Thu, Sep 18, 2014, 6:27 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Intel Corporation Message Board

theblueredmonk 2328 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 15, 2014 10:41 AM Member since: Aug 14, 2004
  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 15, 2014 10:41 AM Flag

    Ok. Is Apples NFC system worse or better than the alternatives?

    The above is an important question. Depending where you are in the world and on your bank, you could have a chip in you card. It may surprise you, but that chip stores your pin...and you'll need to enter that pin when making a payment or when withdrawing cash. The latest version of this technology needs no pin (for small amounts), you just swipe the card near the receiver and it's done. This swipe technology is being rolled out now. Not a finger print in sight...As you no doubt know, bank card fraud is a big issue but where and how is that system failing?

    As for iCloud's security issues. As I understand it (and could be wrong) there wasn't any fundamental failure (or breach) with iCloud itself, but with people (basically) guessing famous people's passwords and taking advantage of other 'holes' in the process (password resets, auto backups etc). It's impossible to security against stupidity just as it's impossible to secure against payment crime (ie, being forced at gun point to withdraw from a teller).

    Even if it turns out that iCloud was cracked, I really don't see the connection between the two technology sets.

    Are you a rational, alter ego of wallisweaver?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 15, 2014 9:20 AM Flag

    [AE would tell you not to worry about security on the iPhone because it has a really nice processor. ]

    What has AE got to do with this thread? What has Apples CPU got to do with this thread? The NFC is handled by a separate chip.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 15, 2014 9:05 AM Flag

    It did, and I still don't understand. What does a 'guess a password' attack on icloud have anything to do with Apple Pay, especially considering some of the NFC technology being rolled out isn't even "protected" by a pin?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 15, 2014 8:43 AM Flag

    Perhaps I don't understand your concerns but what makes Apple Pay any different from other contactless payment systems that are being rolled out in the world?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 12:28 PM Flag

    No doubt we'll see these cheap Core-M products soon enough, you know, in those $100 tablets:)

    I know what you are saying, but you also know it's more complicated that just the chip/SoC price (ie, the BoM), product/market segmentation and other demands that is imposed on OEM's.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 12:28 PM Flag

    No doubt we'll see these cheap Core-M products soon enough, you know, in those $100 tablets:)

    I know what you are saying, but you also know it's more complicated that just the chip/SoC price (ie, the BoM), product/market segmentation and other demands that is imposed on OEM's.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 10:55 AM Flag

    [You attempt to cherry-pick the details in order to lead the readers to erroneous conclusions. The dynamics of recent developments are clear regardless of whether you understand them or will admit to it.]

    Nope, wrong again. The $20 figure I used is the cost (to Apple) of the A7. The $281 is the tray (1000) list price for Core-M. I know that some high end ARM SoC's go for north of $20 (K1, $25 and the latest QCOM parts), but you've also got a raft of high end and mid range parts closer to $10.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 9:49 AM Flag

    [Yet more of your make it up as you go marketing bs.]

    Nope:

    "It's interesting to note that Intel informed us that the 1k unit pricing will be the same for all three processors: $281"

    From anandtech.

    The ARMy's high end app processors typically sell for under $20.

  • Reply to

    Question about the A8

    by armsuxwang Sep 10, 2014 1:30 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 9:44 AM Flag

    Are you suggesting that Apple are lying?

  • Reply to

    Question about the A8

    by armsuxwang Sep 10, 2014 1:30 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 8:41 AM Flag

    appleDOTcom/iphone-6/technology/

    "Two billion transistors strong. A8 uses an advanced 20-nanometer process. It’s a remarkably small and efficient chip on which two billion transistors deliver incredible performance with up to 50 percent more energy efficiency than the A7 chip."

  • Reply to

    Question about the A8

    by armsuxwang Sep 10, 2014 1:30 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 7:41 AM Flag

    Fascinating, how will TSMC ramp up production of 20nm at a cost Apple will pay? I heard something about the A8 using a Coprocessor. Could this be the other 1 billion?
    --

    Apple were quite clear, the A8 contains 2 billion transistors. Cost wise, I doubt that the A8 will cost Apple that much more than the A7.

  • Reply to

    Mysteries About the Apple A8 SOC

    by wallisweaver Sep 11, 2014 1:54 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 7:36 AM Flag

    Yeah, I agree with your analysis on the CPU front. The GPU alone can't account for that extra 1 billion transistors, so something else is going on. Perhaps other IP blocks, or increases cache sizes?

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 11, 2014 7:32 AM Flag

    Core-M costs 10 times as much as the ARMy:)

  • Reply to

    Question about the A8

    by armsuxwang Sep 10, 2014 1:30 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Sep 10, 2014 4:30 PM Flag

    Apple claim the A8 contains 2 billion transistors and is smaller than the A7 which contained 1 billion. It has to be on 20nm.

  • Reply to

    Samsung ARM benchmarks horrible

    by backbay_bstn Aug 23, 2014 11:47 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 25, 2014 2:39 PM Flag

    [You didn't have anything to say about the horrible Samsung specs?]

    What horrible specs? Are you talking about the 20nm Exynos 5430 SoC? It's just a die shrink of an existing SoC (with an updated A15 and other IP blocks). It'll likely drive the bulk of Samsung's midrange phones for the next year of so.

  • Reply to

    Samsung ARM benchmarks horrible

    by backbay_bstn Aug 23, 2014 11:47 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 25, 2014 12:25 PM Flag

    Ok, I see what you are saying, but it's going to take a long time before white box phones come out that will "embarrass Apple" (the suggestion being that they will be x86 powered phones). Why? iOS is a native, closed garden and extremely optimized for it's own processors. Then look over to Android, and it's a mess in comparison.

    [ I don't think it will be X86. I think it will be some form or RISC that both Intel and Apple hold joint licenses to. I don't think it will be ARM based however.]

    Perhaps I don't understand what you wrote above. Are you suggesting that Apple and Intel come up with a new ISA that breaks compatibility with both x86 and ARM? If so, what's the point in that?

    FYI, Apple (along with others) worked with ARM to come up with the new ARMv8 ISA.

  • Reply to

    Samsung ARM benchmarks horrible

    by backbay_bstn Aug 23, 2014 11:47 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 25, 2014 10:52 AM Flag

    You are missing the point when talking about "processors" and "superior performance".

    It's not about the CPU, it's about the SoC and all the goodies within. If anyone on this board thinks Apple will let Intel design a SoC for them (ie, giving up control on the key part of the iOS ecosystem) then you are living in fairy land.

    Now Intel fabbing for Apple is always a possibility (some would say inevitable) but again, if you think Apple would be willing to give up it's own CPU design (and control) to Intel, then think again. Apple has shown with Swift and Cyclone to very competent. While there is a valid argument in standardizing on one ISA (as has been suggested in this thread), at this point in time there is little reason to go to x86 for iOS.

    Never say never in tech...but a move to x86 is years away, if ever.

  • Reply to

    T100 HDMI output failed

    by twobitlouie Aug 21, 2014 11:15 AM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 21, 2014 11:42 AM Flag

    should have gone ARM - better BoM... *cough*

    Only jesting, take it back to the store and get a new one.

  • theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 18, 2014 8:28 AM Flag

    When I first heard about this, it kind of makes sense but I am not sure now considering how much ARM IP is involved (from zdnet)

    "Finally, ARM and Avago gave a joint presentation on the advantages of ARM’s Cortex CPU cores and CoreLink interconnects for networking. Avago’s Axxia 5500, a line of 28nm communications processors with 16 Cortex A15 CPU cores connected with the CoreLink CCN-504, is designed for cellular base stations and other networking and communications gear. The ARM-based Axxia line was developed by LSI, which Avago acquired in May for $6.6 billion. While it’s interesting that ARM is moving into new areas, the story became even more interesting later in the week when Intel announced it plans to buy the Axxia business for $650 million."

    Ok, you could swap out the A15 cores (for silvermont) but you couldn't just replace the CoreLink interconnect as all the other IP blocks would be hooked up to it. Surely Intel wouldn't want to fab this chip as it stands?

  • Reply to

    OT: Wallisweaver 20nm

    by theblueredmonk Aug 15, 2014 4:13 PM
    theblueredmonk theblueredmonk Aug 16, 2014 4:57 PM Flag

    [Dual boot, baby, dual boot. The best of all possible worlds. And why would you think that Core-M wouldn't be coming to Android?]

    Technically no issue with dual boot, but neither Microsoft nor Google like it. Core-M might be coming to Android, I just haven't seen anything to confirm that either way. Feel free to educate me if you know more.

INTC
35.17+0.19(+0.54%)Sep 18 4:15 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.