Why don't intel just buy Qualcomm instead of allowing them to become the major threat

[Arachnotronic]

Erm...Qualcomm is too expensive for Intel to buy. Even Apple might have a tough time coughing up the dough necessary to pick up Qualcomm.

If Intel wants to buy its way into mobile, MediaTek is the way to go. That said, I still think their organic efforts will eventually pay off...

 

[mikk]

That said, I still think their organic efforts will eventually pay off...

In 5 or 10 years? :biggrin:

 

[lopri]

The state of AnandTech CPU & Overclocking Forum Children/Spouses of Investors and (former) Employees of Intel Forum.

(it has been like this for years, to be sure)

 

[Arachnotronic]

In 5 or 10 years? :biggrin:

ROFL! :biggrin:

 

[jhu]

You have to look at market capitalization:
https://www.google.com/finance?cid=284784 (175B)
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:QCOM&ei=ikioVLnPF9S-wQP0q4CwBA (123B)

Intel doesn't have many 10s of billion of cash just lying around.


They have lots of 3G patents, which earns good.

Leveraged buyout. Brings me back to my corporate raider days back in the '80s... before the jail time.

 

[john5220]

Intel is the new AMD. They are already the "VIA" of mobile.


I don't think Qualcomm would want to be bought by a processor company that doesn't actually have any innovative wins in the last 3 years. Sandy Bridge was the last time anybody was impressed with Intel and nobody ever is or was impressed with their graphics or mobile CPUs.

Sadly I have to agree with you.

for instance DayZ right now could really use single core performance. But single core perf since Sandy Bridge has been really poor and I am never again excited about anything from intel since sandy bridge.

So i agree with that point the last time I was impressed by intel was Sandy Bridge and then its been meh I better wait 1 decade just to be impressed by intel.

In the past we would have had huge single perf, today its really poor.
There was hope for excitement for Iris Pro

Then I never saw a single iris pro on desktop. You could never find this chip anywhere except apple macbooks so that was the end of that.

I am usually more excited to see APU releases from AMD that i am to see anything from intel as of late.

 

[Chevron]

But this does not sound right?

If things are so bad how come they are able to stay alive? Also how come Nvidia has so much dGPU share when AMD has equivalent of what Nvidia has?

Say you look at yearly GPU put out by AMD and Nvidia. GTX 780 is as powerful as a R9 290X not so? differences between both companies are really tiny.

Also AMD cards are much better value for money. I don't see what Nvidia offers that make them so much better.

Marketing, branding, advertising. For people that don't know a lot about PCs they buy Intel/nVidia. Simple as that. Enthusiats are really in the minoirty. The general public will pay more, for less performance if it has the "Intel Inside" sticker on it. Because that's what they know.

 

[Puppies04]

Sadly I have to agree with you.

for instance DayZ right now could really use single core performance. But single core perf since Sandy Bridge has been really poor and I am never again excited about anything from intel since sandy bridge.

So i agree with that point the last time I was impressed by intel was Sandy Bridge and then its been meh I better wait 1 decade just to be impressed by intel.

In the past we would have had huge single perf, today its really poor.
There was hope for excitement for Iris Pro

Then I never saw a single iris pro on desktop. You could never find this chip anywhere except apple macbooks so that was the end of that.

I am usually more excited to see APU releases from AMD that i am to see anything from intel as of late.

This post hurts my brain.

 

[john5220]

^ I am sure it hurts your brain since the recent 10% of Intel CPU boost each generation is such a a huge boost and its soo exciting.

 

[chrisjames61]

Ok let me ask this.

What would happen if Intel bought AMD tomorrow?

Infact why have they not done so as yet and then vanquish AMD? they would recover the loss in no time since they would be the sole monopoly not so?

One, you have to have the cash or shares to make the deal. Which Intel could easily do. Two, the government would probably not allow it to happen. Three, why would Intel feel the need to do this as AMD is hardly a competitor at this point.

 

[Arachnotronic]

^ I am sure it hurts your brain since the recent 10% of Intel CPU boost each generation is such a a huge boost and its soo exciting.

10% CPU boost per generation with flat-to-decreasing power envelopes is solid for power-constrained notebooks.

If the market didn't value thin, light, and long battery life, you'd see more aggressive performance gains in the desktop. But it does, and this is the reality of the situation.

In the server market, performance is highly valued, and the market is large and profitable, which is why those customers get more, faster cores each and every year.

Just about every product release is driven by business decisions, don't forget this.

 

[tential]

John5220, this type of conversation you keep bringing up belongs on a business Forum not a CPU discussion forum. It's also just utterly ridiculous questions. You really need to learn how businesses work.

 

[chrisjames61]

10%
Just about every product release is driven by business decisions, don't forget this.

Product release decisions sure aren't driven by a few enthusiasts in a forum on the internet.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Product release decisions sure aren't driven by a few enthusiasts in a forum on the internet.

I think they are to some extent if those enthusiasts are loud enough. But I don't think major IP block architectural decisions are what can be influenced; SKUs based on what Intel's got can. The 4790K was launched because high-margin enthusiast customers were peeved off at 4770K.

The Pentium G3258 is a curious beast. Enthusiasts clamored for an unlocked i3 but instead got an unlocked Pentium. I think they knew that an unlocked Pentium would drive mix up within Pentium for minimal cost ($10 extra for an unlocked multiplier is always good for business), without threatening the significantly higher priced i3 chips.

One thing I have noticed is that with Intel CPUs there is a "gap" between the best Pentium and the lowest i3; $70 Pentium G3258 and then the next thing up is a $120 Core i3. I wonder if Intel intends to fill this gap somehow.

 

[Exophase]

^ I am sure it hurts your brain since the recent 10% of Intel CPU boost each generation is such a a huge boost and its soo exciting.

You were too spoiled into thinking that single thread performance would magically continue to improve at huge rates. Even though TDP limits have been hit, Dennard Scaling is pretty much done, new processes no longer improve frequency headroom much if at all, and diminishing returns are being hit with adding more cache.

Did you really think exponential growth was going to continue at the same pace forever?

 

[lopri]

^ I think that question is better directed at one of the Intel guys.

 

[chrisjames61]

Product release decisions sure aren't driven by a few enthusiasts in a forum on the internet.

Not important products. That was a bone. Crippled as it is....

 

[scannall]

One of the main reasons Intel has been failing at mobile is x86. They have very talented engineers. They even have or could easily acquire an ARM license, and easily make the best ARM SOC's on the market. But, the reason they don't is the same reason why manufacturers are staying away in droves. Nobody wants to be headlocked into Intel, and subject to Intel's inconsistent delivery dates, and their high costs.

 

[Arachnotronic]

One of the main reasons Intel has been failing at mobile is x86. They have very talented engineers. They even have or could easily acquire an ARM license, and easily make the best ARM SOC's on the market. But, the reason they don't is the same reason why manufacturers are staying away in droves. Nobody wants to be headlocked into Intel, and subject to Intel's inconsistent delivery dates, and their high costs.

X86 has nothing to do with it. Intel's CPU cores in mobile are good, but suffer from "we didn't aim high enough" issues (Silvermont was a Cortex A9 killer...that now has to fight the Cyclones and the A57s of the world). Intel's lack of modem integration, relatively weak image signal processors, and other "uncore" failings, coupled with serious time to market problems, have been what have sunk the company's mobile efforts to date.

If Intel had designed an ARM-version of Silvermont -- or stuck Cortex A57s into Bay Trail/Moorefield -- it wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference in mobile...and Intel wouldn't have gotten the Kabini/Beema killer Bay Trail-M/D CPUs out of the whole deal.

 

[AnandThenMan]

X86 has nothing to do with it.

Has everything to do with it, why would any company want to be locked into a single supplier. Intel gets away with this in most markets because of the Wintel monopoly, in mobile this doesn't exist. No monopoly and suddenly Intel can't compete.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Has everything to do with it, why would any company want to be locked into a single supplier. Intel gets away with this in most markets because of the Wintel monopoly, in mobile this doesn't exist. No monopoly and suddenly Intel can't compete.

I see, so a smartphone vendor can only use x86 CPUs forevermore once they design in an Atom into their Android devices? Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure Android supports x86 and ARM and apps will continue to support both from here on out.

 

[john5220]

^ what if devs slowly move into ARM and then oneday we almost completely replace x86 with ARM even down to the most basic of programs and biggest games being done in ARM

What would happen to Intel if they continue at this rate?

I admit I never realized that in a situation like ARM where there isn't a monopoly, suddenly Intel cannot compete. That user's post has me thinking now perhaps intel isn't the greatest chip manufacturer in the world.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I see, so a smartphone vendor can only use x86 CPUs forevermore once they design in an Atom into their Android devices? Is that what you're saying?

I'm pretty sure Android supports x86 and ARM and apps will continue to support both from here on out.

You missed the point or I didn't explain correctly. It's not just the ISA, although jumping back and forth between them would not be smart. The issue is if you go x86 you have no option but to buy from Intel. You can't make your own processors, you can't buy from multiple vendors. Ever.

 

[Arachnotronic]

You missed the point or I didn't explain correctly. It's not just the ISA, although jumping back and forth between them would not be smart. The issue is if you go x86 you have no option but to buy from Intel. You can't make your own processors, you can't buy from multiple vendors. Ever.

No, I understood your point, but it just doesn't make any sense.

If I am <Insert Phone Vendor Here> and I choose an Intel X86 CPU for my <Insert Phone Here>, then that particular model will run Android and will be powered by an X86 CPU.

Say, in the next generation of SoCs, Intel's X86 chips aren't up to snuff. So what do I, as <Insert Phone Vendor> do? Well, gee, can't I just go to Qualcomm or MediaTek for chips to power my next generation Android phone(s)? What makes it so that I "have no option but to buy from Intel," what relevance does "making my own processor" have, and why can't I buy from multiple vendors?

As far as Android is concerned at this point, X86 and ARM really are the same (with ARM obviously having better native app support, but Intel is throwing a lot of money at the problem to make sure that all native apps come compiled for X86 as well as ARM), which is why your argument makes no sense.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Apple for example has been designing their own processors since the iPhone 5 I believe, see the problem if they are considering x86? Using ARM gives companies like Apple control, using x86 from Intel does not.