• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Intel Skylake complete lineup - Coming in August - Pictures of CPU

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Fjodor2001 said:
Ok. But then how come it's so hard "ramping down" for Intel? They have not been very successful in the low power mobile segment.
Click to expand...

Tablets is pretty much on track to be x86 only.

And for phones, its not about core performance. Its about integration and modems.

ARM is so far away from Core performance that even AMD look fast compared.

This is an example of ARM claiming to be Ivy Bridge/Haswell performance.
66529b.png


At best it tumbles around with Atoms. Tho much much worse performance/watt.
 
Last edited:
Fjodor2001 said:
Yeah, but top end Skylake will be 95 W TDP. That is compared to 84 W Haswell, and 77 W Ivy Bridge. But performance has not increased that much.
Click to expand...

If I was you I would wait till I had seen what the 95W parts actually use. Note its only K models. And Intel just rates them all as max TDP in the HEDT OC segment.

You may end up with chips using significantly less than 95W at stock.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Tablets is pretty much on track to be x86 only.

And for phones, its not about core performance. Its about integration and modems.

ARM is so far away from Core performance that even AMD look fast compared.
Click to expand...

Then how come Intel is so ridiculously behind in mobile, despite contra revenue and losing $4B per year on mobile alone?

Apparently something is very wrong with their offer, since they simply do not sell.
 
ShintaiDK said:
If I was you I would wait till I had seen what the 95W parts actually use. Note its only K models. And Intel just rates them all as max TDP in the HEDT OC segment.

You may end up with chips using significantly less than 95W at stock.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm hoping that too. But since they are now listing TDP per specific SKUs, I'm not so sure about that. Looks like it's no longer just a placeholder TDP this close to release.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
Then how come Intel is so ridiculously behind in mobile, despite contra revenue and losing $4B per year on mobile alone?

Apparently something is very wrong with their offer, since they simply do not sell.
Click to expand...

The contra revenue is pretty much tablets and the style only. Intel now controls more than 25% of all tablet sales. And is expected to reach over 40% this year. 14nm Cherrytrail drasticly reduces the contra revenue due to lowering the BOM.
 
ShintaiDK said:
The contra revenue is pretty much tablets and the style only. Intel now controls more than 25% of all tablet sales. And is expected to reach over 40% this year. 14nm Cherrytrail drasticly reduces the contra revenue due to lowering the BOM.
Click to expand...

I don't know. There's practically no x86 in mobile phones. It's ARM realm totally. If Intel's offer is so great in this segment, how come none of the phone manufacturers "get it"? Are the multi billion dollar companies Samsung, Apple and Qualcomm all using ARM just for fun? :\
 
Fjodor2001 said:
I don't know. There's practically no x86 in mobile phones. It's ARM realm totally. If Intel's offer is so great in this segment, how come none of the phone manufacturers "get it"? Are the multi billion dollar companies Samsung, Apple and Qualcomm all using ARM just for fun? :\
Click to expand...

Phones are not really the target yet. Tablets are.

And as I said for phones before, its not about core performance there.
 
Fjodor2001 said:
Ok. But then how come it's so hard "ramping down" for Intel? They have not been very successful in the low power mobile segment.
Click to expand...

Well, few reasons, IMO.

1. ARM vendors are not bound by business reasons. For Intel, making A8X class SoC means putting $300 Core M into $30 SoCs.* They can't scale Atom up that much, because Core M isn't that far away.

2. Company philosophy. Various reasons like the mentality of only having to make highest end chips for decades take time to change.

3. Takes time to get to best optimized versions, even with pouring in all the resources. Look at how small Cherry Trail cores are compared to Bay Trail. 64% shrink in one generation! Not to mention Silvermont was a big gain over Silverthorne too. Do I think Goldmont, the successor to Cherry Trail can further optimize that? Yes I do!

*No matter what people claim, charging $300 for such performance is a rip-off and a side-effect of having a monopoly. I bet ya if Nvidia had brought their X1 with Core M class GPU and an x86 license Intel would have made the chip at half the price.
 
Last edited:
Fjodor2001 said:
Then how come Intel is so ridiculously behind in mobile, despite contra revenue and losing $4B per year on mobile alone?

Apparently something is very wrong with their offer, since they simply do not sell.
Click to expand...


I'm not saying they didn't earn for it but they've had a virtual monopoly in the desktop space from the '80's to present and in the mobile space until the widespread adoption of smart phones (about 6 or 7 years ago). Compounding this is the fact that the mobile market as been consuming the desktop market.

Now they have to actually compete against worthy adversaries in a market where they are starting out behind. Welcome to AMD's world.

Let the company with the best products at the best price points win.
 
ShintaiDK said:
Tablets is pretty much on track to be x86 only.
Click to expand...

Bwahahah. Intel literally gave away more money in mobile contra-revenue than they received in payment for their processors. That's not a sustainable business model, that's dumping.

If Intel can withdraw their subsidies and maintain their market share, I will happily believe it. But free Bay Trail chips don't prove much.
 
Hulk said:
I'm not saying they didn't earn for it but they've had a virtual monopoly in the desktop space from the '80's to present and in the mobile space until the widespread adoption of smart phones (about 6 or 7 years ago). Compounding this is the fact that the mobile market as been consuming the desktop market.

Now they have to actually compete against worthy adversaries in a market where they are starting out behind. Welcome to AMD's world.

Let the company with the best products at the best price points win.
Click to expand...

Luckily for Intel, they had billions upon billions to fund developement of ARM killer cores/modems/etc for phones.

Once Intel completely conquer the tablet industry, the phone will be next on the chopping board.
 
Dave2150 said:
Luckily for Intel, they had billions upon billions to fund developement of ARM killer cores/modems/etc for phones.

Once Intel completely conquer the tablet industry, the phone will be next on the chopping board.
Click to expand...

Right... Intel has been saying that for the last 5-10 years... good luck with that... :colbert:
 
Dave2150 said:
Luckily for Intel, they had billions upon billions to fund developement of ARM killer cores/modems/etc for phones.

Once Intel completely conquer the tablet industry, the phone will be next on the chopping board.
Click to expand...


Except it would make no sense for OEM's to go x86. Paying more, for proprietary CPU's from a single source that will charge much more, with no customizability and at their development whims is just a bad idea. Have a look at what happened to desktop and laptop OEM's. Gutted and hung out to dry, with Intel and Microsoft being the only ones making any money in those markets.
 
scannall said:
Except it would make no sense for OEM's to go x86. Paying more, for proprietary CPU's from a single source that will charge much more, with no customizability and at their development whims is just a bad idea. Have a look at what happened to desktop and laptop OEM's. Gutted and hung out to dry, with Intel and Microsoft being the only ones making any money in those markets.
Click to expand...

As the months/years go by, we demand increasing processing power from our mobile phones. It's inevitable that once day we'll need x86 cores to power the latest apps.

Also, just imagine how awesome it would be, being able to run windows/linux on your phone, being able to install/stream any windows program, game, transmit the video/audio wirelessly from your phone to a large display/hologram projector wherever you are.

Time will tell, that's my hunch 😛
 
Dave2150 said:
As the months/years go by, we demand increasing processing power from our mobile phones. It's inevitable that once day we'll need x86 cores to power the latest apps.

Also, just imagine how awesome it would be, being able to run windows/linux on your phone, being able to install/stream any windows program, game, transmit the video/audio wirelessly from your phone to a large display/hologram projector wherever you are.

Time will tell, that's my hunch 😛
Click to expand...


Inevitable that we'll need x86 cores in a phone? Very unlikely. As far as running Windows on your phone goes, that would be a very small and niche market of geeks.

If Intel were to design ARM processors, they'd likely do pretty good at it. Lots of talented and smart engineers there. But then they'd have to actually compete. They like their little private garden where they can do and charge whatever they want. ARM as an ISA, is modern and efficient. As computing power requirements go up, the cores will get larger and wider. Like the A8X for example.
 
scannall said:
Inevitable that we'll need x86 cores in a phone? Very unlikely. As far as running Windows on your phone goes, that would be a very small and niche market of geeks.
Click to expand...

The future sure looks like people using their phablet for everything. Maybe put their phablet in a dock if they want to have the desktop experience (kb, mouse, etc).
 
If I wanted a significant improvement (like 50 to 65%) over my i5-4570, I may have to go with the 65 watt i7-6700. I'm just hoping prices will be reasonable.

EDIT: With some creative interpretation of the benchmarks already leaked, I figure the i7-6700K may be twice as fast as the i5-4570. I might be more interested in the 65 watt i7-6700 because it's less power, I don't need to overclock and it may be less expensive. I hope it'll be under $350 Canadian dollars.
 
Last edited:
jpiniero said:
The future sure looks like people using their phablet for everything. Maybe put their phablet in a dock if they want to have the desktop experience (kb, mouse, etc).
Click to expand...

An x86 phablet with a good breakout connector and dock would actually make a compelling case for an x86 chip in a phone and generally be a pretty sweet product.
 
AtenRa said:
No need for x86 to have Windows anymore, ARM can run windows phone 8.1 already and Win 10 is a cross-platform for PC and Mobile.

Edit: ACER Liquid M220 ($79,99) has Windows Phone 8.1 on a Qualcomm Snapdragon ARM CPU and will be upgradable to Win 10.

http://www.nextpowerup.com/news/205...for-usd-79-99-will-get-the-windows-10-update/
Click to expand...


But you don't understand what that means.

The next version of Windows Phone will drop the word "phone" and just be Windows 10. But it won't support the traditional desktop, it will be metro only just like the current Windows Phone 8.1. That same OS will also be used for mini tablets 7" and less(according to MS). And this OS will run on both ARM and x86.

The other version of Windows 10 that does support the traditional desktop will be x86 only and will run metro apps on the desktop. And on convertible devices(like the surface pro 3) it will be able to switch between the desktop and the metro UI(like we know from windows 8) based on whether a keyboard is attached.

So ARM gains nothing in Windows 10 versus Win8/RT, in fact it loses ground versus x86. WinRT does not get a sequel and for the first time MS's phone OS will run on x86.
 
Last edited:
Yes thats true, i thought people were talking about runing windows on mobile in general. Yes you cannot run legacy win32 on win 10 phones and you will not have a desktop.

On the other hand, Intel based x86 devices will be able to run the Windows 10 desktop even if those devices are phones/tablets etc.

ps: with Win 10 new modern software will be compatible for both Win 10 desktop and mobile. So new software/applications will be compatible to both Desktop and Mobile devices.
 
The only ARM Windows left is the smartphone one. The tablet is already x86 only with Windows 10.

x86 and Windows won yet again. And it will keep doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top