Is Intel a Growth Company

[Major_Spittle]

Intel is not veiwed by many as a growth company, but I feel it is positioning itself for extra ordinary growth.

With Intels product road map it is quite possible that AMD and Nvidia could be in serious trouble. One the CPU side it appears Intel is positioning itself with a product line up that will bury AMD's CPUs through the use of technologies, HK/MG/45nm, that are not even available for AMD. With this they have also co-developed (as I recall) solid state Hard drives and a memory technology that could allow for system memory to be integrated on the CPU and run at faster speeds. With this they are also talking about advanced graphics being integrated with the processors.

Sounds like that is a good deal of a whole computer system being built by one company and taking over a lot of markets.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

Intel is not veiwed by many as a growth company, but I feel it is positioning itself for extra ordinary growth.

With Intels product road map it is quite possible that AMD and Nvidia could be in serious trouble. One the CPU side it appears Intel is positioning itself with a product line up that will bury AMD's CPUs through the use of technologies, HK/MG/45nm, that are not even available for AMD. With this they have also co-developed (as I recall) solid state Hard drives and a memory technology that could allow for system memory to be integrated on the CPU and run at faster speeds. With this they are also talking about advanced graphics being integrated with the processors.

Sounds like that is a good deal of a whole computer system being built by one company and taking over a lot of markets.

Ironically, Intel may be a VALUE company based on it's P/E. Go figure.

 

[brick88]

sounds more like a monopoly to me.

Edit:
The aforementioned technologies such as an integrated memory controller has already been developed by AMD. The integrated graphics on the chip was also introduced by AMD via Fusion.

 

[kamel5547]

Intel is not a growth company by any definition. Estimated growth is 12% per year for the next 5 years, to reach what I would consider growth Intel would have to grow at 20% or better. That would mean growing revenues at over 8 billion per year, NVDA has revenues below 4 billion and AMD around 8. So basically Intel would have to take over half the graphics industry and the rest of the processor to achieve "growth" status for one year.

Intel pretty much doesn't have much growth left in the PC market. For it to once again become a growth company it would need to move into new markets (say those TI dominates, or maybe Samsung).

 

[dsidious]

Or it could expand into software and Internet advertising, and take on Microsoft and Google. That would be fun to watch :twisted:

 

[Bazukaz]

Again , incorrect. The idea of IMC was taken from ALPHAS , and integrated graphics controller was already stated by intel a few years ago with plans to integrate it to PIII.However , they did not finish the plans because at that time on-cpu grahpics was not required.

 

[Major_Spittle]

Intel is not a growth company by any definition. Estimated growth is 12% per year for the next 5 years, to reach what I would consider growth Intel would have to grow at 20% or better. That would mean growing revenues at over 8 billion per year, NVDA has revenues below 4 billion and AMD around 8. So basically Intel would have to take over half the graphics industry and the rest of the processor to achieve "growth" status for one year.

Intel pretty much doesn't have much growth left in the PC market. For it to once again become a growth company it would need to move into new markets (say those TI dominates, or maybe Samsung).

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.

 

[crazypyro]

Lest we be reminded, AMD is in cahoots with IBM who is also a major thorn in Intels side as they develop similar technologies as Intel. Proof of the partnership between AMD/IBM is in the pudding, as the new Power 7 chips will drop into a 1207 socket. You can make further assumptions as how they can help each other on your own.

As for Intel being a growth company... not hardly, they are a lazy company, they only push the limits of silicon based technologies when they feel threatened, C2D is a prime example. AMD despite poor money management and planning, is a better growth company.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Intel is not a growth company by any definition. Estimated growth is 12% per year for the next 5 years, to reach what I would consider growth Intel would have to grow at 20% or better. That would mean growing revenues at over 8 billion per year, NVDA has revenues below 4 billion and AMD around 8. So basically Intel would have to take over half the graphics industry and the rest of the processor to achieve "growth" status for one year.

Intel pretty much doesn't have much growth left in the PC market. For it to once again become a growth company it would need to move into new markets (say those TI dominates, or maybe Samsung).

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.


And people said AMD was paying me. AT least, I'm advocating an all-together industry not based on one company that can't employ as many people as all of the other together.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Lest we be reminded, AMD is in cahoots with IBM who is also a major thorn in Intels side as they develop similar technologies as Intel. Proof of the partnership between AMD/IBM is in the pudding, as the new Power 7 chips will drop into a 1207 socket. You can make further assumptions as how they can help each other on your own.

As for Intel being a growth company... not hardly, they are a lazy company, they only push the limits of silicon based technologies when they feel threatened, C2D is a prime example. AMD despite poor money management and planning, is a better growth company.

From AMD a quite apropos comment:

If Intel focused on expanding a 35 billion dollar company to 70 billion and in the process of doing that AMD were to go from 10 to 20 billion, who cares. They are still No.1, they are still doing well. But instead being focused on expanding the market, they think their path to greatness is to take us and beat us 2-300 million bucks a quarter, which is ridiculous.

 

[Major_Spittle]

Intel is not a growth company by any definition. Estimated growth is 12% per year for the next 5 years, to reach what I would consider growth Intel would have to grow at 20% or better. That would mean growing revenues at over 8 billion per year, NVDA has revenues below 4 billion and AMD around 8. So basically Intel would have to take over half the graphics industry and the rest of the processor to achieve "growth" status for one year.

Intel pretty much doesn't have much growth left in the PC market. For it to once again become a growth company it would need to move into new markets (say those TI dominates, or maybe Samsung).

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.


And people said AMD was paying me. AT least, I'm advocating an all-together industry not based on one company that can't employ as many people as all of the other together.

Advocating???? You make no sense. WTF is your post in regards too, or do you just pop into threads and make random posts about yourself for no reason?

 

[turpit]

Intel has a lot of capacity to fill. With the current markets they are targeting, growth could be very slow. But, by lowering their prices, they delve into the largest untapped market left - the low income market. JJ has pointed out, as prices continue to fall, at some point, CPUs will turn into volume commodities, and Intel/AMD will have to pump out vast quantities to maintain year end profits as unit margins dwindle. Ultimately, it has always been my opinion that the low income market will be assaulted, its just a matter of who is going to suck it up first and drop prices low enough to break in first.

 

[djgandy]

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.

Ah i thought this was what you were saying.
When i look at AMD i think to myself, get the graphics market share! They have no excuse not to be taking market share from nvidia.
Intel could turn up and ruin their party.

 

[qcmadness]

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.

This is what Intel thinks.
But from the examples of Netburst / Itanium, Intel's dream may not come true as you think.

 

[wolverinero79]

I always love the argument that C2D was created due to pressure from AMD. You guys do know that it takes longer than 2-3 years (read here as the time when AMD had an outright lead) to design a chip, right? I'm not saying the timeline wasn't accelerated a little, but Intel went 6 years without a major architecture overhaul on the desktop. C2D if anything was Intel's way of saying "oh, I guess we can throw something new out there. It has been awhile".

 

[halbhh]

Intel is not veiwed by many as a growth company, but I feel it is positioning itself for extra ordinary growth.

With Intels product road map it is quite possible that AMD and Nvidia could be in serious trouble. One the CPU side it appears Intel is positioning itself with a product line up that will bury AMD's CPUs through the use of technologies, HK/MG/45nm, that are not even available for AMD. With this they have also co-developed (as I recall) solid state Hard drives and a memory technology that could allow for system memory to be integrated on the CPU and run at faster speeds. With this they are also talking about advanced graphics being integrated with the processors.

Sounds like that is a good deal of a whole computer system being built by one company and taking over a lot of markets.

When I saw the topic title, I thought you were making a joke, but it is a good question in a way, since when a company holds well over 70% (or over 75%) of a market, it isn't at all easy to grow. For instance if they got to 82% of the market, but the market itself saw the ASPs go down too much, even with okay increases in unit volume, you get decreasing profits. In stock terms that's not "growth" since growth is EPS growth.

But....I think INTC is a growth company, because most of the world is not yet computerized, and Intel is well positioned to computerize it.

As is AMD!

Actually, AMD does not have to lead in technology to grow! Strickly speaking, if AMD can just print CPUs efficiently, and stay reasonably close then they can make profits and grow.

Myself, I think both companies will stay at the 45nm node *longer* than currently believed, for reasons pointed out in that link in the "Fab....Cost" link.

But, about Intel, I'm holding my stock, and am optimistic for the company.

 

[halbhh]

Intel has a lot of capacity to fill. With the current markets they are targeting, growth could be very slow. But, by lowering their prices, they delve into the largest untapped market left - the low income market. JJ has pointed out, as prices continue to fall, at some point, CPUs will turn into volume commodities, and Intel/AMD will have to pump out vast quantities to maintain year end profits as unit margins dwindle. Ultimately, it has always been my opinion that the low income market will be assaulted, its just a matter of who is going to suck it up first and drop prices low enough to break in first.

A reasonable opinion, and widely shared. Myself, I think the commodity idea is not quite spot on, since both companies will be able to innovate not only in process and cpu arch, but even in system arch, gpu arch, etc., and make new kinds of computers. IMO, we are still a ways off from comoditization, although we certainly have some comoditization right now, and will have more and more if software is not able to do interesting new things.

But I bet software will indeed do interesting new things.

 

[BaronMatrix]

Intel is not a growth company by any definition. Estimated growth is 12% per year for the next 5 years, to reach what I would consider growth Intel would have to grow at 20% or better. That would mean growing revenues at over 8 billion per year, NVDA has revenues below 4 billion and AMD around 8. So basically Intel would have to take over half the graphics industry and the rest of the processor to achieve "growth" status for one year.

Intel pretty much doesn't have much growth left in the PC market. For it to once again become a growth company it would need to move into new markets (say those TI dominates, or maybe Samsung).

That is what I am saying though. Intel could possibly pretty much put AMD/ATI/Nvidia out of bussiness along with many other companies. The whole system on a chip seems the direction Intel is going. Intel spends a lot of money on R&D so I could see them completely putting the computer industry in a direction only they are capable of taking it. Picture a one socket solution that incorporates the CPU/CPU/Ram, then them producing the flash memory used for the solid state Hard drive and South/North bridge chipsets for a system. This could all be a real case senerio in 2008 or 2009.

I would think that this could make Intel double in size at least.


I think you're being a little short-sighted. Intel is supposed to release a GPU next year but by the R700 and G90 will be around and then 6 months after that newer ones. nVidia is said to be releasing 55nm this year, while Intel doesn't even have a 90nm GPU (standalone).

AMD is also piloting 55nm runs for release early next year. In order to have an SOC that could compete with GPUs it would have to be at 32nm or maybe even 22nm.

R600 has like more than 600million transistors.

 

[Major_Spittle]

Intel has a 80 core processor that should be ready for production next year as I recall. I don't think the integrated GPU/CPU has much to do with the Chipset GPUs they make. Nehalem sounds to be a new beast, that will be very versitile.

I started this thread more as food for thought on what Intel already released they would be doing and the capabilities this company has. I don't feel it is that much of a stretch to see a system on a chip in the market in 2009, and possibly see Intel create the #1 graphics solution by that time frame also.

As far a where technology is going. 65nm to 45nm wasn't the big jump. 45nm to 32nm will cause some serious retooling of fabs and a lot of money. AMD and IBM aren't doing to well even getting 65nm Ironed out, me thinks that by 32nm Intel could be closer to 2 years ahead in die size.

 

[qcmadness]

Intel has a 80 core processor that should be ready for production next year as I recall. I don't think the integrated GPU/CPU has much to do with the Chipset GPUs they make. Nehalem sounds to be a new beast, that will be very versitile.

I started this thread more as food for thought on what Intel already released they would be doing and the capabilities this company has. I don't feel it is that much of a stretch to see a system on a chip in the market in 2009, and possibly see Intel create the #1 graphics solution by that time frame also.

As far a where technology is going. 65nm to 45nm wasn't the big jump. 45nm to 32nm will cause some serious retooling of fabs and a lot of money. AMD and IBM aren't doing to well even getting 65nm Ironed out, me thinks that by 32nm Intel could be closer to 2 years ahead in die size.

That one is confirmed to be for demo purposes only

 

[Major_Spittle]

well, they could demo a bunch of them next year if they wanted too. :lol:

My point being the 80 core teraflop processor would be a start for a very energy effient GPU or competition for Cell type game console processors.

Intel can build a better GPU, it is if they decide there is enough money in it to reward the risk of jumping in with both feet instead of just dinking (they are the largest GPU supplier now) around with integrated solutions.

This is where integrating it on the CPU would really benefit them. It would literally be killing 2 birds with one stone when it comes to taking market share from AMD/Nvidia. If they have integrate system memory, no company could compete with the bandwidth that they could produce using shared resources on a single chip.

 

[Twisted_Sister]

Come Q4'2008, the price will drop to $250 for the 80 Core Intel Chip... :lol: :lol:

 

[Major_Spittle]

The 80 core processor will resurface in the X-Box 1080. Korea will buy up all the X-Box 1080s to use for their guidance systems in the ICBMs they release shortly after. This will cause a shortage that will make EBay a retirement system for those in the know. Yeah, I see where this is all going years in advance. *opens an Ebay acount*

 

[rodney_ws]

If Intel were a growth company shouldn't they be holding back on the dividends and using that money for expansion? That would make sense to me. I don't view them as a growth company, but that's just me.

 

[rodney_ws]

The 80 core processor will resurface in the X-Box 1080. Korea will buy up all the X-Box 1080s to use for their guidance systems in the ICBMs they release shortly after. This will cause a shortage that will make EBay a retirement system for those in the know. Yeah, I see where this is all going years in advance. *opens an Ebay acount*

Clearly this guy is thinking ahead!!!