% | $
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
  • amdmonkey72 amdmonkey72 Dec 10, 2011 8:14 PM Flag

    Intel pump part 2.

    We simply disagree.

    Good luck.

    A few factual errors in your mindset I did see.

    You say "competitors can easily produce the chips to go into servers." What competitors? AMD and Intel together make over 90% of the CPUs that go into servers and Intel has 80% of that 90%. If it is so easy, why are they letting Intel make so so much money in server chip sales?

    You said, "History has proven that Intel has consistently been behind the 8 ball when it comes to development."

    Intel created the X 86CPU and along with Microsoft helped create the PC market. It did not follow any company. It then attacked the server area and took majority share there as well.

    Last time I looked, Intel was growing its net profits and this is even before the attack it soon will make on the Tablet and phone markets.

    You seem to be under the idea that any idiot fabrication company can make top quality server chips in huge volume. You are mistaken.

    You seem to think that Intel has a history of losing fight in the CPU area to competitors. Not one yet has beaten Intel in a one on one fight.

    The roads are filled with companies that tried to compete in making CPUs against Intel and likely ARMH will become one more.

    You really sound like an Intel short. Good for you.

    I will remember you well when Intel hits 400 in 2012.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • goldenseth Dec 11, 2011 8:20 AM Flag

      Not a short at all my friend, in fact, my research firm has a buy recommendation on Intel with a price Target at $32 a share, instituted just last week. I'm simply trying to play devil's advocate here to see how an intelligent person such as yourself makes inferences into data points (no sarcasm). But understand that in your reply you answered the question as I thought you would. Nothing has changed historyically, right? As you say they lead, develope, and are the big boy on the block. Always have been. Your not backing up your argument for a price north of my target of $32 a share with any new arguments that change investor sentiment toward Intel. That is what I'm looking for here. Everybody sees the potential in the data, easy, but what changes the mindset of the big institutional players in such a way that gets the stock to see your price range?

      • 2 Replies to goldenseth
      • I understand what you are saying and I think you need to listen to your own question.

        You are asking why it is that smart phone makers would use Intel chips instead of chips made from others that ARM based. Right?

        Well it is simple.
        If a phone maker, even one like Samsung which can make its own chips, can sell its phone more with Intel chips and make more money using same, it will use them.

        Apple is now making its own chips (Fabbing them out) for phones right.
        So why does it use Intel chips in its Macs? I mean the way you say it, Apple can make its own chips and they are no different so it should not be using Intel chips. What is wrong with your logic here?

        Intel chips are much higher performance and Apple cannot make them.

        Oh--I get it--Apple cannot make the CPUs in volume that are as good and as cheap as what Intel can make. So big bad money making Apple buys its CPUs for its Mac lines from Intel. Do you get it?

        The same will happen with many many companies with Intel phone chips.

        Why oh why do people not see what is so so obvious to we Intel fanboys here? Well--maybe because normal human beings do not spend so much time and money in thinking about it.

        By the time Intel breaks out with 4 and a half billion net profit or more in 2012, the people who want to buy Intel stock on the cheap will have missed a huge move up. Just think, they could have had Intel at 18 not more than a few months ago. It will be at your 32 soon. It will get to my 40 not that long after.

        Still--my point is that it obviously is not true that it is easy to make what Intel makes, because if it was, Intel would not be making so so much money selling the stuff. Intel make 65% margins. Last time I looked. companies that sell commodities did not make margins like that.

        When Intel shrinks two more times, its phone chips will be vastly superior to ARM based designs. Maybe you saw what happened to the ARMH chips as soon as ARM tried to increase performance. That is right. The power usage of those chips increased drastically. In the server area, where Intel is KING, Arm will not make high performance chips that beat Intel in power savings. ARM will not make chips that are backward compatible with software on servers that all the companies use.

        Even HUGE server makers like Google and Amazon buy the CPUs from Intel to make their armies of servers.

        Nuff said.
        ARM will lose huge and it is not true that it can live well with Intel. Intel of course says that because it always gets sued for antitrust after it destroys competitors.

        But Intel will not stop at 30% market share in phones. it will push and push until Arm based chips are bottom feeding on the cheap phones and Intel is making 90% of the profits in CPUs made for phones.
        2015 predictions of ARM are hilarious and I recommend going shot ARMH as soon as Intel show the Phone chips eating market share.

      • "Your not backing up your argument for a price north of my target of $32 a share with any new arguments that change investor sentiment toward Intel."


        This guy is just another part of the one man shill show but if he weren't I would offer this:

        I have a hard time understanding how someone with your limited analysis skills keeps a job. It's like you say - you are just like the 95 percent of analysts that have been dead wrong for two years and still don't get it.

        It's not about the last ten years. If you can't tell the difference between now and ten years ago, then you don't get out much. Or at all. Otherwise you would know about:

        1.) The Cloud and big data. Cloud traffic is ramping up at a 66 percent a year rate and this is going to continue for at least 5 to 10 years. Intel will ramp as long as the Cloud does.
        2.) The arrival of the "Internet of Things (IoT)". Connecting things (devices, cars, signs, vending machiness, cameras, doorknobs, appliances, HVAC with sensors, WiFi and radio frequency tags) instead of people is going to add an whole new monstrous level to the internet. Intel will be one of the primary beneficiaries.
        3.) The processor/gps/video/connectivity dynamic is moving into all aspects of our society.
        4.) Video growth is just starting to explode. Another level of resolution above 1080p is just starting to roll out. This will drive traffic through the roof and many, many more servers will be required.
        5.) Mobility and connectivity are going to expand rapidly into emerging economies due to rising incomes and lower PC prices. Everyone is going to get connected with video and mobility.

        We are in the midst of a revolution in computing and connectivity. I don't understand how you and the analysts can be so blind to obvious trends.

        Only Intel has the big fabrication necessary to capitalize on all these trends. It means that they will be adding market share. And the ISPI (Intel Smart Phone Invasion) is just starting.

        Throw your analysis based on ten year old history in the trash and start over. It's not worth spit...

        PS. When you write, hit the return key every once in a while for goodness sake. That one long paragraph makes it look like you've never used a computer before.

    • "The roads are filled with companies that tried to compete in making CPUs against Intel"

      Very True !!!
      Microsoft SW has been a cash cow on x86
      No other company CPU ISA had that cash cow
      Windows ported to Alpha, but it was one company and no SW ran on it.
      It had NO CHANCE before it began...

      "likely ARMH will become one more"

      The difference this time around is the ARM ISA is not just one company competing against x86... but numerous(and growing) companies jumping on the ARM ISA.

      The fallacy on INtel vs ARM is that it's not a zero sum game !!!!
      INtel growing x86 doesn't mean ARM won't grow as well...

      How many years did it take for x86 to grow into the giant it is today ??
      The point is ARM ISA is just starting its growth into the performance market...
      and true high-performance ARM CPUs won't even hit the street till 2013..

    • I meant of course 40 in 2012


34.92-0.18(-0.51%)Oct 26 4:00 PMEDT