News Intel Earnings: 10nm+ Tiger Lake Arrives Mid-Year, Company Withdraws Guidance

[bit_user]

Ohhh so they canceled nervana without bringing out any product and then they bought out havana so that havana couldn't compete with the products intel didn't make...makes so much sense.

Wow, it's like you're actively trying to be obtuse.

If you care about understanding the situation with Nervana and Habana, you can start by reading the link I posted above. However, I'm not sure that's your aim. So, I'll leave it up to you to get that sorted out... or not.

For existing 7th gen SKUs Intel added cores or at least threads while keeping prices the same,you can get a real 8 core now with higher boost clocks, for the price of the 7700k.

Well, MSRP is 10% more, but I was really complaining about the new price tier they had to create for the flagship CPU - the 9900K.

 

[TerryLaze]

Wow, it's like you're actively trying to be obtuse.

If you care about understanding the situation with Nervana and Habana, you can start by reading the link I posted above. However, I'm not sure that's your aim. So, I'll leave it up to you to get that sorted out... or not.

In a tweet on Friday, deep learning analyst Karl Freund announced that Intel would “close the door” on Nervana, the deep learning chip startup Intel acquired in 2016, and instead focus on Habana Labs, the other startup that Intel acquired in December for almost $2 billion.

Intel informed Freund of its new AI strategy going forward. Intel will support the NNP-I inference chip “for previously committed customers,” but says that it will completely cease development of the NNP-T AI training design.

Intel stopping development of the NNP-T doesn’t come as a complete surprise, given the acquisition of Habana in December: both companies make chips targeted at artificial intelligence workloads in the data center (deep neural networks).

Intel will support the NNP-I inference chip “for previously committed customers," = they made products and are going to produce at least all the units they already sold.

Intel stopping development of the NNP-T doesn’t come as a complete surprise, given the acquisition of Habana in December: = Intel will make a new design based on habana that is not going to be called NNP-T because that stands for NervanaNeuralnetworkProcessor ,but will basically be the same only performing better.

Well, MSRP is 10% more, but I was really complaining about the new price tier they had to create for the flagship CPU - the 9900K.

If you want to complain about new price tiers...AMD went from less than $200 for their flagship to about $750, more cores are going to cost more no matter if you are called intel or AMD.

 

[Conahl]

If you want to complain about new price tiers...AMD went from less than $200 for their flagship to about $750, more cores are going to cost more no matter if you are called intel or AMD.

sounds like you are saying that AMD should always be the cheap cpu manufacturer, even when their cpus are on par, or better then intels, and it's ok for intel to charge what they do for theirs, but not ok for AMD to do the same ?

 

[InvalidError]

If you want to complain about new price tiers...AMD went from less than $200 for their flagship to about $750, more cores are going to cost more no matter if you are called intel or AMD.

More cores may cost more but the prices have effectively no basis in manufacturing costs including R&D after ~$200 for mainstream CPUs.

 

[TerryLaze]

sounds like you are saying that AMD should always be the cheap cpu manufacturer, even when their cpus are on par, or better then intels, and it's ok for intel to charge what they do for theirs, but not ok for AMD to do the same ?

So this is what you got from me saying that more cores are going to cost more no matter if you are called intel or AMD. OK, cool story bro.

More cores may cost more but the prices have effectively no basis in manufacturing costs including R&D after ~$200 for mainstream CPUs.

That's true for everything you buy,from potato chips to computer chips.

 

[InvalidError]

That's true for everything you buy,from potato chips to computer chips.

In a genuinely competitive environment, competition drives prices down to costs +10-15% net profit. Problem is that almost everything today is controlled by oligopolies, real competition is mostly extinct.

 

[Conahl]

So this is what you got from me saying that more cores are going to cost more no matter if you are called intel or AMD. OK, cool story bro.

actually yes. thats how i read it., its ok for intel to charge what they do for their chips, but not ok for AMD to do the same, and you expect amd to price their chips the same, and you didnt answer the question on top of that, instead, you appear to avoid answering the question. people keep saying intel charged what they did, because they COULD before zen came out, cause there was really no alternative if you needed performance, then once zen came out, offered more cores for A LOT less then intel, and performance was competitive to intel, then all of a sudden, intel drops their next cpu by, in some cases half. that tells me intel may have been price gouging, because they were able to. now amd prices their chips about the same as intel, and thats wrong ? yea ok, cool thought, bro

 

[InvalidError]

that tells me intel may have been price gouging, because they were able to. now amd prices their chips about the same as intel, and thats wrong ? yea ok, cool thought, bro

Well, if Intel was price-gouging and AMD matches Intel's prices, then AMD is price-gouging too. We don't have real competition, we have an oligopoly. Same with GPUs. They charge whatever the market can bear to maximize profits instead.

In a truly competitive environment, once your net profit passes 15%, you have to worry about new challengers coming for a slice of your pie.

 

[Conahl]

intel pre Zen was, look at the massive price drops intels cpus did after zen was released, thats where i would say intel was price gouging. as for now, not so much.

 

[TerryLaze]

actually yes. thats how i read it., its ok for intel to charge what they do for their chips, but not ok for AMD to do the same,

This is literally exactly the opposite of what I said,if this is actually how you read this you need to work on that.

intel pre Zen was, look at the massive price drops intels cpus did after zen was released, thats where i would say intel was price gouging. as for now, not so much.

They are still price gouging like crazy,they are selling technology from 2015 at 2020 prices,intel is making twice the profit ever since their "massive price drops" .

 

[Conahl]

no it isnt, you said " AMD went from less than $200 for their flagship to about $750 " you don't think that is justifed considering the performace they had, vs now ? how is how i am reading it, the exact opposite ? the performance is there, just like intel had before zen, so they should charge appropriately. maybe intel is selling tech from 2015, but amd, really isnt. heck, intel just practiclly released the same cpu that have since what.. 2011 ? only updating over the years, but still based on sady bridge. if you dont consider at least half price massive then i dont know.

but yea ok bro, if you say so

 

[InvalidError]

the performance is there, just like intel had before zen, so they should charge appropriately.

One vendor overcharging just because the other vendor is also overcharging does not make it right. The only reason AMD and Intel can charge the prices they do now is because the x86 market is an oligopoly, there is no meaningful competitive pressure driving prices down like it used to before NatSemi, Transmeta, VIA, Cyrix, etc. bailed out of the x86 market.

 

[TerryLaze]

no it isnt, you said " AMD went from less than $200 for their flagship to about $750 "

That was a response to a post from bit user who thought that only intel made a new price tier for the new i9,it was not a comment out of the blue.

 

[Conahl]

InvalidError, who's to say if either is overcharging now, but i would think intel was, considering the price drops after zen was released. but, imagine what intels cpus could be costing eveyone if there was no Zen.

 

[bit_user]

before NatSemi, Transmeta, VIA, Cyrix, etc. bailed out of the x86 market.

VIA has continued making x86 for specialized and niche markets, I believe. As I'm sure you know, they're set to make a big comeback in the form of their Zhaoxin partnership. Not in the USA, for the foreseeable future, but in China and much of the developing world.

Meanwhile, x86's dominance of the cloud will slowly continue eroding. I don't know if Windows on ARM will ever take off, but it looks like Apple is about to take the ARM plunge. So, it's looking like x86 might die a slow death of a million cuts. And "about time", I say.

 

[bit_user]

InvalidError, who's to say if either is overcharging now, but i would think intel was, considering the price drops after zen was released. but, imagine what intels cpus could be costing eveyone if there was no Zen.

Yeah, it's kinda funny what happen when AMD started to turn up the heat. Rather than see prices really drop, we just got more cores and GHz. I mean, it's better than the status quo that we had before, but I'm looking forward to seeing what happens when Intel gets into the GPU market and when ARM starts to get more traction in the hyperscaler market.

Anyway, I think one of the dominant factors keeping prices high is that demand has continually outstripped supply, lately. This year could mark an interesting turning point on that front, too.

 

[TerryLaze]

Yeah, it's kinda funny what happen when AMD started to turn up the heat. Rather than see prices really drop, we just got more cores and GHz.

How was that funny?That's what was expected, intel never lowered prices but once in a while they would add cores/threads/features from higher tiers to lower tiers even way before ZEN or even bulldozer.

 

[InvalidError]

intel never lowered prices but once in a while they would add cores/threads/features from higher tiers to lower tiers even way before ZEN or even bulldozer.

... like that time from 2008 through 2018 where quad-cores were the most Intel would do in the mainstream. That's ~10 years of Intel doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain its crushing lead over AMD, especially after north-bridge integration with the i-series.

 

[TerryLaze]

... like that time from 2008 through 2018 where quad-cores were the most Intel would do in the mainstream. That's ~10 years of Intel doing the bare minimum necessary to maintain its crushing lead over AMD, especially after north-bridge integration with the i-series.

In 2011 we still had single core celerons...and dual core i5s