https://semiaccurate.com/2018/05/08/contra-revenue-comes-back-in-a-big-way-at-intel/
Looks like Intel's infamous "contra revenue" program is back. Thoughts?
Looks like Intel's infamous "contra revenue" program is back. Thoughts?
Do I need to google the crap out of contra revenue or can I get educated right here on these tech forums? Right then. What is contra revenue and why is it contraversial?
Do I need to google the crap out of contra revenue or can I get educated right here on these tech forums? Right then. What is contra revenue and why is it contraversial?
So unlike them APU laptops with single channel ram and bad components you get a good balanced system for cheaper then similar?!?!Basically Intel shoehorned high end chips into low to mid range platforms (tablets) which required expensive components to work and Intel subsidized the cost to the companies who marketed products using Intel's chips.
Yes, we are against it, for the same reason we are against any dumping policy: it's meant to drive out competition through sheer force of capital, and when the storm clears and competition is in disarray the consumer ends up paying the bill anyway. Who do you think pays for that contra revenue, Intel shareholders or Intel consumers?So unlike them APU laptops with single channel ram and bad components you get a good balanced system for cheaper then similar?!?!
So wait, are we against that and if yes than why?
It was more atom related and specifically atom vs arm, than big core vs amd.So unlike them APU laptops with single channel ram and bad components you get a good balanced system for cheaper then similar?!?!
So wait, are we against that and if yes than why?
Also isn't that exactly what AMD did with the custom made APUs for all the consoles?
I don't know if it was ever proven but everybody was saying that they were barely making any money from them.
Ah ok thanks, that makes sense actually.It was more atom related and specifically atom vs arm, than big core vs amd.
Aka a software ecosystem was developed that did not need x86. This software ecosystem allowed non x86 cpus. These non x86 cpus (arm cpus) had much cheaper motherboards, and other parts of the builds of materials for more stuff was on the cpu die, and the stuff that was not on the cpu die was cheaper to make off the motherboard, and the motherboard did not have to be as thick.
Aka everything that was not x86 and not arm cpus, but was platform related was much cheaper on the arm platform than the x86 platform. And this made the total cost of ownership to the oems cheaper for arm vs x86. Futhermore the OEM had the flexibility to choose partners in a way that gave the OEM freedom and Intel hated this for you get market pressure downward for producer surplus and it is a race to the bottom, while increasing the OEM's consumer surplus.
So Intel's strategy was to subsidies the platform and other things in order to be cost competitive, take billions of dollars losses now for the hope of billions of dollars of profit later. The problem of why this did not work is that the system is multifactoral it was not just price that allowed ARM to be chosen rather than Intel it was also the freedom that ARM allowed. Intel has to have a massive advantage in something in order to mitigate this freedom angle.
ARM single-thread performance has been increasing much faster than Intel the last years.Still ARM is going the more cores road for years now which means that individual cores can't be made much faster/better and there will come a time where ARM just won't be able to cut it anymore,
So unlike them APU laptops with single channel ram and bad components you get a good balanced system for cheaper then similar?!?!
So wait, are we against that and if yes than why?
Also isn't that exactly what AMD did with the custom made APUs for all the consoles?
I don't know if it was ever proven but everybody was saying that they were barely making any money from them.
Also isn't that exactly what AMD did with the custom made APUs for all the consoles?
I don't know if it was ever proven but everybody was saying that they were barely making any money from them.
AMD is making money on the consoles because of the volume. The margins themselves are very low, single digit%. Like say they sold the APU for $100 but it cost $92 for GloFo to fab it.
Just to make it obvious, Contra-Revenue (at least during the Atom era) was like OEMs got the chip for free AND got a subsidy because the platform costs even with a free chip wasn't enough to be competitive with ARM. I have a hard time believing this is true because it got really expensive for Intel although I do think OEMs with Chromebooks are getting a very good deal.
so AMD initially believed that it would sell the SoCs with 10 – 12 per cent (low double-digit percent) margin. Since it is in AMD’s interests to reduce its manufacturing costs in a bid to maximize its margins, the company has done a lot to cut them. The chip designer negotiated with its foundry partners regarding prices and started to use its own assembly and test facilities for the products. As a result, the margins are now higher than 15 per cent.
When asked specifically whether AMD could increase its console chip margins to over 20 per cent, Mr. Kumar answered positively. Indirectly, this confirms that AMD will use all the opportunities it has to reduce the costs of the SoCs, which includes transitions to thinner manufacturing processes, yield improvements, optimizing designs and so on.
Against it because a high end chip trying to fit into a low cost platform and subsidizing the cost bleeds money. To make it up they raise prices on other components.
I highly doubt they regressed backwards to low single digit %. They started at low double digit and grew to >15% and expected to hit 20%. Even with half gen consoles I highly doubt AMD would accept a lower margin than what they grew.
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...s-is-thriving-margins-set-to-grow-to-over-20/
Ah ok thanks, that makes sense actually.
Still ARM is going the more cores road for years now which means that individual cores can't be made much faster/better and there will come a time where ARM just won't be able to cut it anymore,intel has to keep up with developing tablets -even at a big loss now- because they have to be ready when the time comes,for example 3dxpoint is a part of that, the dimm modules will be able to be used as main ram with no "extra" "real" ram so it would cut costs in such small devices.
Seeing how nVIDIA is selling well the Switch and how the next ARM core from them are dangerously great, they will allow it... but not alone. Maybe GloFo (or maybe is time to add Samsung to the equation?) will help to take some profit loss in order to cancel nVIDIA and TSMC advances.I highly doubt they regressed backwards to low single digit %. They started at low double digit and grew to >15% and expected to hit 20%. Even with half gen consoles I highly doubt AMD would accept a lower margin than what they grew.
https://www.kitguru.net/components/...s-is-thriving-margins-set-to-grow-to-over-20/
It turned out to be a terrible business decision though, because they dumped billions of dollars and ended up abandoning the market anyway.