AMD Ryzen 7 3800X review
PowerColor 5700 RED DEVIL review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Evoke review
ASUS Radeon RX 5700 XT ROG STRIX review
ViewSonic Elite XG240R Monitor Review
Promo: URCDKey Summer Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
X570 Aorus master review
Cooler Master Silencio S600 review
AMD Ryzen 5 3400G review
ASUS RoG Swift PG35VQ Monitor review
Intel Cancels Intel Developer Forum
And that's now and in the future. We are a bit puzzled as to what is going on with Intel these days, last year here in the Netherlands and well, many other spots in the EU, they cancelled all press-agencies and press contacts. E.g. sampling + info retrieving through Intel is gone.
Now we get our info and samples through other ways then Intel these days, but it is indicative as to the why, how and what is going on with Intel. They just do not want to communicate with media anymore. This morning news reaches us that the yearly technology event IF, the Intel Developer Forum now is scrapped. here developers, media and analysts always have been briefed on new and upcoming technology.
"Intel has evolved its event portfolio and decided to retire the IDF program moving forward. Thank you for nearly 20 great years with the Intel Developer Forum! Intel has a number of resources available on intel.com, including a Resource and Design Center with documentation, software, and tools for designers, engineers, and developers. As always, our customers, partners, and developers should reach out to their Intel representative with questions."
It seems and feels like Intel is shifting and stepping away from the processor industry. Ian from Anandtech got a response back from Intel:
I just got off the phone with Intel, discussing why IDF is being cancelled. The main reason I was given is that Intel has been changing rapidly over the last two-to-three years, especially as they are changing from a PC-centric company to a data-centric company. With the rise of AI, FPGAs, Optane, IoT, wireless comms, automotive, and the other new areas that Intel is moving into, Intel felt that IDF no longer fills the need when it comes to giving out information. As a result, the decision has been made to find new ways to communicate with the audience (media, developers and companies) and the ecosystem with targeted events. These will be like the recent AI Day or Manufacturing Day, or be connected to partner events, or involve separate geocentric events. So rather than have one big melee on everything, Intel is set to split its message across several different areas in the hope that it accurately digs deep enough into every area. I was told that Intel wants to find a better way to present the experiences in each of the fields, and this is the way to do that.
Intel Cannon Lake Mobile Processors This Year? - 04/05/2017 08:59 PM
While it's not exactly a surprize as we mentioned this a couple of times already Intel last week confirmed it on their technology and manufacturing day, their new 14nm ++ process. Intel also announce...
Next Gen Intel Cannon Lake 15% faster and again a 14nm processor - 02/10/2017 06:37 PM
Intel held an investor day briefing yesterday in which it made some claims on the next generation desktop processors. The CPUs next in line will be based on Cannon Lake, interesting to see it that it...
Intel cancels Kaby Lake-H - Kaby Lake Refresh will be Core ix 8000 series - 12/28/2016 11:01 AM
A new road-map from Intel surfaced on the web with the Kaby lake refresh processors, these were called Kaby Lake-H. The new Kaby Lake Refresh models however will be called the Core ix 8000 series and...
Intel cancels Larrabee 1st consumer graphics chip - 12/05/2009 11:59 AM
A massive developing story today as Larrabee in pure GPU has been canceled. The world
Intel cancels several CPUs - 06/19/2009 09:29 AM
We already knew half of this, but things have gone more solid now. Intel recently notified its partners plans to EOL (end of life) several CPUs in the second half of 2009 and first quarter of 2010. CP...
Turanis
Senior Member
Posts: 1407
Joined: 2014-08-15
Senior Member
Posts: 1407
Joined: 2014-08-15
#5421860 Posted on: 04/18/2017 03:27 PM
Looks like they need to work pretty hard to acomplish many things in today's tech world.IoT sucks,anyway.
Intel is a Goliath with clay feet,unfortunately (Im looking,aswell,at M$$$).Big company,big money stock,but only few useful ideas.
They need to broke in pieces to work at today's useful tech.They think too much in the past,because they dont have a visionary CEO.
Looks like they need to work pretty hard to acomplish many things in today's tech world.IoT sucks,anyway.
Intel is a Goliath with clay feet,unfortunately (Im looking,aswell,at M$$$).Big company,big money stock,but only few useful ideas.
They need to broke in pieces to work at today's useful tech.They think too much in the past,because they dont have a visionary CEO.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12217
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12217
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5421871 Posted on: 04/18/2017 03:43 PM
I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach.
I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit.
I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined:
* Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs.
* Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers.
* Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
* Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up.
* What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC.
* Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive.
It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.
They have to diversify, their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off.
So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3.
So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach.
I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit.
I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined:
* Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs.
* Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers.
* Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
* Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up.
* What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC.
* Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive.
It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.
They have to diversify, their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off.
So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3.
So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5421877 Posted on: 04/18/2017 04:12 PM
They have to diversify because their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off.
So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
I completely get what you're saying, but many people seem to forget that Intel still makes around $11 billion in net revenue per year. I'm sure almost all of that is coming from CPUs, SSDs, NICs, and motherboards. Note how none of those are the products Intel is changing their focus toward. If Intel sticks with what they're known for, they will still remain over-powered for many more years. They have the money to really make a difference, but instead they're either playing it safe, or, they're dumping all their money into markets where they're severely behind. There are plenty of tech markets out there that don't have much competition, yet Intel decides to join the ones that are very competitive, well-established, and don't yield much interest to either the general public or industries.
So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3.
You're absolutely right - Intel isn't going to save themselves by continuously making faster CPUs. It's exactly that mentality why Intel is losing sight of what they should be doing - improving efficiency. We don't need faster CPUs anymore. We don't need more threads. What we need is to keep up the same performance while lowering the wattage. Intel is so blinded by "moar iz better!" that they had to drop out of the smartphone market. Their phone CPUs were over-complicated, over-powered, and were way too expensive. From what I recall, some had thermal problems too.
Even AMD is putting more of an effort toward efficiency. As much as AMD is just a little ant that could be squished at the whim of Intel, I suspect they'll last longer as a company, because they're forced to adapt in order to stay afloat. Intel never needed to know how to do that, and these decisions they're making exemplify that.
They have to diversify because their market for PC's is not only saturated (they have what, like 90%+ marketshare?) but the PC market itself is dwindling and clearly charging more to increase profits just pisses everyone off.
So yeah, they are behind in all this stuff - but if they don't start diversifying they die anyway. Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
I completely get what you're saying, but many people seem to forget that Intel still makes around $11 billion in net revenue per year. I'm sure almost all of that is coming from CPUs, SSDs, NICs, and motherboards. Note how none of those are the products Intel is changing their focus toward. If Intel sticks with what they're known for, they will still remain over-powered for many more years. They have the money to really make a difference, but instead they're either playing it safe, or, they're dumping all their money into markets where they're severely behind. There are plenty of tech markets out there that don't have much competition, yet Intel decides to join the ones that are very competitive, well-established, and don't yield much interest to either the general public or industries.
So what exactly do they do? How do they make money selling CPUs? People here love to say "well they could try increasing performance more than 5% each generation" or something - but for 90% of the market, more performance isn't even necessary. Like if Intel released a processor tomorrow that's 500% faster, I would upgrade 0 machines at my office, because no one here does anything that requires more than an i3.
You're absolutely right - Intel isn't going to save themselves by continuously making faster CPUs. It's exactly that mentality why Intel is losing sight of what they should be doing - improving efficiency. We don't need faster CPUs anymore. We don't need more threads. What we need is to keep up the same performance while lowering the wattage. Intel is so blinded by "moar iz better!" that they had to drop out of the smartphone market. Their phone CPUs were over-complicated, over-powered, and were way too expensive. From what I recall, some had thermal problems too.
Even AMD is putting more of an effort toward efficiency. As much as AMD is just a little ant that could be squished at the whim of Intel, I suspect they'll last longer as a company, because they're forced to adapt in order to stay afloat. Intel never needed to know how to do that, and these decisions they're making exemplify that.
Amaze
Senior Member
Posts: 2980
Joined: 2003-11-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2980
Joined: 2003-11-15
#5422022 Posted on: 04/18/2017 09:28 PM
Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip.
I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.
Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip.
I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.
jdc2389
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2012-04-26
Senior Member
Posts: 169
Joined: 2012-04-26
#5422050 Posted on: 04/18/2017 11:08 PM
Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip.
I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.
Source?
Intel must be desperate now. One of the biggest electronics chains here are now offering customers up to 235 dollars back in cash if they buy a computer with an intel chip.
I have never heard of this kind of offer here before. It's a big sum and money in return is basically unheard of.
Source?
airbud7
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 2011-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 7111
Joined: 2011-07-20
#5422062 Posted on: 04/19/2017 12:25 AM
they did invest $7 billion to finish a factory in Arizona it started in 2011
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/02/intel-will-invest-7-billion-to-finish-a-factory-it-started-in-2011/
they did invest $7 billion to finish a factory in Arizona it started in 2011
https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/02/intel-will-invest-7-billion-to-finish-a-factory-it-started-in-2011/
Amaze
Senior Member
Posts: 2980
Joined: 2003-11-15
Senior Member
Posts: 2980
Joined: 2003-11-15
#5422101 Posted on: 04/19/2017 06:07 AM
https://www.expert.no/content/kampanjer/cashback/
Looks like the money is coming from Microsoft, but the requirement still is an Intel CPU and Windows Home/Pro.
Source?
https://www.expert.no/content/kampanjer/cashback/
Looks like the money is coming from Microsoft, but the requirement still is an Intel CPU and Windows Home/Pro.
kedirimakmur1
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2017-04-18
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2017-04-18
#5422146 Posted on: 04/19/2017 09:36 AM
I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach.
I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit.
I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined:
* Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs.
* Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers.
* Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
* Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up.
* What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC.
* Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive.
It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.
I agree about Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach.
I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit.
I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined:
* Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs.
* Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers.
* Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
* Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up.
* What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC.
* Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive.
It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.
I agree about Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7003
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7003
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5422229 Posted on: 04/19/2017 02:23 PM
Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
NVIDIA started diversifying when the GPU market was close to 50/50 actually, showing how their management was generally head and shoulders above Intel's. Intel has spent close to 40 billion dollars in various acquisitions and market efforts with close to zero return.
Nvidia recognized this as they were in the same boat. They had vast majority of GPU marketshare - the only way to increase revenue was to either charge customers more or utilize their products and find new avenues for revenue. They were just smart enough to get into the AI/Cars/Etc before anyone really realized how big of a market it was.
Intel was too slow and now they are playing catch-up in a bunch of areas, but they don't really have a choice.
NVIDIA started diversifying when the GPU market was close to 50/50 actually, showing how their management was generally head and shoulders above Intel's. Intel has spent close to 40 billion dollars in various acquisitions and market efforts with close to zero return.
Stormyandcold
Senior Member
Posts: 5184
Joined: 2003-09-15
Senior Member
Posts: 5184
Joined: 2003-09-15
#5422236 Posted on: 04/19/2017 02:41 PM
Well, I like what they're doing for tablets, however, there are plenty of problems that need solving like much better cooling in a limited space like in a tablet to prevent their soc's from throttling that they could invest in. Probably too "small fry" of a problem for them to look into. However, I haven't counted them out yet.
Well, I like what they're doing for tablets, however, there are plenty of problems that need solving like much better cooling in a limited space like in a tablet to prevent their soc's from throttling that they could invest in. Probably too "small fry" of a problem for them to look into. However, I haven't counted them out yet.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4238
Joined: 2012-11-10
I find this a bit confusing - is it that Intel doesn't want to communicate with the media, or is it that they feel they don't have a need to in the form they have been approaching? I don't understand why they're taking this approach.
I also don't see what suggests Intel is stepping away from the processor industry, and more importantly, why. That's like if Yamaha suddenly stopped making musical instruments and strictly focused on motorcycles - sure, they could do that, but they're losing a huge source of profit.
I figure desktop and laptop CPUs (so, not including servers) alone make up more revenue than all of the other mentioned products combined:
* Intel is not known for their AI; meanwhile, companies like Google and IBM (both of which produce their own processors) have made newsworthy AIs.
* Intel recently acquired companies like Altera, which as far as I'm concerned, were doing fine without Intel. FPGAs generally aren't a big sellers.
* Though I personally see the benefits of Optane, it doesn't seem to be very appealing to most people.
* Intel is trying WAY too hard when it comes to IoT. ARM and Arduino platforms have generally been more appealing, due to costing less and being simpler to set up.
* What was the last truly innovative and noteworthy wireless technology Intel released? Widi/Mirrorlink don't count - that's basically just a glorified Wifi + VNC.
* Nvidia and other ARM brands are also way ahead when it comes to automotive.
It just seems to me that if Intel really is shifting away from CPUs and toward these other things, they're going to doom themselves.