Sat, Apr 19, 2014, 9:13 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the posts
  • marsavian marsavian Dec 4, 2011 9:40 AM Flag

    When the Intel story becomes obvious, you will have missed it.

    'Do you understand that when Intel sells its chips into tablets and the like that it still makes close to 100 dollars per chip? When it sells into phones, it will still make that.'

    BS. Atom asp has always been below $40 meaning GM profits of $10-15, an order of magnitude in reality from your empty boasts. It has also been losing marketshare and revenue at these prices to both AMD and ARM.


    'OK--the Arm fanboys and Intel bashers will say that Arm chips sell for 30 dollars and so why oh why would a phone maker use an Intel chip at near 100? Answer is--because a phone with Intel inside becomes a computer and a phone. it can talk easily to all X86 based software at work and at home. It is fast and cool.'

    Z600 Atom 1.3W x86 phone chips can be had now, why is no major vendor beating down a door to Intel to pay near $100 to put it into a generic phone (which doesn't double up as a Windows 7 PC) ?


    'Down sides? Yes Intel will get sued again for antitrust violations as it crushes ARM and qualcom and the rest. So what. When you wake up in the morning and Intel is over 80 dollars a share, that will not bother you. This company has THE CHIP that will power Devices for the next 20 years or longer.'

    Nice fantasy but there is frankly no chance of Intel gaining a majority marketshare with ~$100 Atom phone chips. It lacks the performance/power/price to be taken seriously. Even Intel desktop/notebook chips have both dropped below $100 asp now. Your whole supposition is one big wet dream unsupported by any known evidence.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • http://apcmag.com/the-rise-of-the-ultrab...

      No atom.

      Intel predicts that by the end of next year, 40% of all notebooks sold will be Ultrabooks, rising to 60% by 2013.

      Huge net profits for Intel.

    • No atom in Ultrabooks so whay are you talking about?

    • You are an wrong.

      Read
      Intel is not putting atoms in the Ultrabooks.

      We can thus ignore the rest of your obtuse post.

      Here to help
      Your pal
      Monkey.

    • "Nice fantasy but there is frankly no chance of Intel gaining a majority marketshare with ~$100 Atom phone chips. It lacks the performance/power/price to be taken seriously. Even Intel desktop/notebook chips have both dropped below $100 asp now. Your whole supposition is one big wet dream unsupported by any known evidence."

      ***

      Your argument is a red herring.

      It doesn't matter what the price is. This is why:

      1.) We know the smart phone market is profitable. Lousy ASPs and margins but huge volumes. It all works out.
      2.) We know that Intel's manufacturing is the best in the world.
      3.) We know that Intel's fabrication cycle is going to eliminate all of ARMs advantages.
      4.) We know that Intel is hugely successful in almost every market that it targets. It has now targeted smart phones.

      Intel will carve out a significant or predominant share of business in mobility. It's going to start this year and be obvious by 2013. In the meantime the Cloud, servers and datacenters will keep Intel ramping up and the money flowing in.

      You argument is nothing but a distraction from the major dynamics in play...

      • 1 Reply to wallisweaver
      • 2.) We know that Intel's manufacturing is the best in the world.
        3.) We know that Intel's fabrication cycle is going to eliminate all of ARMs advantages.
        -----

        No. Intel's manufacturing is the best in the world at HIGH PERFORMANCE. Most of the fabs have better low power processes than Intel, and some of them will increase their lead over Intel in 2012.

        From one of your posts:

        -----
        Ivy Bridge was designed primarily to try and reduce power consumption, while boosting integrated graphics performance. From what we can tell they’ve accomplished both. Power savings average out to around 19% less than the Sandy Bridge equivalents, with TDP dropping from 95 watts to around 77 watts at the same performance levels.
        -----

        Given that we have both a node shrink and tri-gate with Ivy-bridge, Intel still only gets a 19% reduction in power consumption (*). We'll have to wait till 2013 to see Atom at 22nm. As a side, the foundries are getting that kind of reduction on the *same* process node using other design tweaks.

        * Not a fair comparison as the GPU's have increased in size, and larger cashes.

 
INTC
27.04+0.11(+0.41%)Apr 17 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.