mas (a.delete@this.b.com) on September 29, 2013 8:11 am wrote:
> none (none.delete@this.none.com) on September 29, 2013 7:40 am wrote:
> > mas (a.delete@this.b.com) on September 29, 2013 7:31 am wrote:
> > > none (none.delete@this.none.com) on September 29, 2013 7:10 am wrote:
> > > > mas (a.delete@this.b.com) on September 29, 2013 6:45 am wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > You can get about 500 Bay Trail dies from a 300mm wafer assuming 80-90% yields. The
> > > > > raw wafer cost is about $3K as Intel does not have to pay itself a foundry margin
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.icknowledge.com/products/icmodel.html
> > > > >
> > > > > which means each Bay Trail is about $6, add a dollar for packaging gives you $7 which means 65% GMs at $20.
> > > > > This is how Digitimes can report Bay Trails will be as low as $10 which I assume will be the dual-core bin
> > > > > rejects allowing Intel 30% margin if they have to produce
> > > > > non-defect extras out of the quad-core die to meet
> > > > > a dual-core order. Clovertrail+ will be about $7 too with
> > > > > Medfield and Merrifield both about $5 die cost and
> > > > > the 32nm Atoms will now be sold at cost to get market share
> > > > > against A7, A8, A9, A12 SoCs etc and they are appearing
> > > > > in $100-200 android devices now. Intel is price competitive
> > > > > *now * against much smaller ARM cores because it
> > > > > does not have to pay a foundry margin which bumps up wafer cost to about $5.5K (see link).
> > > >
> > > > IMHO the question is how long Intel can sustain that model
> > > > you describe and forget about its R&D and foundries costs.
> > >
> > > Haswells/Broadwells etc are paying for those. The point is if Intel are not making money with 32nm Atoms
> > > they will soon with 22nm Atoms because they are competitive
> > > with ARM SoCs in both performance and profitable
> > > selling prices. 14nm Airmont will keep this performance/price competitiveness against 20nm ARM SoCs.
> > > Intel just needs volume now and it should get that in both windows and android as big die Celerons and
> > > less attractive Clovertrails are replaced. Cheap SoCs is a game Intel can easily play with its legacy
> > > Core processors and internal Fabs funding it, contrary to widespread popular myth.
> >
> > This only holds if higher margin products still sell in large enough quantities, if yields keep
> > on being good at 14nm, if lower end doesn't cannibalize lower end models, etc. So yes, Intel can
> > easily play this game, but it's a dangerous one which at the moment they can afford to play, though
> > not indefinitely. And if they win that game, welcome to a world where Intel will set the prices
> > without competition; as a shareholder you'll be happy, but as a consumer less so ;-)
>
> Yeah all that is possible if you think dominant Intel PCs and Servers will disappear within a couple
> of years and Intel Atom volume does not increase overall Intel mpu volume to make up for the loss of
> the greater profit per die of Core. Possible but not very likely, don't forget Intel already has 10nm Trigate sorted with TFET technology planned at 7-5nm. Contrary
> to what you are asserting mobile customers now do have more choice, a non-ARM choice or is an ARM only
> monopoly alright ;-). There is nothing to stop any consumer buying ARM or AMD chips if they feel so
> outraged but I suspect they will go for the best chip for their needs as they always have done.

p.s. Intel is also competing primarily against its older installed chips ever since AMD ceased to be effective competition so Intel performance/price will always increase year to year regardless of competition, Intel's profits thus depend on getting new customers every year. The Intel monopoly bogeyman card is severely overplayed ;-).