

 

[itsmydamnation]

Is this a rhetorical question or are you really interested in the answer?

of course i know. But the simple fact remains AMD is very lean, has a competitive uarch and being a foundry customer is a big advantage to AMD relitive to AMD position in the early 2000's.

It would be very hard and bloody for intel to "crush" AMD in this market and with those facts.

Thus my statement about being less melodramatic.

 

[Grooveriding]

I'm sure Intel considers such fines a good investment, meaning they will keep up the same tactics until it doesn't make financial sense.

Chop chop, we win.

$699 for 6900K is still too much imo. If the 1800X is on parity to 6900K, I'm not seeing how it justifies $200 more just because Intel. Particularly because HEDT motherboards are expensive and you need to buy a 4 piece kit of RAM.

If this is even true, maybe they are just testing the waters for now, seeing if it will sell. HEDT is an enthusiast chip though, customers will be more likely to be informed. I think $599 makes more sense. I also think as far as enthusiasts are concerned, the 6900K has always been sort of disappointing because it's an 8 core that does not overclock nearly as well as the 5960X does. Making the latter chip superior.

I also don't see how this does not hurt 6950x. Even if it is 10 core, the price disparity from $699 to $1700 makes it look completely ridiculous. Although it is still the only 10 core around and I doubt they move that many of them to begin with. It would have been nice if AMD had dropped a 10 or even 12 core chip. Maybe they will under the R9 designation at some point. I'd like to see them come at every HEDT chip Intel has to force that entire market down in price.

 

[formulav8]

Hopefully Intels response won't be anything what Anand experienced/witnessed. I remembered this post he made years ago.

 

[jpiniero]

$699 for 6900K is still too much imo. If the 1800X is on parity to 6900K, I'm not seeing how it justifies $200 more just because Intel. Particularly because HEDT motherboards are expensive and you need to buy a 4 piece kit of RAM.

The price cuts may be more about reducing inventory rather than purely competing with Ryzen if that makes sense. Their stock of 6950X may not be that high in the first place.

 

[PPB]

Intel directed too much money in diversifying dies rather than competing on pure architecturañ changes. Intel has high revenues because they wont even do die harvesting for the 90% of the skus they launch. AMD has to face intel with 3 dies, whereas intel makes at least 3 for mobile only.

These thing make Intel also a slower moving target. For Intel to nullify AMD they have to invest more money than nornally, which is the first sight of a decaying revenue.

For the enthusiast market, Summit Ridge is sure a punch in the gut, because they made what everyone was asking in that purchasers group: get rid of the igp for more cpu performance.

In the prebuilt area intel still has an advantage with its igpu, also because amd is still building stock of harvested dies and RR isnt yet ready. But RR will be a massive blow to Intel 's revenue in consumer space because they lost the only thing they had in their favour, and their iGPUs are totally inneficient from an mm2 to performance ratio. Their salving grace is having 4 dies to fight just 1 (for now, i bet if AMD does well we will see more dies rolling in to avoid 50% harvested skus).

In the server market Intel has totally secured the hpc space. Everything that doesnt relly on avx2 and 256b wide fpus is up for grabs. And if you tought ryzen 7 murdered bwe value proposition, check the e5 v4 prices to see that AMD has a lot of leeway to get marketshare, because perf/w is good and so is TCO.

Sent from my XT1040 using Tapatalk