Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 484 posts

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#431

Post by pixelbeat__ »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #70
SevenNation wrote: post #63

Can't read the article, but for context Intel's share price never recovered from the "dot com" bubble of 2000: https://www.tradingview.com/chart/?symbol=INTC It's one of a few large companies with that distinction. Shares now offer a (relatively) regal 5.3% dividend yield and a price/earnings ratio just above 5. Of course, as profits dwindle, both metrics will be recalibrated downward. This seems relevant because dur…

> Intel's share price never recovered from the "dot com" bubble of 2000 As you observe, this is true only if one ignores dividends, which are a material component of total returns for a mature company like Intel. > during the late 1990s Intel was allegedly the company whose shares one bought and never sold This has never been true for any public company. And it’s driven by investor style more than company fundamental…

Even with dividends reinvested, $INTC gave zero real returns from Dec 1998 to now, and a net loss if invested after July 2014. Also $AMD now has a larger market cap, and $NVDA is 3 times larger! An amazing decline.

https://totalrealreturns.com/s/VFINX,VBMFX,USDOLLAR,INTC?sta...

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#432

Post by squarefoot »

Cloudef wrote: post #415
AareyBaba wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Client/Consumer CPUs(Ryzen) is just one business for AMD. The others are graphics (Radeon), datacenter (EPYC), and embedded (Xilinx, PS & Xbox consoles). The one year forecast will probably have to be adjusted based on current unexpected economic conditions but they will keep growing. What folks don't appreciate is that AMD is on a roll. A clear roadmap and processes in place to execute like clockwork in tandem with…

This, AMD's CPUs are better than ever. Their upcoming GPUs are looking very promising, especially considering how team green turned into a luxury brand. And their support for Linux has been very welcome.

Also their CPUs with Radeon GPU are a lot more performing than Intel equivalents. You can grab a 5600G or 5700G alone, no external video card needed, and expect to play most recent games, albeit not at maximum details. For those not obsessed with gaming at the highest possible details, this translates in saving some serious money. A search for "5700g gaming" on YouTube returns some examples.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#433

Post by kuschku »

NavinF wrote: post #417
sundvor wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When a 5800X3D offers equal or better gaming performance at 1/2 to 1/3rd the power consumption (e.g. 220w vs 80w), and you pay $0.65 per kW/h during peak times, I can only imagine: "Quite a few".

If electricity was $0.65/kWh for me, I'd move out of the country lol. Assuming a more realistic $0.40/kWh (considered very expensive in the US, where most enthusiasts live), 8 hours of gaming a day, and a 200W power limit, you're paying $19/mo. Not bad. Don't get me wrong, the 5800x3d is a phenomenal CPU. However like many owners of that CPU, I'm also in the market for a 4090 and intend to use the full 600W power lim…

> (considered very expensive in the US, where most enthusiasts live)

That's very dismissive of the entire EU, which has lots of enthusiasts, and these aforementioned expensive electricity prices.

Some electricity providers in Germany even raised their prices to 1.35€/kWh (most famously DB Netz Bahnstrom plans)

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#434

Post by avereveard »

smokel wrote: post #414
avereveard wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50$/year vs 18$/year for a pc that's always on, not exactly life changing.

The difference is closer to $1250/year vs $450/year. I suppose you forgot to multiply by 24 hours/day.

Aw crap

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#435

Post by WithinReason »

NavinF wrote: post #427
sundvor wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nice, ha ha. I was going to say, look into Undervolting. I saw 95% perf at 60% of the power come up, ie 270w; that's actually going to be superb (very cool, quiet, still extremely performant). So maybe configure that as an optional profile for titles not needing maximum juice? I'm quite keen myself. Power $ mentioned was peak times in Norway; I'm in Australia where it's not anywhere that bad yet. (0.25 AUD for me).

> I saw 95% perf at 60% of the power come up, ie 270w That's neat, but 5% is a lot when you're spending $1600. Oh and all these measurements you see tossed around are done with air coolers and stock voltages. Of course more power doesn't help if you're limited by thermals. Specifically, you're limited by hotspots you can't see because they're between the on-die temperature sensors. > maybe configure that as an option…

> Oh and all these measurements you see tossed around are done with air coolers and stock voltages. Of course more power doesn't help if you're limited by thermals. Specifically, you're limited by hotspots you can't see because they're between the on-die temperature sensors.

This completely misunderstands heat transfer. If the hotspot temp is 75 deg even with overclocking you're not limited by thermals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zc-zwQMV8-s

>4K gsync monitors are typically limited to 120Hz. If my GPU is capable of running a title at 1200fps, it will idle 90% of the time and consume only ~60W regardless of the 600W power limit. So tuning this is pointless. I'd still get 1/10th the rendering latency compared to a GPU that's only capable of 120fps. Same logic applies to power limiting your GPU which will increase latency and kill frame pacing in exchange for a tiny reduction in electricity bills.

This completely misunderstands power consumption and the nonlinear relationship between power and clockspeed. Performing the same work in the same time in short bursts of high clocks and high voltage uses more power than constant low clocks and voltage.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#436

Post by WithinReason »

smokel wrote: post #414
avereveard wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

50$/year vs 18$/year for a pc that's always on, not exactly life changing.

The difference is closer to $1250/year vs $450/year. I suppose you forgot to multiply by 24 hours/day.

That rather depends on how many hours a day you use your cpu at max performance, which is likely closer to 1 hour to the average person.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#437

Post by abudabi123 »

Dalewyn wrote: post #342
mort96 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder if it did? Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I know I always bought Intel laptops because Intel laptops were the only things available, not because I have some high view of Intel as a brand. I imagine the vast majority of laptop buyers wouldn't even know what an Intel is.

>Who bought a laptop because it had an Intel CPU? I always buy Intel. I simply do not care for AMD's software jank, Intel has consistently proven more stable and reliable and that's not something I'm willing to trade for marginal differences in performance caps.

Among sophisticated consumers you would think people buy a laptop based on thermal envelope and longlasting performance on battery. The marketing around Intel CPU and the Nazi concentration camp style model numbers takeaway from an informed choice.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#438

Post by scarface74 »

eitland wrote: post #407
scarface74 wrote: post #368

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The iPad runs iOS, which I suppose is what they meant. Windows ARM is less locked down than Windows S. iOS is still a walled-garden with a few holes here and there. The conversation never mentioned “iOS” or phones and the submission is about Intel who has nothing to do with mobile or Android. He specifically said MacOS: >> Well yes, but then you have to use macOS and the locked down close ecosystem that is Apple. W…

It is mentioned a long way up this thread: >> Casual reminder that the now two year old Apple M1 still smokes every single chip I just mentioned, all in a fanless iPad Air.

That’s a stretch when my question was specifically about the Mac vs Windows and the person I replied to specifically cited macOA.

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#439

Post by scarface74 »

axiolite wrote: post #429
scarface74 wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you couldn’t truthfully answer the question. How is the Mac more locked down than Windows? What class of software can you run on Windows that you can’t run on Macs because of Apple’s operating system? Edit: I see downvotes. But no one can answer the question.. .

> Edit: I see downvotes. But no one can answer the question.. . You likely would have had fewer downvotes if you had just answered in earnest the question asked: "Are you asking a question or being dismissive and flippant?" Then maybe you would have gotten an answer or two. Instead, choosing to reply with inflammatory language like "you couldn’t truthfully answer the question" seem to indicate you are probably not in…

And yet, you also are unable to answer the question…

Re: Intel plans thousands of job cuts in face of PC slowdown

#440

Post by axiolite »

scarface74 wrote: post #439
axiolite wrote: post #429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Edit: I see downvotes. But no one can answer the question.. . You likely would have had fewer downvotes if you had just answered in earnest the question asked: "Are you asking a question or being dismissive and flippant?" Then maybe you would have gotten an answer or two. Instead, choosing to reply with inflammatory language like "you couldn’t truthfully answer the question" seem to indicate you are probably not in…

And yet, you also are unable to answer the question…

> And yet, you also are unable to answer the question…

Correction: Unwilling. Not unable. This is an important distinction. I'm simply unwilling to engage in a lengthy discussion with you, on any topic really, based on your uncivil behavior here.

Post reply on HN