Intel Posts Record Results, But Misses Revenue Targets and Issues Weak Outlook

[PaulAlcorn]

Intel posted yet another full-year revenue record of $70.8 billion, but its fourth quarter performance fell short of analyst projections and the company also presented lower-than-expected guidance for 2019.

Intel Posts Record Results, But Misses Revenue Targets and Issues Weak Outlook : Read more

 

[mischon123]

Too many obfuscating names for overpriced half to 2/3 defective chips that have to be binned low because of production and thus yield issues. Those are the consumer chips. If 1/3 of the chiproduction cannot be sold at the quality-pricepoint - this is catastrophic. We ve seen that Intel has a huge problem going one process iteration down and most 2/3..or more of the production is faulty - this will cap market saturation massively.

Because of that - nobody wants the job because Intel cannot reform production. Because of the horrendous dev prices..16bn $ revenue can almost be called minuscule. The offset is awfully small. Pringle knows how to bake chips. AMD knows how to bake chips. Why not Intel?
Also Intel is beeing perceived as the bully. This never goes down well in the midrun.

 

[TJ Hooker]

@mischon123 what on earth are you talking about?

 

[bit_user]

@mischon123 what on earth are you talking about?

I assume the yields on their 10 nm node?

A source would be appreciated.

 

[chickenballs]

"Overall, the company posted yet another full-year revenue record of $70.8 billion"

wow this means people are still buying their cpus even though they keep refreshing their Skylake architecture and increase prices
and they have to thank the "experts" who keep recommending gamers to buy i7s and i9s to play CS and Battlefield

 

[bit_user]

wow this means people are still buying their cpus even though they keep refreshing their Skylake architecture and increase prices

In case you didn't notice, they've been increasing clock speeds and core counts, along the way.

 

[chickenballs]

wow this means people are still buying their cpus even though they keep refreshing their Skylake architecture and increase prices

In case you didn't notice, they've been increasing clock speeds and core counts, along the way.

while their competitor has increased core counts even more

the i7 8700K is 499 usd on Newegg
and i7 9700K is 549 usd
do you still remember how much the previous mainstream i7 cost?

 

[bit_user]

wow this means people are still buying their cpus even though they keep refreshing their Skylake architecture and increase prices

In case you didn't notice, they've been increasing clock speeds and core counts, along the way.

while their competitor has increased core counts even more

the i7 8700K is 499 usd on Newegg
and i7 9700K is 549 usd
do you still remember how much the previous mainstream i7 cost?

Well, you're getting more performance for the additional cost. Your previous post didn't acknowledge that anything was gained for the higher prices.

And no, I'm not happy about those prices. But then, I'm not buying Intel CPUs right now, either.

 

[chickenballs]

wow this means people are still buying their cpus even though they keep refreshing their Skylake architecture and increase prices

In case you didn't notice, they've been increasing clock speeds and core counts, along the way.

while their competitor has increased core counts even more

the i7 8700K is 499 usd on Newegg
and i7 9700K is 549 usd
do you still remember how much the previous mainstream i7 cost?

Well, you're getting more performance for the additional cost. Your previous post didn't acknowledge that anything was gained for the higher prices.

And no, I'm not happy about those prices. But then, I'm not buying Intel CPUs right now, either.

yes thats called progress
by your logic intel should charge tens of thousands for a 4 core cpu because its so much faster than the Pentium Pro from 1996 which had a msrp of several thousands of dollars

and yet you are defending them
how uh nonsensical ;-)

 

[spentshells]

Article title is quite deceptive.

"Intel is increasingly profitable, AMD has been able to make more money than usual."

That feels more accurate.

 

[shmoochie]

Article title is quite deceptive.

"Intel is increasingly profitable, AMD has been able to make more money than usual."

That feels more accurate.

What is deceptive about it? It seems like a succinct outline of the article to me.

 

[InvalidError]

And no, I'm not happy about those prices. But then, I'm not buying Intel CPUs right now, either.

In the past, new CPU launches used to be preceded by price cuts across the board on older SKUs with some price cuts on the new SKUs part-way through the product cycle when AMD launched its own new SKUs. The last time I remember reading about such a broad-ranging price revision from Intel's side was around a dozen years ago and prices for each performance tier have been ticking upwards ever since. Definitely disappointing.

After two years of Ryzen, I'd have expected Intel to feel the rising pricing pressure. We're apparently still not there yet.

 

[SkyBill40]

Well, you're getting more performance for the additional cost. Your previous post didn't acknowledge that anything was gained for the higher prices.

And no, I'm not happy about those prices. But then, I'm not buying Intel CPUs right now, either.

The performance increases for the added cost are marginal at best though I do agree with your point that nothing was mentioned to that.

While Intel has continued to increase clocks (primarily) and have added cores (not by choice but by necessity), AMD has done the same at lower overall cost, lower power draw, and with increased IPC. That's a pretty noteworthy list of accomplishments as I see it and doesn't even speak to the die shrink for Zen 2.

Intel has had a solid run at the top but that break neck pace has slowed significantly. The old turtle has increased his speed and is biting at the hare's heels. It could very well could overtake the obviously winded sprinter at any time. The 10nm process is Intel's last hope to stay in front or even neck and neck. While I'm aware they're moving forward to 7nm, that's a LONG way off no matter what they say.

 

[InvalidError]

The 10nm process is Intel's last hope to stay in front or even neck and neck. While I'm aware they're moving forward to 7nm, that's a LONG way off no matter what they say.

While the D1X plant may not be able to do 7nm until 2020-2021, I bet Intel has a fab or two working on getting 7nm up to speed so it can have everything dialed-in before D1X goes to production. In other words, I expect Intel to have some volume of 7nm production in 2020, likely funneled towards high-value products such as high-end FPGAs.

 

[SkyBill40]

The 10nm process is Intel's last hope to stay in front or even neck and neck. While I'm aware they're moving forward to 7nm, that's a LONG way off no matter what they say.

While the D1X plant may not be able to do 7nm until 2020-2021, I bet Intel has a fab or two working on getting 7nm up to speed so it can have everything dialed-in before D1X goes to production. In other words, I expect Intel to have some volume of 7nm production in 2020, likely funneled towards high-value products such as high-end FPGAs.

Oh, I don't doubt that. I live right up the road from their Fab 42 plant in AZ. If they didn't put some of that manufacturing there, I'd be relatively shocked.

 

[10tacle]

the i7 8700K is 499 usd on Newegg
and i7 9700K is 549 usd
do you still remember how much the previous mainstream i7 cost?

yes thats called progress

by your logic intel should charge tens of thousands for a 4 core cpu because its so much faster than the Pentium Pro from 1996 which had a msrp of several thousands of dollars

and yet you are defending them
how uh nonsensical ;-)

1) Where are you seeing a 9700K for $549? A quick 10-second search yielded this find in stock:

$409:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1435918-REG/intel_bx80684i79700k_core_i7_9700k_3_6_ghz.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI3Jqg4puK4AIVkbrACh2i_gHgEAkYAiABEgK5-PD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=Y

2) Have you looked at how much faster the 8-9 series are compared to say the $349 release price of the main stream i7 4790K in benchmarks in both gaming (at 1080p) and in productivity? My guess is you have not. Here's a little memory refresher:

https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/intel-core-i7-9700k-9th-gen-cpu,5876-8.html (video rendering)
https://www.guru3d.com/index.php?ct=articles&action=file&id=44631 (Far Cry 5 @ 1440p, note i5 6600K vs. i5 9600K)

Also a drop in fabrication nm costs more in case you don't know that either. You can't have it both ways in the silicon world. By your logic we should all be still expecting Intel to roll out an i7 main stream 10nm CPU for $349 because they did so in the past. AFTER they invested $7B in a new fab plant. Do you expect Honda to still sell a Civic for $16,000 too because they did so in 2014 even thought the 2019 model year is vastly superior? Get real.

3) You completely ignore the fact that ever since the second generation of the i-Core series starting with Sandy
Bridge, there has been no need to upgrade every new generation/chipset. In fact, since 2010 when SB was introduced, Intel builders have ever increasingly skipped generations because of the yields. For me, a jump from a $349 i7 4790K to a $400+ i7 9700K would be a MASSIVE performance boost, especially in the crucial minimum FPS bench, even at gaming at 1440p where successive chipset generations don't yield hardly any benefit in gaming.

4) Your completely ignoring Bit's valid point of increased core speed over each successive generation is duly noted. Back to the i7 4790K, one would need serious water cooling to hit all four cores at 5.0GHz to be stable - and that was with a silicon lottery winning chip. The 9700K does that with TWO MORE cores without breaking a sweat...5.2GHz in this case:

https://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/intel_core_i7_9700k_processor_review,23.html

 

[bit_user]

yes thats called progress
by your logic intel should charge tens of thousands for a 4 core cpu because its so much faster than the Pentium Pro from 1996 which had a msrp of several thousands of dollars

Intel made those CPUs on basically the same process as Skylake. Adding cores uses more die space. While one might expect a process node to get cheaper over time, it's still probably unreasonable to expect they'll give you so much more die area for free. In fact, due their problems with 10 nm, and competitive pressures forcing them to ship more large-die CPUs (not only in the desktop and laptop markets, but also their HEDT are now using the LCC die), they are facing a well-publicized supply crunch, causing the effective cost of 14 nm die area to go up.

The way that faster & more sophisticated chips have become/remained affordable is primarily due to process node shrinks.

and yet you are defending them
how uh nonsensical ;-)

What I'm doing is trying to highlight the relevant facts of the matter. It's not necessarily taking sides to simply list the factors that might be motivating or forcing a party to act in a certain way.

What's nonsensical is your selective reading of the facts and recent events. Either you're not very well-informed, or you're just trying to score cheap points. Neither puts you in a good light, here.

 

[InvalidError]

While one might expect a process node to get cheaper over time, it's still probably unreasonable to expect they'll give you so much more die area for free.

AMD's Zen+ is 212sqmm and its SKUs span the $160-270 range. The 8C16T Coffee Lake Refresh is 216sqmm including IGP and spans the $180-500 range. Lined up within 15% at the low-end but split 85% apart at the high-end.

Intel makes you pay a heck of a lot more than AMD does for the same ~210sqmm on comparable processes and I'd expect Intel's 14nm process to be among the most mature and cost-optimized ones in the business.

 

[bit_user]

While one might expect a process node to get cheaper over time, it's still probably unreasonable to expect they'll give you so much more die area for free.

AMD's Zen+ is 212sqmm and its SKUs span the $160-270 range. The 8C16T Coffee Lake Refresh is 216sqmm including IGP and spans the $180-500 range. Lined up within 15% at the low-end but split 85% apart at the high-end.

Except they're a different process, with Zen 2000-series' 12 nm actually being inferior.

Intel makes you pay a heck of a lot more than AMD does for the same ~210sqmm on comparable processes and I'd expect Intel's 14nm process to be among the most mature and cost-optimized ones in the business.

News flash: Intel has bigger gross margins than AMD! zOMG, where have you been? That is not news. It's been true for a long time, if not for as long as they've competed.

And the article (and their quarterly report) discussed Intel's focus on higher-margin products as a way to compensate for the lower volumes resulting from their production supply shortage.

I'm sure you know all this, meaning you're just playing Chickenballs' game of trying to score rhetorical points. I expected more from you, really.

 

[InvalidError]

I'm sure you know all this, meaning you're just playing Chickenballs' game of trying to score rhetorical points. I expected more from you, really.

You wrote that Intel wasn't going to give the extra die area for 8C16T CPUs for free, I simply pointed out that AMD has no problem providing comparable die area on a comparable process (doesn't matter if it is slightly worse, it isn't miles worse, which means operating costs should be very similar) at nearly half the price for the high-end. There is very little cost-bound justification for Intel's pricing, it is mostly a brand and quasi-monopoly tax.

 

[rantoc]

The old saying you reap what you sow really holds true to Intel, they have forgotten to plant new seeds and thus are running out of harvest..

 

[10tacle]

There is very little cost-bound justification for Intel's pricing, it is mostly a brand and quasi-monopoly tax.

Well as to point #3 in my post above, I don't see anything way out of alignment of Intel's previous pricing structure over history vs. performance in their main stream i5/i7 CPUs. We are not talking Nvidia here. I'd also like to remind you that Intel's i-Series since Gen 2 has been a thorn in AMD's side - lest we forget their Bulldozer fail - up until a few years ago when Ryzen was born. The last time AMD had a real winner prior to Ryzen was in the mid-00s and the Athlon based K7 of which architecture was already several years old. I do not see Intel driving down their pricing structure.

Now comparing Intel to AMD and core vs. core and price in video rendering benchmarks, that's another story, which leaves me scratching my head why you accuse Intel of being a monopoly when AMD is spanking them for less money per core in productivity. I will not mention gaming because even though core for core Intel spanks Ryzen in game benchmarks at 1080p, the gap closes moving up to 1440p and 4K shifting game demand to the GPU.

 

[InvalidError]

Now comparing Intel to AMD and core vs. core and price in video rendering benchmarks, that's another story, which leaves me scratching my head why you accuse Intel of being a monopoly when AMD is spanking them for less money per core in productivity.

I'm still calling Intel a monopoly because 1) they're still sold-out on nearly everything that manages to reach retail shelves and 2) they're still priced as if there was no viable competition. That's mindshare monopoly - Intel is still perceived by a large chunk of the market as the only viable option and this is enabling it to continue operating as such.

 

[10tacle]

I'm still calling Intel a monopoly because 1) they're still sold-out on nearly everything that manages to reach retail shelves and 2) they're still priced as if there was no viable competition. That's mindshare monopoly - Intel is still perceived by a large chunk of the market as the only viable option and this is enabling it to continue operating as such.

1) My MicroCenter says otherwise. In fact, so does my Best Buy where I bought my mother a new Ryzen 5 HP desktop PC.

2) So you expect Intel to drop prices going forward to match AMD who is barely getting by. Okay. Huh. The only thing keeping AMD's head above the water is consoles, of which I'm sure you know are a very serious threat to the future of the desktop PC. Rather ironic if you ask me.

 

[kinggremlin]

Now comparing Intel to AMD and core vs. core and price in video rendering benchmarks, that's another story, which leaves me scratching my head why you accuse Intel of being a monopoly when AMD is spanking them for less money per core in productivity.

I'm still calling Intel a monopoly because 1) they're still sold-out on nearly everything that manages to reach retail shelves and 2) they're still priced as if there was no viable competition. That's mindshare monopoly - Intel is still perceived by a large chunk of the market as the only viable option and this is enabling it to continue operating as such.

A basic understanding of economics tells us #2 is directly linked to #1 and the combination of the 2 is not the definition of a monopoly. If they're selling everything they can make, they would be stupid beyond belief from a business perspective to drop prices. Intel prices aren't so high because they are a monopoly. They're so high because the demand for the product is that high. If Intel drops prices, guess who isn't going to see lower prices? Any of us. The last year and a half has made it abundantly clear that retailers will jack up prices to whatever the market dictates. So, if I'm going to pay the same price either way, I'd much rather see Intel getting the money as they will dump it into R&D for better products. If Newegg or Amazon are pocketing the money, I'm never going to see any benefit out of that.