Intel assures PC chip supply on track to meet revenue outlook

[HEXUS]

But will it be able to fight back once TSMC is "firmly in the lead"?

Read more.

[ETR316]

fab issues aside, are the 9900's bench marks any good?

[Ozaron]

fab issues aside, are the 9900's bench marks any good?

Supposedly better than R7 2700X by a decent margin. Question is, obviously, how much of that is just higher clocks, and whether it runs hot to achieve that.

[lumireleon]

Intel should 'simply' buy AMD RTG group....intel HD would be EXTREMELY good.

[DanceswithUnix]

So if I'm reading this right, Intel cpus are short of supply but that's alright because they upped the price so their profits won't suffer?

Intel should 'simply' buy AMD RTG group....intel HD would be EXTREMELY good.

Intel bought the DEC Alpha group, it didn't help their CPU technology it just succeeded in killing one of the best architectures we have had. Some of the people involved in Alpha went to AMD to work on the early Athlon range.

So I predict that if Intel bought the RTG group, that would be good only for Nvidia picking up the best of their employees.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Apparently the shortage is because Apple is making its phone modems at Intel now.

[Fr3ddy]

Intel should 'simply' buy AMD RTG group....intel HD would be EXTREMELY good.

Intel can't buy AMD, because the US law about it being anti-competitive. This was decided along time ago. Although, Intel and AMD do have cross licencing deals. I think this was part of the deal to keep AMD in business at the time.
Similarly to Bill Gates bailing out Apple in 1997.

[DanceswithUnix]

Intel can't buy AMD, because the US law about it being anti-competitive. This was decided along time ago. Although, Intel and AMD do have cross licencing deals. I think this was part of the deal to keep AMD in business at the time.
Similarly to Bill Gates bailing out Apple in 1997.

Sadly I don't think there is any altruism there.

IBM demanded that Intel set up a second source for the 8088 & 8086 when they designed the original PC as part of the deal. I expect Intel have kept it going partly to avoid getting into even deeper trouble for being a monopolist.

I don't think Microsoft so much bailed out Apple as bought them off from their continual lawsuits saying Windows was a copy of the Mac for what to Microsoft was a tiny amount of money.

[kompukare]

So if I'm reading this right, Intel cpus are short of supply but that's alright because they upped the price so their profits won't suffer?.

That was my first though too, although in part shortages like the mining one it was mostly the retailers and distributors who takes it it; AMD and Nvidia only gained by facing less pressure to reduce prices as (was) the norm during previous generations.

The RAM and NAND market behaved differently though.

[Corky34]

Intel can't buy AMD, because the US law about it being anti-competitive.

I'm not sure that would apply these days, back then consumers only really used Intel or AMD but these days there's far more variation, if anything I'd guess ARM based systems in the guise of mobile phones outweigh Intel and AMD combined in the consumer space, and in the enterprise space it seems there's everything from IBM's RISC based CPUs, the Chinese Sunway series, and Fujitsu's Sparc64 series to name only a few.

That's not to say it wouldn't raise some eyebrows but i think it's more a case that Intel wouldn't buy AMD simply because it's not worth the hassle and it's probably cheaper for them to just do it themselves, they've shown in the past that they're more than capable of developing new stuff and hiring pretty much whoever they want, developing new products is far easier than trying to merge two companies.

[PC-LAD]

it's OK guys, they worry too much about what AMD put out product wise and that forces them to put out products when they should just focus on r&d though there is the argument that it gives them more funding (they don't need it btw)

[DanceswithUnix]

I'm not sure that would apply these days, back then consumers only really used Intel or AMD but these days there's far more variation, if anything I'd guess ARM based systems in the guise of mobile phones outweigh Intel and AMD combined in the consumer space, and in the enterprise space it seems there's everything from IBM's RISC based CPUs, the Chinese Sunway series, and Fujitsu's Sparc64 series to name only a few.

That's not to say it wouldn't raise some eyebrows but i think it's more a case that Intel wouldn't buy AMD simply because it's not worth the hassle and it's probably cheaper for them to just do it themselves, they've shown in the past that they're more than capable of developing new stuff and hiring pretty much whoever they want, developing new products is far easier than trying to merge two companies.

Intel had something like 95% of the server market. AMD are bound to chomp into that in the next few years with better products (even before you apply Meltdown patches) coupled with Intel's surprising inability to make enough CPUs right now (I thought that was the whole point in owning your own fab, they don't have anyone else to blame).

Intel are dominant in laptop and desktop markets, AMD are making good inroads but for most people still have the second best product after Intel so I don't expect miracles.

So I'm sure Intel are worried about ARM, in the same way that ARM are worried about RISC-V, but right now Intel are a clear monopoly in their markets and buying AMD would reinforce that.

Intel buying RTG on the other hand? That would move the current Duopoly, I know Intel are the biggest GPU maker by number of parts but lets face it they aren't in the same market as AMD & Nvidia.

[Corky34]

True but a high percentage share in one market doesn't mean a company is being anti-competitive or has a monopoly, arguably there's competition in the server markets and even if we say there isn't it can still be argued that the server market isn't indicative of the entire addressable processor market as (IIRC) mobile processors out number servers, laptop, and desktops combined.

To note: I'm not saying i personally don't think if Intel bought AMD that it wouldn't be anti-competitive or monopolistic, I'm saying that Intel could probably make a pretty good case that it wasn't if it ended up in the courts.

[nobodyspecial]

I predicted Intel being behind over 5yrs ago. Here we are. I thought 10nm would end it, but it looks like it took 7nm to truly claim this. If they'd have bought NVDA back then (8-10 bucks?), this would have never happened as NVDA would have taken over the ARM war with intel's process producing their chips back then all up to now. NVDA wouldn't have needed modems as Intel has a good one and could have easily incorporated it into NVDA socs. Major management failure.

[DanceswithUnix]

True but a high percentage share in one market doesn't mean a company is being anti-competitive or has a monopoly, arguably there's competition in the server markets and even if we say there isn't it can still be argued that the server market isn't indicative of the entire addressable processor market as (IIRC) mobile processors out number servers, laptop, and desktops combined.

To note: I'm not saying i personally don't think if Intel bought AMD that it wouldn't be anti-competitive or monopolistic, I'm saying that Intel could probably make a pretty good case that it wasn't if it ended up in the courts.

I'm sure Intel would argue it, but it shouldn't be hard to show harm being done to the consumer. If it was a competitive market then right now Intel could not have put their prices up.

[Corky34]

but it shouldn't be hard to show harm being done to the consumer. If it was a competitive market then right now Intel could not have put their prices up.

I think it would TBH, i mean if AMD has such a small share of the market already reducing it to zero shouldn't be that impactful, it could be said Intel is already being anti-competitive and has a monopoly, and has had for many years, however returning to the original point that Intel can't buy AMD due to US law about it being anti-competitive.

IMO that would be a more difficult thing to prove in today's market, it wouldn't be an open & shut case and could drag on for years, if not decades, and like i said a battle like that just isn't worth it for Intel, the costs involved would far outweigh those of developing new technology and products, it just wouldn't be worth the hassle.