Seeking Alpha

Mentioned during Intel's Q3 earnings call (webcast): Q4 gross margin weakness has much to do...

Mentioned during Intel's Q3 earnings call (webcast): Q4 gross margin weakness has much to do with capacity adjustments rather than price cuts or mix shifts. But the company is taking "aggressive tactical actions" to lower inventory, as PC demand stays soft and OEMs prove cautious about placing orders. Also, enterprise server demand has softened, though cloud sales are strong. Intel's inventory and capex guidance suggest it isn't counting on PC demand rebounding strongly anytime soon. INTC -3.3% AH.
Comments (40)
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    Just a little more down...let's see $20.99
    16 Oct 2012, 05:41 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    According to my model a 1% drop expectation would imply a price of around or below $20. See article.
    16 Oct 2012, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • pman6
    , contributor
    Comments (270) | Send Message
     
    no sense parking your money here if no growth is expected next quarter.

     

    sounds like they don't even expect christmas and black friday to boost anything.

     

    I expect AMD will report and guide down just like Intel, and dip another 5-10%.
    AMD was already low, then it said revenue would be down 10%, so stock falls another 10%, and after this earnings report, any more semi-bad news will cause it fall yet another 10%. Just sit back and laugh.
    16 Oct 2012, 06:17 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    They're being cautious.
    16 Oct 2012, 06:27 PM Reply Like
  • RK
    , contributor
    Comments (399) | Send Message
     
    There are many SA commenters hoping Windows 8 would boost the fortunes of Microsoft and Intel in this quarter. Given the Intel guidance of no PC rebound, is the hope dashed?
    16 Oct 2012, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • skiz
    , contributor
    Comments (372) | Send Message
     
    We'll see in January.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:01 AM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    Yes, see the dismal reviews of clover trail.
    Intel was dumb to spend 300m promoting slim laptops when people want iPads. They should have invested the money in lowering costs.
    2nd the msft pricing implies the arm surface will sell more.
    This is aweful
    16 Oct 2012, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    Windows 8 might not flop as bad as x86.
    Still long term it should rebound.
    My net position is +1k intel. Arm doesnt need ridiculous marketing when they compete on price performance.
    16 Oct 2012, 07:23 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    Hate to break it to you, but Intel's "Medfield" is the fastest CPU in the smartphone block: http://bit.ly/RR4KT3

     

    Like I said - these guys don't need ARM. Now, take heed - this is a 5 year old, budget micro-architecture. With Intel's fabs and design aggressiveness, I really, really don't see any reason why it won't dominate.

     

    Long INTC. A company that has the technological lead and the manufacturing prowess to win.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:21 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    If Intel looses 5% of server share, and gains 10% of low margin smartphone Soc, whats the net effect on intel revenue?
    16 Oct 2012, 11:17 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    Salman, anyone that claims that x86 has been a flop doesn't live in reality.

     

    You also have no grasp of the facts. Intel's server sales were up 6% within a global economy that's clearly in a downtrend.

     

    The big picture here is that nothing in Intel's report indicates anything other than a global downturn. That's confirmed by IBM's report today as IBM isn't dependent on either x86 or the PC market.
    16 Oct 2012, 11:41 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    But why is Apple growing?
    16 Oct 2012, 11:42 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    I am long intel but I became a skeptic, the more I research into ARM plans to dominate the world so to speak. Did you know there are 4 chinese CPU manufacturers. Did you know all four are ARM based?
    16 Oct 2012, 11:43 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    Are you revealing insider info? They don't report until next week. Still Apple growing doesn't prove x86 is a flop. You'll be shocked to know that sells Apple x86 based products.
    16 Oct 2012, 11:48 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    I wont be shocked, I did my research. 10.6% of Apple revenue includes Intel chips.
    16 Oct 2012, 11:53 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    So your research shows that the global downturn that Intel and IBM are experiencing is due to Apple selling iPads? I'd stick with your "x86 is a flop" angle.
    17 Oct 2012, 02:53 PM Reply Like
  • vallies
    , contributor
    Comments (351) | Send Message
     
    Price,Performance,Conv... average person likes the whole mag/newspaper thing. I was at the Romney convention out here in Ohio, Pads. When some of volunteers were out questioning people they used the Pads. They were used to show people what they were talking about ,.flipping pages like a Mag and the people loved it . Maybe some of the people at INTC should have come out of their Ivory Towers and took a look. Still long. See what happens if it hits 20.19. Most likely pick up a little more
    16 Oct 2012, 07:56 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    Fastest smartphone chip in terms of CPU power available - Intel Medfield. Faster than dual core Apple A6, Snapdragon S4, etc.

     

    http://bit.ly/RR4KT3
    16 Oct 2012, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (3138) | Send Message
     
    How's the battery life ?
    16 Oct 2012, 10:27 PM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    Better than the Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 by 17%. Only the Apple chip is more effective on battery life.
    16 Oct 2012, 11:01 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    Per core its 2-4x worst battery consumption. The kraken benchmark is multi-threaded. Look at atom power consumption toping the A6 and even the QCOM during load. The atom is only 1 core. The A6 2x core. Which is why intel did not include multi core version.
    The performance that matters is not for native applications (Web browsers are compiled to native x86). Whats the Java Android app performance? What is the phone reception like? (high frequency CPUs can interfere with Mobile reception).
    16 Oct 2012, 11:11 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    Consumers don't care how many cores their phone has. They care about performance. The Medfield has higher performance and lower battery consumption.

     

    http://engt.co/OGD9qW
    16 Oct 2012, 11:56 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    Thanks cincinnatus, Much more balanced review in your link. After seeing Anandtech, I was wondering why Apple doesnt switch to Intel. More likely I thought they were being paid to run the review.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:22 AM Reply Like
  • Ashraf Eassa
    , contributor
    Comments (8821) | Send Message
     
    I don't see the problem with Anandtech's review. They used standard, off-the-shelf benchmarks. Kraken, in particular, is a very intense, CPU bound benchmark.

     

    There's no doubt about it - Intel's here to win. Period.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:26 AM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    They only used benchmarks which show intel in good light. If you do not recognize bias, just look around the web. I am not saying they lied. Just emphasized the strengths of Atom.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:28 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    There was nothing wrong with Anandtech's review. Engadet's review wasn't anything more than additional confirmation. Which city of London are you in? If it's the London in the UK you can buy an Intel Medfield smartphone where you're at. If you're in New London, Connecticut you'll have to wait until late this year or early next year.
    17 Oct 2012, 02:59 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    I think you'll have to wait until 14nm to see the switch at Apple. Until that time I don't think there is sufficient pressure on them, even with the foundry problems they're having currently.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    The Engadget benchmarks only show the RAZR i (Intel Medfield) beating the RAZR M (Qualcomm MSM8960) in the SunSpider browsing test. The RAZR M comes out ahead in everything else.

     

    http://engt.co/U5ZvTQ

     

    Also, the MSM8960 isn't Qualcomm's most powerful chip anymore. That honor belongs to the APQ8064, which is found in the LG Optimus G. AnandTech's Optimus G benchmarks were pretty impressive:

     

    http://bit.ly/ODZK7j

     

    Intel has a quality product in Medfield, but it's just one of many good options out there.
    17 Oct 2012, 06:54 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    That wasn't Engadget's conclusion.

     

    "So what do all these numbers mean? Well, Intel's 2GHz processor is pretty capable. Although the RAZR i only bests the RAZR M on SunSpider browser performance (something that Intel's been focusing on with its mobile hardware), it's a substantial score difference. Otherwise, the Europe-bound RAZR skates pretty close, if behind the RAZR M's benchmarks. There's a hiccup on the CF-Bench score, something that we also noted on the Grand X IN. While both the ZTE and Motorola devices are running Android 4.0, there's still a tangible difference in these early benchmarks -- perhaps testament to both Motorola and Google's proximity and the debut of Intel's faster 2GHz Medfield processor. We'll be testing out those power-saving promises from the chipmaker over the next few days."
    17 Oct 2012, 07:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    There's a more in depth review here:
    http://engt.co/OGD9qW

     

    ====
    When we benchmarked the RAZR i recently, we ran it through the same battery of tests, in case any firmware updates brought any performance improvements. Motorola claims the Intel Atom Z2480 processor inside is capable of "up to 2GHz," but it should at least be able to reach that impressive clockspeed at full tilt.

     

    The results remain largely unchanged, but after spending a week with the device, we'd like to add that the web browser still gives a superb performance . The phone made a decent effort on more processor-intensive tasks, including a brief game of Max Payne. Due to that Intel chip, however, the RAZR i doesn't support all the apps on Google Play. Two notable examples are Adobe AIR, which underpins several media streaming apps, and Adobe Flash. Having said that, compatibility has improved since six months ago, with the likes of Netflix and Temple Run now installable. Just days ago, too, Google updated its Chrome app, which now works on Intel-powered devices running Android 4.0.

     

    We also had the chance to pit the RAZR i against the Droid RAZR M. Aside from the benchmark results outlined above, the Medfield entry offered a marginally faster response to most actions. Powering up both phones, the RAZR i landed at its home screen around 12 seconds ahead of the Snapdragon sibling. Loading into the Chrome browser was around the same speed on both, likewise the camera app -- both launching and capture -- was equally swift on both. It's interesting to note that the color balance appeared more natural on the screen of the Verizon version, which matches up with our results in the camera test.

     

    In addition to this admirable performance, we were interested to see how Intel's mobile chip fared in terms of battery life -- with the Motorola RAZR M sharing screen similarities and more, we can make a better judgement on whether those promises stand up. On our battery rundown -- video playback, 50 percent brightness, WiFi and 3G on, social networks and email on sync -- Intel's iteration lasted nine hours, compared with eight hours for the RAZR M. That's a marginal victory, but as with the LTE version, we were more impressed with how the phone managed to go the distance on typical or mildly intensive use. Ultimately, we never felt the need to seek out a charging port during a day's work.
    17 Oct 2012, 07:22 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (753) | Send Message
     
    Like the quote said, the RAZR i wins out in one benchmark (SunSpider), but trails in the others. Engadget says it comes close, but looking at the numbers, there's a big gap in CF-bench and GLBenchmark.

     

    It's still a good chip, especially for a first try. But it doesn't blow away the competition either.
    17 Oct 2012, 08:18 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    CF-bench is specifically designed as a multi-core benchmark. It won't perform well on a single-core, which is what Medfield is. Other than that benchmark they judged the race "pretty close", except for the SunSpider browser benchmark where Medfield had a significant lead.

     

    To get back to the original point, if you combine the Engadget results with the Anandtech results Medfield has a solid overall lead. And as far as blowing away the competition, that's the job for the Haswell SoC arriving in 2013.
    18 Oct 2012, 01:04 AM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    It looks to me like AMD hype on their multithreading performance. Customers dont care. Medfield is single core, and not Arm compatible.
    16 Oct 2012, 08:53 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    You have it flipped, ARM isn't x86 compatible. The vast majority of the world's software is on x86, not ARM. There's a huge x86 software base that can be leveraged when using x86 architecture.

     

    For that matter ARM isn't compatible with ARM. Unlike x86, ARM is not a single architecture. It's actually a set of incompatible architectures.
    17 Oct 2012, 12:00 AM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    See my comment regarding buying my mom a surface. Unfortunately the x86 market just shrunk. RT does exactly what my mom needs a computer for. still wavering if I should dump my x86 in the next rise.
    http://bit.ly/QqXGwR
    17 Oct 2012, 12:08 AM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    I've heard there's only about $100 difference between the Surface and Surface RT when similarly configured. Dumping x86 software compatibility for $100 over the life of the product doesn't make sense to me. I think those jumping in and buying this will find they've made a mistake down the road.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:05 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    Its interesting from tech perspective though. Don't forget, sites like anandtech do take payments from manufacturers. Intel has a blog marketing budget. Until i see an intel phone, people want, non of this translates to growth
    16 Oct 2012, 09:10 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    When a review appears to indicate Intel x86 phone chips at first version are the best thing in the world, be a skeptic.
    16 Oct 2012, 11:51 PM Reply Like
  • Cincinnatus
    , contributor
    Comments (3355) | Send Message
     
    And when multiple reviews indicate the superior performance of Intel's phone chips, begin to be skeptical of those that claim otherwise.
    17 Oct 2012, 03:08 PM Reply Like
  • Sal Marvasti
    , contributor
    Comments (1364) | Send Message
     
    My other question is Qcom s4 , its that slow in graphics ?
    16 Oct 2012, 09:13 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)
ETF Tools
Find the right ETFs for your portfolio:
Seeking Alpha's new ETF Hub
ETF Investment Guide:
Table of Contents | One Page Summary
Read about different ETF Asset Classes:
ETF Selector

Next headline on your portfolio:

|