Intel Q313 Results

[Exophase]

I've always wondered what this deal about Intel having an ARM architectural license was about. They obtained one from DEC as part of a settlement and started making XScales with it (presumably a project DEC started). Then they sold XScale to Marvell. Marvell was already designing custom ARM CPUs before they bought XScale so presumably they already had a license and Intel wouldn't have had to sell theirs.

But this happened several years ago. I doubt that the license is good forever without renewal. I also doubt that it automatically gets upgraded to new versions, especially something as dramatically different as v8. Intel would have had a v5 license, so at best that gives them the ability to make v5 chips, but even that has probably expired.

I know Infineon uses ARM cores too and was acquired by Intel, but they use licensed designs, not custom CPUs. No reason for them to have ever had an architectural license.

 

[krumme]

Lots of wild assumptions here, Krumme. We can't really say how much is R&D and how much is marketing money to grease OEM hands. FWIW doing two die shrinks, three architectural updates, developing a digital radio *and* LTE modem costs a lot of money and that's what Intel is poised to do in the next three years.

I especially doubt things like "Intel is selling chips at loss" or "Intel is paying OEMs big money to make them adopt Atom", because this will build a relationship where Intel won't be able to make money, ever. There is a huge gulf between giving some incentives to new customers, like free samples or marketing money, and actually paying someone to use your product. The first one will yield you money once the customer come back, the second one will not. But even if Intel were dumb enough to pursue that strategy, they wouldn't do that on the mobile market. Do this from a dominant position and you prevent your competitor from entering your market and then you can remove your subsidy afterwards. Do this when entering a market and by the time you think about removing the subsidy your partner will roll back to the previous supplier.

Whatever the reason they lose a tremendeous amount compared to the pale sale. I dont care if its investing in sale, oem or r&d its all for future profit.
You tell me when this is going to end? When would you stop it?
As it is it looks like they will continue until the cash cows run dry. And that happens for all cash cows eventually.

 

[mrmt]

Whatever the reason they lose a tremendeous amount compared to the pale sale. I dont care if its investing in sale, oem or r&d its all for future profit.
You tell me when this is going to end? When would you stop it?
As it is it looks like they will continue until the cash cows run dry. And that happens for all cash cows eventually.

What did you expect, Krumme? They are changing Atom from a backburner project to a bleeding edge project. They have to sink a lot of money there, and we already know that the old Atom doesn't cut it. How could they *not* lose money on this transition?

If they aren't at least breaking even by Q214, then I would start to be worried, but until then, there isn't much Intel can do, is there?

 

[PPB]

Intel could easily just do vanilla ARM (not even custom designs like Qcomm does) with their node advantage and just dunk every single ARM player out there easily, and could retain their profits just by the sheer size of volume needed in the current smarphone and tablet market, they even could redirect the R&D dumped into the current Atom uarch into strengthening they already massive node advantage.

But nope, instead we get not-so-competitive products against the ARM players, but hey, we still get the x86 compatibility no one asked for in the smartphone/tablet world!

 

[liahos1]

Intel could easily just do vanilla ARM (not even custom designs like Qcomm does) with their node advantage and just dunk every single ARM player out there easily, and could retain their profits just by the sheer size of volume needed in the current smarphone and tablet market, they even could redirect the R&D dumped into the current Atom uarch into strengthening they already massive node advantage.

But nope, instead we get not-so-competitive products against the ARM players, but hey, we still get the x86 compatibility no one asked for in the smartphone/tablet world!

i dont mind x86 compatibility in tablets.

 

[Exophase]

Intel could easily just do vanilla ARM (not even custom designs like Qcomm does) with their node advantage and just dunk every single ARM player out there easily, and could retain their profits just by the sheer size of volume needed in the current smarphone and tablet market, they even could redirect the R&D dumped into the current Atom uarch into strengthening they already massive node advantage.

But nope, instead we get not-so-competitive products against the ARM players, but hey, we still get the x86 compatibility no one asked for in the smartphone/tablet world!

I've long wished Intel would have kept using ARM for mobile applications instead of seeking to pointlessly fragment the ecosystem and wage software warfare complete with compiler tricks. It would have taken away some of their competitive advantage (as well as some of their anti-competitive advantage..) but they probably would have been more readily adopted sooner. Even with a Saltwell-like ARM core.

But then they wouldn't have been able to subject everyone to Atom netbooks for a few years. So no real loss to mankind there either.

 

[dahorns]

Intel could easily just do vanilla ARM (not even custom designs like Qcomm does) with their node advantage and just dunk every single ARM player out there easily, and could retain their profits just by the sheer size of volume needed in the current smarphone and tablet market, they even could redirect the R&D dumped into the current Atom uarch into strengthening they already massive node advantage.

But nope, instead we get not-so-competitive products against the ARM players, but hey, we still get the x86 compatibility no one asked for in the smartphone/tablet world!

Baytrail is plenty competitive...

 

[Arachnotronic]

Intel could easily just do vanilla ARM (not even custom designs like Qcomm does) with their node advantage and just dunk every single ARM player out there easily, and could retain their profits just by the sheer size of volume needed in the current smarphone and tablet market, they even could redirect the R&D dumped into the current Atom uarch into strengthening they already massive node advantage.

But nope, instead we get not-so-competitive products against the ARM players, but hey, we still get the x86 compatibility no one asked for in the smartphone/tablet world!

WTF are you smoking? Bay Trail absolutely demolishes every tablet-oriented ARM CPU available today as far as performance/watt goes. And it'll get even worse for the ARM players as the microarchitecture teams at Intel really start to flex their muscles.

 

[Exophase]

WTF are you smoking? Bay Trail absolutely demolishes every tablet-oriented ARM CPU available today as far as performance/watt goes. And it'll get even worse for the ARM players as the microarchitecture teams at Intel really start to flex their muscles.

I agree that BayTrail's perf/W is a lot better than the ARM cores we have any real data on (not positive about Cyclone) but do you seriously think they're still not flexing their muscles? This is their Core 2 moment, I expect things to get more incremental from here on out, not less.

 

[PPB]

I'm asking about normal conditions. Unless there is still people buying benchmarks that last as long as a (suposed to be) short-lived functionality as a turbo does. If you are one of those, dont expect the rest of us to live in that fairy fantasy world.

 

[R0H1T]

WTF are you smoking? Bay Trail absolutely demolishes every tablet-oriented ARM CPU available today as far as performance/watt goes. And it'll get even worse for the ARM players as the microarchitecture teams at Intel really start to flex their muscles.

Oh did you conveniently forget the A7 ~

http://anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

OR maybe something a bit more dramatic like this ~

http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+14+...ped+a+Quarter+Due+to+Defects/article33565.htm

Samsung's process is 28nm LP (Gate-First high-κ metal gate (HKMG)), while Intel's 22 nm process is Gate-Last HMKG. This is a huge win for Samsung as it means that it's producing a better chip on a cheaper mature process -- the best possible scenario. By contrast, Intel's still fresh 22 nm is not only slower -- it also costs Intel more to produce.

In other words, don't bet against Intel's ARM rivals, even if they're a bit behind on process technology.

 

[liahos1]

http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+14+...ped+a+Quarter+Due+to+Defects/article33565.htm

quoting a dailytech repost from CNET? This article is so full of misinformation its incredible look at the author and let me know if you think she has any background in what she's reporting on. just because its printed doesnt make it true

 

[Enigmoid]

Oh did you conveniently forget the A7 ~

http://anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

OR maybe something a bit more dramatic like this ~

http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+14+...ped+a+Quarter+Due+to+Defects/article33565.htm

And how much of that is due to apple's software integration rather than actual hardware?

Look at how good the 4s did for example with a dual A9 at 800 mhz against competing phones.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Oh did you conveniently forget the A7 ~

http://anandtech.com/show/7335/the-iphone-5s-review/5

OR maybe something a bit more dramatic like this ~

http://www.dailytech.com/Intels+14+...ped+a+Quarter+Due+to+Defects/article33565.htm

A7 is a nice little chip with crazy perf/MHz for a mobile design, but we have no hard power consumption data on it. Further, the Bay Trail actually won a bunch of tests in the AT suite (which were all single threaded benchmarks, to boot).

Silvermont at 2.4GHz is plenty competitive with Cyclone at 1.3GHz. The only question is which uses more power at max frequency.

 

[blackened23]

Why would A7 even be brought up? Is this another "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of argument?

Apple AX chips are only used for iOS. Nothing else. So their performance in android and windows (obviously..) is untested, these chips are not directly competing with each other.

 

[Enigmoid]

Why would A7 even be brought up? Is this another "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of argument?

Apple AX chips are only used for iOS. Nothing else. So their performance in android and windows (obviously..) is untested, these chips are not directly competing with each other.

Agree completely. Especially those who say "intel is doomed because apple A7 is better". Hello. Intel doesn't sell and probably never will sell its phone/tablet chips to apple. The only competition intel has in terms of making any sort of profit is Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, Mediatek, etc.

 

[jdubs03]

Even though the A7/X is only for iOS, it does at least offer a glimpse into any performance deltas when compared with other chips, when running the same benchmarks.

The issue I think is most pertinent is:

Will the A8/A9/A10 have enough performance to be able to run Mac OS X/iOS hybrid?

I think that this scenario is more likely and that Apple may eventually discard the need for the Core series chips as they will be more expensive (and higher-performing), but the A-series may reach that "good enough" tier, and won't have to rely on Intel anymore.
The caveat is can Apple design an ARMv8 core on a weaker process that can even come close to the eventual Core designs required for the Macbook Air/Pro... Time will tell, but I don't think they will. By that time Intel is at 10nm, and it may be almost time for their Y-series line merges with Atom.

Food for thought: Broadwell-Y based on that IDF demonstration (30% reduction in power consumption) indicates a TDP of 8.05w (SDP was 4.8w). That's not that much higher than current top-tier ARM designs. A U-series would be around 10.5w for TDP. That is almost fanless capability, likely with a bump in performance (10% I hope).

 

[blackened23]

TANGENT: While i'm sure Apple would love to sever ties with intel, The A7 isn't in the same stratosphere as the core in terms of performance. The core i5 and i7 CPUs are lightyears ahead of any ARM SOC and will maintain that unless intel just disappears in the next few years.

That said, i'm sure Apple WANTS to do it. I'm sure they're trying to do it. But there's no way it will happen anytime soon, unless intel just keels over dead and capitulates with their core line. And yeah, I don't see that happening. The performance delta that core maintains over ARM SOCs puts it in a different category of product for different SKUs. That is why ARM SOCs are in tablets and phones while CORE CPUs are in laptops, macbooks and ultrabooks. Core is more suitable for the larger form factors, and the larger form factors are fine since the core can realize it's performance very well in those form-factors. Keep in mind that intel has made huge strides with the battery life of their core products as well, they are near parity with many ARM SOCs while the cost is obviously higher for core CPUs (for a reason, the performance is MUCH HIGHER).

When Apple is evaluating a macbook SKU, the battery life is a consideration but you're suggesting that it is the sole consideration. These SKUs are designed to do things that ARM SOCs cannot do, so TDP isn't a sole consideration. The macbook products are designed as higher performance computing products for those who needs more than basic iOS functionality. The TDP is higher but that is fine, you're getting 50 times more performance and are doing things that an ARM SOC can't. It isn't about "TDP only" with macbooks or ultrabooks. It's about a balance of MOSTLY PERFORMANCE which an ARM SOC cannot provide with well balanced battery life. /tangent

Anyway, this is all off topic and I digress. The main point which I was getting at earlier is that Bay Trail is not competing with A7 in any form or fashion so any suggestion of the A7 "one upping" the BT is completely ridiculous. Intel's competitors, as enigmoid mentions, are nvidia, qualcomm, mediatek, etc, etc. In that respect Bay Trail is pretty impressive despite having lower GPU performance than two of the best ARM SOCs. (while having better CPU performance). I think that's a good start. Again - A7 is a non factor for BT. BT is not and never will compete with the A7, period.

 

[jdubs03]

I was just using that argument about Apple and their potential. The performance delta was A7 vs the rest. I agree BT's competition is Qualcomm, Nvidia, Samsung, and the others.

 

[R0H1T]

quoting a dailytech repost from CNET? This article is so full of misinformation its incredible look at the author and let me know if you think she has any background in what she's reporting on. just because its printed doesnt make it true

The one thing that you've ignored is that the A7 beats BT in a number of benches(featured on anandtech) & that Samsung's 28nm process is beating Intel's much talked about 22nm FinFET, granted its on iOS but what you also forget is that ARM doesn't necessarily have to carry all the legacy baggage that x86 does & that's probably why x86_64 hasn't shown even half the performance gain that cyclone has achieved over swift cores !

 

[R0H1T]

Agree completely. Especially those who say "intel is doomed because apple A7 is better". Hello. Intel doesn't sell and probably never will sell its phone/tablet chips to apple. The only competition intel has in terms of making any sort of profit is Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, Mediatek, etc.

Well you're taking a tangent & stretching it to infinity is what you're doing here, so tell me with Apple moving to TSMC & Samsung having more capacity to produce Exynos inhouse why would the two most profitable tech companies, not to mention the biggest consumers of mobile/tablet chips, wanna be tied with Intel at any major level ?

Its been proven time & again that firms would much rather spend inhouse than buy a bunch of expensive stuff from the likes of Intel also ARM is still giving the mobile/tablet industry performance gains exceeding 40~50% annually.

So like I've mentioned in the past the one thing or rather the only thing that gives Intel a foothold in the mobile/tablet industry is price competitiveness & nothing else, that or the fact that Intel can still arm twist a bunch of OEM/ODM to do their bidding, & we all know which route will Intel choose !

 

[SlimFan]

The one thing that you've ignored is that the A7 beats BT in a number of benches(featured on anandtech) & that Samsung's 28nm process is beating Intel's much talked about 22nm FinFET, granted its on iOS but what you also forget is that ARM doesn't necessarily have to carry all the legacy baggage that x86 does & that's probably why x86_64 hasn't shown even half the performance gain that cyclone has achieved over swift cores !

The one thing that you've ignored is that Cyclone is a relatively large CPU. Have you looked at the die photos for each core? If they're both ~100mm^2 die, then the CPU core for A7 looks like it's 2-3 times larger than the CPU core for Silvermont. If these two CPUs have anywhere close to the same performance, then it certainly does look like Intel's CPU is much more efficient. That x86 baggage isn't really much of an issue, maybe?

Or to say it another way, it looks like Bay Trail can fit an extra two cores in the extra space and provide similar single threaded performance.

 

[SlimFan]

Well you're taking a tangent & stretching it to infinity is what you're doing here, so tell me with Apple moving to TSMC & Samsung having more capacity to produce Exynos inhouse why would the two most profitable tech companies, not to mention the biggest consumers of mobile/tablet chips, wanna be tied with Intel at any major level ?

Can you remind me again which SOCs Samsung uses in its most successful products?

Its been proven time & again that firms would much rather spend inhouse than buy a bunch of expensive stuff from the likes of Intel also ARM is still giving the mobile/tablet industry performance gains exceeding 40~50% annually.

"Rather" is certainly true. Reality, however, often dictates something else.

So like I've mentioned in the past the one thing or rather the only thing that gives Intel a foothold in the mobile/tablet industry is price competitiveness & nothing else, that or the fact that Intel can still arm twist a bunch of OEM/ODM to do their bidding, & we all know which route will Intel choose !

Do you really think Intel has leverage to arm twist phone/tablet OEM/ODMs in the Android market? If they did, don't you think they would have been much more successful in this market?

 

[R0H1T]

Can you remind me again which SOCs Samsung uses in its most successful products?

The answer is twofold Exynos Octa(also the quad core variant) & Snapdragon 600/800.

"Rather" is certainly true. Reality, however, often dictates something else.

Well I don't see how Samsung will move to Intel if & when their capacity for Exynos production frees up(with Apple shifting to TSMC) & Apple certainly won't be using any of the Intel chips in their products anytime in the near or distant future. I made specific references to these two firms because they make almost all the profits of the mobile/tablet industry so if you don't sell to'em then you're out of luck because the rest of the firms will probably go belly up with Intel's high end expensive offerings in this cut throat small margin industry!

Do you really think Intel has leverage to arm twist phone/tablet OEM/ODMs in the Android market? If they did, don't you think they would have been much more successful in this market?

Yes I think so, they can definitely twist the arms of the likes of Acer/ASUS et al most certainly the way they used to with the likes of HP/Dell etc.

 

[Imouto]

Why would A7 even be brought up? Is this another "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" type of argument?

It's a custom desing using ARM instructions you can expect the same with the next custom core by Qualcomm.

Apple AX chips are only used for iOS. Nothing else. So their performance in android and windows (obviously..) is untested, these chips are not directly competing with each other.

And yet you don't realize that Apple will never ever use an Intel chip for an iPhone/iPad/iPod. That leaves out of their hands a great chunk of the mobile market.