ARM taking Intel seriously, but not too much
0. phoneArena 16 Jul 2012, 08:50 posted on
ARM has been pretty much unrivaled in the mobile processor market, with all of the big-name players like Samsung, Texas Instruments, Nvidia, Qualcomm and Apple using ARM architecture for their SoCs...
This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here
1. MeoCao (unregistered)
Intel is one of the monopolistic companies just like MS, they rely too much on their power in the PC market. Look how our PCs are heating like crazy to see where Intel is at.
Can Intel change their culture and become innovative again? I don't bet on it.
3. alterecho (Posts: 1098; Member since: 23 Feb 2012)
Yeah. They are also accused by EU for anti-competitive practices against AMD in the x86 space. They do make powerful CPUs though. Look what they did with with Medfield. Its single core goes up against ARM's dual core CPUs.
That too with a x86 processor and still giving decent power draw. ARM should be watchful. They shouldn't let Intel get the upperhand in mobile space too.
5. superguy (Posts: 288; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
While I don't think Intel is totally innocent when it comes to competition, I also think the EU's litigation was suspect considering how much money German governments at the federal and state levels invested in AMD. They definitely had an axe to grind.
4. superguy (Posts: 288; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
I disagree. Intel does well when Intel has competition.
When AMD isn't competitive, Intel gets complacent. However, look at what happened when AMD destroyed Intel with the earlier Hammer processors. It spurred Intel and got them moving to create some pretty good PC chips.
However, now that Intel's back on top, they're getting complacent as AMD hasn't been able to mount a significant challenge to them.
I think the same will happen in the mobile arena. It'll take Intel awhile to get caught up to ARM, but they'll catch up. Intel has some great engineers and has been pretty visionary in a lot of areas. It would be foolish to count them out yet. Competition would definitely be good in this arena.
Don't forget that Intel was once an ARM licensee too before they sold that business off to Marvell. So it's not like they don't know how to build mobile processors - they've just been doing it differently for awhile now. I bet they regret selling their ARM business off to Marvell now though. :D
6. randomguest (Posts: 20; Member since: 26 Jun 2012)
They are innovative, they build the most powerful commercial chips. Just not the most power efficient ones.
7. MeoCao (unregistered)
What Intel does is essentially scaling up the CPU. That's why it becomes hotter and hotter. You don't need lots of innovation to scale things up, which many other companies can do and IBM is the leading innovator in this area as far as I know.
10. superguy (Posts: 288; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
Take a look at Ivy Bridge with the 3D transistors (just one example) and tell me Intel isn't innovative.
What you're saying was true back in the P4 days as they were just focused on clockspeed and how high they could get that number. And yes, they're first dual core processors were essentially 2 unicore chips glued together. However, they've gone way past that now. Now it's about cores and tech to make the processors more efficient and more powerful. They're doing that because they CAN'T just crank up the clock speed anymore.
11. MeoCao (unregistered)
Hey, I guess a big company like Intel can come up with some improvement once in a while, but is Ivy Bridge really that big? This is mainly Intel's marketing machine blowing things out of proportion.
How is that big innovation when ivy bridge is still much more power inefficient than ARM architecture?
A lot of time AMD chips were much better than Intel's but can't compete with Intel's monopoly and dirty tricks. ARM can be successful b-c they caught intel off guard and became strong before Intel could squeeze them out of oxygen.
12. superguy (Posts: 288; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
Give me a break.
First off, Intel and ARM have largely worked in different sectors. They're doing completely different things and suited to different tasks. That's like putting a Ferrari up against the Prius and saying the Ferrari sucks because it gets 8 miles per gallon.
AMD may have had better chips, but that was often because they came out 6 months later and improved on Intel's design. AMD had chipset problems back in the day (Via's sucked rocks, and Nvidia's weren't that much better). I would hope that they would make a better chip. The only thing innovative AMD really did was with the Hammer architcture. They really had Intel scrambling for awhile. However, they didn't keep it up ... they rested on their laurels and allowed Intel to catch up. Now Intel is back on top again.
Intel wasn't worried about squeezing off ARM. They were an ARM licensee at one point. However, they didn't predict the mobile sector changing like it did - I'll give you that. If anything, had Intel not sold off its business to Marvell, Intel would be making ARM processors like Samsung, TI, and Nvidia. They wouldn't have to choke ARM off because they would be paying ARM for every processor they made!
What would have been more logical is Intel trying to buy ARM outright.
13. MeoCao (unregistered)
I don't think ARM and Intel chips are much different, after all ARM chips can be used to run servers all right. It just Intel chips can't do what ARM chips can.
14. superguy (Posts: 288; Member since: 15 Jul 2011)
And how many ARM cores will it take to do the job an x86 processor can do? It's going to be a lot more than a 1:1 match between the two.
That's like saying Intel and IBM chips aren't much different when they're a totally different architecture. They don't even run on the same instruction set. You can safely say AMD and Intel chips aren't much different - they may have some differences but they run the same code. Try running x86 on an ARM processor and vice versa and tell me they're not that different.
ARM was built from the ground up to be power efficient. Intel was built for computing power. You're going to trade off one for the other, and it's not an easy task to make one architecture to do the other. If it were, BOTH companies would be doing it.
15. MeoCao (unregistered)
Of course they are different, ARM is RISC and Ivy Bridge is CISC based. ARM is for Linux and Ivy Bridge is Windows. But structurally they can be tweaked to perform the other's functions. What I mean is if 3D transistors are that power efficient why Intel does not use the technology for its mobile chips?
And if you know what Intel did to AMD you will not have reason to think they won't do the same to ARM. They don't do it only b-c they can't.
2. jove39 (Posts: 1743; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)
Well...Intel has to tackle arm invasion in server market...where Intel dominates...people have demonstrated servers built on arm chips...that consume lot less power and perform almost as good as x86 based chips...mobile market...Intel has no share...so it'll come way too behind in priority list.
8. medicci37 (Posts: 1265; Member since: 19 Nov 2011)
Intel could use some serious competition in the desktop market. Because AMD has fallen off big time in the last few years. My main problem with Intel chips is the POS graphics. Would like to see them finally take graphics seriously
9. darac (Posts: 2156; Member since: 17 Oct 2011)
Medfield seems about on pair with A15 in terms of processing power per core.
But the thing is, its only about half as energy efficient.
To counter this, Intel should shrink the die size to about half that of the ARM competing chip.
And with their developments in 14nm architecture, it looked they are on the right track.
But Samsung is "ruining" that with their own advancements in manufacturing process, with 22nm and 14nm being around the corner.
So yeah, ARM still looks like to horse to bet on.