Thats sound like printing money for corporation, infation and slave laibor in cheap countries- trade war, protectionism.

trog100i assume that the fact that intel cant make enough product isnt intentional..

But choosing not to prioritize retailers is.

Thread title is so wrong o_O:laugh::fear:
should be

"AMD HIRE NEW SALES TEAM"
instead of
Intel Cutting Retail Processor Supply for Holiday 2018

Vya DomusBut choosing not to prioritize retailers is.

it could be and probably is a choice they are forced to make.. to be honest its bad news for Intel whatever choice they make..

trog

Keep egging each other and I will start giving out infractions. Last warning.

The Quim ReaperUltimately they're just cutting their own throats by alienating the retail customer, Once Zen 2 lands and has IPC (and hopefully the clock speeds) to match Intel's best, the only remaining reason to choose an Intel CPU over an AMD one, goes out the window.

Intel could easily lose another 10-15% of CPU market share over the next two years because of their self entitled arrogance.

...If only we could see the same happen to Nvidia in the GPU market.

We've seen it before with evergreen. If AMD could just get a decent GPU line out the door, they could take advantage of nvidia's insane pricing to both make a good chunk of change as well as steal back marketshare.

However, based on the RX590, I'm not holding my breath for another evergreen V. fermi battle anytime soon.

trog100ps.. there is one other basic rule.. if this situation continues AMD prices will also have to go up..:)

Not true at all. The can actually choose to keep them the same or even lower them. It's not checkers it's chess.

trog100i didnt aim my comment at you.. just the appalling lack of knowledge as regards how basic supply and demand works.. :)

trog

My apologies to you, Sir. I interpreted wrong. I will remove my post.

TheinsanegamerNWe've seen it before with evergreen. If AMD could just get a decent GPU line out the door, they could take advantage of nvidia's insane pricing to both make a good chunk of change as well as steal back marketshare.

No we haven't seen it actually. Even back then with the last iteration of Terascale that outperformed anything Nvidia had on every metric they still couldn't claw back enough market share to take the lead. No matter how good the product is it seems nothing can permeate the mindshare Nvidia has built. I don't know how AMD can ever do that, but it's clear that a better product isn't enough.

The only reason this is somewhat working with Intel currently is because they genuinely seem to not know how to react properly to a competitive product. At this point in time a CPU that's 5% faster and god knows how much more expensive simply isn't a compelling enough offer from neither companies but Intel doesn't get that.

Maybe because the 10nm-- is not working has something to do with it.

BorgOvermindMaybe because the 10nm-- is not working has something to do with it.

We have no competition! Let's just keep the current architecture and node for as long as we can, what can go wrong?

Glad i got my 9900K when I did!

wow! It's always something that justify all the price increases.
First it was SSD and DRAM
then it was GPU
now it's Intel CPUs
next probably PSU because of tariffs
then what? coolers??

Well i'd say screw intel and hello AMD

R0H1TRight, maybe you should get a degree in economics then. That's not how markets works, case in point RTX. When there is (some) demand, you can always squeeze the consumer to buy a higher SKU through reducing the supply of lower end products or making the difference between the two seem more worthwhile. Just because you raise prices doesn't mean that there will be no sales.

This is exactly what Intel is doing, trying to move production of chipset, lower end Pentiums (some?) & Atom to TSMC. I'm also pretty sure they're making less Pentiums, Celerons, i3, i5(?) wrt to the higher end i7, i9 than we've seen previously.

If you're pointing fingers at Samsung, Hynix, Micron for proposing to limit supply then not doing the same for Intel is hypocritical to say the least!

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "company raising product prices by 20% percent to make more cash" and "product prices doubling because there isn't enough supply". The former case, people are still likely to buy the product; the latter, not so much.

As for your conspiracy theory about Intel squeezing out production of low-end chips so they can produce more high-end ones - okay, tell me which are the majority of CPUs that Intel sells to OEMs. Hint: it's not high-end ones. See previous post about contracts.

Since they were forced to make much bigger chips for desktop and servers due to Ryzen launch, they were unable to produce the same number of chips as before. Simple as that.

AssimilatorBloody hell, you people make me feel like I've got an economics degree with this "Intel is purposely limiting supply to be greedy again" idiocy. If they were doing that, they would've just set the MSRP on the i9-9900K at $900 instead of $500. But contrary to your beliefs, Intel does realise that pricing their products out of the market will result in no sales.

Supply is constrained because Intel literally cannot produce enough CPUs to satisfy demand for servers (higher margins) and requirements by OEMs (contracts written in blood), while also having enough for consumers. So something has got to give, and that is the consumer supply. Do you honestly think this is something they'd do willingly, considering the most lucrative sales periods of the year (Black Friday and Christmas/New Year) are coming up?

AMD stands to benefit massively from this. I know their CPUs are cheap already, but they should go for the jugular by discounting them even further. This is a golden, maybe never-to-be-repeated opportunity for them to grab a decent chunk of marketshare and keep the Zen velocity going.



Wrong.

They could always go to GlobalFoundries and use them to produce some of their 14nm chips?

This is all about $$. Nothing more.

Thanks Intel and NGreedia, you are making my life easier. My 2019 VR PC build will be 7nm 8c/16th Ryzen 2 CPU and 7nm Navi GPU, if AMD can pull gtx 1080 performance out of it. If not 2nd hand GTX 1070TI or 1080 will have to do it till better times arrive.

Vya DomusNo we haven't seen it actually. Even back then with the last iteration of Terascale that outperformed anything Nvidia had on every metric they still couldn't claw back enough market share to take the lead. No matter how good the product is it seems nothing can permeate the mindshare Nvidia has built. I don't know how AMD can ever do that, but it's clear that a better product isn't enough.

Wrong, a better product is absolutely enough. But - and here's the kicker - it absolutely has to be significantly better over multiple generations. HD 5000 series was objectively better in every metric than the turd that was GTX 400 series, but then NVIDIA pulled a rabbit out of the hat and delivered GTX 500/Fermi v2 that fixed most of the major problems of the 400 series. And then they delivered Kepler, while AMD delivered HD 7000 that essentially brought them back to parity with NVIDIA, and boom the momentum that AMD had was gone.

Zen has a real chance here because it's already two generations in (Zen and Zen+) and both of those chips have been significantly better, in terms of core count and cost, than Intel's. AMD has momentum now and a good holiday period will give them another push through to Zen 2, which again should give another push that will keep their CPUs in the spotlight.

FlyordieThey could always go to GlobalFoundries and use them to produce some of their 14nm chips?

This is all about $$. Nothing more.

I suggest you go and learn the most basic things about how integrated circuit design works WRT fabrication before you embarrass yourself any further.

AssimilatorPerhaps you don't understand the difference between "company raising product prices by 20% percent to make more cash" and "product prices doubling because there isn't enough supply". The former case, people are still likely to buy the product; the latter, not so much.

As for your conspiracy theory about Intel squeezing out production of low-end chips so they can produce more high-end ones - okay, tell me which are the majority of CPUs that Intel sells to OEMs. Hint: it's not high-end ones. See previous post about contracts.

So tell me what is Intel selling these chips for ($) & by that I mean selling them to large distributors or someone like Amazon? Does Intel not make (more) money when the chips are selling way above MSRP?


Notebook chips, seriously they are the biggest sellers to OEM. I guess you have to elaborate what do you mean by high end ~ MSDT, HEDT, servers or notebook? I can't say what the product mix is for these products, but surely the lowly retail Pentium, Celeron are low margin & relatively low(er) volume as compared to the rest of the stack. I imagine even for OEM, now we've seen Intel limit the supply of one such chip in the past ~ www.techpowerup.com/235035/intel-pentium-g4560-cannibalizing-core-i3-sales-company-effectively-kills-it

Geez, the Intel news just keeps getting worse. So happy I'm sitting out this 9000 Series launch, what a mess. My good friend over at Siliconlottery, can't even get a decent number of 9900Ks for a normal proper launch of the product.

Something deep within the subconscious told me to buy that 8086K 5.3Ghz bin from SL way back in June, since needed to upgrade (2) rigs this year and had no idea what Intel would be offering with Coffee Lake Refresh. Bird in the hand logic prevails.

I blame Intel for going dark on all of us. They decided to cancel the annual Intel Developers Forum. Now we rely on leaks to plan our builds, it's absolutely crazy. :shadedshu:

Intel to:

1. Datacenters: "You're the kings, how can we help you?"
2. Notebook and pre-built PC manufacturers: "OK, OK, stop whining, you'll get our OEM CPU junk!"
3. DIY PC builders: "Go F... yourselves! Open your shallow wallets or shut up!"

AssimilatorSupply is constrained because Intel literally cannot produce enough CPUs to satisfy demand for servers (higher margins) and requirements by OEMs (contracts written in blood), while also having enough for consumers. So something has got to give, and that is the consumer supply. Do you honestly think this is something they'd do willingly, considering the most lucrative sales periods of the year (Black Friday and Christmas/New Year) are coming up?

And who's fault is that? I'll tell you who... it's Intel! They've literally run out of manufacturing space on the current production line so it's obvious that higher margin parts (Xeon) would take priority over lower margin parts (Core iX, X being a variable).

AssimilatorAMD stands to benefit massively from this. I know their CPUs are cheap already, but they should go for the jugular by discounting them even further. This is a golden, maybe never-to-be-repeated opportunity for them to grab a decent chunk of market share and keep the Zen velocity going.

I agree. Intel needs to be taught a lesson.

unikinDIY PC builders: "Go F... yourselves! Open your shallow wallets or shut up!"

Help us Obi-Wan... I mean AMD, you're our only hope.

R0H1TSo tell me what is Intel selling these chips for & by Intel I mean selling them to large distributors or someone like Amazon? Does Intel not make (more) money when the chips are selling way above MSRP?

Notebook chips, seriously they are the biggest sellers to OEM. I guess you have to elaborate what do you mean by high end ~ MSDT, HEDT, servers or notebook? I can't say what the product mix is for these products, but surely the retail lowly Pentiums, Celeron are low margin & relatively low(er) volume as compared to the rest of the stack. I imagine even for OEM, we've also seen Intel limit the supply of one such chip in the past ~ www.techpowerup.com/235035/intel-pentium-g4560-cannibalizing-core-i3-sales-company-effectively-kills-it

Of course Intel makes more per CPU by putting a higher markup on each one. But they won't necessarily sell as many CPUs in total if the per-unit price is too high, because they'll get fewer buyers who can afford the higher price. So it's a balancing act between how much consumers are willing to pay vs how much Intel (or any company) can charge.

Those "lowly" Pentiums and Celerons make up the bulk of Intel's income (along with the server chips). Most systems built by OEMs are for secretaries and accountants and office workers who don't need high-core-count high-clocked processors, which means most of those systems use Pentiums and Celerons. And OEMs sell more systems, and therefore more CPUs, than every consumer retailer combined... probably a single OEM sells more than any retailer. OEM CPUs don't have as high a margin as retail, sure, but so many are sold that they still end up being many times more profitable than consumer sales.

Remember what I said before about contracts? OEMs have watertight contracts with Intel that specify that Intel will sell them X amount of CPUs at X amount of money and if Intel doesn't, Intel is in breach of the agreement. A breached agreement means Intel pays penalties to the OEMs... big monetary penalties. Really f'n big. The end result is that Intel literally cannot afford to not supply CPUs to its OEMs: it has to manufacture as many (probably more) low-end CPUs as it was before, but now it has less fab capacity. And - importantly - OEMs are essentially a guaranteed market for Intel; those contracts run for years, so if Intel breaks them, OEMs will go to AMD and stick with them. That's really bad news, maybe even worse than the financial implication.

D'you know the other type of chips that OEMs buy in massive volumes from Intel? Server chips. Again, Intel cannot cut production of those due to contractual agreements, and even if they could they wouldn't want to, because while comparatively few server chips are sold, the margins on those chips make the margins on retail look like a joke. (This is essentially the inverse of the low-end chips.)

What's the only segment that Intel can cut, to account for its diminished fab capacity, without kicking itself in the head too hard? That's right... consumer. The i7s and i9s, whether for mainstream or HEDT, are also the chips that make Intel the least amount of money. Cutting their production is going to be super painful for Intel's public image, but it's the "least bad" option in terms of what it means for the company's financials and relationship with OEMs.

AssimilatorI suggest you go and learn the most basic things about how integrated circuit design works WRT fabrication before you embarrass yourself any further.

Considering they have already taped out their 14nm chipsets on 22nm.. its expensive yes.. but very possible. So no, I am not embarrassing myself. Just stating that if they can't keep up with demand they should outsource their chipsets and modems.. (oh wait.. they already do outsource their modems to TSMC)

@Assimilator But I can't help but to say that Intel is shooting themselves in the foot. If the enthusiast crowd get screwed by Intel with the (over)pricing of their enthusiast lineup of processors what do you think that will do to their opinion about Intel when they walk into their places of work? Those prices are going to put a sour taste in their mouths. It may not necessarily make companies buy less Intel chips but it will certainly make them think about AMD for longer than one second.