By: anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com), January 31, 2013 4:59 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on January 31, 2013 1:36 pm wrote:
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 31, 2013 12:47 pm wrote:
> > Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on January 31, 2013 12:25 pm wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 31, 2013 6:45 am wrote:
> > > > By designing and manufacturing ARM cores?
> > > >
> > > > This is surely what they are going to do if the market revenue
> > > > gets large enough, and they fail to compete with x86.
> > >
> > > I don't doubt that Intel could design excellent ARM cores. However, I don't
> > > believe that they could design ARM cores with sufficient advantage over the
> > > competitors to command the high margins they get on many of their x86 cpu's.
> > > So that wouldn't give them enough profit to keep making the investments
> > > in fabs and R&D needed to stay far ahead.
> > >
> >
> > Why not? If they already have manufacturing advantage, and they take ARM market share,
> > ARM competitors now have less money to threaten Intel's lead. And they still have x86.
>
> Because Qualcomm/Samsung/Nvidia etc already have ARM parts that are very good,
> targeting smartphone/tablets with total system price of $100-400, and even if
> Intel produced a part that was 2x faster, or used 2x less power, that would not be
> a sufficiently compelling advantage to persuade a large fraction of the market
> to spend a lot more money on a smartphone or tablet
Not a lot more money, the same money. Look, it is you that speculates the revenue and profit margins of ARM market will become enough to support superior CPU design than Intel. If Intel take a significant chunk of that exact market, it is more for them and less for others.
> (especially since the "premium"
> smartphone/tablet market is already occupied by Apple, which has its own cores
> and chips).
Well that all sounds pretty implausible. Apple only "occupies" premium tablet market. Smartphone is much more competitive. And the situation is not likely to stay the same on the timescale you are talking about (5-8 years).
> anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 31, 2013 12:47 pm wrote:
> > Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on January 31, 2013 12:25 pm wrote:
> > > anon (anon.delete@this.anon.com) on January 31, 2013 6:45 am wrote:
> > > > By designing and manufacturing ARM cores?
> > > >
> > > > This is surely what they are going to do if the market revenue
> > > > gets large enough, and they fail to compete with x86.
> > >
> > > I don't doubt that Intel could design excellent ARM cores. However, I don't
> > > believe that they could design ARM cores with sufficient advantage over the
> > > competitors to command the high margins they get on many of their x86 cpu's.
> > > So that wouldn't give them enough profit to keep making the investments
> > > in fabs and R&D needed to stay far ahead.
> > >
> >
> > Why not? If they already have manufacturing advantage, and they take ARM market share,
> > ARM competitors now have less money to threaten Intel's lead. And they still have x86.
>
> Because Qualcomm/Samsung/Nvidia etc already have ARM parts that are very good,
> targeting smartphone/tablets with total system price of $100-400, and even if
> Intel produced a part that was 2x faster, or used 2x less power, that would not be
> a sufficiently compelling advantage to persuade a large fraction of the market
> to spend a lot more money on a smartphone or tablet
Not a lot more money, the same money. Look, it is you that speculates the revenue and profit margins of ARM market will become enough to support superior CPU design than Intel. If Intel take a significant chunk of that exact market, it is more for them and less for others.
> (especially since the "premium"
> smartphone/tablet market is already occupied by Apple, which has its own cores
> and chips).
Well that all sounds pretty implausible. Apple only "occupies" premium tablet market. Smartphone is much more competitive. And the situation is not likely to stay the same on the timescale you are talking about (5-8 years).
