Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on September 23, 2013 4:27 pm wrote:
> Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on September 23, 2013 12:03 pm wrote:
> > Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on September 23, 2013 10:03 am wrote:
> > > someone (someone.delete@this.somewhere.com) on September 23, 2013 9:43 am wrote:
> > > > jose (1.delete@this.2.com) on September 23, 2013 4:43 am wrote:
> > > > > A while ago Charlie Demerjian was almost eaten alive when he stated that
> > > > > Apple wanted/was planning to migrate to ARM for their laptop/desktop products.
> > > > > Is it a coincidence that Apple is the first one with an ARM64 chip?
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > >
> > > > > Jose
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The latest Macbook air with Haswell's single thread performance and multithread
> > > > throughput measured with Geekbench 3 (sigh) are both more than double that of
> > > > an A7 running 64b and triple A7 running 32b.
> > > >
> > > > Apple has a *long* way to go before it can replace Intel in its Macs without a huge
> > > > drop in performance.
> > >
> > >
> > > That doesn't suggest Apple has all that far to go. If they can get nearly 50% of Haswell's performance
> > > on a 2 watt power budget, surely given Haswell's power budget they could design something to if not match
> > > it, come close enough that it doesn't matter. I wonder how it compares on the graphics side?
> > >
> > > [...] Certainly whatever chance there is of having Intel fab their SoCs would be gone.
> >
> > The situation with Intel depends on how Intel views itself.
> > IF they view themselves as first and foremost an x86 shop then, yes,
> > this is treachery of the highest order, death to Apple, blah blah.
> > BUT if Intel view themselves primarily as the best fab on earth, which just happens to be attached
> > to an x86 design team, then the situation is different. In that case, the crown jewels are the
> > fab, not the x86, and keeping the fab alive by partnering with Apple is what matters,
> >
>
> Intel views itself not as x86 shop foremost and not as the best fab on earth foremost.
> Intel views itself as a company that gets the fattest margin on every mm^2 of the silicon they make.
> Fabbing in-house-designed high-performance x86 CPUs just happens
> to be the best way, known to Intel, to get the margin they like.
> Fabbing Applle-design SoCs is not a good way to get here.

I'd absolutely agree. BUT that only works if the world is willing to continue paying Intel's prices for x86's. I'm not convinced that is the case --- that was my point.
We're not talking a collapse of the Intel money machine next year. But 10 yrs from now I could see a very different competitive landscape.