Should you listen to Wallisweaver, Marsavian, Semi-conductor guy or Alexander D.?
RE: Big.Little by Ananke on Friday, January 04, 2013
They can't compete on pricing with x86 vs ARM. I'm in the business, I know. Intel has absolutely competitive process facilities. If they were strictly making chips, nobody can beat them. If they license the design and make chips - nobody can beat them either. However, coupling the own design R&D expenses with own production, and their cost is higher. Products might be better, but cost is higher.
On the marketing side, only price matters today. You may think performance is important, but in reality it defines 1% of the decision of 1% of the market....
Hence, the trend towards ARM designs. That trend was not accidental, it is structural, and I see no reason it will turn around.
It is the reason why AMD is performing so poorly, just Intel is much larger and owns its fabs, it takes longer to become obvious they will have revenue problems.
We will find out more on Monday at 1pm PT @ CES2013 Intel event.
I think the event will be webcast. It was last year. That is one reason for flurry of bashing during the last couple days. The AnandTech article was eye-opening for many.
"They can't compete on pricing with x86 vs ARM. I'm in the business, I know."
If you are in the business then you know that your statement is not exactly accurate. Intel can compete on pricing. They chose to compete on value. There goal is to pile up the transistors on the chip and to create value for the customers. They will do that by putting more on the single chip, tightly control power, performance and then set pricing based on value.
"If they were strictly making chips, ..."
When the CPU, SoC or ... is in the final machine on the retailer's shelf, each CPU in that sysem has undergone ALL the same phases. People just confuse who the competitors are and fail to consider all the costs. They assign the cost of the ARM CPU out the foundry as the "cost of the CPU". There is additional engineering overhead that is part of that CPU beyond what the foundary charges. Intel customers will not have to staff those engineers (like QCOM, NVDA, ...) and can use the off the shelf parts. You have to be careful when assigning cost and price pressures.
"However, coupling the own design R&D expenses with own production, and their cost is higher. Products might be better, but cost is higher."
The Intel cost may or may not be higher. You do not know the Intel cost, nor do I suspect that you know the actual other company costs. Even if you are "part of the business" you can only estimate these things.
"You may think performance is important, but in reality it defines 1% of the decision of 1% of the market...."
1% of 1% is your guess. Right?
My guess on decision elements .... not in any particular order except #1:
1. vendor (is it an Apple, Samsung, ....) of product that can basically do the job.
2. price ("cost" to them but not the "cost" to build the device) ... most won't buy if they can't afford (except maybe the guys)
3. is the product in front of me available. They won't buy a product that is not available 8-) and many won't wait for the back order to be filled
4. battery life ... makes a difference if say 50% different
The reason that AMD is performing so poorly is that they misfired on several product designs. Big time.
Unlike all the ARM foundries all the FABS that are producing Medfield/Clovertrail 32nm wafers would have been paid for by 32nm Sandy Bridge. All the 22nm FABS that will porduce BayTrail would have been paid for by Ivy Bridhge and Haswell. I can't think of a more cheaper way to get a leading edge wafer and as ARM is at least one generation behind prcoess wise what Intel is using on its mobile prioducts is leading edge for ARM vendotrs ;-).
'You may think performance is important'
LOL, yeah customers are willing to give Intel billions of profits on their PC chips when there are much cheaper AMD/VIA alternatives because they are feeling charitable and not because they are willing to pay through the nose for the ultimate performance ;-). It would have been best if you hadn't had posted this clown's thoughts as he is probably the funniest of all of them ;-).
Yes, but... by jemima puddle-duck on Friday, January 04, 2013
Impressive though all this engineering is, in the real world what is the unique selling point for this? Normal people (not solipsistic geeks) don't care what's inside their phone, and the promise of their new phone being slighty faster than another phone is irrelevant. And for manufacturers, why ditch decades of ARM knowledge to lock yourself into one supplier. The only differentiator is cost, and I don't see Intel undercutting ARM any time soon.
The only metric that matters is whether normal human beings get any value from it. This just seems like (indirect) marketing by Intel for a chip that has no raison d'etre. I'm hearing lots of "What" here, but no "Why". This is the analysis I'm interested in.