291–300 of 638 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's quite literally why bonds are bonds and equity is equity...
Perhaps, but you do understand that the probability of every tranche regardless of seniority getting paid in full and the equity getting nothing is zero. It's mathematically impossible to pin the waterfall like this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They aren’t merging - this is Nvidia ensuring their tech is in Intel chips.
Might rather see it the other way around - Nvidia getting license to create products with x86(_64) CPUs integrated in the silicon. Nvidia are the big boy in this transaction and they'll get what they want out of it. But I can see the attraction for Intel.
But with the state of the courts today... who knows..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
He didn’t say anything violent. Have you watched the monologue? Even if he did (which he didn’t), I don’t see Fox shutting down anything when one of their presenters recently stated, on air, that we should euthanize our homeless population.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The likelihood intel AI was going to catch up with efforts like AWS Trainium, let alone Nvidia was already vanishingly small. This gives intel a chance at maintaining leading edge fab technologies. I feel bad for gamers - I’ve been considering buying a B580 - but honestly the consumer welfare of that market is a complete sidenote.
> This gives intel a chance at maintaining leading edge fab technologies. I don't think so: > The chip giant hasn’t disclosed whether it will use Intel Foundry to produce any of these products yet. It seems pretty likely this is an x86 licensing strategy for nvidia. I doubt they're going to be manufacturing anything on intel fabs. I even wonder if this is a play to get an in with Trump by "supporting" his nationalizi…
This is a death blow to the Intel GPU+AI efforts and should not be allowed by the regulators. It is clear that Intel needs the downstream, low-cost GPU market segment to have a portfolio of AI chips based on chiplets, where most defective ones end up in the consumer grade GPUs based on manufacturing yield. NVidias interest is now for Intel not to enter either the GPU market, nor the AI market - which Intel was prepar…
The US government is itself a major shareholder in Intel, and has every incentive to push Intel stock over its competitors. It's almost a certainty that Nvidia was forced into this deal by the government as well. We are way beyond regulation here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The US government is itself a major shareholder in Intel, and has every incentive to push Intel stock over its competitors. It's almost a certainty that Nvidia was forced into this deal by the government as well. We are way beyond regulation here.
What happens now if one of these companies implodes? does it pull everything with it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Consumer gpus are totally different products from the high end gpus now. Intel has failed on the gpu market and has effectively zero market share, so it is not actually clear there is an antitrust issue in that market. It would be nice if there was more competition but there are other players like AMD and a long tail of smaller ones I'm sorry that's just not correct. Intel is literally just getting started in the GP…
I don't know what anybody would do with such a weak card. My RTX 5090 is about 10x faster (measured by FP32 TFLOPS) and I still don't find it to be fast enough. I can't imagine using something so slow for AI/ML. Only 2.2 tokens/sec on an 8B parameter Llama model? That's slower than someone typing. I get that it's a budget card, but budget cards are supposed to at least win on a pure price/performance ratio, even with…
the intel card is great for 1080p gaming. especially if you're just playing counterstrike, indie games, etc, you don't need a beast.
very few people are trying to play 4k tombraider on ultra with high refresh rate.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what they've completely resisted so far is any non trivial modification. They turned down Acorn about the 286, which led to Acorn creating the Arm, they have turned down various console makers, they turned down Apple on the iPhone, and so on. In all cases they thought the opportunities were beneath them. Intel has always been too much about what they want to sell you, not what you need. That worked for them when…
Intel’s test for new business ideas has always been: will it make $1B in the first year? It leads to mistakes like you mention, where a new market segment or new entrant is not a sure thing. And then it leads to mistakes like Larrabee and Optane where they talk themselves into overconfidence (“obviously this is a great product, we wouldn’t be doing it if it wasn’t guaranteed to make $1B in the first year”). It is ver…
It's typical corporate venturing and reporting to a CFO. Google is not much better with them cutting their small(er) projects.