By: Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com), February 2, 2013 7:50 pm
Room: Moderated Discussions
Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxxx.xx) on February 2, 2013 7:25 pm wrote:
> Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 2, 2013 6:55 pm wrote:
> > Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxxx.xx) on February 2, 2013 6:31 pm wrote:
> >
> > > Intel's margins in the x86 business because they manage to deliver a win-win: better products
> > > (performance, power) with lower production costs (area, yield) than the competition.
> >
> > Intel's competition in x86 has been constrained by the patent and licensing
> > issues around the various versions of the x86 ISA. In practice, AMD has been
> > the only plausible high-volume competitor, and when they briefly had better
> > designs - even with inferior manufacturing - Intel lost share. The more
> > open - and cheap - licensing of ARM IP allows many more competitors.
>
> But when Intel straightened out it's stuff, their product was just head and shoulders above AMDs.
Yes. I had two points a) the high margins Intel makes in the x86 business are
not just a result of technical superiority, but also IP-restricted competition
b) in the ARM-based SoC market Intel would not just have one plausible competitor,
but several, and being "head and shoulders" above all of them would be much
harder than beating AMD - it would be rare for all to screw up at the same time.
> And when they get that combination right, their products are damn better than the competition.
Yes. But the example of AMD shows that a competitor even with far fewer resources
and inferior manufacturing can produce better products from time to time
(K8, Bobcat) by good design. Add more competitors, and the times when you beat
everybody will not be so common.
> Intel has a lot of R&D to do, a lot of blocks do design to get this right.
> Not only they need a suitable CPU core, but also a suitable GPU core, memory controller, I/O, baseband, etc.
> These blocks need to have the right balance between size,
> power, features and performance for the target market.
> Intel had nothing suitable in the stable and, unlike the foundry based eco-system,
> they can't just go out and buy some IP and quickly port it to their process.
Indeed. Which is a lot of opportunities to get it wrong, and thus a considerable
risk.
> Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 2, 2013 6:55 pm wrote:
> > Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxxx.xx) on February 2, 2013 6:31 pm wrote:
> >
> > > Intel's margins in the x86 business because they manage to deliver a win-win: better products
> > > (performance, power) with lower production costs (area, yield) than the competition.
> >
> > Intel's competition in x86 has been constrained by the patent and licensing
> > issues around the various versions of the x86 ISA. In practice, AMD has been
> > the only plausible high-volume competitor, and when they briefly had better
> > designs - even with inferior manufacturing - Intel lost share. The more
> > open - and cheap - licensing of ARM IP allows many more competitors.
>
> But when Intel straightened out it's stuff, their product was just head and shoulders above AMDs.
Yes. I had two points a) the high margins Intel makes in the x86 business are
not just a result of technical superiority, but also IP-restricted competition
b) in the ARM-based SoC market Intel would not just have one plausible competitor,
but several, and being "head and shoulders" above all of them would be much
harder than beating AMD - it would be rare for all to screw up at the same time.
> And when they get that combination right, their products are damn better than the competition.
Yes. But the example of AMD shows that a competitor even with far fewer resources
and inferior manufacturing can produce better products from time to time
(K8, Bobcat) by good design. Add more competitors, and the times when you beat
everybody will not be so common.
> Intel has a lot of R&D to do, a lot of blocks do design to get this right.
> Not only they need a suitable CPU core, but also a suitable GPU core, memory controller, I/O, baseband, etc.
> These blocks need to have the right balance between size,
> power, features and performance for the target market.
> Intel had nothing suitable in the stable and, unlike the foundry based eco-system,
> they can't just go out and buy some IP and quickly port it to their process.
Indeed. Which is a lot of opportunities to get it wrong, and thus a considerable
risk.
