Intel Said to be Considering Laying Off Thousands of Staff

[RandallFlagg]

Agreed. I’m tired of incrementalism. Raptor Lake high end is just more of the three C’s (cache, cores and clocks) with the same underlying architecture as Alder Lake. Low end Raptor Lakes are just rebranded Alder Lakes.

Incrementalism?

This is +43.4% in 2 years, and in 8 days we will have a 4th entry which will likely add another 10% to this :

 

[Gungar]

43.4% of what? is that a benchmark? it could be 500% that we don't give a shit. It's a benchmark, it's as much useless as any statistics !

 

[Count von Schwalbe]

Incrementalism?

This is +43.4% in 2 years, and in 8 days we will have a 4th entry which will likely add another 10% to this :

View attachment 265173

I strongly doubt that benchmark (geekbench?) is indicative of real-world performance. Note that in W1zzard's testing suite, the 10900K has 74% and the 11900K has 78% of the 12900K's performance. Yes, Alder Lake was certainly not a mere incremental improvement over Rocket Lake, but we had 6 Skylake refreshes and now we are getting Alder Lake refreshes.

Incrementalism can be a rule with exceptions. More time and more improvements (particularly innovations) is a trend I would like to see.

 

[ModEl4]

It would be preferable since it increased $30 the more mainstream 13600K, to also increase $30 the 13700K & 13900K (maintaining the $ difference between them exactly at what was in the 12th gen case) instead of keeping them at the same price, the press took very well the 13600K increase in relation with what the competition is offering, i can't imagine $30 for i7 & i9 to be a deal breaker with $550 7900X and $700 7950X being the competition.
I'm sure people buying $450-$700 CPUs won't miss much the $30 and depending how many i7 & i9 (OEM included) CPUs Intel sells annually, it could have potentially saved hundreds of jobs (in a fantasy world not in reality with how corporations work lol)

 

[zlobby]

How dare Chief Executive Officers do what is best for the owners of the company that hired them to do what is best for the company!!! No one should ever do what's best for all those shareholders, as a fact I invest not for retirement but to make sure that people have jobs where they can't be fired and they don't really work for me at all!

How dare employees seek what's best for them? For example, the audacity of wanting compensation for significant overtime! Or how dare they want better (and more expensive) office furniture?

 

[RandallFlagg]

Looks like a refocusing is in fact in order at Intel. I have no pity for the marketing department.

 

[Steevo]

How dare employees seek what's best for them? For example, the audacity of wanting compensation for significant overtime! Or how dare they want better (and more expensive) office furniture?

Where did you read that about Intel workers? Why don’t they go to another better job?

Oh, they can’t cause they want to trade the security of not running a company and working obscene hours for free a lot of times for the chance of failure

 

[Bones]

Cowardly CEO's...always taking the path of least resistance when it comes to keeping those quarterly earnings coming in for the parasite corporate shareholders.

I thought that was their job.....
They are probrably thinking about renovating the office areas with extra windows so employees/managers/ stockholders can jump without doing it from their own offices.
All that is reserved for their own plunge.

Shareholders are the guys that have some of their own money invested in the company too so the term "Parasite" isn't quite accurate in the overall, it just applies to what they get from the profits the company makes.

I do get it though from the business side of it too - If you're not getting the money coming in to pay there is no point in keeping employees around BUT at the same time we all know the suits could cut back and make things more tolerable....
But that's like asking one to hold their breath waiting on Christmas every year too so yeah, there's that.

There's more than one way you can perceive it as being.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I thought that was their job.....
They are probrably thinking about renovating the office areas with extra windows so employees/managers/ stockholders can jump without doing it from their own offices.
All that is reserved for their own plunge.

Shareholders are the guys that have some of their own money invested in the company too so the term "Parasite" isn't quite accurate in the overall, it just applies to what they get from the profits the company makes.

I do get it though from the business side of it too - If you're not getting the money coming in to pay there is no point in keeping employees around BUT at the same time we all know the suits could cut back and make things more tolerable....
But that's like asking one to hold their breath waiting on Christmas every year too so yeah, there's that.

There's more than one way you can perceive it as being.

Hah, here's a more succinct way of saying it.

People - retirees, employees, single moms, self-employed workers, even the clerk at the Stop-n-Go who has a 401K, these make up most so-called "parasitic shareholders".

Usually when someone generalizes and demonizes such a large group as "parasitic shareholders", it means they are either 1 - young and dumb with no plans for the future, *or* 2 - they have lived an irresponsible life and wish to blame someone else for their screw-ups and irresponsible behavior, or 3 - very uneducated.

Certainly there are some edge cases where they just had extreme "bad luck". But I'd bet that poster and most of the people who "liked" his post fall into category #2 and #3.

And I'm saying this as someone who's entire retirement/savings portfolio has literally only 0.7% stocks.

The leeches and parasites in the stock markets are a combination of the day traders and get-rich-quick schemers, along with the execs and directors who get primarily paid in the form of stocks instead of paying them straight up like everyone else (done to hide the real cost to the company of paying them exorbitantly). That hurts the stock holders, who are again mostly average joes.

In 2022, the percentages owning stock range from highs of 89% of adults in households earning $100,000 or more and 79% of those with postgraduate education to a low of 25% of those in households earning less than $40,000.

What Percentage of Americans Own Stock?

Gallup's latest estimate finds 61% of U.S. adults own stock, the highest it has been since 2008.

news.gallup.com

 

[TheinsanegamerN]

How dare employees seek what's best for them? For example, the audacity of wanting compensation for significant overtime! Or how dare they want better (and more expensive) office furniture?

People getting mad at Pat are delusional, they forget how badly intel was circling the drain before he took over. It took lisa su over half a decade to fix AMD but people expect intel to just right the ship immediately.

Marketing and sales is a highly volatile market, if you go into those types of jobs expecting the consistency of janitorial work you are a total mong.

 

[Bones]

Hah, here's a more succinct way of saying it.

People - retirees, employees, single moms, self-employed workers, even the clerk at the Stop-n-Go who has a 401K, these make up most so-called "parasitic shareholders".

NO.
Those folks are NOT parasites - The only "Parasites" are the ones (The suits/execs/CEO's/CFO's/ UFO's?) that get to control the financial decisions that either makes or breaks things.
The common folk get screwed over just like the rest when it comes down to it. It's their money and the suits have no qualms about taking the money and running off with it, leaving all the rest holding an empty bag.

Usually when someone generalizes and demonizes such a large group as "parasitic shareholders", it means they are either 1 - young and dumb with no plans for the future, *or* 2 - they have lived an irresponsible life and wish to blame someone else for their screw-ups and irresponsible behavior, or 3 - very uneducated.

1: Young and dumb - Those folks can (Eventually) learn in most cases but whether they do or not is a different matter and up to them.
2: Imcompetent folks - That solely is on them and them alone.
3: Uneducated - Those guys in most cases are capable of learning as well.

Certainly there are some edge cases where they just had extreme "bad luck". But I'd bet that poster and most of the people who "liked" his post fall into category #2 and #3.

And I'm saying this as someone who's entire retirement/savings portfolio has literally only 0.7% stocks.

The leeches and parasites in the stock markets are a combination of the day traders and get-rich-quick schemers, along with the execs and directors who get primarily paid in the form of stocks instead of paying them straight up like everyone else (done to hide the real cost to the company of paying them exorbitantly). That hurts the stock holders, who are again mostly average joes.

So now with how you described a "Parasite" as being earlier, you're one youself!
Same as the pot calling the kettle black here.

And I'll admit I too had a 401K at one time but that's been cashed out now, did that when I was forced to retire over my health issues.
Just know (Probrably like yourself) I had to put MY OWN money I worked for and earned in it just to have what I did, meaning I was contributing, not "Just Taking" like a parasite would.

Contributing vs "Just Taking" - That's the real, true difference between a parasite and someone that's not, those that's not just trying to have something for later when they'd really need it.

 

[zlobby]

Ah, this thread quickly became a projection fest. What's not to like?

 

[Vayra86]

Always the first to go.

Oh no, now we won't have our daily Intel news meal!

Maybe they'll drown from the lack of leakage in Intel offices now

 

[Bones]

Ah, this thread quickly became a projection fest. What's not to like?

Yet it's all relevant to the thread's topic.

The guys subject to layoff are just like the rest of us, trying to make it day to day. It's not helpful at all you have a few in positions to make these decisions and not be affected by them, just the ones going day to day and yes, they are in a way being punished just for not being in the same position the suits are in.

Seriously - I get it from a business standpoint in that if revenue drops, you simply can't keep as many folks on payroll as before... Unless of course they are willing to work for a reduced wage or even for free, which you can't ask them to do.
If you don't have the money to pay them, why keep them hanging around in the first place?

I do get what some are saying and I do agree, the suits can cut back themselves to help if they would but that ain't happening and we all know it.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So now with how you described a "Parasite" as being earlier, you're one youself!
Same as the pot calling the kettle black here.

You completely missed the entire point. I was responding to the other poster's comment about shareholders being "parasitic" - hence the use of quotations. The entire thrust of that post was to show that shareholders are largely normal people, complete with a reference showing 58% of people own stock, and they are not 'parasitic' they are just trying to responsibly invest to make a better life for themselves in the future. It is usually those who consume everything and more than they produce, who look at "stockholders" as "parasitic".

 

[ThrashZone]

Hi,
Some products should never of been taken out of the lab.

Incrementalism?

This is +43.4% in 2 years, and in 8 days we will have a 4th entry which will likely add another 10% to this :

View attachment 265173

Hi,
Yep at least two of those should never of seen the light of day
But cutting releases doesn't do well for stock movement upwards.

 

[Vayra86]

Yet it's all relevant to the thread's topic.

The guys subject to layoff are just like the rest of us, trying to make it day to day. It's not helpful at all you have a few in positions to make these decisions and not be affected by them, just the ones going day to day and yes, they are in a way being punished just for not being in the same position the suits are in.

Seriously - I get it from a business standpoint in that if revenue drops, you simply can't keep as many folks on payroll as before... Unless of course they are willing to work for a reduced wage or even for free, which you can't ask them to do.
If you don't have the money to pay them, why keep them hanging around in the first place?

I do get what some are saying and I do agree, the suits can cut back themselves to help if they would but that ain't happening and we all know it.

Not only can the suits cut back, but there are far too many suits too in every company.

Sometimes I wonder with people I meet: 'what the f do you really manage here?' and most of all 'Why would that even be necessary with a competent workforce?'
And eventually: 'this got managed into the ground'. I've seen it happen so many times now. Teams getting broken up to somehow get 'more work done' and just the motivation killer that can be, which results in less work getting done and people getting their shields up more readily. And then the rebound where they say 'But I'm so approachable, tell me all your problems so we can fix them together', which is again an attempt to get more work done, and leaves people completely lost instead.

Examples. Commercial guy 'doing the textual changes to output' for insurances. Produces literally sixteen blocks of text (3-5 lines each!) per year. Manages to email it without proper instructions, spelling errors, and/or just forgets about stuff or brings in last minute revisions past the deadline. Another: Manager who tries to throw project-related work into the operation continuously, and then wonders why stuff gets all messed up. Is literally clueless and says 'But we both work for the same boss, right?'. Or this one: five different product managers who each individually explain the insurance mutation policy differently, and they all failed because technically it doesn't work like they think it does - and hasn't for the last five years in the application.

And then the worker bee comes in telling them they're all wrong I love my job

 

[Bones]

You completely missed the entire point. I was responding to the other poster's comment about shareholders being "parasitic" - hence the use of quotations. The entire thrust of that post was to show that shareholders are largely normal people, complete with a reference showing 58% of people own stock, and they are not 'parasitic' they are just trying to responsibly invest to make a better life for themselves in the future. It is usually those who consume everything and more than they produce, who look at "stockholders" as "parasitic".

Gotcha on that.
It's all good here on my part.

 

[Tek-Check]

They have to cut many things this year. In 2021, revenues were $79 billion, just below Samsung. This year, Q2 was ~$15.3 billion, suggesting annual contraction to ~$.60-65 billion. Ooouch! Almost all semis will go down this year and mostly next year. It's not surprising that some staff will part their way with Intel. It's unsustainable if you suffer losses ~$15 billion annualy.

 

[RandallFlagg]

They have to cut many things this year. In 2021, revenues were $79 billion, just below Samsung. This year, Q2 was ~$15.3 billion, suggesting annual contraction to ~$.60-65 billion. Ooouch! Almost all semis will do down this year and mostly next year. It's not surprising that some staff will part their way with Intel. It's unsustainable if you suffer losses ~$15 billion annualy.

View attachment 265195

So Intel's revenue has not been as good as other semi's, however without context a chart like that is misleading.

For example, Intel sold off its NAND division as well as its PSG group by end of 2021. NAND alone was a 5.4B source of revenue in 2020 and over 4B in 2021. For 2022, it's gone. PSG was about 500M. Together, they represented about 8% of Intel's revenue.

Just saying that revenue, by itself, can be very misleading.

As far as profits, 50% of net attributable to shareholder profit decline can be attributed to having a CapEx of 27B vs 14-15B in 2020. If Intel had invested in 2022 like they did in 2020, they would have made about 2B in profit at that place on the balance sheet instead of losing 400M in Q2 2022.

 

[zlobby]

Yet it's all relevant to the thread's topic.

The guys subject to layoff are just like the rest of us, trying to make it day to day. It's not helpful at all you have a few in positions to make these decisions and not be affected by them, just the ones going day to day and yes, they are in a way being punished just for not being in the same position the suits are in.

Seriously - I get it from a business standpoint in that if revenue drops, you simply can't keep as many folks on payroll as before... Unless of course they are willing to work for a reduced wage or even for free, which you can't ask them to do.
If you don't have the money to pay them, why keep them hanging around in the first place?

I do get what some are saying and I do agree, the suits can cut back themselves to help if they would but that ain't happening and we all know it.

Almost 99% of all companies around the world (extrapolation from vast personal experience) are extremely top-heavy. All top-brass cares about are their targets and bonuses. FTEs and such at the other hand get extremely demotivated and stop caring about anything except the end-of-shift bell.
This creates a vicious circle and the FTE get the boot while top brass are busy choosing the options of their new yachts. Check 'Silicon Valley'; this thing is made from people who know how it all works.

The solution is simple - create lean and respectful working environment where management level is transparent and fair.

As for intel - 20,000 people in marketing alone? Jesus H. Christ on a Hanukkah! That's a shootload of baggage even for worldwide marketing operations! I'd sacked them a long time ago.
And don't get me wrong - I have nothing against people. I have lots against entitled parasites who think the company revolves around them, or others who tend to actively do less to nothing, thinking it won't be noticed.

 

[Tek-Check]

So Intel's revenue has not been as good as other semi's, however without context a chart like that is misleading.
For example, Intel sold off its NAND division as well as its PSG group by end of 2021. NAND alone was a 5.4B source of revenue in 2020 and over 4B in 2021. For 2022, it's gone. PSG was about 500M. Together, they represented about 8% of Intel's revenue.
Just saying that revenue, by itself, can be very misleading.
As far as profits, 50% of net attributable to shareholder profit decline can be attributed to having a CapEx of 27B vs 14-15B in 2020. If Intel had invested in 2022 like they did in 2020, they would have made about 2B in profit at that place on the balance sheet instead of losing 400M in Q2 2022.

Good point, but there is nothing misleading on the face value of the chart. It's indicative of selling products. It is a total revenue by companies from all product sales, without selling or buying branches of business. By the same token, you could argue that AMD should be in a giant minus because they paid so much money to buy and merge with FPGA business Xillinx. That transaction alone trumps their revenues of more than three years.

The chart is indicative of past revenue trends and, in conjuction with new numbers from this year, of current consumer behaviour. This year, consumers are more vary of splashing out on tech due to macroeconomic conditions and post-Covid saturation with tech. During the pandemic, entire world upgraded their tech gear. You can't upgrade endlessly and continually in every segment at all times, especially not in client computing. Server is another story.

 

[dragontamer5788]

People getting mad at Pat are delusional, they forget how badly intel was circling the drain before he took over. It took lisa su over half a decade to fix AMD but people expect intel to just right the ship immediately.

Not to diminish Lisa Su's amazing technical leadership (Zen onwards is freaking amazing), but I'd argue it was Rory Read who turned the company around with some very difficult decisions in 2011 to 2014.

Rory Read bet the company on Zen, cutting the popular Bobcat cores division, killing other popular projects, and stabilizing the company's finances. Lisa Su took what remained of AMD and executed extremely gracefully (leading to Zen2, Zen3, Zen4 under her leadership).

The "fixing" of AMD started in 2011. It took damn near a whole decade to turn the company around with two CEOs doing everything they could. I think Intel has the cash reserves to make this happen with good leadership, but lets not pretend that this process can be completed in just a few short years... Intel's technical decisions look much better today than before, but there's still fundamental culture issues seemingly at play here.

 

[RandallFlagg]

Good point, but there is nothing misleading on the face value of the chart. It's indicative of selling products. It is a total revenue by companies from all product sales, without selling or buying branches of business. By the same token, you could argue that AMD should be in a giant minus because they paid so much money to buy and merge with FPGA business Xillinx. That transaction alone trumps their revenues of more than three years.

That's not how it works. AMD bought Xilinx via stocks, by diluting shares. They made the shareholders pay for it. It will show up as a big + to total revenue.

AMD outstanding shares for the past 4 quarters (in thousands):

 

[r9]

Cowardly CEO's...always taking the path of least resistance when it comes to keeping those quarterly earnings coming in for the parasite corporate shareholders.

.... however his bonus check is safe and secure