Can anyone see Intel coming back from this? They are heavily into capex, it has been years and they have not scored big orders from the field.

All these major cost cuttings are to stem the bleed while waiting for Nvidia orders, beg Jensen, beg TSMC, Pat the batgger

dancCan anyone see Intel coming back from this? They are heavily into capex, it has been years and they have not scored big orders from the field.

All these major cost cuttings are to stem the bleed while waiting for Nvidia orders, beg Jensen, beg TSMC, Pat the batgger

I'm 90% conifdent they can survive this but they'll have to find a way to spin off the fabs. And the fabs likely won't survive unless the US government intervenes.

fevgatosHaha, this video is insane. Go the 44:50 minute mark. Look at how quickly he scrolled over this graph. I wonder why :roll: :roll:

Spoiler

You clearly missed the point with that graph, failure rates in the field are much higher than average, also according to Puget systems all of their failed cpus were within 6 months which lines up with failures from other companies having instability or even getting DOA cpus from an RMA.

ChaitanyaMore drama:

So Intel tried to solve this in the past 2 years and failed.

Hecate91You clearly missed the point with that graph, failure rates in the field are much higher than average, also according to Puget systems all of their failed cpus were within 6 months which lines up with failures from other companies having instability or even getting DOA cpus from an RMA.

Not really. Let's focus on 13th gen for example, since those have higher field failures rates than 14th. Still - it's way lower than zen 3 for example.

13th and 14th gen fail at a much higher rate than 12th gen (both field and shop), but at a much lower rate than zen 3 and zen 4. Right? Is anything I said wrong?

The field failure rates of zen 3 alone are higher / equal to the total failure rates of 13th gen. Nough said, no?

Hecate91You clearly missed the point with that graph, failure rates in the field are much higher than average, also according to Puget systems all of their failed cpus were within 6 months which lines up with failures from other companies having instability or even getting DOA cpus from an RMA.

You clearly missed the point he was making.
www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2024/08/02/puget-systems-perspective-on-intel-cpu-instability-issues/

PugetYou can see that in context, the Intel Core 13th and 14th Gen processors do have an elevated failure rate but not at a show-stopper level. The concern for the future reliability of those CPUs is much more the issue at hand, rather than the failure rates we are seeing today. If it is true that the 14th Gen CPUs will continue to have increasing failures over time, this could end up being a much bigger problem as time goes by and is something we will, of course, be keeping a close eye on. 14th Gen isn’t as rock solid as Intel’s 10th or 12th Gen processors, but at least for us, it isn’t yet at critical levels.

Based on the failure rate data we currently have, it is interesting to see that 14th Gen is still nowhere near the failure rates of the Intel Core 11th Gen processors back in 2021 and also substantially lower than AMD Ryzen 5000 (both in terms of shop and field failures) or Ryzen 7000 (in terms of shop failures, if not field). We aren’t including AMD here to try to deflect from the issues Intel is currently experiencing but rather to put into context why we have not yet adjusted our Intel vs. AMD strategy in our workstations.

Also worth noting that if you read the whole Puget piece they say they only use xx700K and xx900K CPUs.

londisteYou clearly missed the point he was making.

He was insisting AMD 7000 series cpus have higher failure rates than Intel 13th and 14th gen. If that were the case it would definitely be in the news, the AMD X3D debacle with board makers setting voltages too high got more attention than the ongoing Intel issues have.

Hecate91He was insisting AMD 7000 series cpus have higher failure rates than Intel 13th and 14th gen. If that were the case it would definitely be in the news, the AMD X3D debacle with board makers setting voltages too high got more attention than the ongoing Intel issues have.

Did you read the end of the Puget piece? The graph I posted in the post you quoted? :D

Edit:
And actually, this is a pretty shady/scummy move on the GN part to just glance over that given the context.

londisteYou clearly missed the point he was making.
www.pugetsystems.com/blog/2024/08/02/puget-systems-perspective-on-intel-cpu-instability-issues/




Also worth noting that if you read the whole Puget piece they say they only use xx700K and xx900K CPUs.

The problem here is the LACK of total numbers of CPUs: while the percentages look lower on Intel 13th and 14th gen CPUs, if they have ... say ... 15 times more of such CPUs (example, to explain the point), while the percentage is lower, the ACTUAL numbers would be way WAY higher.

Same thing goes for AMD's 5000 and 7000 series, as well as Intel's 11th gen series.

Good. Finally some Karma is coming after destroying the market and stifling progress for ~11-12 years when AMD was nowhere to be found and ARM was just a pipe dream. Saying this as Intel fanboy for decades. It's happening. I've said when 1st EPYC Zen hit the market: when AMD gains 40%-50% of HPC market share Intel will collapse financially. You can't offset that kind of losses, especially with inferior product line-up.

No company is too big to collapse and Intel better get their collective blue $hit together or someone else will come and replace them. Most likely nVidia vel nGreedia because they have capacity. They also have enough of $ muscles and brain power to change PC forever by removing CPU from the equation and rely solely on GPU units for operation.

Example 1 of Intel stupid investment: they pump money into Israel FABs, in the most dangerous point of the planet. Isn't there other place for this, more safe and stable politically? It's just AIPAC bribery (I've nothing against existence of Israel state, so no funny ideas) nothing more, nothing less. Intel has the capacity to go really, really big in EU, Canada, Australia and they say: Nope let's expand capacity further at front line of the war because it's such awesome place for investment! :kookoo:

Example 2: Intel is planning to refresh Xeon W line to 2500/3500 with same Sapphire Rapids silicone. Why? I mean it would be great idea in 2020. Now it's waste of time given that server segment got Emerald Rapids drop-in refresh which trounces Sapphire Rapids in every way including drastic improvements in power efficiency and nearly tripling cache subsystem. Intel on purpose screwing its line up because they don't give an F about customers who purchase their platforms.

Intel right now is running joke of 14nm+++++++++ or 10nm+++++++++ (renamed to something different so it's not so obvious).

This news piece is about Intel's share dive. While other tech stock is relevant to a degree, dragging AMD failure rates into this is not. Intel's slide is about ongoing CPU and business issues - that's how the market works - expected future profits.

Stick to the topic. Some people posting here should know better by now.

Hecate91You clearly missed the point with that graph, failure rates in the field are much higher than average, also according to Puget systems all of their failed cpus were within 6 months which lines up with failures from other companies having instability or even getting DOA cpus from an RMA.

This is the one case where the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" mentality of people who would not want to flash BIOSes will cost them their processor. Failure rates will decline from this peak we have today, but they will remain steady as not every system will be patched and as long as they aren't, they will continue to fail.

ypsylonExample 1 of Intel stupid investment: they pump money into Israel FABs, in the most dangerous point of the planet. Isn't there other place for this, more safe and stable politically? It's just AIPAC bribery (I've nothing against existence of Israel state, so no funny ideas) nothing more, nothing less. Intel has the capacity to go really, really big in EU, Canada, Australia and they say: Nope let's expand capacity further at front line of the war because it's such awesome place for investment! :kookoo:

Israel is a tech hub and plays a very big part in Intel's R&D. Having some manufacturing in there is pretty crucial to that. Besides, Intel has fabs in quite a few places but largely in United States.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_manufacturing_sites

But following your logic about world hotspots pretty much everyone in the cutting edge technology relies on TSMC who has plants in... Taiwan. And building first site in United States. There are facilities in China and Japan but I am struggling to remember if they were full fabs. That might be a concern.
www.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/TSMC_Fabs

You have a really simplified understanding of what a semiconductor manufacturing site means and requires. The fab itself is tens of billions. But this is a level of undertaking that unless in an established location basically assumes government involvement to some degree (subsidies, direct investment, help with planning), has considerable environmental considerations, the supporting infrastructure and workforce takes years or decades to build etc.

londisteDid you read the end of the Puget piece? The graph I posted in the post you quoted? :D

Edit:
And actually, this is a pretty shady/scummy move on the GN part to just glance over that given the context.

GN being shady and scummy gee wiz how unexpected and totally unlike them.

I had read a few months ago in financial press that an analyst has set a price target for Intel at $17.
I was like "Yeah right, sure".
I feel so stupid now. :peace:

Good thing AMD is in the rearview mirror, can you imagine how bad things would be for intel otherwise?

EternitAlso he abandoned GPU and now they are years behind nVidia and AMD while GPU is more profitable than CPU.

Are they years behind? Sure, Intel does not have any high end GPUs, but they managed to beat AMD in ray tracing performance and upscaling quality on their first try.

PumperAre they years behind? Sure, Intel does not have any high end GPUs, but they managed to beat AMD in ray tracing performance and upscaling quality on their first try.

Yes, they are. They do have the tech and basics kind of figured out but what remains is the hard part - in broad terms they need to build both the brand and customer confidence in the products. This is both time consuming and expensive.

Getting stability in drivers and software has come a long way but they were starting from a very low position, now that they are almost there every improvement will only be harder. They need to build the supply chain with AIBs which is easier as they are Intel but still an undertaking that takes time and money. Plus whether they want it or not the sentiment from failures on CPU and financial side will somewhat carry over to the GPU division - whether that is less money for the division or reduced customer trust.

For example it took AMD quite a while to get things up to speed when they bought an already established and strong ATi. There were several upstarts who tried getting into GPU market way back when - and most failed quickly - but today it requires literal billions to even make the attempt.

PumperSure, Intel does not have any high end GPUs, but they managed to beat AMD in ray tracing performance and upscaling quality on their first try.

Did they? Must've missed that, any reviews highlighting that especially the latter?

Man Intel is the underdog now huh, better buy Arrow Lake to support the underdog :D

Yeah maybe they won't need to extend warranty on those chips because it's made on TSMC?

Also remember folks most motherboard "defaults" are Intel approved, like 99.99% of them!

R0H1T

PumperAre they years behind? Sure, Intel does not have any high end GPUs, but they managed to beat AMD in ray tracing performance and upscaling quality on their first try.

Did they? Must've missed that, any reviews highlighting that especially the latter?

www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2024-amd-fsr-31-tested-in-ratchet-and-clank-spider-man-and-more
www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-fidelity-fx-fsr-3-1/
There are a whole lot more to be found.

The evolution of upscaling algorithms has been relatively straightforward - old image-based upscale, then for a long while Lanczos variations with some sharpening on top, then a temporal component got added (think TAAU) and latest rage is some "AI"-derived stuff running on matrix operations (like Tensor or XMX cores). AMD is step behind in this from both Nvidia and Intel. One could guess the AI cores are not there yet and that is why.

PumperAre they years behind? Sure, Intel does not have any high end GPUs, but they managed to beat AMD in ray tracing performance and upscaling quality on their first try.

What? When? Where?

londistewww.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2024-amd-fsr-31-tested-in-ratchet-and-clank-spider-man-and-more

www.techpowerup.com/review/amd-fidelity-fx-fsr-3-1/
There are a whole lot more to be found.

The evolution of upscaling algorithms has been relatively straightforward - old image-based upscale, then for a long while Lanczos variations with some sharpening on top, then a temporal component got added (think TAAU) and latest rage is some "AI"-derived stuff running on matrix operations (like Tensor or XMX cores). AMD is step behind in this from both Nvidia and Intel. One could guess the AI cores are not there yet and that is why.

Performance is at par with DLSS/XeSS as for IQ or upscaling that's at least partly subjective. It doesn't mean that Radeon is better but we need more data there, for instance RTX super resolution or (auto) HDR settings work relatively great on Nvidia. I don't have any AMD GPU to compare it against though.

I am fascinated by the people who think Intel will die from this, or will be allowed to. Like, seriously, people?
Uncle Sam as the most obvious intervention path...