Intel has a Pretty Big Problem..

[Tetras]

One might argue Intel are too big to fail, they are not, no one is, Nokia used to think that, if this trend doesn't change, drastically Intel will run out of money and rack up debts, they are already $53 billion in debt, if they rack up much more of it they will not be able to service that debt and that's when it all goes wrong.

I don't think Intel are in any peril yet.

They aren't too big to fail, but they're never going to fail, because the US government would never let it happen.

The subsidies from western governments are already enormous and dwarf their recent losses. It is possible that some shareholders would lose money in a buyout, especially retail investors, but the big money would be bailed out by taxpayers and a cut price share sale would return any losses and more, the same way it has been done with banks.

 

[TrixP10]

They aren't too big to fail, but they're never going to fail, because the US government would never let it happen.

The subsidies from western governments are already enormous and dwarf their recent losses. It is possible that some shareholders would lose money in a buyout, especially retail investors, but the big money would be bailed out by taxpayers and a cut price share sale would return any losses and more, the same way it has been done with banks.

sure they will get subsidies but there is a difference to banks. anti competitive rules etc.

 

[humbug]

They aren't too big to fail, but they're never going to fail, because the US government would never let it happen.

The subsidies from western governments are already enormous and dwarf their recent losses. It is possible that some shareholders would lose money in a buyout, especially retail investors, but the big money would be bailed out by taxpayers and a cut price share sale would return any losses and more, the same way it has been done with banks.

That money it turns out did not come without strings, the US government are getting very nervous about ploughing 10's of Billions in to Intel, that's Intel foundries BTW, its a separate entity, the Intel we know buy their wafers from Intel foundries, that money is not for bailing Intel the chip maker out, Intel foundries cancelled some of its fabs and put others back because they didn't actually get that money, or most of it.

53 Billion $ Debts.

 

[Vince]

Aside from the i9s which seem to use vastly more power and produce a lot more heat for relatively minor performance uplift I've not found the 13th or 14th gen too bad, unless you run Cinebench 24x7 :s

If it wasn't for this whole issue hanging over it I'd say the 14700K was one of the best CPUs out currently as it is rarely far off the top end CPUs at a lot less money and more tameable than the i9s, etc. and having a much better balance of performance than most other CPUs currently.

Id say you are mental.... - In the nicest possible way of course!

 

[TrixP10]

Id say you are mental.... - In the nicest possible way of course!

the dark side beckons

 

[humbug]

@Vince If you read that from a purely echo chambered perspective, if you rationalise it as a perspective from purely with in Intel's own products it makes more sense.

 

[Vince]

@Vince If you read that from a purely echo chambered perspective, if you rationalise it as a perspective from purely with in Intel's own products it makes more sense.

He knows I'm pulling his leg!! If you could trust the longevity of it etc he probably wouldn't be wrong either. It's not a terrible chip "if" it works.

 

[wookiee87]

the dark side beckons

DO IT!!!!!, you know it makes sense

 

[KompuKare]

They aren't too big to fail, but they're never going to fail, because the US government would never let it happen.

Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of "too big to fail", though?!

 

[Tetras]

Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of "too big to fail", though?!

I suppose it depends on what is meant by the term. What I was referring to, was that it is harder to argue that they have the same importance to the economy as the banks, so if they failed it wouldn't lead to some sort of general economic/financial collapse.

Modern corporations work in markets that are akin to state-sponsored monopolies and Intel would be included in that bracket. The government could do some kind of deal, whereby another entity takes on their liabilities, but realistically I think the taxpayer would, especially since they're already offered grants, loans and tax credits to cover their costs. I suspect the worst outcome would just be wiping out the value of their shares, but I think they'd be effectively nationalised way before that point.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Isn't that pretty much the exact definition of "too big to fail", though?!

Intel is the only non-Asian fab company of any merit left after Global Foundries and IBM bowed out of the race. At the very least the fabrication part of the company would be considered very important for US natural security reasons and would be kept afloat.

 

[jigger]

Intel is the only non-Asian fab company of any merit left after Global Foundries and IBM bowed out of the race. At the very least the fabrication part of the company would be considered very important for US natural security reasons and would be kept afloat.

Assuming Intel can ever get its fabs off the ground and workable for customers.

 

[KompuKare]

Intel is the only non-Asian fab company of any merit left after Global Foundries and IBM bowed out of the race. At the very least the fabrication part of the company would be considered very important for US natural security reasons and would be kept afloat.

Oh, I'd never dispute that though but that does make them too big to fail!

And a lot of Intel threads have recently been overrun with newish posters who sound like they bought stock recently. Although haven't seen any of those today with the Q2 results.

For those gambling on stocks, a company too big to fail and which the CHIPS act was almost written for: it probably seems like a safe gambling bet.

Still while Intel are no longer throwing money literally away because they cannot thing of anything new - share buybacks - throwing money at fabs may not work either. And ever since Intel said "we are not budget brand and don't want high volume, low margin stuff like phone SoC", their fabs have been on obvious trajectory of: late, late, and not meeting targets.

I do note your concern that Intel do far larger volumes than AMD (also a "we are not a budget brand") so if Intel really implode there might be huge shortage of PC parts.

ARM? Well Qualcomm's chip isn't bad but with everyone looking at Apple's margins and wanting to emulate that the open DIY desktop market might die. Manufacturers since the IBM PC days never were for an open system so anything replacing desktop PCs would probably be locked - maybe not as badly as Apple (solder proprietary SSD? Really!) but nothing like we have now.

 

[Gerard]

Oh!

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-to-cut-15-of-its-workforce-in-new-cost-savings-plan

Of course all the ***** on the big salaries that do next to **** all will be safe(as usual), it's the actual workers that will be getting a boot in the stones in the form of redundancy.

 

[Rroff]

Id say you are mental.... - In the nicest possible way of course!

He knows I'm pulling his leg!! If you could trust the longevity of it etc he probably wouldn't be wrong either. It's not a terrible chip "if" it works.

Obviously this whole issue puts a shadow over the 14700K, future upgrade potential is vague and not the most optimistic but that is a whole another topic really as it doesn't look like AMD is exactly pulling out the stops on their side as things stand - 9000 series look like iterative updates which Intel may reflect with Bartlett CPUs - though that might change further down the line both platforms will be outdated by that point. I also find the situation with PCI-e 5.0 provisioning pretty woeful.

But that aside with the 14700K you've got a CPU in the price tier of the 7800X3D but hangs with the 7950X(3D) chips for application performance and for higher resolution, higher settings gaming is generally within margin of error of the X3D chips for performance despite their lead at 1080p and below. When you look at whole system power consumption it is rarely more than 100 watt higher and against the 7950X(3D) chips often not much more than 30 watt in it (despite the headlines due to the difference in power consumption of the CPUs themselves). Likewise it puts in a fairly good showing against the 14900K while being considerably cheaper and usually quite a bit lower power use/heat.

People get so carried away with the headlines on these chips they don't take a closer look at the 14700.

EDIT: Also the way things are looking with these mitigations the 14900K is basically going to turn into a glorified 14700 after performance decreases :s while most 14700s probably won't really lose out.

 

[Emlyn_Dewar]

And if that is the case, every 14900k owner should be aiming for a full refund. I wonder how long Pat has left at Intel.

 

[Aretak]

 

[Grim5]

It's a bloodbath alright

Intel share price has dropped 30% today and it's down 60% in the last year

 

[Naff8000]

Obviously this whole issue puts a shadow over the 14700K, future upgrade potential is vague and not the most optimistic but that is a whole another topic really as it doesn't look like AMD is exactly pulling out the stops on their side as things stand - 9000 series look like iterative updates which Intel may reflect with Bartlett CPUs - though that might change further down the line both platforms will be outdated by that point. I also find the situation with PCI-e 5.0 provisioning pretty woeful.

But that aside with the 14700K you've got a CPU in the price tier of the 7800X3D but hangs with the 7950X(3D) chips for application performance and for higher resolution, higher settings gaming is generally within margin of error of the X3D chips for performance despite their lead at 1080p and below. When you look at whole system power consumption it is rarely more than 100 watt higher and against the 7950X(3D) chips often not much more than 30 watt in it (despite the headlines due to the difference in power consumption of the CPUs themselves). Likewise it puts in a fairly good showing against the 14900K while being considerably cheaper and usually quite a bit lower power use/heat.

People get so carried away with the headlines on these chips they don't take a closer look at the 14700.

EDIT: Also the way things are looking with these mitigations the 14900K is basically going to turn into a glorified 14700 after performance decreases :s while most 14700s probably won't really lose out.

Why would anyone who can see what's happening want to invest in the Intel platform at this point? Unless its clearance pricing.

 

[uscool]

Why would anyone who can see what's happening want to invest in the Intel platform at this point? Unless its clearance pricing.

This comes to mind