Hilbert Hagedoorn:

Intel reported fourth-quarter and full-year 2019 financial results. The company also announced that its board of directors approved a five percent cash dividend increase to $1.32 per share on an annua... Intel can fab processors enough - posts Record Financials

boss, i think u misstype the table (2018-2017 instead 2019-2018) ?

All fixed, thanks!

It takes time for the average Joe to realize that it's not worth to buy an Intel CPU nowadays, brand recognition wins over product quality. By that time Intel could mange to fix their problems and deliver a good, innovative, product once again. That... or it will be in trouble.

Francesco:

It takes time for the average Joe to realize that it's not worth to buy an Intel CPU nowadays, brand recognition wins over product quality. By that time Intel could mange to fix their problems and deliver a good, innovative, product once again. That... or it will be in trouble.

LoL Do you think everything Intel do is making cpu's?

At this point, almost every Intel related news irks me. In only 1 year half they went from hero to zero in my book. (figuratively speaking)

nizzen:

LoL Do you think everything Intel do is making cpu's?

No, but this is the title of the news post "Intel can't fab processors enough..." That's the part I was obviously reffering to. Maybe you can't read?

nizzen:

LoL Do you think everything Intel do is making cpu's?

No. They make gpus. 🙄

And yet....they are still best for gaming, by the time games need 32+ cores Intel will be up to scratch.

The Goose:

And yet....they are still best for gaming, by the time games need 32+ cores Intel will be up to scratch.

Most gamers use AMD cpus if you sum up both pc and consoles. These are the best for gaming.

It is interesting that Intel has had a bumper year with AMD supposedly getting a gradually increasing slice of the pie. Intel have not yet diversified enough to say that their core business model is not important. If AMD announcements and retailer reports are to be believed with regards to uptake, the broader picture means that the pc market overall has grown after a prolonged period of stagnation during the last decade, which can only be good news for all. I am also interested to see optane uptake increasing, perhaps all integrated with laptops containing their chipsets? I personally have not heard of anyone myself purposely integrating optane into their system, admitted this is anecdotal only.

Francesco:

It takes time for the average Joe to realize that it's not worth to buy an Intel CPU nowadays, brand recognition wins over product quality. By that time Intel could mange to fix their problems and deliver a good, innovative, product once again. That... or it will be in trouble.

I don´t know if the average joe is the one to "blame" for this results. Intel still sells millions for OEMs, laptops and for servers, and this last one is very important because of the super high margins and because it seems to be a booming market because of the cloud and streaming markets. Where Intel is being kicked really hard by AMD is in the desktop market but that seems to be their "smallest" market. It seems Intel lucked out because companies really need their products even if they are more expensive or inferior to the ones provided by AMD...

warlord:

Most gamers use AMD cpus if you sum up both pc and consoles. These are the best for gaming.

Because 60fps v-sync 😛

nizzen:

Because 60fps v-sync 😛

Less fps means less consumption and heat. 😀

Man every time there's an AMD or Intel article on this site I check the comments for some painful reason and it's always absolutely ridiculous seeing people throw all sense of logic and information out the window to shit all over intel while talking about AMD like their favorite sports team - they're both (in this context) companies making CPUs to get as much of your money as possible. We get it - you cheer on AMD - you love AMD - you want to have AMD babies - but why? Why do you have this mentality? They're not better for gaming yet - they probably will be soon based on current outlook (and I sincerely hope that happens to keep pricing consumer-friendly) but they're still just NOT better - that 9900K (or the newer version of it) is still the chip a discerning gamer buys for their system if they're interested in the best performance they can get - which I feel like guru3d.com caters to as a community. Cheer on AMD all you want it's humorous but why constantly say things that are completely untrue?

I don't find it surprising why AMD is doing overall better in the enthusiast market, and growing in the laptop market. I don't find it surprising why Intel's sales have gone up with the mainstream market. I don't understand Intel's success in HEDT/workstations, but it doesn't surprise me either. What does surprise me is how they're doing so well in servers. Yeah I get it - cloud and AI servers are all the rage, but Intel isn't the best choice for either of those. POWER is a smarter choice if you want the best thread:dollar ratio. Epyc is a smarter choice if x86 compatibility or PCIe lanes are important. ARM is a smarter choice if you care about thread:watt ratio. All 3 of these options are cheaper than Intel.

schmidtbag:

What does surprise me is how they're doing so well in servers. Yeah I get it - cloud and AI servers are all the rage, but Intel isn't the best choice for either of those. POWER is a smarter choice if you want the best thread:dollar ratio. Epyc is a smarter choice if x86 compatibility or PCIe lanes are important. ARM is a smarter choice if you care about thread:watt ratio. All 3 of these options are cheaper than Intel.

The server market is very reluctant to changes. These are decisions that sometimes involve millions of dollars, it´s not the same thing as buying a CPU for our home and if it goes wrong, you sell it and buy another one. We have to take into account that AMD was practically MIA for a decade, while Intel cemented its position. The server business involves much more than simply buying CPUs, there is a whole lot of maintenance and support behind it, where logically Intel is trusted by most companies, due to the connection they have had for years. The amount that companies pay for Intel CPUs is also not the "market price", there are usually many discounts involved. AMD itself knows this, I remember that at the time of the Ryzen launch, Lisa Su gave an interview and said openly that they would have a lot of work ahead of them to build up the market confidence again and that could take quite a few years.

Stryfex:

Man every time there's an AMD or Intel article on this site I check the comments for some painful reason and it's always absolutely ridiculous seeing people throw all sense of logic and information out the window to crap all over intel while talking about AMD like their favorite sports team - they're both (in this context) companies making CPUs to get as much of your money as possible. We get it - you cheer on AMD - you love AMD - you want to have AMD babies - but why? Why do you have this mentality? They're not better for gaming yet - they probably will be soon based on current outlook (and I sincerely hope that happens to keep pricing consumer-friendly) but they're still just NOT better - that 9900K (or the newer version of it) is still the chip a discerning gamer buys for their system if they're interested in the best performance they can get - which I feel like guru3d.com caters to as a community. Cheer on AMD all you want it's humorous but why constantly say things that are completely untrue?

I think it's because of human emotion. If we were all Vulcan, we would objectively just choose a CPU based on it's strengths for a particular use case and no one would get upset. Humans feel the need to choose sides, root for the underdog, debate things they don't agree with, and hold grudges. Captain Kirk knew this all too well, and Spock had to help him avoid making mistakes. I like to think that Captain Picard was more emotionally evolved and was able to battle down his human emotion to think objectively and make the most logical choices. Live long and prosper.

kings:

The server market is very reluctant to changes. These are decisions that sometimes involve millions of dollars, it´s not the same thing as buying a CPU for our home and if it goes wrong, you sell it and buy another one. We have to take into account that AMD was practically MIA for a decade, while Intel cemented its position. The server business involves much more than simply buying CPUs, there is a whole lot of maintenance and support behind it, where logically Intel is trusted by most companies, due to the connection they have had for years. The amount that companies pay for Intel CPUs is also not the "market price", there are usually many discounts involved. AMD itself knows this, I remember that at the time of the Ryzen launch, Lisa Su gave an interview and said openly that they would have a lot of work ahead of them to build up the market confidence again and that could take quite a few years.

you took the words i was thinking were mine 😱:D;);)

kings:

The server market is very reluctant to changes. These are decisions that sometimes involve millions of dollars, it´s not the same thing as buying a CPU for our home and if it goes wrong, you sell it and buy another one.

Absolutely, but, cloud and AI servers are relatively new. This isn't a matter of upgrading an old infrastructure, it's building a new one. So, they're not bound to Intel.

AMD itself knows this, I remember that at the time of the Ryzen launch, Lisa Su gave an interview and said openly that they would have a lot of work ahead of them to build up the market confidence again and that could take quite a few years.

She was right, too. Despite Intel's increasing success, AMD too seems to be doing great in the server market.

The only reason besides the big 10nm snafu of sorts behind intel not being able to keep chips in stock, is because after years of spoon-feeding their loyal customers with 2% yearly performance upgrades ... wait for it ... There's ACTUALLY SOMETHING TO UPGRADE TO NOW since Ryzen 2xxx. OK. Intel die-hards are going to hate this, as this may be a bit polarizing... This is coming from a mixed-use case of myself: I built a 4790k machine in 2014. Nice speed on it, but it was so hot I had to take it apart (delid) it to FIX it, the box cooler was useless even to run stock 4ghz speed laying on a table for crying out loud and not even delidding + 100$ of air cooling + fancy case + fancy Asus motherboard NEVER got as much as even 100mhz of boost on all cores over the *single* core stock turbo speed. I was disgusted. Overclocking my hide. Money wasted. Could have just bought a better chip for what I spent extra for K-series label, upgraded motherboard, 100$ cooler, better RAM, fancy case, and so-forth. I very much felt shafted. I wanted to ditch that thing for years, but couldn't justify needing x299 HEDT just for what I do. Otherwise there was no upgrade even as far as 2018 (as honestly, a peppy properly-working 4790k system with 32gb of 2400mhz cl-11 ram wasn't far off of a base-line 2600x Ryzen system in 2018). Well when Ryzen 3000 came out, I jumped ship in the first few weeks, best upgrade I've had in a while. My 3700x is often 2.5x~3x faster in some respects, and a decent improvement otherwise, and it's only technically double the cores of the 4790k. I use software AND games that will make use of every bit of CPU horsepower you throw their way. I don't want to have to overclock my system beyond it's spec to get the most out of it and wonder if it's going to continue to be 100% stable until 'one day'... Been there done that, almost 40, use my machine for more than just games. Whether I am looking up a part, for something I'm fixing around my house, doing work on it creating content in BeamNG Drive (I am building a whole city, Los Injurus), or other things... this gets work done on it, too. Things I use often: 7Zip Maya LT Blender Substance Designer 2020 World Machine 3xxx version *Paint dot net *Photoshop *software with * does not necessarily get help from more cores, but it helps when cores aren't busy with other stuff because productivity environments rarely have just ONE thing open. This is something MOST benchmarks do NOT properly reflect. Games: Beamng.drive Rimworld Cities Skylines Noita All of the above get help significantly from having more cores. If AMD offers me more cores of comparable speed, and the processor is able to stability 'boost' by itself without me setting more than XMP and providing a decent cooler if needed (it's not needed), then I couldn't be better served with less cores on intel (8600k/9600k) for the price I paid for a 3700x (329$ plus 50$ discount on x570 motherboard 2~3 weeks after launch). No, really, I could not touch a 9700k south of 399~389$ last July / August and the 3700x 8-core 16-thread chip was 329$ plus a healthy discount. PLUS with intel I'd have to liquid cool / put 60~100$ air-cooler on it to even keep stock settings on anything over an i5, never-mind the useless junk stock cooler that comes with the chip you can't even use (when it still comes with). Plus with the extra money saved I could buy some more RAM or buy an NVME drive, or a better video card. So who really serves gamers or content creators better? I'm not going to notice <10% or so performance per core difference in *some* things when compared to an overclocked 9900k, but I would notice the MASSIVE amount of heat piping out of my intel-based machine, fish tank noises (heaven forbid a LEAK), sweating me out of the room or just making more noise than otherwise would be required by my current setup. When I need more speed I can put a 16-core 32-thread chip on here - which I can't do with other team's socket (cooler upgrade then, of course, I have a new-in-box Zalman 9900 CNPS here I paid 25$ for I would try using first before the new Scythe that's out, just for old-times sake). Should I need max speed on M.2. drives later on down the line, I know I have PCI-E 4.0 and have a decent amount of lanes (the Z97 was really limited and some were 2.0 - as was the DMI though all were back at the time). When I priced out a whole system last summer, as I needed one; both the 9700k and 9900k were 200~300$+ more expensive VS the 3700x / x570, even when cutting corners and going ASRock vs ASUS motherboards or jumping down a bit on RAM speed. I could have even saved more by going to B450, but then I'd have to fiddle with the board BIOS + I wanted a new platform - the newest one possible - another feather in AMD's cap. I do content creation on a budget. With my budget, AMD gets me more. I have no love for their buggy video drivers however, just to be clear (I bought an Nvidia RTX when I'd had enough of it). So while yes intel is having trouble keeping orders filled, it's only because now that there's finally competition again, people have SOMETHING TO UPGRADE TO! Again this is also because of 10nm delays... Thanks AMD for giving us something to upgrade to without breaking the bank!