Intel: Slower Growth Ahead; May Have Taken Share from AMD

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
TOPICS
Douglas Perry
Contributor

Douglas Perry was a freelance writer for Tom's Hardware covering semiconductors, storage technology, quantum computing, and processor power delivery. He has authored several books and is currently an editor for The Oregonian/OregonLive.

  • CaedenV
    If memory serves correctly Q2 of last year was during or shortly after Sandy Bridge, and all of the chipset issues were taken care of. SB offered an amazing value at the time of performance per price compared to the previous generation, which made for a very compelling purchase (heck, even I picked one up later in the year). Ivy bridge is no slouch, but it does not offer the same kind of leap ahead that SB did, focusing instead on laptop and ultrabook sales... which... well... nobody needs one, and we are all happy with our SB chips, so it is no wonder that things have slowed a bit.

    At least they get to tell their board of directors 'well... at least we aren't AMD'
    Reply
  • rocknrollz
    Intel expects Q3 revenue of about $14.6 million, give or take $500 million to the south and north.

    I hope they don't expect that.lol I think you meant billion.
    Reply
  • rocknrollz
    Meant for the 14.6 million part, not the 500 million.
    Reply
  • ddpruitt
    AMD said it expects revenues to decline 11% not that they actually have (could be higher or lower). I doubt it's as bad as it seems, it's Intel's interest to paint a bleaker picture of AMD.
    Reply
  • tomfreak
    I hate to say this but, if AMD did not catch up in1-2yrs, which they are admmiting themselves that they are not completing with Intel. At this kind of rate Intel move, AMD main core business will be GPU, not CPU anymore.
    Reply
  • sp0nger
    Didnt AMD recently say they werent going to compete with Intel anymore? Lol well Intel is competing with you soooo
    Reply
  • DroKing
    Intel is still a shitty company. The only reason why they own majority of market is because of their dirty tactics back in 90's therefore you are a shitty company Intel. You bought your way to market supremacy, you didnt achieve it by selling good products so GET THE FUDGE OUT.
    Reply
  • nforce4max
    Here is a little trick if they really do want a quick buck, cut prices and increase volume rather than wait for demand on the bases of business and ordinary consumers to upgrade when they need to or they could just host a rebate program. Drop the prices of the Pentium and Core i3 line then sales will begin to pick up a little. As for the Celeron make up the losses on the backs of the i5 and i7 sales then sell Celerons for less than what it costs to make them for like $20 a pop boxed with a cooler. It will eat into Atom sales but it also will put pressure on AMD. As for AMD it needs to transition to different fabs such as TSMC and use more modern process tech that isn't as costly to develop for cpu development. May as well begin using similar tools as what they use for their gpu development when it comes to transistor design. AMD can still put plenty of heat on Intel in the low end and low power consumption arena but they need some new meat behind the management department.
    Reply
  • teh_chem
    TomfreakI hate to say this but, if AMD did not catch up in1-2yrs, which they are admmiting themselves that they are not completing with Intel. At this kind of rate Intel move, AMD main core business will be GPU, not CPU anymore.I think it's important to look at the bigger picture though. CPU speeds have vastly exceeded what any average user needs. By a huge amount. But at the same time, CPU speeds alone can't net what things like GPGPU computing can (in terms of performance). In theory, the APU is a great introduction--it will (hopefully) encourage software producers to adopt the hybrid hardware package and implement things like OpenCL in a much wider form than currently.

    Other than that, the APUs are fine. Not bleeding edge performance, but so few people need that, and it's not even priced to be bleeding edge.

    Intel has made significant gains with the HD4K chipset, but unless you're buying a higher end IB CPU, most mid-range IB CPUs will be getting the HD2500 (IIRC--like the i3's and some i5's, I think...). Kinda defeats the purpose since most people who buy high-end CPUs will also be doing graphically-demanding tasks (most--of course not all).

    This financial forecast is...a handjob from the analyst to intel. AMD might have missed some financials, but they're making progress. And even being a hardware enthusiast, I have to side with AMD--the desktop market is slowly dwindling. Why bother making huge R&D investments to win the CPU clock performance battle if few-to-none of the consumers really care?
    Reply
  • aicom
    DroKingIntel is still a shitty company. The only reason why they own majority of market is because of their dirty tactics back in 90's therefore you are a shitty company Intel. You bought your way to market supremacy, you didnt achieve it by selling good products so GET THE FUDGE OUT.Where have you been living? In my book, Intel has been offering superior products for years. Since the Conroe days, we've seen win upon win from Intel.
    Reply