The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
@briandp32: "You got the market cornered on computing devices. Do you have IPhones too?"
One iPhone and an old Nokia (I think). PCs are both Dell, powered by Intel. I wouldn't consider anybody but Intel for the PCs.
But yes, I do subscribe to the "good enough" theory. My desk-top has a particular job to do, web browsing and market trading. I told Dell what I was doing and they suggested the i5 as being more than powerful enough to handle my 4 monitors and better than 1 second updates on a raft of stock quotes and stock charts.
When I was doing Cad-Cam work I always had the leading edge Dell/Intel for speed but those days are in the past.
The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
Yes, it is task dependent. No argument on that item.
I never claimed the desk-top or note-book market is dead. I use my desk-top everyday and would be lost without the massive power of the unit. I do claim that both of the above types are in decline as a percentage of the market for new computing devices and that on-going the market will be mostly for replacement of old PCs.
It is the lack of growth in the PC market that is the problem for companies like Intel. Sure, new, faster, better chips will make the PCs slightly more attractive but most users do not need the computing power of these devices.
My household has a desk-top, lap-top, iPad, & iPad Mini and the two iPads get much more use than the Pcs.
The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
Author: "The PC industry has performed poorly due to lack of innovation and poor marketing."
I strongly disagree with the above statement. In my opinion the PC industry has performed poorly because most users 1) Do not need the computing power of a PC and 2) the form factor is terrible when compared to a tablet.
Also, while battery life is important to many users, it is not the over-riding concern of those browsing the net while sitting on the sofa. An increase to 6 hours of battery life still does not compare well to most tablets.
The PC industry is not dead but there has been a total shift to the new tablets. It is just a matter of more choices for the consumer and the bulk of the consumers are switching to the tablets. Try sticking a lap-top in your purse and see how well it fits.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
I have no desire to fuel any arguments on this article and do not desire to belittle anyone posting here. That said, there seems to be a lot of factors which are being used interchangeably and it should not be done.
The only logical way to compare the costs of 300mm vs. 450mm wafers is in the cost per square mm of a finished chip. Forget chip shrinkage because this factor is basically independent of wafer size.
I believe the 450mm wafer cost will be higher than the 300mm wafer, but I am referring to the overall cost of the bare wafer. I think the cost will be about the same, or slightly less, of "per square mm" once the wafer production is debugged but, as such, the bare wafer will reduce costs slightly per square mm.
The process of fabricating circuits on the wafer will also increase on a per wafer basis because everything will take longer to process, but not 225% longer. Therefore for a given die size I would expect to see a significant reduction in fabrication costs on a per die basis.
Another item which will reduce costs is more circuits can be etched into the periphery of the wafer as the arc is less steep. These are pretty much free circuits. I'm not about to do the math on this but it is possible to calculate the number of these "free" chips for any given die size.
Most of the cost reductions, on a per die basis, occur because of less handling time per die. The handling time is fairly constant on a per wafer basis but each wafer has a couple of times the number of die.
Slicing out the chips and packaging are pretty much constant regardless of wafer size but, again, larger wafers mean less handling during the slicing.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
ephud, Thank you for the link. Two items: 1. If there is a problem with the regulator chip then it can be handled independently from the processor; &2. Intel has stated this afternoon that there is no problem with the regulator. I trust Intel to be truthful.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
Eassa, Not so fast buddy. The function being referred to is:
"Voltage Regulator will be integrated on a chip, which will simplify motherboard design."
This isn't just some "bias generator" but is the main regulator for the CPU power. These devices are no longer the black magic they once were but they are by no means simple from a design standpoint. Putting this device on the die could offer many complications and it appears they (Intel) was bitten by one of these complications. I don't see it as a reason to scrap the Haswell design but it will take additional time to get the chip working to specifications.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
I agree with ephud. The surface area of a 450mm wafer is 225% of the area of a 300mm wafer.
Whereas the material cost (wafer) may be about the same per square mm, the processing costs are or will be about the same as the 300mm wafer. Hence a significant savings in manufacturing cost of a particular semiconductor die.
A dividend cut is not out of the picture but I'm hoping they will not have to do so. The dividend rising to about 5.5% due to a stock price decline would just align the risk to reward ratio.
They (Intel) need to do something fast as they are in very serious trouble. As I type this I see where the "Haswell" processor is not working to expectations and earnings estimates are being cut.
It is a shame really. Intel has proven to be a national treasure over the last few decades but they have missed the boat on trends in the computing industry.
We need a new CEO who is not inbred with the Intel dogma or else they will be irrelevant within a few years. They need to do what Ford did and get a CEO without bias.
Intel is in serious trouble and will remain such until they cut a foundry deal with Apple. I'll back up the truck and load up on Intel when the deal is cut, otherwise, I'm expecting the price of Intel will drop to the $15 - $17 range this year.
Intel: There Is No Apple Foundry Deal [View article]
@phud 4) "The notion that x86 is not good for mobile devices is simply wrong. It's an urban legend and nothing more."
I don't think it is "simply wrong". Eventually the market will determine the viability of the Atom processor.
@freed0m "You can't buy 25% of a decent company without huge premium.... "
You may be correct with this item but there are ways to lock in a buy price before announcing intentions. I once acted on a company news item where I told my broker to buy every available share in a company up to a certain price. The share price immediately ran up to my maximum buy price but did not exceed the price because no one else wanted to buy the shares at my maximum buy price.
The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
One iPhone and an old Nokia (I think). PCs are both Dell, powered by Intel. I wouldn't consider anybody but Intel for the PCs.
But yes, I do subscribe to the "good enough" theory. My desk-top has a particular job to do, web browsing and market trading. I told Dell what I was doing and they suggested the i5 as being more than powerful enough to handle my 4 monitors and better than 1 second updates on a raft of stock quotes and stock charts.
When I was doing Cad-Cam work I always had the leading edge Dell/Intel for speed but those days are in the past.
The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
I never claimed the desk-top or note-book market is dead. I use my desk-top everyday and would be lost without the massive power of the unit. I do claim that both of the above types are in decline as a percentage of the market for new computing devices and that on-going the market will be mostly for replacement of old PCs.
It is the lack of growth in the PC market that is the problem for companies like Intel. Sure, new, faster, better chips will make the PCs slightly more attractive but most users do not need the computing power of these devices.
My household has a desk-top, lap-top, iPad, & iPad Mini and the two iPads get much more use than the Pcs.
The PC Industry's Future Could Be Decided In The Next 7 Months [View article]
I strongly disagree with the above statement. In my opinion the PC industry has performed poorly because most users 1) Do not need the computing power of a PC and 2) the form factor is terrible when compared to a tablet.
Also, while battery life is important to many users, it is not the over-riding concern of those browsing the net while sitting on the sofa. An increase to 6 hours of battery life still does not compare well to most tablets.
The PC industry is not dead but there has been a total shift to the new tablets. It is just a matter of more choices for the consumer and the bulk of the consumers are switching to the tablets. Try sticking a lap-top in your purse and see how well it fits.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
The only logical way to compare the costs of 300mm vs. 450mm wafers is in the cost per square mm of a finished chip. Forget chip shrinkage because this factor is basically independent of wafer size.
I believe the 450mm wafer cost will be higher than the 300mm wafer, but I am referring to the overall cost of the bare wafer. I think the cost will be about the same, or slightly less, of "per square mm" once the wafer production is debugged but, as such, the bare wafer will reduce costs slightly per square mm.
The process of fabricating circuits on the wafer will also increase on a per wafer basis because everything will take longer to process, but not 225% longer. Therefore for a given die size I would expect to see a significant reduction in fabrication costs on a per die basis.
Another item which will reduce costs is more circuits can be etched into the periphery of the wafer as the arc is less steep. These are pretty much free circuits. I'm not about to do the math on this but it is possible to calculate the number of these "free" chips for any given die size.
Most of the cost reductions, on a per die basis, occur because of less handling time per die. The handling time is fairly constant on a per wafer basis but each wafer has a couple of times the number of die.
Slicing out the chips and packaging are pretty much constant regardless of wafer size but, again, larger wafers mean less handling during the slicing.
Intel Drops An Atomic Bomb On ARM's 'Abomination' [View article]
Do we know what this new micro-architecture looks like?
Is it code compatible with x86 processors?
Do we have a release date for Silvermont?
Any input appreciated.
Cisco Raises Dividend: Apple Should Be Next [View article]
Second Bullet: "Cisco's 3.26% yield - Quarterly dividend of approximately $3.50." I'm seeing an annual dividend of $0.68 listed for CSCO.
Maybe I'm just confused and I mean no disrespect.
Cisco Raises Dividend: Apple Should Be Next [View article]
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
"Voltage Regulator will be integrated on a chip, which will simplify motherboard design."
This isn't just some "bias generator" but is the main regulator for the CPU power. These devices are no longer the black magic they once were but they are by no means simple from a design standpoint. Putting this device on the die could offer many complications and it appears they (Intel) was bitten by one of these complications. I don't see it as a reason to scrap the Haswell design but it will take additional time to get the chip working to specifications.
Intel Fights Against Wall Street By Investing In The Future [View article]
Whereas the material cost (wafer) may be about the same per square mm, the processing costs are or will be about the same as the 300mm wafer. Hence a significant savings in manufacturing cost of a particular semiconductor die.
Intel Has Likely Bottomed [View article]
They (Intel) need to do something fast as they are in very serious trouble. As I type this I see where the "Haswell" processor is not working to expectations and earnings estimates are being cut.
It is a shame really. Intel has proven to be a national treasure over the last few decades but they have missed the boat on trends in the computing industry.
We need a new CEO who is not inbred with the Intel dogma or else they will be irrelevant within a few years. They need to do what Ford did and get a CEO without bias.
Intel Has Likely Bottomed [View article]
Lilliput Slays Gulliver: ARM Vs Intel, And Why Intel Lost The War [View article]
"Andy Grove: The Life and Times of an American"
This bio of Andy is as much about Intel as it is about him. It clearly shows how Intel was just as lucky as it was good at making decisions.
Intel: There Is No Apple Foundry Deal [View article]
I don't think it is "simply wrong". Eventually the market will determine the viability of the Atom processor.
@freed0m "You can't buy 25% of a decent company without huge premium.... "
You may be correct with this item but there are ways to lock in a buy price before announcing intentions. I once acted on a company news item where I told my broker to buy every available share in a company up to a certain price. The share price immediately ran up to my maximum buy price but did not exceed the price because no one else wanted to buy the shares at my maximum buy price.