Why Integration Matters to Intel Corporation's PC Business

While there has been a tremendous amount of focus on Intel (NASDAQ: INTC  ) integrating connectivity and communications into its mobile system-on-chip products, (in order to more effectively compete in the smartphone and tablet markets), many seem to miss that such integration could prove to be a massive boon for Intel's PC chip business. It could also serve to distance it from its only real competitor -- Advanced Micro Devices  (NYSE: AMD  ) .

The real value of integration
When Intel launched Sandy Bridge in 2011, the company saw an immediate ASP uplift as it gained further PC content share, and it saw a mix shift within its product stacks as customers were willing to pay a premium for higher end integrated graphics solutions. Take this snippet from Intel's 2011 fourth quarter conference call:

From here, our CapEx, really, will be a function of 2 things: it's the unit growth that we see going forward, and it's the speed at which we bring capabilities to that leading-edge process technology. And I think graphics has been the classic example of that. As we move that to the process edged to the leading-edge process technology, it did drive an increase in CapEx but it also drove a really capable product line that we got paid for. 

The idea is that as more functionality is integrated onto the main processor complex, the more value that particular chip has. So, in the example of integrating graphics onto the die, notebook and desktop vendors could cut out a low end discrete GPU from their designs -- saving money. Intel, realizing that a move to integrated graphics would save OEMs significantly on everything from additional graphics-specific RAM, cooling solutions, board space, etc., could then charge a premium for its integrated part and still end up with a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Bringing this to connectivity
It's hard to imagine a laptop or even a desktop PC that doesn't connect. A laptop without Wi-Fi is near useless, and a desktop without some kind of LAN (either Wi-Fi or Ethernet) is extremely limited. Today, all PCs either come with third-party chips (or are Intel-designed) to handle Ethernet/Wi-Fi. While higher-performance PCs are likely to be better off with discrete networking solutions (as these can be higher performing/higher quality), the majority of low-cost PCs would be just fine with Wi-Fi/Ethernet built into the main processor.

The benefit for Intel is pretty obvious: it can drive up chip ASPs (at constant gross margin levels) and absorb the value that the discrete chip vendor, which was likely to be someone other than Intel, was getting on its products. It would also simplify the mainboard design and reduce the number of components needed on the mainboard. It would, at least for the majority of mainstream systems, be a "win/win".

This would grow competitive advantage over AMD
By integrating connectivity onto its PC platforms, Intel's chips would offer a material integration advantage over AMD. While AMD appears to have Ethernet IP that it could conceivably integrate onto its PC processors, it does not have Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/NFC. Intel would be able to integrate this on its 14-nanometer generation.

Intel's growing process lead, which manifests itself as improved an cost/transistor, means that this integration can be done in an increasingly economical fashion. With the cost/transistor difficulties that Taiwan Semiconductor and the other foundries are facing, AMD may find it difficult to justify doing all of this work in what is a seemingly dwindling position in PCs. That said, if AMD is serious about tablets, it will need to go down this path.

Foolish takeaway
At this point, Intel should be very aggressive in integrating new functionality and absorbing as much of the silicon value into its processors as possible. The company has been doing a good job, relative to AMD, but compared to the level of sophistication that we are seeing from the mobile SoC players, Intel still has a ways to go. However, that necessity to catch up in mobile could pay off handsomely in the PC space.

Let's face it, every investor wants to get in on revolutionary ideas before they hit it big. Like buying PC-maker Dell in the late 1980's, before the consumer computing boom. Or purchasing stock in e-commerce pioneer Amazon.com in late 1990's, when they were nothing more than an upstart online bookstore. The problem is, most investors don't understand the key to investing in hyper-growth markets. The real trick is to find a small-cap "pure-play", and then watch as it grows in EXPLOSIVE lock-step with it's industry. Our expert team of equity analysts has identified 1 stock that's poised to produce rocket-ship returns with the next $14.4 TRILLION industry. Click here to get the full story in this eye-opening report.


Read/Post Comments (1) | Recommend This Article (1)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 19, 2014, at 12:37 PM, KenLuskin wrote:

    Ashraf, 2 horrible mistakes in a long string of UN accurate and MIS leading articles

    FIRST HORRIBLE MIS leading statement:

    >>>"Intel's growing process lead, which manifests itself as improved an cost/transistor"<<<

    The # of TRANSISTORS per $ DROPS for the first time= WHY Intel is in DEEP DOO DOO, and DELAYING 14nm process node.

    1) TSMC has overall costs that are less than Intel at every node.

    2) So, when TSMC states that # of TRANSISTORS per $$ is FLAT from 28nm to 20 nm.... It explains WHY Intel is in DEEP DOO DOO!

    2) The COST per TRANSISTOR RISES as TSMC moves to 16nm!!!!

    3) Outside of GRAPHICS, the growth is in TABLETS and PHONES that use $ 30 chips!!

    4) Intel does NOT gain any advantage from dropping to 14nm, because the COST per TRANSISTOR RISES for the first time....which means Intel canNOT gain market share with a more efficient process.

    5) People do NOT want to pay MORE for a more powerful CPU from Intel! People want LOWER priced PCs! This is the main reason that Tablets are replacing laptops!

    6) APPLE can afford to pay more per transistor to take the PERFORMANCE lead away from Intel, because they design their own chips, and an increase cost of a few $$ does NOT greatly affect the cost of a device that sells for $500 to $700.

    7) Intel canNOT grow market share in Tablets or phones using a MORE expensive process, because they are competing against Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, and AMD! Intel is so desperate to try to keep their FABs full and gain a beachfront in Tablets, that they are willing to LOSE money through subsidization of the OEMs.

    8) ONE BILLION people use their smart phones and Tablets to play video games... they want BETTER GRAPHICS, and not a more powerful CPU from Intel!

    9) Qualcomm and Nvidia have superior mobile graphics than Intel. While AMD has far superior PC and Console graphics than Intel.

    10) AMD has a new chip designed for Tablets called MULLINS, that has 250% more graphic power than Intel's Baytrail T chip, with equivalent CPU performance and power consumption.

    CONCLUSION: Intel is stuck selling over priced PC and server chips. All the growth in servers is coming from CLOUD data centers that want lower power, lower cost alternatives to over priced Intel chips.

    The MSFT "THRESHOLD" OS will Destroy Intel!

    SECOND Horrible mistake:

    Integration FAVORS AMD!

    WHY are QUALCOMM, SAMSUNG, TI, ARM,

    Founding members of the HSA FOUNDATION?

    The most important FACTOR in integration concerns the growing importance of the GPU!

    AMD has far superior GPU IP, and INTEGRATION IP!!!!

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2841360, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/18/2014 5:47:50 AM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement