Intel will trade CPU dominance for success in new markets

mongeese

Posts: 408   +63
Staff member

"We come to work in the morning with a 30% share with every expectation over the next several years that we will play a larger and larger role in our customers' success - and that doesn't just mean CPUs. It means GPUs, it means Al, it does mean FPGAs. It means bringing these technologies together so we're solving customers’ problems. So, we're looking at a company with roughly 30% share in a $288B silicon TAM (total available market), not CPU TAM but silicon TAM," he declared at the recent Credit Suisse conference (transcribed by Wccftech).

Intel’s recent explorations of new markets have been met with varying success. Their Optane storage and memory devices have been intriguing and popular, but their modem business turned out to be a disastrous multi-billion dollar bust. All the while, they’ve been plagued with painful CPU shortages. Swan is placing the blame on their ambition.

"The scar tissue really started with Moore's Law. Two times scaling factor every two years, and that's kind of the simple rule of thumb. That's worked for a very long time. And the transition from 22 to 40 nm and then 14 to 10 nm we decided that despite the fact the physics was getting more challenging, we decided to set a higher bar for ourselves in terms of performance."

"So, the 22 to 14 is not a 2 times density, it was 2.4 and it was bumpy along the way. But it worked and that working gave us the confidence that for 14 to 10 - why don't we take the scaling factor up to 2.7?"

Of course, by trying to jump too far ahead Intel compromised their existing 14 nm foundries and couldn’t produce enough CPUs to meet demand, which left them scrambling when they should have been focusing on emerging tech like 5G. Hopefully, the new change in culture will set them on the right path.

Permalink to story.

 

Uncle Al

Posts: 7,402   +5,848
Sounds a bit to me like a new "spin" to address why they are falling behind in the overall market, but as we've seen over the years there are always ebs and tides to memory, CPU's, and just about every peripheral made ....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3ogdy and Markoni35

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,476   +5,852
  • Like
Reactions: Shadowboxer

yeeeeman

Posts: 329   +276
Is this the CEO Intel needs? The heck man, get this loser out and bring some relative of Lisa Su or Jen-Hsun Huang. With this guy, Intel is going to make toilet paper in a few years cause it is a lucrative market, lol.
 

candle_86

Posts: 515   +383
Is this the CEO Intel needs? The heck man, get this loser out and bring some relative of Lisa Su or Jen-Hsun Huang. With this guy, Intel is going to make toilet paper in a few years cause it is a lucrative market, lol.
Nah trying to save face is all he is doing, but I couldn't help but laugh at the jump from 14 to 10 being to hard to do while tsmc did it flawlessly and even leapfrogged to 7.
 

godrilla

Posts: 156   +82
That said they better deliver some nice competition to discrete GPU market. While they take their time the market will already be on 7nm+ for both gpus and cpus. The company is either being sabotaged or they have a real ace up their sleeve imo.
While they struggle to get successful 10nm silicon yields. AMD was able to achieve Vega 7 and ( almost 1 year anniversary ), ryzen 3950x and new threadripper all on 7nm. Currently AMD's growth is not limited to innovation. While some might wish for Intel's demise, the market would benefit for a competitive Intel that keeps the other 2 in on their toes through competition.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axle Greese

Shadowboxer

Posts: 924   +545
Intel have just posted record profits. Sure they have lost a few percentage points of market share because AMD finally got this years CPU launch right after over a decade of failure but the overall picture at Intel is pretty good.

I’m just saying because a lot of people are giving Intel stick when really as a company they are performing quite well.

CPU performance is a commodity. Right now you should buy AMD in most cases. But this can change very quickly with one product launch or price cut.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dimitrios

Porkous

Posts: 109   +27
Seems that Amd has better CEO, according to Wikipedia. Sounds like he is the jack of all cards and not actually into tech, but rather finance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dimitrios

Irata

Posts: 810   +1,142
TechSpot Elite
That said they better deliver some nice competition to discrete GPU market. While they take their time the market will already be on 7nm+ for both gpus and cpus. The company is either being sabotaged or they have a real ace up their sleeve imo.
While they struggle to get successful 10nm silicon yields. AMD was able to achieve Vega 7 and ( almost 1 year anniversary ), ryzen 3950x and new threadripper all on 7nm. Currently AMD's growth is not limited to innovation. While some might wish for Intel's demise, the market would benefit for a competitive Intel that keeps the other 2 in on their toes through competition.
I agree that just having one CPU supplier would be bad, but Intel needs to suffer a lot more before we have a competitive market. Just look at the OEM as an example. They are whining about lost sales due to Intel's supply issues where they could proactively have filled the gap with good Ryzen based systems a while ago.

Almost seems like they were afraid to do so.
 

treetops

Posts: 3,009   +758
Are the last 2 paragraphs in this article the least bit true? Did they decide to go for 2.7 nm, is that what "compromised" their foundries? I think he would have been better off saying nothing. They were on top with no competition and decided to slowly bleed us. Maybe overall they will make more money with this tactic. I had more respect for intel when they said ok we pretty much have nothing to match AMD for a year+. (besides gaming on the 9700k 9900ks f)
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 662   +475
LOL INTEL is a joke. Just like they fired their CEO when they realized Ryzen was on par in performance. INTEL claimed the CEO was having a relationship with a co worker and we all know that was bull$hit.

What's next, them losing Billions as time goes on and claiming it's because they were donating the money??? INTEL excuses are just pathetic.
 

Dimitrios

Posts: 662   +475
Isn't this what literally every tech company or any business does? AMD are no different. Everyones trying to save face.

That clever plan was from Lisa Su. She said that to catch INTEL off guard. INTEL got lazy and Lisa got them.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
Sounds to me like the same kind of plan that Rory Reed implemented as CEO of AMD - before he was canned. IMO, it is typical of a business wonk with no idea what technology is.
 

neeyik

Posts: 1,306   +1,374
Staff member
Are the last 2 paragraphs in this article the least bit true? Did they decide to go for 2.7 nm, is that what "compromised" their foundries?
Not 2.7 nm but a 2.7 times increase in component density. Intel had/has a solid architecture that they saw no particular reason to significantly change; this especially true given that, ultimately, the transition from their 22nm process node to the 14nm one was particularly fruitful. However, when they started developing the 10nm node, they generated the next round of CPU designs solely for that node. So when the new process was struggling in comparison to the older node, they couldn't immediately convert the new designs to work in the old node.

Essentially, Intel had thrown all of the eggs, chickens, feed, basket, coops, the lot.. all into one basket. Cue the furious backtracking to stretch out the old node, while they carry one with the newer one; but all they could do is refine the node, not so much the architecture. Thus, clocks and yields improved, allowing them to churn out higher core count CPUs, but all based on the same old design and same old node (roughly speaking).

While the timing of Intel's announcement is a little fishy, the overall plan is a sensible one for them - they are an enormous organisation, and yet they seemed to have been focused far too much in one particular field.
 

wiyosaya

Posts: 5,363   +3,444
While the timing of Intel's announcement is a little fishy, the overall plan is a sensible one for them
Maybe, if they can make it work. Rory Reed thought the mobile CPU market was enough for AMD. Granted, this is a different situation, but essentially, IMO, it sounds like a similar strategy. Take what they think they are good at it, and make due with that.

Personally, I find a measure of corporate hubris in this. To me, it seems that Intel thinks they are a great company, and measured by size and past successes, they are; however, I worked for a once industry giant. I saw a similar hubris within that company as if there was nothing that could stop them. Well, that company is basically no more, and based on my experience, corporate hubris is something that can be a deadly parasite that no one sees coming.

We will see what happens.