Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Consumer Electronics > Mobile Devices & Gadgets

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-05-2012, 01:33 PM   #26
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo123 View Post
not just microsoft - google too with android. weren't intel working on x86 optimizations for android?

i don't think intel is going to just back microsoft. i mean the wintel days are gone and microsoft has clearly hedged their bets with ARM. if intel has another conroe moment in the next 2-3 years, then every smartphone/tablet bar the very low end ones might run on intel chips - even iphones/ipads. apple would have to move back to intel wouldn't they? i mean assuming the mobile atoms by then obliterate the ARM cpus.

interesting times and not bad for the desktop either. we'll get improvements just geared towards low power which isn't a bad thing. if only GPU makers had this kind of competition from the low power side of things then maybe we could have the same kind of improvements in efficiency on that end of things too
No, just because someone else is building better chips doesn't mean you will use them, especially if you've invested $500 million into your own CPU team. Also, Apple builds it's own hardware, so it doesn't matter what SoC goes inside the iPhone or iPad, it's not as if an end consumer gets to pick and choose.
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 01:37 PM   #27
happysmiles
Senior Member
 
happysmiles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 344
Default

power and programming efficiency is key now.

in the GPU world, there simply hasn't been the need for it, I know that AMD wants to make the GPU just as equal to push for better efficiency and competition. (which more and more programs are using the GPU now)
happysmiles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:11 PM   #28
tfinch2
Lifer
 
tfinch2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 22,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
Intel can make the chips, but OEMs have to be willing to use them. Apple won't be using them, and Microsoft has shown no sign of supporting x86 in Windows Phone 8. Samsung already designs and fabs its own mobile chips so I see little reason for them to go with Intel. With a huge chunk of the market gone, who's left? Motorola? HTC? Sony? LG? I don't see Intel just walking all over Qualcomm, especially when they build the mobile basebands and radio transcievers which go into a HUGE chunk of all cell phones sold today.
Apple has already successfully switched from one chip architecture to Intel/x86 in the last 5 or so years with Desktops/Laptops. Why are you so sure they won't switch again once Intel starts rolling?
__________________
unban ^[a-zA-Z0-9]+$
tfinch2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:15 PM   #29
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tfinch2 View Post
Apple has already successfully switched from one chip architecture to Intel/x86 in the last 5 or so years with Desktops/Laptops. Why are you so sure they won't switch again once Intel starts rolling?
Apple designs it's own mobile CPUs now?
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:17 PM   #30
MrX8503
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 4,530
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tfinch2 View Post
Apple has already successfully switched from one chip architecture to Intel/x86 in the last 5 or so years with Desktops/Laptops. Why are you so sure they won't switch again once Intel starts rolling?
Apple doesn't design any of the x86 CPUs, but they do design ARM SoCs. This is a huge difference.

The only way I can see Apple switch is if someone does it better and faster. The iPhone is a very time sensitive device and that's something Apple needs total control of. This is how we're able to get the A6 and A6X.
MrX8503 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:21 PM   #31
TuxDave
Lifer
 
TuxDave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 10,411
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
Apple designs it's own mobile CPUs now?
Ding ding ding. The one problem of vertical integration is that you lose the flexibility to quickly swap out parts of your supply chain (in this case the CPU design part). They have to take a pretty huge loss now to justify giving up all the infrastructure and engineers to switch.
__________________
post count = post count + 0.999.....
(\__/)
(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your
(")_(")signature to help him gain world domination.
TuxDave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:37 PM   #32
OneOfTheseDays
Diamond Member
 
OneOfTheseDays's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 7,044
Default

If Intel puts out something that nobody on the market can touch you can bet your ass that Apple will switch. They've done it before and I see no reason why they wouldn't do it again.
OneOfTheseDays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:44 PM   #33
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneOfTheseDays View Post
If Intel puts out something that nobody on the market can touch you can bet your ass that Apple will switch. They've done it before and I see no reason why they wouldn't do it again.
It's just extremely unlikely to happen because of the following:
1) All iOS code is compiled to native code, meaning you'd have to run an emulator underneath everything sapping performance and wasting battery life.
2) Buying a chip from a 3rd party is always more expensive per chip than building it yourself (one time cost vs. cost for every device, which since Apple sells hundreds of millions of each device, adds up)
3) Increased performance of a chip != increased performance of a platform. End consumers only care that the device is fast, not what chips are inside it.

Unless we are going to go into fairytale land where Intel suddenly learns to build extremely power efficient chips under 1W, Apple isn't switching to Intel in mobile.

For further proof of this, Apple has always had lower clocked CPU parts than the competition, but smoked them because of performance optimizations. So it is not just about the raw capabilities of the CPU but what a company does with them.
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 02:50 PM   #34
Red Storm
Lifer
 
Red Storm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 11,386
Default

I for one am glad mobile devices don't have x86. Why do we want to give Intel another monopoly?
__________________
Heatware
Red Storm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 03:04 PM   #35
tommo123
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
No, just because someone else is building better chips doesn't mean you will use them, especially if you've invested $500 million into your own CPU team. Also, Apple builds it's own hardware, so it doesn't matter what SoC goes inside the iPhone or iPad, it's not as if an end consumer gets to pick and choose.
customers can actually. they can choose ARM via apple or intel via android/winpho
tommo123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 03:22 PM   #36
Dominato3r
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 5,113
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lothar View Post
WP8 can't compete with free.
Unlike Windows, Google doesn't charge licenses for the OS. The only company that can is Apple, and that's because they have their own niche customers.
How much does Microsoft charge for a WP8 license?
I heard sometime ago that they charge $95 for Windows RT tablet license, not sure about WP8 though.

That's true, but it won't make much of a difference.
Based on that chart, iOS shipments grew by a whopping 57%, but yet it only gained a 1% market share from that 57% increase in shipments.
For WP7/8 to go from 3.6% to 12% market share in a year, that's going to be a hell of a lot.
That $95 rumor is just stupid. What's the point of volume licensing if Microsoft is going to charge a manufacturer what they charge you and me for a single copy?

And Android is free in name only
Dominato3r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 03:41 PM   #37
arod
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: College Station, TX
Posts: 4,219
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OneOfTheseDays View Post
If Intel puts out something that nobody on the market can touch you can bet your ass that Apple will switch. They've done it before and I see no reason why they wouldn't do it again.
When it comes to battery efficiency intel has a history of nothing but failure.... battery efficiency is THE most important aspect of mobile processors these days. I think everybody here is putting far too much faith in haswell to change the game. Not saying it won't be competitive but I very seriously doubt it will be as good as people think (and arm by then will be much better than it is now).

Last edited by arod; 11-05-2012 at 08:51 PM.
arod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 06:22 PM   #38
BenSkywalker
Elite Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 8,955
Default

Quote:
That's the thing though. They are going to (or have already started with Medfield) attack mobile computing with x86. It will take some time to be successful, but it will happen.
We have been hearing that for years. Just wait until next gen, they will suck less! It gets a bit stale after the first four or five years of hearing about it. The Razer I does well in SunSpider, and that's about it. Intel can show up late to the game and lose against mid range devices in ~90% of benches while offering no real benefit? Intel still sucks, badly, in the ultra portable space. Medfield, Cedar Trail, Cloverfield- Intel's failures when they try to compete against ARM just keep growing.

That is problem one, Intel just plain sucks at making an ultra portable processor. The greatest achievement they have managed to obtain is not sucking horribly in every way.

Problem two, ~50% of the UP market is controlled by people who control their own SoC IP and have the means to get it made themselves. Apple and Samsung own their own SoC designs, Apple can get it fabbed themselves while Samsung can actually fab it themselves. You could also throw Sony into this group when looking at people capable of keeping everything in house(although as of right now Sony isn't doing it for their UP devices yet).

Problem three- Intel expects ~60% margins. While people can expect pie in the sky type philanthropy from Intel the reality is that Intel, their board and their share holders expect them to keep in the range of 60% margins. That isn't a sustainable goal in the UP market. Do you spend R&D time, resources and fab space to go after a market where the margins are half of your norm? What benefit does this have when moving the company forward? x86 ceased to be the top computing platform some time ago, ARM has had the mantle for a while now and the rate is accelerating. At some point Intel may be in a position where they are forced to accept significantly lesser margins, but everything to date indicates that if they are going to enter this segment, they are going to do it on their terms which indicates they will continue to demand high margins for parts that aren't very competitive at all. This isn't going to work to gain them any sort of traction.

Problem four- graphics IP. Intel has nothing to offer for competitive GPUs, they are going to be forced to rely on licensing from PowerVR- Mali isn't an option and neither nV nor Qualcomm are going to help them out there. The reason this creates a major problem is because Intel's CPUs in the UP space are already *huge* compared to ARM offerings, PowerVR's GPUs are even bigger. In order for Intel to bring a part to the market that has any hope of being realistic from the battery life perspective they are going to be forced to use long outdated PVR graphics paired with their monstrous CPUs. This isn't something they can really do much about as their graphics IP and development of it is *very* far behind what nVidia and Qualcomm have, not to mention ARM's own Mali division. ARM has the advantage of designing to be power effective from the ground up, Intel's entire GPU goal has been to catch AMD/nVidia as much as possible and it shows in terms of their designs and the amount of die space it utilizes.

Problem Five- Developers are already going ARM native. On Apple it has been this way for a while now, Android devs are also starting to push native ARM development. Intel is already dragging around transistor baggage in terms of x86 to uOps translation hardware, having to deal with another abstraction layer converting ARM code to x86 is going to hamper both their performance and their battery life. The only way around this is to give yourself enough marketshare to stop this from happening, but it is already too late on that front. The Windows mobile platform is their best bet, but to say that has been been a failure to date would be a bit of an understatement. While some people on these forums like to ignore it, BlackBerry is still doing better then Windows Phone. Trying to make decent headway before this trend becomes concrete is paramount for Intel, unfortunately it may already be too late on that front.

Besides that though, Intel should be fine

Last edited by BenSkywalker; 11-05-2012 at 06:25 PM.
BenSkywalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 06:56 PM   #39
tommo123
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,108
Default

how many times they fail is irrelevant. they only need to succeed once and continue that path
tommo123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 07:20 PM   #40
Puddle Jumper
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,835
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
Intel can make the chips, but OEMs have to be willing to use them. Apple won't be using them, and Microsoft has shown no sign of supporting x86 in Windows Phone 8. Samsung already designs and fabs its own mobile chips so I see little reason for them to go with Intel. With a huge chunk of the market gone, who's left? Motorola? HTC? Sony? LG? I don't see Intel just walking all over Qualcomm, especially when they build the mobile basebands and radio transcievers which go into a HUGE chunk of all cell phones sold today.
Samsung has never had a problem using outside SoC's when it benefits them to do so, they use OMAP 4 in the Galaxy Tab 2.0 lineup, Snapdragon S3 in several GS2 models, and Snapdragon S4 in the US market Galaxy S3.

If I remeber correctly Intel does have their own basebands so they can compete with Qualcomm on that front.
__________________

Puddle Jumper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 09:08 PM   #41
dagamer34
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,540
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puddle Jumper View Post
Samsung has never had a problem using outside SoC's when it benefits them to do so, they use OMAP 4 in the Galaxy Tab 2.0 lineup, Snapdragon S3 in several GS2 models, and Snapdragon S4 in the US market Galaxy S3.

If I remeber correctly Intel does have their own basebands so they can compete with Qualcomm on that front.
They only use Qualcomm chips when they are forced to or honestly in products they don't care about. Exynos chips always go into flagship models when they can (they weren't in US models due to lack of a good LTE baseband chip up until recently).
dagamer34 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:24 PM   #42
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Storm View Post
I for one am glad mobile devices don't have x86. Why do we want to give Intel another monopoly?
Why would anybody care about monopoly?
Only the best product(performance/watt, performance/price, or whatever metrics you want to use) will earn my dollars. I don't care whether the company is a monopoly or not.

If you feel like buying Bulldozer/Phenom over an IvyBridge/SandyBridge processor, that's your prerogative.
May the best product win...
lothar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:26 PM   #43
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dominato3r View Post
That $95 rumor is just stupid. What's the point of volume licensing if Microsoft is going to charge a manufacturer what they charge you and me for a single copy?

And Android is free in name only
How much does Amazon pay to Google?
lothar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 10:34 PM   #44
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arod View Post
When it comes to battery efficiency intel has a history of nothing but failure.... battery efficiency is THE most important aspect of mobile processors these days. I think everybody here is putting far too much faith in haswell to change the game. Not saying it won't be competitive but I very seriously doubt it will be as good as people think (and arm by then will be much better than it is now).
Have you been living under a rock the past decade?
What AMD processor since 2006 has had better performance/watt than Intel on desktops?
What AMD processor since 2003 has had better performance/watt than Intel on laptops?
lothar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:29 PM   #45
pm
Super Moderator
Mobile Devices & Gadgets
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Fort Collins, Colorado
Posts: 7,216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arod View Post
When it comes to battery efficiency intel has a history of nothing but failure.... battery efficiency is THE most important aspect of mobile processors these days. I think everybody here is putting far too much faith in haswell to change the game. Not saying it won't be competitive but I very seriously doubt it will be as good as people think (and arm by then will be much better than it is now).
You know, I look at this page and I don't see failure:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/13

The battery life looks pretty good to me.

Then I look at this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/10

and the performance seems pretty good too.

And Penwell's die size (according to Anand's estimate) is 62mm^2 which - from my perspective anyway - is more than competitive.


I work for Intel in the enterprise division and so I'm inclined to look at things a bit more optimistically, but I also respect BenSkywalker's opinion and as usual, Ben, you make good points. Although I would say Xeon was a nice step outside the x86 mainstream that was not a failure. And I don't see anyone talking about how few leading-edge foundries that are left....

Last edited by pm; 11-05-2012 at 11:35 PM.
pm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2012, 11:52 PM   #46
lothar
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Posts: 6,470
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm View Post
You know, I look at this page and I don't see failure:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/13

The battery life looks pretty good to me.

Then I look at this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/10

and the performance seems pretty good too.

And Penwell's die size (according to Anand's estimate) is 62mm^2 which - from my perspective anyway - is more than competitive.
Get out of here with those pesky facts.
lothar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2012, 05:19 AM   #47
tommo123
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,108
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pm View Post
You know, I look at this page and I don't see failure:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/13

The battery life looks pretty good to me.

Then I look at this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6330/t...ne-5-review/10

and the performance seems pretty good too.

And Penwell's die size (according to Anand's estimate) is 62mm^2 which - from my perspective anyway - is more than competitive.


I work for Intel in the enterprise division and so I'm inclined to look at things a bit more optimistically, but I also respect BenSkywalker's opinion and as usual, Ben, you make good points. Although I would say Xeon was a nice step outside the x86 mainstream that was not a failure. And I don't see anyone talking about how few leading-edge foundries that are left....
i agree. i just wish intel would speed up the atom shrink. i'd love to see what they have in line 2-3 years from now
tommo123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.