Thanks for your detailed reply.
'I suspect YOY revenues for the 1st quarter will increase substantially, and increase moderately on a sequential basis. '
The first quarter of 2013 declined 7.5% from the last quarter of 2012 so if the same seasonality is repeated this year you will come in with revenue of $11m and as you made a small profit on $10m in the 3rd quarter you will probably be ok *IF* GMs hold up. It could be tight but you should be ok to avoid a loss which would crash the price. Obviously you will need more than 4c profit a year eventually to justify the current price because that gives you a current P/E of 100 ;-).
'chipguy Monday, 03/10/14 04:36:25 PM
Re: mas post# 131298
Post # of 131299
You have worked this out before so I wonder if you could just remind me what in your considered opinion the annual cpu development costs of Itanium were at its peak and now ?
At the recent peak (Tukwila physical design concurrent with Poulson
uarch development) it was probably on the order of $200m-$300m per
year. Now it is probably less than $10m (Kittson now seems to be a
rebadged/speed bumped, hidden feature enabled Poulson) which is
basically manufacturing/test support. AFAIK FTC moved onto other
things about a year ago when HP refused to fund a 22 nm Kittson. '
But #$%$ do chipguy and I know, after all we have only had real jobs in the IT/computing industry producing real products for real customers for decades. We bow down to all you amateur and professional financial analyst BS'ers.
Core asp is closer to $100 and server asp is about 4 times that. You also could keep refitting the other parts of the same Fab for years as well as not have to keep on the 2 year process treadmill as die size is not so important for a server part. The whole capex/process roadmap would lighten compared to what it is now so the amount to be depreciated per year would change and not just on a pro rata revenue basis. Remember also the low volumes all the Risc companies survive on and IBM, Fujitsu, Dec have/had their own Fabs. The company net margins would not be radically different to what they are now.
Fundamentally I still think you got it wrong in your analysis and that it is the billions of revenue at around $400 asp that make DCG what it is and not the IP/depreciation contribution from Core. Intel server asp has been rising over the years as PC asp has been falling and that is because Intel server chips have been migrating further up the food chain from their humble single/dual socket beginnings.
Xeon Phi and Avoton are part of Other Architecture and new E5s are not released every year and are just a MP derivative version of E3 anyway. No, it's not in the same ballpark.
'You don't think that the entire pipeline of CPUs that Intel has in the pipeline costs that much to develop per year? '
Remember this is a server only business now.
'DCG's share of depreciation & amortization so I am not convinced of this. '
You think only having 1 Fab (which in fact could just be the development one D1X used as production too) and not having 3 Fabs elsewhere won't mean a massive drop in capex ? GIGO.
'Broadcom estimates that the design of a single IC on 28nm costs about $300 million.'
Spread over 4 years. If you have a continual pipeline of 4 products that still gives you $300m annual costs. Intel is still developing Itanium in its DCG business and that is not sticking out like a sore thumb is it ?
'Also, something to keep in mind is that even if we 100% strip out the IP design/verification overhead and just keep the $1.6 billion+ process R&D, we still have a business that would see op margin drop from 47% - 39% if PCCG were to vanish.'
Company capex would be much less though because less Fabs would need to be built over time. So the overall business would be just as if not even more profitable.
The annual cpu development costs would nowhere be near $1bn and not even $500m. Do you think Apple is paying that for its succession of A chips ?
Gee this is the fun part of your 'real job' where you get to make stuff up ;-).
' (i.e. 3-4 CPU and related SoC IP generations in the works) '
SoC for servers ?
'Let's call this $1 billion (we can debate this, obviously) total. '
Chipguy over at ihub has given the development estimates for Itanium many times and they are nowhere near that high, ask him. See we already actually have a real example at Intel of the hypothetical case you are suggesting.
Haswell is faster but the battery life will not be as good. Depends which is more important to you. The performance of B-T is not bad as neither is the battery life of Haswell but it just depends what will mean more to you and of course Haswell will be more expensive. Also B-T is 4 real cores while Haswell is 2 cores with 4 threads although do check that for the i3 but from memory I think all the Haswells that are being used for DVP11 have 4 threads.
Are not the margins generally falling though ? With such a small profit in Q4 is there not a chance the income will fall into loss with the lower volume in Q1 ? Just asking as I am pleased for you that your stock is finally getting some love but it does seem to me the profit/loss situation here is precariously balanced for the moment.
The point is exaggerated, does Apple's development team cost billions ? Also a lot of the x86 and the gpu in Atom comes from previous Core yet it does not help its margins.
From your latest piece
'First of all, the gross margins in the data center group are so high because Intel's "Core" processors (i.e., those 300 million PC chips) essentially pay off the manufacturing plants that they're built at, meaning from an accounting perspective, DCG's gross margins are stratospheric. Further, since those server chips reuse a ton of the IP developed for those PC chips, once again from an accounting perspective, much of that R&D is already paid for by the PC processors. In short, without the PC group essentially doing a lot of the heavy lifting for DCG, DCG wouldn't be anywhere near as profitable. '
DCG's profit margin is high because server asp is very high i.e. hundreds of dollars. Intel could operate successfully as a lower volume server only company if it had to, there is enough revenue there but on lower volume that Intel would only need 1 production Fab so its operating costs would be much lower. Remember the mobile division also shares the same manufacturing plants, one of your reasons, but it loses money.
I post ALL relevant information to Intel. When it is pro- you think I am pumping INTC when it is anti- you think I am pumping ARMH lol. I suppose when you post NO information like YOU, EVERYTHING is a PUMP LOL !! I did no selling that week unlike you. Perhaps you would like everybody to post NO information like you and then the whole board could be about personalities and who dislikes and distrusts who. Pathetic is too nice a word to describe you.
What you wrote was a fair summary of events as well as fundamentally the correct analysis. The fact remains though that INTC is still only just over a dollar from its breakout price, the only difference between now and then was that the stock has fallen below its 50MA now which has turned into resistance but if that is overcome and the other long term moving averages around 25.9 then the stock will roam free again as it did before i.e. it will behave like NVDA is now doing against as before when it could not budge past 16.5. Both NVDA and INTC had similar charts and technical hurdles to overcome but the difference was that everybody liked Nvidia's earnings and so its pre-earnings breakout was sustained and prolonged up to the 18s. TA is just a way of figuring out why some stocks go up/down relatively easily and some don't, that's all.
I must admit though there is one stock that just does not obey normal TA patterns and that is ARMH. The way it regularly just crashes through, up and down strong resistance, support, moving averages as if they were not there is quite frankly amazing and smacks to me of major manipulation by big money men who have the funds to make a complete mockery of ARMH's TA patterns and move it up and down as they see fit. Even the absence of normal TA behavior there though is telling you something ;-).
LoL as if you are not nuff105 ! The same stupid MO, the same dumb questions, it could only be dumb old you ! I told you already why the price fell from $27, the market acted irrationally to an Intel quarter that fell well within Intel's guidance but did not match up what some analysts cooked up. It had nothing to do with TA and so fell outside of my TA-wise prediction and if you only had one tiny functioning brain cell that would have seeped into that dumb brain of yours by now. The main trouble with you is that you are too stupid to know how really stupid you are. I would be positively embarrassed to publicly reveal such stupidity as you display with every post you write.
'Napoleon is his idle.'
The word is idol and no butcher and slaughterer of men would be my idol.
3 years later and ARM is still ok until at least 16FF in 2015 which is not bad for an imminent fabrication crisis ;-). If there is a crisis of sorts in ARM fabrication it is one of cost not of capability i.e. ARM foundries will get you to a lower process size but it won't be cheaper per transistor.
'Not proven yet. There will be nothing new at 14nm just greater leakage to fight. '
Pleased to report that Intel excelled themselves and did indeed fight the extra leakage and produce better performance and lower power consumption if Broadwell is any guide.
ARMH is toast not because of any of the above but that its revenue growth is just not sustainable: for market saturation reasons, for Intel competition reasons and also technical design reasons i.e. after 64-bit quad-cores where are all the new licenses going to come from ?
'is why Intel claimed that Bay Trail-T would be the big runner in tablets rather than Merrifield in the low end and Moorefield at the high end for Android. '
Probably because Moorefield was very very late on the roadmap and has probably caused a late change of strategy. With the very similar Merrifield as the starting design Intel could knock up something like Moorefield in just over a year, it is conceivable it was only started in 2013 after say the Silvermont intro when it was not mentioned at all probably because it did not even exist then ;-) . Intel did a similar speedy thing when they knocked up dual and quad Pentium Ds quickly.
'This is why I find it unfortunate that you continue to attack me'
Just your work which has slipped badly in quality to be replaced instead by reams of repetitive content-light quantity.
The IBM instruction is an I-O one that David Kanter mentioned in a RWT mainframe article. Now David Kanter is the Gold Standard of computer tech journalists, the best, you could do a lot worse than picking up his good habits and technical knowledge although he does not give out serious stock implications information though ;-)