What you say may be true (though it seems unlikely to me, unless you start playing weird games with exactly how small a unit of a chip counts as a "CPU") but his overall point is valid.
Compare Intel's Client revenue with Apple's WEARABLE'S revenue of $9.7B...
The point is not how Intel Client chips are so awesome and Apple wearables drool, or the reverse nonsense; the point is that the compute landscape changed irreversibly when Apple shipped the first iPod ~20 years ago, and Intel chose to fight that change (accept a new market that prioritized energy over EVERYTHING else, especially over caring about compatibility with the 1970s) rather than embrace it. Intel had multiple fork points available (starting with owning StrongARM, then possibly switching to a new ISA and new design for Atom) and at every point they made the choice to prioritize the past over the future.
Now we are where we are today, and the trajectories aren't going to change. Intel will try to flee upmarket (as every company in its position does, cf IBM, cf DEC, cf SGI) and that will buy some time. But the MASS market has changed, and will change a lot more.
Simply screaming at this fact in fury won't change anything.
I think you misunderstand here, Intel's competition was never Apple. The guff you are making here about the consumer products is meaningless because, the cold truth is... Apple doesn't make semiconductors. The A series, the M series chips... Apple doesn't make them. It is not in the business of manufacturing. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is, and Apple is far from the only company in that arrangement of designing chip for someelse to make.
Intel's target, it's real one, is to be on par with TSMC. A company that took over 30 years to be in this dominant position. Apple is irrelevant to that since they are beholden to whom ever can manufacture the chips and at the moment the manufacturers that can do it are only three of them.
I'm sorry, but Apple most certainly is one of Intel's main competitors. They are direct existential threat to Intel's main Intellectual Property: x86. Intel may be competing with TSMC on manufacturing, but they're also competing with Apple on architecture. Just like Microsoft may be competing with Google and Amazon on cloud services, but *also* Apple on personal computing platforms. Apple is just competing with everyone on everything, it seems LOL.
Intel should do whatever it takes to get apple as a foundry customer. Start with the M-series and eventually go after the A-series. That would put Intel back on top.
Intel is too far behind TSMC to even attempt to get Apple as a client. Apple silicon is on the bleeding node wise and pays for it. If Intel fabs were able to get close to meeting this demand Intel would already well past “back on top”.
What I am seeing is a company making 65B in Revenue annually... not making a dime and laying off people to stay in the green.
Not mentioning the DCAI group is in shamble while AMD is releasing their Zen 4 EPYC chips in the upcoming days or weeks while Sapphire Rapids is not even here.
Intel profitability is painful? My tech-company with over 3000 employees was yesterday declared unprofitable for 2022. Our year forecast looks even worse. No year-end raises, no bonuses and our 401K program is no longer supported by the company. The upper floor ‘windowed office’ executives felt that with about 48% of our regulars still on WFM, that year-end results would have been better. As of a week ago all WFH people were advised by our 'Human Capital' office that they are now reclassified as casual employees with no company benefits and are basically on a consultant status.
This said I wish we would be INTEL which appears to having turned the corner and at least showing some kind of profit. But like INTEL our company has made it clear that cost reductions, and more layoffs are on the way. Like the many here I am sitting in a 4x4 cubicle (nicknamed by our executives ”The Cornfield”) and many of us will surely not be here next year. Reality now bites in the tech-world!
Do you remember when Athlon 64 was this best available desktop CPU while Pentium 4 stank the place out? (Pepperidge Farm remembers) Then Core 2 happened, this Sandy Bridge Happened... Then Intel stopped trying so hard because they could rake in the cash with less investment, which is something they did a little too much of. The stock buy backs and less R&D left Intel in a position where they could be overtaken, be less competitive, cancel cool things and lay people off... but I wouldn't write off their chances of taking the lead in manufacturing or design in the medium term.
Yes. I remember it well. The difference being that Intel held a 1.5 to 2 die shrink advantage over AMD back then when AMD decided "real men have fabs" despite the reality that AMD wasn't a fab expert (and it showed).
Today, AMD is using TSMC and maintains a full die shrink advantage over Intel (based on transistor density). AMD also holds a huge advantage over Intel by the use of chiplets. Sure, Intel will follow soon, but it seems to me like Intel is taking crazy risks to get back into the game.
1) First use of EUV 2) First use of tiles 3) New architecture
Intel recently stated that the 10nm failure was due to taking too many risks in a single generation. Looks to me like they are doing it again.
Finally, the idea that Intel can pull off 5 die shrinks in 3 years when they just completed 1 die shrink in 7 years seems much more than "wildly optimistic" to me.
I will give it to you though. I was sufficently surprised when Intel pulled out Core 2, but Intel isn't facing the same weak AMD of the past, nor are they competing from such a huge process advantage.
I think things are going to get worse before they get better.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
16 Comments
Back to Article
lemurbutton - Thursday, October 27, 2022 - link
Intel's Client and Computing group: -17%Mac sales: +25%
Apple Silicon shining through.
Samus - Friday, October 28, 2022 - link
You realize Intel sells more CPU's in a day than Apple sells Mac's in a year, right?shabby - Friday, October 28, 2022 - link
Don't hurt his feelingsWaltC - Friday, October 28, 2022 - link
Percentages are often misleading...;)name99 - Friday, October 28, 2022 - link
What you say may be true (though it seems unlikely to me, unless you start playing weird games with exactly how small a unit of a chip counts as a "CPU") but his overall point is valid.Compare Intel's Client revenue with Apple's WEARABLE'S revenue of $9.7B...
The point is not how Intel Client chips are so awesome and Apple wearables drool, or the reverse nonsense; the point is that the compute landscape changed irreversibly when Apple shipped the first iPod ~20 years ago, and Intel chose to fight that change (accept a new market that prioritized energy over EVERYTHING else, especially over caring about compatibility with the 1970s) rather than embrace it.
Intel had multiple fork points available (starting with owning StrongARM, then possibly switching to a new ISA and new design for Atom) and at every point they made the choice to prioritize the past over the future.
Now we are where we are today, and the trajectories aren't going to change. Intel will try to flee upmarket (as every company in its position does, cf IBM, cf DEC, cf SGI) and that will buy some time. But the MASS market has changed, and will change a lot more.
Simply screaming at this fact in fury won't change anything.
duvjones - Wednesday, November 2, 2022 - link
I think you misunderstand here, Intel's competition was never Apple. The guff you are making here about the consumer products is meaningless because, the cold truth is... Apple doesn't make semiconductors. The A series, the M series chips... Apple doesn't make them. It is not in the business of manufacturing. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company is, and Apple is far from the only company in that arrangement of designing chip for someelse to make.Intel's target, it's real one, is to be on par with TSMC. A company that took over 30 years to be in this dominant position. Apple is irrelevant to that since they are beholden to whom ever can manufacture the chips and at the moment the manufacturers that can do it are only three of them.
Farfolomew - Monday, November 14, 2022 - link
I'm sorry, but Apple most certainly is one of Intel's main competitors. They are direct existential threat to Intel's main Intellectual Property: x86. Intel may be competing with TSMC on manufacturing, but they're also competing with Apple on architecture. Just like Microsoft may be competing with Google and Amazon on cloud services, but *also* Apple on personal computing platforms. Apple is just competing with everyone on everything, it seems LOL.Vitor - Saturday, October 29, 2022 - link
No. Intel cpu sales isnt 365 times larger than Apple Macs.lemurbutton - Sunday, October 30, 2022 - link
I would like to see the math.Blastdoor - Sunday, October 30, 2022 - link
Intel should do whatever it takes to get apple as a foundry customer. Start with the M-series and eventually go after the A-series. That would put Intel back on top.Skeptical123 - Sunday, October 30, 2022 - link
Intel is too far behind TSMC to even attempt to get Apple as a client. Apple silicon is on the bleeding node wise and pays for it. If Intel fabs were able to get close to meeting this demand Intel would already well past “back on top”.eva02langley - Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - link
What I am seeing is a company making 65B in Revenue annually... not making a dime and laying off people to stay in the green.Not mentioning the DCAI group is in shamble while AMD is releasing their Zen 4 EPYC chips in the upcoming days or weeks while Sapphire Rapids is not even here.
I don't see how Intel could comeback from this.
shabby - Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - link
<insert tech company> is doomed I tell ya, doomed!Tom Sunday - Tuesday, December 20, 2022 - link
Intel profitability is painful? My tech-company with over 3000 employees was yesterday declared unprofitable for 2022. Our year forecast looks even worse. No year-end raises, no bonuses and our 401K program is no longer supported by the company. The upper floor ‘windowed office’ executives felt that with about 48% of our regulars still on WFM, that year-end results would have been better. As of a week ago all WFH people were advised by our 'Human Capital' office that they are now reclassified as casual employees with no company benefits and are basically on a consultant status.This said I wish we would be INTEL which appears to having turned the corner and at least showing some kind of profit. But like INTEL our company has made it clear that cost reductions, and more layoffs are on the way. Like the many here I am sitting in a 4x4 cubicle (nicknamed by our executives ”The Cornfield”) and many of us will surely not be here next year. Reality now bites in the tech-world!
BushLin - Tuesday, November 1, 2022 - link
Do you remember when Athlon 64 was this best available desktop CPU while Pentium 4 stank the place out?(Pepperidge Farm remembers)
Then Core 2 happened, this Sandy Bridge Happened... Then Intel stopped trying so hard because they could rake in the cash with less investment, which is something they did a little too much of.
The stock buy backs and less R&D left Intel in a position where they could be overtaken, be less competitive, cancel cool things and lay people off... but I wouldn't write off their chances of taking the lead in manufacturing or design in the medium term.
OneEng - Tuesday, December 20, 2022 - link
Yes. I remember it well. The difference being that Intel held a 1.5 to 2 die shrink advantage over AMD back then when AMD decided "real men have fabs" despite the reality that AMD wasn't a fab expert (and it showed).Today, AMD is using TSMC and maintains a full die shrink advantage over Intel (based on transistor density). AMD also holds a huge advantage over Intel by the use of chiplets. Sure, Intel will follow soon, but it seems to me like Intel is taking crazy risks to get back into the game.
1) First use of EUV
2) First use of tiles
3) New architecture
Intel recently stated that the 10nm failure was due to taking too many risks in a single generation. Looks to me like they are doing it again.
Finally, the idea that Intel can pull off 5 die shrinks in 3 years when they just completed 1 die shrink in 7 years seems much more than "wildly optimistic" to me.
I will give it to you though. I was sufficently surprised when Intel pulled out Core 2, but Intel isn't facing the same weak AMD of the past, nor are they competing from such a huge process advantage.
I think things are going to get worse before they get better.