Article: Medfield, Intel's x86 Phone Chip
By: Eric (lol.delete@this.safetymail.info), January 26, 2012 6:10 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Doug Siebert (foo@bar.bar) on 1/26/12 wrote:
---------------------------
>Honestly I think Intel's biggest problem is going to be their decision to support
>translating ARM code. If it performs poorly, it makes Intel phones look crappy
>and they become what Cyrix was in the early 90s. If performs good enough, then
>there's no incentive for anyone to ever write x86 versions of their apps. Intel's
>process advantage would always be totally negated by the translation overhead.
>Intel is about two years too late, and IMHO the best they can possibly hope for
>is to be the AMD of the smartphone market. Even that is only possible if Windows
>Phone becomes a strong third player in the smartphone market - I think they'll be
>third but probably not a strong third. Basically, third only because RIM will probably
>be bought out (possibly by Microsoft) within 18 months for their patents and Exchange integration technology.
>
>
I agree that Intel's decision to support ARM code through emulation carries with it significant risks, especially if it eases off the pressure on developers to provide native x86 binaries (for those applications that contain native ARM code today). However that could be alleviated through the leverage that Intel seems to have on Google and the vast resources that both companies have available to sift through the applications on Android Market and translate the native code in them (with the objective of creating a fully transparent experience to the user as far as different ISAs go). That is as long as Intel takes the problem seriously, which I suspect they do.
---------------------------
>Honestly I think Intel's biggest problem is going to be their decision to support
>translating ARM code. If it performs poorly, it makes Intel phones look crappy
>and they become what Cyrix was in the early 90s. If performs good enough, then
>there's no incentive for anyone to ever write x86 versions of their apps. Intel's
>process advantage would always be totally negated by the translation overhead.
>Intel is about two years too late, and IMHO the best they can possibly hope for
>is to be the AMD of the smartphone market. Even that is only possible if Windows
>Phone becomes a strong third player in the smartphone market - I think they'll be
>third but probably not a strong third. Basically, third only because RIM will probably
>be bought out (possibly by Microsoft) within 18 months for their patents and Exchange integration technology.
>
>
I agree that Intel's decision to support ARM code through emulation carries with it significant risks, especially if it eases off the pressure on developers to provide native x86 binaries (for those applications that contain native ARM code today). However that could be alleviated through the leverage that Intel seems to have on Google and the vast resources that both companies have available to sift through the applications on Android Market and translate the native code in them (with the objective of creating a fully transparent experience to the user as far as different ISAs go). That is as long as Intel takes the problem seriously, which I suspect they do.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/23 01:51 PM |
server error | bakaneko | 2012/01/24 03:00 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 04:02 AM |
Fixed | Joel | 2012/01/24 07:43 AM |
Fixed | Ricardo B | 2012/01/24 11:25 AM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:29 PM |
Fixed | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/01/24 01:07 PM |
Fixed | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:30 PM |
Reference platform battery life | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/24 02:03 PM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 06:58 AM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 03:42 AM |
standby time | Foo_ | 2012/01/26 04:02 AM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 12:39 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 01:22 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 02:08 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/26 06:03 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 08:57 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/26 09:01 PM |
standby time | Anon | 2012/01/27 09:32 PM |
standby time | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:15 PM |
standby time | anon | 2012/01/27 02:41 PM |
Reference platform battery life | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 10:09 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 03:23 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 05:19 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:30 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 07:32 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 11:34 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/24 11:56 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 02:07 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Alberto | 2012/01/25 12:54 PM |
Atom HT gain | Wilco | 2012/01/25 05:43 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 06:53 AM |
Atom HT gain | none | 2012/01/25 07:04 AM |
Atom HT gain | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 07:35 AM |
Atom HT gain | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 07:06 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/24 08:21 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/01/24 10:13 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 04:30 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | none | 2012/01/25 06:14 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/25 07:18 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | observer | 2012/01/26 04:17 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | Wilco | 2012/01/26 06:25 AM |
Process numbers | Alberto | 2012/01/26 09:29 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | David Kanter | 2012/02/02 12:38 AM |
Performance analysis laughable | tupper | 2012/01/25 04:27 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Linus Torvalds | 2012/01/25 08:37 PM |
Performance analysis laughable | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 02:12 PM |
Medfield article online | Andreas | 2012/01/25 03:10 AM |
Medfield article online | Alberto | 2012/01/25 09:44 AM |
Medfield article online | IntelUser2000 | 2012/01/25 10:24 AM |
Medfield article online | David Kanter | 2012/01/25 09:58 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/26 01:20 PM |
Medfield article online | Eric | 2012/01/26 06:10 PM |
Medfield article online | Doug Siebert | 2012/01/27 02:40 PM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 09:28 AM |
64-bit | Foo_ | 2012/01/25 10:23 AM |
64-bit | Ingeneer | 2012/01/25 02:34 PM |
64-bit | Ungo | 2012/01/25 04:08 PM |
64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/01/26 12:55 PM |
Saltwell memcpy | SHK | 2012/01/26 02:41 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/26 03:09 AM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | David Kanter | 2012/01/27 05:54 PM |
Medfield WiFi & Bluetooth | Rob Thorpe | 2012/01/28 02:22 PM |
Medfield article online (NT) | Anil | 2012/01/26 05:57 PM |
Medfield article online | Anil | 2012/01/26 06:11 PM |
Medfield article online | Mr. Camel | 2012/01/26 06:26 PM |
Medfield article online | none | 2012/01/27 01:41 AM |