Intel Reports Fourth-Quarter and Full-Year 2024 Financial Results

[FoulOnWhite]

Alder Lake was the one good Intel product line in over a decade of mediocrity.

As long as it keeps working fine, i will keep it even when i upgrade.

 

[AnotherReader]

You are absolutely right. This is also the hardest aspect of the industry for both tech site staff and computer enthusiasts to understand. The interworkings of semiconductor fabrication industry requires the fab and fab customer to almost be surgically joined at the hip. The constant news articles about IFS getting customers and becoming like TSMC came from a place of pure ignorance. Even some of these industry insiders and readers leave comments about how TSMC helps AMD with technological development of their products. How on freaking earth was that supposed to be the case between Intel and AMD or even Intel and Nvidia or Intel and Apple, etc. etc.

There are other cases of chip makers opening their fabs to competitors: Samsung and IBM come to mind. Recall that Apple used both Samsung and TSMC for its chips until the iPhone 7.

At the time, i had read up about C2D and realised it was a stormer, i actually sold my pretty good(at the time) AMD rig and bought a Intel board and a pentium4 waiting for C2D. All my mates thought i was insane, then C2D came out and devastaded AMD, when i bought a C2D chip, my system was a corker and blew theirs out of the water. Guess what.........They all switched to Intel setups.

Intel certainly need something. I am not a E core hater either, some people just do not understand the point of them, if the OS and board was properly setup and working for them, they would be amazing. I really hope Intel can get themselves out of the doldrums. For now though i will stick with my 12700k setup as it has been the most stable PC i have had running for 4years with not a single BSOD, and that is no lie.

I haven't had a BSOD on my Phenom II in 15 years.

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

I haven't had a BSOD on my Phenom II in 15 years.

I cannot say that any of all the AMD cpus I had ever gave me any problems. I'm talking as far back as the original Athlon.

Then again, neither did the Intel that I got in between.

 

[Visible Noise]

Foundries revenue was 17.543B, but they lost 13.4B.

Foundries aren’t expected to show an operating profit until the end of 2027, so yes?

 

[Daven]

Foundries aren’t expected to show an operating profit until the end of 2027, so yes?

There is no foundry. Intel is playing financial reporting tricks with IFS to make it seem like its a separate company but its not. All of IFS expenses are just Intel corporation expenses. All IFS revenue (save a few hundred million) is from Intel as a ‘customer’. It’s smoke and mirrors trying to trick the likes of AMD, Nvidia, Apple, Qualcomm, etc to use their fab services. No one’s, and I mean NO ONE’S buying it.

 

[Smartcom5]

Yes, given how horribly Intel behaved in the 90s and 00s, it is quite nice to see their downfall.

Well, all typical German Schadenfreude aside, I wouldn't use the term 'nice' here. I'd rather call it just and well-deserved, maybe even way overdue – Intel in fact really worked hard, very hard for literal decades, to earn their reputation as being a cutthroat company, which never once ever really tried to actually compete for once (in the typical sense of the word's meaning).

No, Intel always wanted (and always at least tried) to directly and mercilessly outright kill each and any competitor and wanted to extinguish such forever. They really took the phrase of a ›competitive threat‹ to heart, and acted accordingly… As if it was a matter of life and death! Yet in a sense it always was, at least for Intel. Since Intel just can't handle competition and they never could.

The funny thing is, that the press always loved, and many still do so, to picture Intel as a juggernaut, and while it actually is true (in the meaning of a destructive force, less as a heavyweight), in reality Intel is and always was nothing but a bully, always trying to give everyone around them a bad or at least hard time…

Some will scream about the loss of competition but bad company behavior is far, far worse. Such behavior is why we end up with monopolies (*cough* Nvidia *cough*). Even if Intel goes away, a dozen upcoming and new players will fill the void (AMD, Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Qualcomm, Google, Mediatek, Samsung, Huawei, Si-Five, Amazon, IBM, etc.)

When Intel eventually will be wiped off the commercial trade register, there won't be a actual loss of competition.

Since every market where Intel was partaking and acted in, there was never actual competition anyway, but always only a sudden market-player, who loved to engage in corrupting the market heavily in its own favour through the back-door at the very market's root, using their beloved OEMs – Not only undercutting but outright work around the customer's actual genuine free choice between competitors and their respective products, undermined customers' choice completely and with that, actually cripple intentionally competition, knife innovation and secretly cut competitors off their revenue, only to starve them to death, no matter how competitive and actually innovative these were.

So no, Intel dying and eventually ending up going extinct, will actually foster competition, since there won't be a corrupt market-player anymore, who always hindered innovation from day one and purposefully stalled advancements for the sole sake of blatant enrichment – The decade of quad-cores comes to mind here!

I'm sorry, but they basically asked for it – Straight off their own earnings-presentation 1Q20, p 15;

Who knows if those who put it into it, were actually aware of the stunning irony of it, like not…

 

[Daven]

Well, all typical German Schadenfreude aside, I wouldn't use the term 'nice' here. I'd rather call it just and well-deserved, maybe even way overdue – Intel in fact really worked hard, very hard for literal decades, to earn their reputation as being a cutthroat company, which never once ever really tried to actually compete for once (in the typical sense of the word's meaning).

No, Intel always wanted (and always at least tried) to directly and mercilessly outright kill each and any competitor and wanted to extinguish such forever. They really took the phrase of a ›competitive threat‹ to heart, and acted accordingly… As if it was a matter of life and death! Yet in a sense it always was, at least for Intel. Since Intel just can't handle competition and they never could.

The funny thing is, that the press always loved, and many still do so, to picture Intel as a juggernaut, and while it actually is true (in the meaning of a destructive force, less as a heavyweight), in reality Intel is and always was nothing but a bully, always trying to give everyone around them a bad or at least hard time…


When Intel eventually will be wiped off the commercial trade register, there won't be a actual loss of competition.

Since every market where Intel was partaking and acted in, there was never actual competition anyway, but always only a sudden market-player, who loved to engage in corrupting the market heavily in its own favour through the back-door at the very market's root, using their beloved OEMs – Not only undercutting but outright work around the customer's actual genuine free choice between competitors and their respective products, undermined customers' choice completely and with that, actually cripple intentionally competition, knife innovation and secretly cut competitors off their revenue, only to starve them to death, no matter how competitive and actually innovative these were.

So no, Intel dying and eventually ending up going extinct, will actually foster competition, since there won't be a corrupt market-player anymore, who always hindered innovation from day one and purposefully stalled advancements for the sole sake of blatant enrichment – The decade of quad-cores comes to mind here!

I'm sorry, but they basically asked for it – Straight off their own earnings-presentation 1Q20, p 15;
View attachment 382750
Who knows if those who put it into it, were actually aware of the stunning irony of it, like not…

Very very well said!

 

[Neo_Morpheus]

The decade of quad-cores comes to mind here!

Preach it brother!

Thats when I got my last intel cpu and jumped off to AMD and Apple for good, plus the news of how they bribed Dell and others to do not use AMD cpus, especially on their lucrative corporate lines.

 

[Smartcom5]

AMD didn’t almost go down because of intel, amd went down because they tried to grow to much right before the economic collapse of 2008. Which also killed 400mm wafers…

You're not only just uninformed (or prejudiced; pick one), you are mostly utterly clueless, since the story about 400mm-wafers actually died in 2017 – That's like a decade in-bewteen! Also, it only was a thing from 2012 onwards between TSMC, Samsung and lastly Intel exclusively, mainly due to Intel itself heavily pushing it!.

Also, Intel's management tried heavily pushing such huge wafers, for the sole reason of installing nothing but a capital industrial-barrier upon the way up especially for any smaller semiconductor-competitors (who wouldn't have had the monetary means to actually engage in those huge costs for it), to kill them through sheer costs and with that by proxy knife Intel's own competitors. Literally no-one else but those three fabs exclusively was actually eyeing with such big wafers in the first place.

That being said, AMD never ever at any point in time was pursuing 400mm-wafers, since by the time these were pushed in 2012–2017, AMD had already split off their semiconductor-division into the independent spin-off called GlobalFoundries. So you're just making stuff up for sh!tting on AMD for no reason here…

Have a read;
El Reg – How TSMC killed 450mm wafers for fear of Intel, Samsung

 

[kondamin]

You're not only just uninformed (or prejudiced; pick one), you are mostly utterly clueless, since the story about 400mm-wafers actually died in 2017 – That's like a decade in-bewteen! Also, it only was a thing from 2012 onwards between TSMC, Samsung and lastly Intel exclusively, mainly due to Intel itself heavily pushing it!.

Also, Intel's management tried heavily pushing such huge wafers, for the sole reason of installing nothing but a capital industrial-barrier upon the way up especially for any smaller semiconductor-competitors (who wouldn't have had the monetary means to actually engage in those huge costs for it), to kill them through sheer costs and with that by proxy knife Intel's own competitors. Literally no-one else but those three fabs exclusively was actually eyeing with such big wafers in the first place.

That being said, AMD never ever at any point in time was pursuing 400mm-wafers, since by the time these were pushed in 2012–2017, AMD had already split off their semiconductor-division into the independent spin-off called GlobalFoundries. So you're just making stuff up for sh!tting on AMD for no reason here…

Have a read;
El Reg – How TSMC killed 450mm wafers for fear of Intel, Samsung

Pretty certain I remember intel having 400mm wafers and that the project was killed during the economic downturn 2008-2012
And if i look at things published before 2022 when that tsmc killed it was published I find plenty of articles talking about 450mm much earlier than 2012.
fabs should have been up by 2011
according to some https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-faster-greener-smarter.pdf for example

never said amd was doing large wafers, the world economy broke during the gfc
The period that also brought amd to ruin Because their financials were horrible and everyone wanted their money back right away.

thats the link between the two I was going for, shit economy ruining many good thing.
450mm wafers 2.5 times more space for chips per wafer would have been great

 

[AnotherReader]

Pretty certain I remember intel having 400mm wafers and that the project was killed during the economic downturn 2008-2012
And if i look at things published before 2022 when that tsmc killed it was published I find plenty of articles talking about 450mm much earlier than 2012.
fabs should have been up by 2011
according to some https://www.pwc.com/gx/en/technology/publications/assets/pwc-faster-greener-smarter.pdf for example

never said amd was doing large wafers, the world economy broke during the gfc
The period that also brought amd to ruin Because their financials were horrible and everyone wanted their money back right away.

thats the link between the two I was going for, shit economy ruining many good thing.
450mm wafers 2.5 times more space for chips per wafer would have been great

The tool makers weren't convinced that 450 mm wafers would be good for them; at the time, they were still salty over 300 mm wafers.

It could take 30 years for IC equipment vendors to garner a return on their earlier outlays for development of 300-mm fab tools. For 450-mm gear, "there is never going to be a payback," Hadar said.

 

[Gunbound]

In context of today I don't know how much we can really expect the company to perform financially compared to a decade+ ago. Is the demand for faster equipment the same as it was back then? Everything everywhere feels like there is stagnation. GPUs are probably sought more than the CPUs being made (Am I wrong? I honestly don't know).
Could that be why AMD has been having more success (ignoring AI for a moment)
Market ain't what it used to be.

Microsoft Windows has become progressively worse in quality (which imo has more to do with BSODs than anything else but maybe not all cases)...
The world just isn't the same as it was before. External 5.25" bays are becoming less relevant by the day and I am screaming into the void.
Relationships and dynamics with foundries ain't the same. Demands and needs are changing.

I hate saying that. Anyways curious if Intel would ever attempt to do some APU on par with what Ryzen has offered with their Xe cores. Just shove a bunch of Xe Cores without making the discrete cards irrelevant. Y'know?

 

[Scrizz]

I hate saying that. Anyways curious if Intel would ever attempt to do some APU on par with what Ryzen has offered with their Xe cores. Just shove a bunch of Xe Cores without making the discrete cards irrelevant. Y'know?

so you want a higher power version of Lunar lake essentially?

 

[Gunbound]

so you want a higher power version of Lunar lake essentially?

Yes. I don't quite understand why they didn't try to do that with the Arrow Lake Desktop CPUs and hope it had nothing to do with their GPUs. Were any reasons given? Heck another SKU for desktop I don't think would be unwelcome