Richard Cownie (tich.delete@this.pobox.com) on February 2, 2013 7:04 pm wrote:
> Ricardo B (ricardo.b.delete@this.xxxxxx.xx) on February 2, 2013 6:48 pm wrote:
>
> > Ivy Bridge is 22 nm, Medfield is 32 nm.
> > Squeeze Medfield to 22nm and it'll be some ~45 mm², which would
> > bring the target ASP to 45*0.64 = $28.8, using your methodology.
>
> Yes. Which is still much too high to compete against current ARM-based
> chips, at $17-21.
> And the ARM-based chips are going to shrink as well
> (albeit maybe not as quickly as Intel)

And x86 simply may not be able to compete in this space. But if it is a profitable market to manufacture for, that will not stop Intel because they have other options.

>
> > And there's a bunch of factors.
> > On one hand, Intel may be able to command a higher price than NVIDIA, if they deliver a better product.
> >
> > On the other hand, a 45 mm² Medfield will have better yields
> > than a 94 mm² Ivy Bridge and thus lower cost/mm².
>
> Yields for both should be very high. They're also making much bigger
> quad-cores (~ 160mm2) and server chips, presumably at decent yield.
>
> > Finally, what Intel really needs to stay relevant is enough revenue to sustain their massive R&D costs. In
> > they have to get it more from volume and less from margins, they still have a working business model.
> > The need for margins like their current x86 margins is not an absolute.
>
> Not just revenue, but gross profit. Selling 100M Medfields at 0% margin wouldn't
> help ... selling 100M Medfields with $2 margin on each wouldn't help much.

Ah, you've cottoned on to high revenue and high gross profit, finally.