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

US Intel

stratechery.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 581 posts

Re: US Intel

#391

Post by SlowTao »

qwytw wrote: post #115
wat10000 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And it took a long time for mobile CPUs to be considered important. Arguably mobile CPUs still aren't considered more important than desktop, even though they obviously sell more.

Mobile CPUs are almost a commodity these days and fairly low margin especially compared to server chips. Most people really don't care what chip does their phone has and its almost always "good enough" relative to the price. IMO that's much less of a case for laptop and desktop (let alone server). Even if people don't understand the technical details e.g. Apple's superior performance per watt (or its implications at…

Reminds me of the desktop/server processor space in the late 90's. At least this time we have a dozen vendors that are all using ARM instead of x86/POWER/DEC Aplha/MIPS/IA-64 & ARM. More chance of surviving together rather than making multiple moats.

Re: US Intel

#392

Post by Panzer04 »

qwytw wrote: post #131
JustExAWS wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is demonstrably not true. TSMC is ahead because of the volume of mobile and that happened on the back of a lot of investment from Apple - who does make high end chips. Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.

> This is demonstrably not true. In what way? TSMC doesen't design or sell the chips. If they have limited capacity they will of course charge more for manufacturing mobile chips if they can sell the capacity to Nvidia/AMD/Apple instead. ARM chips (and that's pretty much by design based on ARM's business model) are close to being a commodity. Apple is of course an exception but they are not directly part of the CPU m…

Datacenter is not a monolith, and neither is it guaranteed to generate more profit or revenue.

IIRC intel makes 2-3x in client sales what it does in datacenter.

Re: US Intel

#393

Post by SlowTao »

dboreham wrote: post #67
scarface_74 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intel hasn’t been “the best” since the world cared more about mobile in 2010. There GPUs have always been also ran. It just wasn’t a big deal until crypto and later machine learning. Even for integrated graphics, Intel has been behind Apple’s/TSMC ARM based processor before the Mx based Macs.

For me it's debatable that they were "behind" on GPU because I didn't need a bleeding edge gaming GPU. I only needed a GPU fast enough for spreadsheets and code editors, provided at a competitive price and power budget. Intel actually did deliver that.

I have said that their benchmark to power a desktop with Google Maps in 3D. Anything beyond that was a bonus.

Re: US Intel

#394

Post by Panzer04 »

downrightmike wrote: post #216
Insanity wrote: post #16

To be honest, regardless of the government involvement or not, I have little hope for intel. Maybe they can, over time, have an AMD-esque comeback, but given their track record of the past few years I'm not hopeful. The Pentium -> Core2Duo was a great era for intel, but I feel like ever since then they've started a decline in both price/value proposition as well as just general hardware. The i-series was arguably pre…

And Core was a lucky happenstance for Intel as they were not innovating at all and fell behind, thank goodness their isreal lab was doing something other than P4 work. Even recently, we've seen that all intel can do is increase cores and increase power consumption, and they still can't compete. This is itanium all over again, because that is how intel functions.

This is just doomerism.

Intel's current chips are "fine" and competitive with AMD chips. If anything, Intel is trying out more things than AMD is.

Re: US Intel

#395

Post by Panzer04 »

cubefox wrote: post #80

Maybe it's worth noting that the new CEO's explosive statement, Intel would give up development of leading edge nodes (14A and beyond) unless they find a large external customer in advance, hardly got any attention on Hacker News or other websites. But that was almost certainly the reason the US administration got involved. This blog post thankfully makes this point clear. In the past, most people (including myself)…

The problem with leading edge fabs is they require obscene amounts of capital to develop and are apparently (based on Intel's experience) extraordinarily risky to build.

That's a hard thing to sell in any environment.

Re: US Intel

#396

Post by slavik81 »

pineaux wrote: post #298
evrimoztamur wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Korea got to it: https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/brand-journal/mobility-...

Too bad Hyundai is betting on hydrogen... Thats basically dead in the water.

They also have battery electric cars. The Hyundai Ioniq and Kia EV vehicles are quite popular.

Re: US Intel

#397

Post by conradev »

pineaux wrote: post #298
evrimoztamur wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

South Korea got to it: https://www.hyundai.com/worldwide/en/brand-journal/mobility-...

Too bad Hyundai is betting on hydrogen... Thats basically dead in the water.

  It was also the Korean automaker’s best July sales month since launching its first vehicle in 1986.

  The growth was mainly driven by electrified vehicles, including EVs and hybrids (HEVs).
https://electrek.co/2025/08/01/hyundai-ioniq-5-shatters-us-s...

Re: US Intel

#398

Post by ulfw »

baq wrote: post #181
ulfw wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What 'enemies'?

haven't been reading history much, have you?

I've read a lot of history, especially 1930s European history and see a ton of parallels to America in 2025.

Is that the particular one you're referring to?

Re: US Intel

#399

Post by tootie »

monknomo wrote: post #121

the president unilaterally extorting 10% ownership out of a company isn't going to build the kind of system that competes with anyone. Big business can't really thrive under this kind of thing any more than corner stores can thrive under a protection racket.

I'm seriously not getting something about the entire argument in this blog post. How does a 10% equity stake make Intel more stable? At best it props up the stock price for a minute. If Intel continues to founder, then what? Federal government will buy more shares? Sell them? How does it affect the company's performance or decisions? Gov is not taking a board seat.

Re: US Intel

#400

Post by hattmall »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #330
baq wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only in software there's a clear, tried and tested multiple times path for 1000x ROI for an investor. thermodynamics themselves limit ROI for anything physical.

Thermodynamics is also the limiter in AI these days.

Not necessarily the real limiter, right now, is finding a combination useful and profitable application. Simply charging money for generalized AI access is never going to be the ideal profit center.
Post reply on HN