Intel - Corporate Downsizing

Long live AMD!

Intel's been constantly losing the processor race to downsizing and performance/efficiency ratio against AMD in the last years, their processors became basically expensive toasters. It was bound to have consequences at some point. I personally switched to AMD five years ago and never looked back.

Also Intel is a bit too big to fail, its a mere set-back and they'll bounce back at some point.
 
Last edited:
What happens when a company just expects consumers to buy their product while constantly inflating.

If AMD really start to catch and suprass Nvidia, could see the same with them.
While leading, it just feels like they hold back proper advancements.

The series of AMD is just the same. Marginal CPU increases at best, just lowered cooling. Not really an update if you have last gen already
 
To be fair, you can polish general purpose processors only so much. Adding cores isn't really increasing performance and they can't shrink them much anymore either.
 
Igor Drefljak said:
What happens when a company just expects consumers to buy their product while constantly inflating.

If AMD really start to catch and suprass Nvidia, could see the same with them.
While leading, it just feels like they hold back proper advancements.

The series of AMD is just the same. Marginal CPU increases at best, just lowered cooling. Not really an update if you have last gen already
Click to expand...

That's not true. The performance gains have been quite substantial between generations (20-25%) since the introduction of the Ryzen Series which was the true game changer.
 
Last edited:
It hits you hard in the feels when these huge multinational corporations aren’t doing so well because their competitor, another huge multinational corporation are doing better.
 
was just looking up the respective market caps

this feels like I must be wrong but NVIDIA is 15,000 times bigger than AMD. Is that right?
 
Pexbo said:
It hits you hard in the feels when these huge multinational corporations aren’t doing so well because their competitor, another huge multinational corporation are doing better.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
Pexbo said:
It hits you hard in the feels when these huge multinational corporations aren’t doing so well because their competitor, another huge multinational corporation are doing better.
Click to expand...
:lol:
 
I wonder how much of an impact Apple Silicon has had on them in the grand scheme of things.
 
My old AMD Ryzen processor is god awful. I hope they have improved the stability massively in the last 6 years.
 
Rumours about a month ago of Qualcomm attempting a takeover. Cost cutting and rationalisation tends to happen immediately before such corporate transactions. One to watch.
 
hellhunter said:
Isn't their market share minuscule? Considering Intel isn't really competing in the mobile world
Click to expand...

I’ve absolutely no clue, but all Mac computers were run on intel chips until a few years ago and now none of them are.
 
Rado_N said:
I’ve absolutely no clue, but all Mac computers were run on intel chips until a few years ago and now none of them are.
Click to expand...
First random Google link says Apple had around 8%. Struggle to believe that, considering they're only present in Mac, which isn't common outside of laptops and nonexistent in servers
 
Tarrou said:
was just looking up the respective market caps

this feels like I must be wrong but NVIDIA is 15,000 times bigger than AMD. Is that right?
Click to expand...
15 times bigger, not 15000 times. Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world at around 3.5T while AMD is just north of 200B.

And there is no way AMD will catch Nvidia in AI chips anytime soon. Nvidia is not stupid like Intel.
 
AMD CPU > Intel CPU. Intel naming convention makes no fecking sense and it's hard to remember which one is better than which one. AMD has longer motherboard support. Intel is fecking greedy in that regards.
 
Revan said:
15 times bigger, not 15000 times. Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world at around 3.5T while AMD is just north of 200B.

And there is no way AMD will catch Nvidia in AI chips anytime soon. Nvidia is not stupid like Intel.
Click to expand...

ah yeah, thanks

I someone used $200m, and not $200bn

Still, 3,5 Trillion is absolutely insane
 
Mad that AMD were basically irrelevant 10-12 years ago and just made lower end processors. They’ve upped their game while intel, who basically had a monopoly, lagged behind.
 
Would it not be the smart thing to do, feck knows, for Nvidia to launch a takeover of Intel at this point? 15 times larger. It can handle the outcome even if the takeover is a complete failure. On the plus side, they basically take all the major chip business for a long time to come outside of Taiwan and China (someone more savvy can tell me why I am wrong here).
 
The same was written about AMD a decade ago.

The 12th gen processors were pretty good, intel ran into problems trying to build on the architecture with 13 and 14, get the next one right and they'll be on top again. Its the product, not the brand, perhaps more so than any other industry, that matters for computing power.
 
neverdie said:
Would it not be the smart thing to do, feck knows, for Nvidia to launch a takeover of Intel at this point? 15 times larger. It can handle the outcome even if the takeover is a complete failure. On the plus side, they basically take all the major chip business for a long time to come outside of Taiwan and China (someone more savvy can tell me why I am wrong here).
Click to expand...
Intel is a Dino company, with a terrible leadership. It also competes on different products (CPUs) compared to Nvidia (GPUs and AI chips). There is no reason why Nvidia would spend 100B in Intel.

Also, every good software engineer / chip designer who worked for Intel works now for Nvidia. Being just 3km away from each other, but paying less than half (when you count stock appreciation for Nvidia), maybe less than 1/5th is a very fast way of finding your best engineers leaving.

And then, even if Jensen Huang somehow goes stupid and decides to buy Intel (fun fact, his personal net worth is now higher than Intel’s market cap), probably it will get blocked by regulators (Arm dale to Nvidia was blocked in 2020-2021).
 
Revan said:
Intel is a Dino company, with a terrible leadership. It also competes on different products (CPUs) compared to Nvidia (GPUs and AI chips). There is no reason why Nvidia would spend 100B in Intel.

Also, every good software engineer / chip designer who worked for Intel works now for Nvidia. Being just 3km away from each other, but paying less than half (when you count stock appreciation for Nvidia), maybe less than 1/5th is a very fast way of finding your best engineers leaving.

And then, even if Jensen Huang somehow goes stupid and decides to buy Intel (fun fact, his personal net worth is now higher than Intel’s market cap), probably it will get blocked by regulators (Arm dale to Nvidia was blocked in 2020-2021).
Click to expand...
Fair points.
 
RIP to me. Bought a 14900k and new MoBo in April and felt a bit silly the last few months. Thankfully wasn't affected by all of the instability/degradation issues.

Their response to that though was shocking.

Apple is doing some incredible stuff with those M4 chips.
 
Not surprising they have been going downhill since their 6th gen processors. They’ll be back though, amd and intel take top spot in turns .
 
The 13th and 14th gen killed their reputation for a long time. Everyone told them very early that they were highly unstable but they ignored it, then blamed everyone else and eventually admitted earlier this year that it was their own process that created most of the issues at hardware level.

At this moment AMD is better in every ways.
 
Is it sad? They lost focus, stumbled and their long time underdog competitor stepped up their game and beat the shit out of them. That's on Intel

Also, isn't the US government basically bankrolling new factories for intel in a move against China? I'm sure they will be fine.
 
One key thing to understand is that Intel now has a sub-optimal business model, namely they still also manufacture the chips that they design. AMD was the same for most of their history, but spun-off their foundry (manufacturing) in 2009 (called GlobalFoundries now). AMD now has most of their chips manufactured by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. TSMC also manufactures virtually all of the chips for Apple Silicon and Nvidia. This business model where a company just designs chips and has someone else manufacture them is called Fabless, while TSMC doesn't design or brand any chips of their own.

What this has enabled is TSMC having a huge budget to advance the technology of manufacturing and enable ever smaller transistors and other technologies on the chips, which then Nvidia/Apple/AMD/others use in their designs to suit their own different end purposes. Intel on the other hand made a decision on the foundry side a few years ago not to adopt EUV technology (was the latest tech from ASML, TSMC did adopt it) and that has in turn limited their ability to reduce transistor size. So the design side might hypothetically be capable of thinking up more dense and performant chips, but the foundry side isn't able to manufacture them.

Intel will start (is starting? forgot the timeline) to use TSMC to make some of their chips, and the foundry business will also try to attract external customers that want to manufacture chips with them. But where this is likely headed is the same thing AMD did 15 years ago, and the foundry business will probably be spun-off at some point in the not-too-distant future.
 
Gaza, ukraine, intel downsizing, trump, musk... terrible times we're living.
 
MTF said:
One key thing to understand is that Intel now has a sub-optimal business model, namely they still also manufacture the chips that they design. AMD was the same for most of their history, but spun-off their foundry (manufacturing) in 2009 (called GlobalFoundries now). AMD now has most of their chips manufactured by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company. TSMC also manufactures virtually all of the chips for Apple Silicon and Nvidia. This business model where a company just designs chips and has someone else manufacture them is called Fabless, while TSMC doesn't design or brand any chips of their own.

What this has enabled is TSMC having a huge budget to advance the technology of manufacturing and enable ever smaller transistors and other technologies on the chips, which then Nvidia/Apple/AMD/others use in their designs to suit their own different end purposes. Intel on the other hand made a decision on the foundry side a few years ago not to adopt EUV technology (was the latest tech from ASML, TSMC did adopt it) and that has in turn limited their ability to reduce transistor size. So the design side might hypothetically be capable of thinking up more dense and performant chips, but the foundry side isn't able to manufacture them.

Intel will start (is starting? forgot the timeline) to use TSMC to make some of their chips, and the foundry business will also try to attract external customers that want to manufacture chips with them. But where this is likely headed is the same thing AMD did 15 years ago, and the foundry business will probably be spun-off at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Click to expand...
It's crazy how much critical asset fabrication is concentrated on a tiny island. China be like: shame if something happened to those foundries eh...
 
MTF said:
Intel will start (is starting? forgot the timeline) to use TSMC to make some of their chips, and the foundry business will also try to attract external customers that want to manufacture chips with them. But where this is likely headed is the same thing AMD did 15 years ago, and the foundry business will probably be spun-off at some point in the not-too-distant future.
Click to expand...
Core Ultra 200 is all TSMC. So that's already been happening for a bit.

While Intel is in massive trouble, in large parts of their own making, it's way early to have a drink on their demise. They are still so much bigger than AMD that it is not even funny. Whether it is desktop, mobile, server or IoT - Intel's CPU marketshare is still more than double that of AMD's. OEMs almost exclusively offer Intel. And if you're not a gamer, their CPUs are still very much competitive. In idle/low use scenarios (browsing/office/streaming) they blow Ryzen out of the water in the efficiency department, and they are even with them when it comes to both multi- and single-core workloads.

Don't get me wrong, AMD is doing a great job with their CPUs. Just two weeks ago I replaced my Ryzen 5900X with the 9800X3D, and I'm absolutely in awe of what a comeback they've achieved after they already seemed to sink into irrelevance. I wouldn't have bet on them coming back after they fecked up with a powerhungry, yet not stronger than K10, Bulldozer architecture. Yet here they are, better than ever, and thank feck for that. Can't imagine how much processor development would have stalled if Intel was left to do their thing without AMD putting pressure on them. We'd probably be staring at 14nm++++++ and still have four cores and no hyperthreading for anything under an i7.

I'm just saying, Intel is about as dead as Boeing - a faltering giant, but still more than alive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.