Intel’s stock dropped around 30% overnight, shaving some $39 billion from the company’s market capitalization since rumors of a pending layoff first emerged. The devastating results come after the chip giant reported a loss for the second quarter, complained about yield issues with the Meteor Lake CPU, provided a modest business outlook for the next few quarters, and announced plans to lay off 15,000 people worldwide.
When the NYSE closed on July 31, Intel’s market capitalization was $130.86 billion. Then, a report about Intel’s massive layoffs was published, and the company’s market capitalization dropped sharply to $123.96 billion on August 1. Following Intel’s financial report yesterday, the company’s capitalization dropped to $91.86 billion. Essentially, Intel has lost half of its capitalization since January. As of now, Intel’s market value is a fraction of Nvidia’s worth and less than half of AMD’s.
As Intel’s actions look rather desperate, analysts believe that Intel’s challenges are existential. “Intel’s issues are now approaching the existential,” Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with Bernstein, told Reuters.
When I had to flash my BIOS and pray that it didn’t brick my PC I cursed them, saying “Fuck Intel, I hope their stock plummets!”
You’re welcome everyone.
can you do reddit next please
Tiktok afterwards please.
Then all oil companies
Let’s do these before everything else
Then we move on to private equity firms
Alright, alright. This is getting out of hand.
We need to make a list and then do like a reverse Kantian calculus to figure out which ones are doing the most harm and start from the top in descending order.
Ticketmaster
Everyone’s acting like this guy said he’s taking requests.
Well we’re not all fucking witches here, I’m sure he’ll do something if someone gives him their firstborn.
Can you tell a guy first, I could have shorted
At least you didn’t invest all of grandma’s inheritance in Intel, just before it dropped.
That reddit thread is a gem. Funniest shit I’ve seen on WSB in a while.
Fucking good! I know it’s not the primary reason, but it’s by high time that people see laying off 15k people as a bad thing and the company suffering for it.
I fear it’s wishful thinking that the layoffs are what made the stock tank. It’s certainly never hurt anyone else…
The layoffs were announced at the same time as Intel’s Q2 financial results: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/actions-accelerate-our-progress.html
Yep, that’ll do it.
They’re not even bothered by the fucked up chips.
I was gonna say… how is it not this? Weird world.
I’m guessing those chips are a tiny fraction of Intel’s revenue.
AMD have been eating their lunch on more than just gaming PCs.
Stock price is largely about future earnings potential, not current quarter or past results. That’s why a company can have record-breaking earnings, but still eat shit in stock price for a while if it lowers predictions for next quarter.
yet
The actions we are taking will make Intel a leaner, simpler and more agile company.
Oof, now agile bullshit talk is infecting the lingo of the c-suite and being used as justification to do layoffs. I should’ve seen that coming, though I must’ve skipped the portion of the agile manifesto that said to choose Lamborghinis over employees.
layoffs are what made the stock tank
Yeah, it’s usually the opposite: Layoffs by themselves usually make the stock go up, as the company is reducing their expenses.
The issue with Intel is that they announced layoffs combined with a bad earnings call, so it’s a sign the company isn’t going so well.
I think it made an already bad situation worse.
I think the AI thing has really caught them off guard. There’s a gold rush and they have no real shovels to sell.
Intel’s only hope now is for the Chinese army to go for a holiday in Taiwan. Their competitors are hugely reliant on TSMC. That’s been brewing forever though, and hopefully will continue to not come to anything. The last thing the world needs right now is more fucking war…
Maybe they shouldn’t have fucked over all of their own people.
Fuck em
After how horribly they handled the whole hardware defect scandal with their 13th and 14th gen i Series processors, this is 100% deserved.
Intel is a cautionary tale of what happens when you allow bean counters who care more about EBITDA than their customers and staff to run the show.
This sounds like a modern day version of the Schlitz mistake back in the seventies where they cut the quality so much, so fast, that the formerly largest brewery in America became a worthless brand that nobody trusted.
The b-school lesson from this was to drop the quality of your product more slowly so people wouldn’t notice.
I figured no big company would ever suffer consequences from shitty product ever again because they’d figured out the drip instead of the open floodgates.
I hope more companies get to enjoy this fate, especially food producers.
The corruption drips slowly inside as well.
These fucking idiots. All they had to do was pretend they gave a fuck about the chip debacle and play everything slowly. They couldn’t even do that. They couldn’t even pretend to give a fuck about anyone. Neither their customers nor their employees.
If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.
If they replaced the C-suite with the custodial staff, they would be in a significantly better position than they are now. Executives are always dumb as fuck, with very few exceptions. Pre-requisites for the job: narcisism, sociopathy and idiocy.
Are we still talking about Intel, or…?
The funny thing is that there are executives who know what they’re doing, but they may be outvoted by people who failed upward due to connections or a “good background” (ivy league, internship, etc.).
I always thought “what does a brand name education prove?” This isn’t the 1800s. Community college now is almost as good as Harvard was in the 1800s. Back then, just being able to read meant that you were educated.
Also, what does an internship prove? You know how to carry 8 coffees at once? You can wear a cheap suit? No, it’s all cover for connections. If businesses wanted the best people (say the top 10%) you could literally just set up a table outside a subway station and interview random commuters, getting probably 10 good prospects in a day.
Ivy League, internships etc. prove exactly what you are critizising. They prove to have the connections. They prove to be part of the in-group. They prove that you will defend your class interests against the lower classes. And if you are one of the very few people who achieve upwards class mobility, they prove that you will be betraying them.
This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.
This is not about running the best company or running the best economy. It is about maintaining class power and privilege.
I understand your point, but neo-marxist perspectives like this fundamentally misunderstand what companies care about (for obvious reasons). No company cares about “class power” or “privilege” because shareholders only care about their own money.
Their “class” is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.
Their “class” is not important when it comes to investing. If they could fire all the nepo babies and use AI instead, they would do it in 1 second.
Firing the nepo babys remains consistent with being the owning class. And they put the nepo babies so they dont have to put rising middle and lower class people there.
It’s not. Investors literally only care about money.
Rich people don’t have “class consciousness” because they all want to be better and richer than other rich people. That’s what “keeping up with the Joneses” (or Kardashians) is. You don’t want the Joneses to improve, because that hurts you.
It’s a zero-sum game at the top. If your neighbor buys a Mercedes, you need to buy a Maserati. Like I said, neo-marxism fundamentally misunderstands rich people.
Rich people don’t think these things consciously. The wealthy don’t think, “How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?” They simply act selfishly, and their actions together with the actions of other selfish people lead naturally to oppression.
Until they get wealthy enough to buy politicians, at which point it does consciously become “How can I best ensure the worker class remains oppressed?”
I think you misunderstand rich people. Why do you think they make PACs? Why do you think they make Ivy Leagues and send their kids there? Why do you think they keep up all these illusions. Do you think they are too stupid to realize that you can get an equivalent education for a fraction of that money?
That’s communism.
Lot’s of isms
Like stupidism!
It certainly doesn’t help Intel has been intentionally selling defective product in the 13th and 14th gen lines. People are quite reasonably going to AMD more and more.
Does AMD have anything to compete with Intel QSV? I’m looking to upgrade my Plex server and was looking at a newer Intel CPU.
The latest AMD cpus do have transcoding, but Amd transcode isn’t very good and isn’t very compatible with Linux.
You can pick up an Intel A310 single slot GPU for $100 and it has AV1 encode, which is something that the igpu QSV doesn’t have. Works very well in my Epyc motherboard with 76 pcie lanes. I definitely recommend going with an ATX 1st gen Epyc cpu+motherboard if you want something that can do NVMe raid.
Amd transcode isn’t very good and isn’t very compatible with Linux
It’s compatible just fine. But the quality… well, it’s not the worst, but definitely not the best quality.
Politely, not the worst compared to what, exactly?
It’s way worse than qsv, nvenc, x264 or x265 which are basically the only hardware or cpu options you’re likely to run into doing plex transcoding.
I don’t have QSV or NVENC hardware to compare, but AMD is perfectly fine in most cases.
I mostly noticed quality drop with very busy scenes and some scene transitions.
Outside of those the quality was acceptable.I’d say on my setup it’s comparable to software encoding with x264 veryfast preset.
And my GPU is 5 years old now, so I’m sure newer cards have improved.
QSV is a very good product, high-quality and efficient. It’s also very mature, lots of signage in large deployments. I’ve tried AMD’s AMF streaming and at lower bit-rates you get a lot more blocking. It’s fine but QSV has an edge.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/827992/tested-intel-arc-av1-video-encoder-vs-nvidia-amd.html
Lower quality at any given bitrate was my experience too. For local stuff it didn’t really matter: if I could do 3x the bitrate to get the same quality, then meh, who cares.
If you’re streaming/doing shit over the internet/encoding for something like Youtube, though, it’s uh, not a good tradeoff because you can’t necessarily even make that tradeoff.
You can pick up an Intel A310 single slot GPU for $100 and it has AV1 encode, which is something that the igpu QSV doesn’t have.
That’s still an Intel product though…
It’s the best option on the market right now and the most compatible one. The drivers are owned by the Linux Foundation, and there are no known hardware bugs with Intel GPUs, unlike with Intel CPUs. You have so much flexibility; Buying an Intel GPU doesn’t prevent you from using another CPU, even GPU-less AMD Epyc CPUs that have the cheapest PCIe/$. All you need is a PCIe slot and you get all the benefits of Intel with none of the drawbacks.
I’m a bit of an AMD fanboy sometimes and I own AMD stock, but the A310 can’t be beat for Jellyfin transcoding. If you really hate Intel, keep in mind that Intel probably loses money on every GPU they sell 😉
I use the onboard CPU of my ryzen 5600g for my jellyfin and nextcloud (memories app) duties and it works flawless.
AMD have anything to compete with Intel QSV
I believe AMD VCN does the same thing. Though I haven’t looked into it. AMD chips also have pretty decent onboard video cores, so you might be able to do hardware accelerated encoding that way too.
was looking at a newer Intel CPU
Just stay away from Intel 13th and 14th gen chips. They have oxidation issues from the factory and are also over-volting themselves. The former is unfixable and the latter causes unfixable damage.
Does laptop cpus have same problems? I’ve found mixed results.
We don’t know and Intel is being incredibly mum about the entire situation.
Read somewhere that everything 65W TDP and up is affected. Laptop CPUs should be mostly fine then.
They also announced they are going to stop paying stock dividends starting Q4.
Back in ye olden days, you used to buy a stock largely due to its ability to regularly pay you back a dividend, as a more conventional kind of investment, before the more modern idea of ‘buy low sell high’ became the most prevalent investment strategy / market dynamic.
I’ve always thought that stocks have to pay dividents, like that’s the whole point of having it? I.e you get paid by the company regularly some of their profit, based on how much stock you have.
Does this mean that the only way how to make money from their stock now is to sell them to someone else? But then, it has nothing to do with the actual company and money they make, but you are paid by someone totally unrelated - the guy who buys the stock from you. I don’t get it, I suppose I’m missing something.
At least for the US, yes you are correct that this was the conventional logic that governed the average joe’s investment into a stock, up until… roughly the 60s or 70s.
I am not going to write a dissertation on the history of American financial investment, but yeah nowadays, the way you invest in the stock market is … you buy a stock, hope that its value increases by more than inflation, and then sell it later for what is called a capital gain, ie, profit from the difference between the price you bought vs the price you sold.
So yes, your the second half of your post is correct:
You buy Stock A for 100 from Some Guy 1, then later you hope to be able to sell Stock A to Some Guy 2 for 150.
The specifics of this can easily get absurdly complicated with exceptionally complex and advanced math and mountains of rules and regulations, but basically, what still holds true is this:
Literally a goldfish swimming to the left or right side of a tank to indicate what stocks should be bought or sold, this outperforms the average financial ‘wizard’ on wall street making your investment decisions.
BUT, basically at no time in the past 20 or 30 years has putting your money into a bank’s savings account to earn interest managed to beat the inflation rate, so if you want a chance to actually be rewarded for setting aside money, you put it into stocks, a mutual fund, an index fund, and well if you ever need to pull some cash out for an emergency, you get fucked by fees.
What you really do is buy real estate. But you have to already have a good deal of money to do that.
Isn’t capitalism fun?
I see, stonks are way more bullshit than I thought. Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else? I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept? I always thought it has something to do with the vaule of the company and the profits it earns, but if there is no way how to cash them out other than selling your piece of paper to someone, then it’s really the same? I suppose that unlike crypto, the stock price increases if the company is turning profit, but you still have to find someone to sell it to, right, so the price is increasing only because the demand from people willing to buy it is increasing due to it turning profit, but it’s not really tied to the actual value of the company, so it’s exactly like crypto? Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?
The huge difference is that a stock is a stake of actual ownership in the company. You can attend and vote in shareholder meetings so with enough stocks you can actually influence what the company does. And unlike crypto there is a natural non-zero price floor, which is the value of all of the tangible assets of the company which could be sold off if the company shut down (less any liabilities).
That’s not to say that the majority of investors, especially algorithmic traders, treat it any different than crypto/gambling.
Sure, one share is one vote, but uh that means that whoever has the most shares wins the vote. IE: one or two very wealthy individuals or groups votes count for as much as potentially millions of other people.
The average working class joe investor basically never has the power to really influence anything.
There are also tons and tons of different kinds of shares and different kinds of voting power, and often there are setups that basically mandate some particular entity always has a significantly large portion of shares.
Basically, its not democratic at all, unless you subscribe to the ‘some pigs are more equal than other pigs’ kind of democracy.
EDIT: A metaphor one can use is killstreaks in COD vs TF2s randomized damage.
In the long run, given a set of purely equally skilled players, CODs kill streak mechanic will functionally randomly choose certain players and elevate their score higher and higher. A positive feedback loop. You end up with a very uneven distribution of scores because mild success is rewarded with wild success.
Whereas in the same situation with TF2, the semi randomized damage across players of equal skill basically would result in a much more even scattering of overall player scores.
Capitalism rewards you more the more money you have, and the more money you have, the easier it is to make even more money, which leads to the haves and the have nots.
In a Co-Op business model, by contrast, its often one person, one vote. There are barely any of these in the US though… we love our entrenched wealth divide between those bastard wealthy asshats and all of us temporarily embarrassed millionaires who will get rich one day.
Those small handful of people also want to make as much money as possible though, so typically their goals will align with yours as a shareholder.
Not if they disagree with a business strategy on profit potential, moral/ethical ramifications, debt management, buying out another business, doing a stock split or stock buyback, where to source a needed material or service from, whether or not to massively raise executive compensation, environmental concerns, or if they’re going to get fucked by a hostile takeover, or being acquired by a private equity firm, maybe they do want to outsource some part of this business or spin off a part, maybe they don’t…
You say that as if its just always immediately obvious to everyone what the correct path is, and that the primary focus of that path should be to maximize profit, which in and of itself is a bad assumption on its face and is also a matter of contention: do you want to keep doing bandaid solutions to ensure short term profitability, or do you want to cut back on profitability for a year to shore up your market position or develop a new branch of the business, or engage in a capital intensive plan that will likely guarantee profit in the long term?
Businesses are a bit more complicated than ‘the richest guys always agree and always know how to make the mostest money and they would never ever have conflicting opinions or interests with me!’
I see. So, you having shares basically means you own part of the company assets, and if it were to for example shut down or get into huge trouble (so no one sensible would want to buy their shares), you’ll still get kind of compensated from the value of their remaining assets being sold? That kind of makes sense, and is the difference I was looking for.
It’s still weird, but a little bit more understandable than crypto, which is only literally stealing and scamming money from others (who will eventually in the end end up left with all the literally valueless crypto, and whose money basically paid for all your profit from it)
Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else?
Many stocks pay dividends, and outside of that and voting, you can use a large amount of stock holdings as collateral for loans. That’s largely how Musk and other rich dumpster fires buy things.
Is there anything else you can do with your stock, other than sell it to someone else?
This is where it starts to get complicated.
You can promise to sell you stock by a certain date in the future to someone, at a price the two of you agree upon now.
If the actual price of the stock goes below the previously agreed price, by that deadline, well then you probably gained money.
If the actual price of the stock goes above the previously agreed price by the previously agreed date, you probably lost money.
This gets even more complicated when you take out a loan to buy a stock, and then do the above.
Theres a whole lot more. Check out investopedia.
I always thought that crypto is such a scam especially because in the end, it has no value in itself, and the only thing you can do with it is sell it to someone else. If noone wants to buy it, well, you are fucked. Does it mean that stocks are exactly the same concept?
Its the same in that both crypto and stocks can crater to zero if there are no buyers.
It is different in that crypto, as you say, is completely digital and nontangible, whereas most businesses on a stock exchange have at least a basis for their stock valuation in real world assets, products, services, revenue flows, profit margins and such.
Basically, what is more likely to go completely tits up?
A random NFT scheme?
A brand new start up IPO?
A long established industry giant?
Probably the 1st then 2nd then 3rd.
Or is the price set by some different mechanism than crypto is - pure demand from people willing to buy?
Ultimately they are both markets, which have prices ultimately determined by what people feel is a fair price.
Both involve projecting possible rise or fall in the value of the asset (stock vs crypto coin), but in the case of crypto, there is usually 0 actual underlying fundamentals, there is no business model beyond ‘if we all invest in this it will be worth more money’, which works until the price goes high enough that usually the person or group that invented the crypto sells all of their crypto. This causes panic and everyone else sells off for much less.
Functionally, that means a whole bunch of people lost money, and the originators made a whole bunch of money.
A pump and dump scheme, its usually extremely illegal.
Crypto bros kept acting like the laws governing finance did not apply to them.
Turns out, the laws do apply to them, and even as bullshit as the stock market is for the average joe, basically the entire crypto sphere collapsed in 6 months after it turned out that they were basically all cooking their accounting books and doing all kinds of fraud.
While the stock market is largely bullshit in many ways, it is at least regulated to prevent many different kinds of financial fraud, while the crypto sphere is almost entirely comprised of con artists and their suckers.
Most of what that guy said was bullshit, the typical interest rate for a savings account this year was 5%, compared to 3.8% inflation, for example. Most stocks also pay a dividend.
Stocks also give you a percentage of the company, which means decision making. Which has value, it’s not only dividends.
There are different types of stocks. Some stocks give you physical ownership, amusingly one time Warren Buffet accidentally bought like 300 cows once, and it was physical stock he bought. After it was realized, he had like 3 days to figure out what to do with them and ship them across the country.
Investing in a variety of types of stocks (including arguably physical stock, which is why some people buy gold) gives your portfolio some stability and diversity.
Most stocks dont offer a dividend.
Many do though. I even get a dividend from my index fund holdings.
That is still the main reason most people buy stocks, yes.
Another way is to buy back stock, which increases the value of the stock you currently hold, because it’s now rarer. Kinda like inflation in reverse. Apple does a combination of both, for example.
You can still find stocks that pay dividends. 3-month treasury dealios pay out regularly, and something like MORT (A REIT ETF) has like 11% dividend rate. Companies like Microsoft and Amazon also pay dividends, but small, like 3-5%.
It’s hilarious how people will shit on NFTs but not non-dividend stocks that are just corporate NFTs without even a jpg of a monkey.
Nope, not even close.
NFTs are wildly, wildly more speculative investments than the stock market, having absolutely 0 solid foundation of an actual business with capital and products and services behind them, they have a proven track record of 99% of them losing 99% of their value in a year or two, and 99% of them are just outright scams.
Go watch a some Folding Ideas videos for a more in depth explanation.
After a decade plus of watching crypto currencies evolve, the only one that actually does what a crypto currency was originally supposed to do is monero, xmr: Secure, very hard to trace transactions that can be done with anonymity, provided you learn a whole bunch of opsec.
Dude nfts are like worse than digital beanie babies, because at least with the beanie babies there was a trademark restriction.
shoutout to the guy on wall street bets dunking 700k before it tanked to 30%
Wait, was he betting it would go up or down?
Just a regular stock buy, so up. Lost around 200k so far.
But he did say he was going to sit on the stocks for some years, so might get some back.
💎 🙌
Ironically, I suspect they would be a solid long term play right now.
If you bought the day before an earnings report with the premise being a long term hold, as the company stock was dropping, you would wait and buy after.
It took long enough for the market to wake up to it. They dragged their ass for what like 10 years without much real innovation. And everyone knew it the whole time. Then Apple ditched them. That alone should have been a huge sign. Apple does not fuck around. They definitely knew Intel had been rotting from the inside out.
Apple likes to control the entire ecosystem, and wanted to make their own processors to make them more efficient and produce less heat. They succeeded too, the M2 and M3 chips are incredible.
So I think they would have ditched anyone, but Intel probably also made it easier by being so bad. :)
You are 200% correct, apple didn’t ditch Intel because Intel, apple did it because apple.
more efficient and produce less heat
Which was impossible to do with x86 space heater. Maybe if Intel hadn’t sat idle and actually produced more efficient design. We could be reading about Apples own spin of x86 instead of ARM.
So, I should invest now for cheap and when they inevitably bounce back, sell?
Don’t try to catch a falling knife
But Ive had success in the past, just look at these cool scars as proof :)
I think you’re pretty much guaranteed a return if you buy on Monday or Tuesday. It’s literally free money.
Nothing ever goes wrong taking “free money” advice
I make sure to take all my financial advice from strangers on the Internet. Nothing could be safer.
I bought some more; stupid me thought it would keep going up (up 15%), then it bombed.
Yeah, go for it 😎
Nice to just imagine that this was backlash to the inhumanity of the constant layoffs. It’s not, but would be nice.
Burst layoffs to polish up earnings reports are “fine” (in terms of stocks), but hemorrhaging workers when your company is already in hot water for product quality complaints smells of “We’re really desperate to make our reports not look devastating”. From a stupid monkey brain point of view, it sounds like they’re throwing sailors overboard to avoid sinking and I wouldn’t want to be a passenger and risk being next, so I’d try to sell what shares I have before they’re worthless.
I don’t know what heuristics professional traders go with, but I imagine they would follow a more complex and nuanced logic along those same lines. Either way, if enough people do that, it compounds.
Nope. It’s the bad financial results, news of defective CPUs, and most crucially, Intel announcing they’re going to stop paying out dividends that have done this.
If anything, investors seem to love mass layoffs, unfortunately.
There is absolutely no way intel is going under any time soon. They may drop more but it’s almost certain that they will recover.
I don’t understand a valuation that puts them under AMD given how poor amd’s market share is in the gpu market (which intel is now a new valid competitor in for the budget space) alongside the fact that intel’s cpu market share is higher than AMD by a large margin.
I’m saying all this as a huge AMD fan. I have a 5800x3d and a 6800xt. I made our work standard laptop be amd based as I set the standards for my organization in my work role. I know my choice is the minority choice. Even in datacenter intel has an overwhelming lead.
It’s because the stock market is closer to a casino than a place where fair valuations of businesses are made.
Also, market cap is just the latest trade price times the total number of shares. It doesn’t mean that anyone is willing to buy or sell the entire business for that amount, just that some shares were traded at a price that extrapolates to that.
It’s kinda like getting an A on your first assignment in grade 1 and assuming that means you’re a straight A student and will maintain that until you finish your doctorate. Or getting an F and assuming you might as well just drop out.
The closest thing to reality market cap really says is that investors who are making current trades believe that AMD will surpass Intel at some point. Or that they aren’t comparing either company directly to the other and just go by feeling plus the price history. “I feel more confident in AMD today, therefore the price should be higher than it was yesterday. I feel less confident in Intel today, therefore the price should be lower than it was yesterday.” It doesn’t even really matter if yesterday’s price was accurate, it’s all just relative to itself and fed by fear and greed.
Preach. I’m just worried for when nvidia pops. The grumblings about the machine learning fad are starting to happen but that’s a company that is incredibly likely to lose 80% of revenue in 5 years once businesses see how the huge investments flop.
There’s some strange belief that chat bots being semi-coherent is going to turn into true AI and take over all the white collar jobs. The more popular chatbots become the poorer the data quality will be. It’s inevitable that all the bots posting on all the social media sites will poison the datasets especially as more and more turn to chatbots to generate content.
Peoples imaginations are running wild. I think if 2% of the use cases pan out it will be a wild success but ML is not new and entire divisions have been scrapped for failing to turn a profit (looking at Alexa, for sure.) When the pop happens the drop will be so significant the ripples may cause a recession all by itself.
How is Intel’s GPU marketshare any better… Last I heard they were selling their chips at a loss
They are not doing better in the gpu marketshare. They are a new challenger in that space and are no where near getting the lead. The point I was making is that they are just getting into that space, and if they are successful at chipping away at nvidia’s giant high margin market share they can very possibly make a ton of money in that space.
Their GPUs however are fairly good price/performance for consumers, meaning they are building market share in that space. Like any business starting out at something they are losing money to gain market share. That’s how capitalism works today. You lose money to gain popularity until you get so much market share you can turn screws to make significant profits.
Intel’s bread and butter is CPUs. They are the majority market share in the highly lucrative desktop cpu,
mobilelaptop cpu and datacenter cpu space.edit: clarification, mobile I mean laptop. I don’t think intel is in the cellular phone space?
SRIOV in the datacenter without restrictive / Prohibitive licensing costs
I thought qualcomm was the majority market share in the mobile cpu space?
Good catch, I meant laptop. Most end user systems provided today are laptops for the last several companies i’ve worked for.
Those fuckers better not stop making graphics cards because of this…
Unless the person running that project is owed a personal favor I don’t think there’s a chance in hell it’s going to survive. I’m pretty sure they’re running the video card side of the business at a substantial loss trying to catch up with market share and tech.
I know you’re right but it’s so short sighted and we waited so long to have a graphs card triopoly…
We need somebody That’s not willing to collude with AMD and Nvidia. Maybe we’ll get lucky and they’ll spin that company off.
I would guess there is no way in hell they are going to stop making GPUs becuase GPU development leads directly to their ability to make better AI accelerators. I could see them backing off of CPU prodiction before cutting out GPUs.
They practically already have.
Arc came out years late and was a flop. It still can’t run a huge amount of games, and where it does, it competes with cards on an inferior node with much smaller die sizes than Arc, that have better stability and significantly lower power consumption.
Battlemage was supposed to be “high performance” (although in Intel speak that likely means mid range at best), but most of the SKUs got cancelled.
They’re bringing Battlemage as a graphics tile on their mobile CPUs. But I wouldn’t be surprised if they also did a desktop release, like AMD did for the 6400/6500 XT.
Going against AMD/Nvidia in the desktop graphics space is on the back-burner. Hopefully they’ll come back to it if they improve their drivers enough, and get better at GPU design.
Those fuckers had* better not
They definitely deserve this. Still, I hope their fab business works out because we need another high end fab (especially a US based one). It’s exorbitantly expensive, too much for anyone but an established player to enter the market.
Intel should merge with Boeing
They share (or shared) a building in STL, so that would be an easy merge there.
