[Sure gamers will always want a discrete video card but the point is that overall those who need a discrete video card are less and less. Bump for Intel. ]
Ok, I buy that. Although I don't understand why this would be a bump for Intel?
Today it takes a $340 Nvidia 970, 980 card or better to deliver 4K video over HDMI at 60Hz with a 4:4:4 color space. Only a year ago when these cards were introduced they were considered a breakthrough in price/performance. If Skylake can deliver video with the same specifications using built-in graphics for DP or HDMI there will be a boatload of pain to go around at Nvidia. AMD/ATI hasn't even been a contender. Filmmakers and videogarphers may still need their discrete card but the masses can probably do quite well with the built-in capability.
I'm not sure I understand your point here? There is a differences between the resolution supported by a video card (4K or not) and the general performance of the GPU in question. Those 980 cards pack some GPU punch.
Perofrmance of annapurna alpine al 5140 arm server is abysmal.
No, it's not just abysmal, it's shockingly bad. But you are missing the point. These chips are not about CPU, they are about IO. Once an IO lane is saturated, CPU means nothing. It's the IO processing bandwidth that made Amazon buy them. That cold server storage example I gave is exactly the kind of workload that amazon will use these SoC's for.
And the big Cavium is all hot-air
I asked about failures. Both Cavium and AMCC are shipping product and it's still very early days for those guys. Once they abandon their attempts, we can say they failed.
Annaprurna has nothing shipping yet. This is a Israeli start-up, work in progress.
Yes it has... throw the following string into google
We have been hearing this since last 4 years.
Failures: Calxeda (Bankrupt) , AMCC and many more
It's true that Calxeda when Bankrupt but AMCC is very much alive. Who are the other failures?
This start-up that amazon bought, it has SoC's in shipping products.
like Calxeda, AMCC, etc ?
:) AMCC seemed to be doing better than expected with their SoC, given it's poor performance watt numbers.
[Key word potentially. This is your great white hope for ARM servers? Ha. Nobody seems excited about it.
Googling, aws arm annapurna yields a mere 84 results. Meh.]
If the ARMy make any in roads into the data centre it'll come from many different product lines, not a single "great hope".
In this case the purchase shows that Amazon is working on their own silicon. It wouldn't replace Intel in the compute space (ec2) but perhaps other AWS services (cloudfront, s3, glacier etc).
Although MS can create a unique Windows look to a ARM-based Windows interface, there's not much MS can offer in features with that chip that can't be replicated by its competitors. Certainly the example above can be replicated.
Yes, it can be replicated once the hardware supports it (ie, the GPU). At the moment there is no difference between a Windows 10 Mobile running ARM or x86. They function the same, they look the same, they run the same software.
For meaningful smartphone differentiation MS needs x86. I believe some of the features being discussed today are a first step towards a larger end game.
It comes down to MS and if they see the light.
AWS Distinguished Engineer James Hamilton says Intel is outpacing ARM chip makers in processor development.
Chip makers that leverage ARM's architecture are falling behind Intel's rate of innovation of processors for servers, according to an executive with Amazon Web Services
Fancy explaining why Amazon bought an ARM based server/network start up? For fun?:)
It's not going to be a problem to connect a smartphone to an available monitor, keyboard and mouse. Or you could just transfer the relevant files. Or you get them out of the cloud. But the point is that they will all work the same within a consistent infrastructure.
Technically you are correct, but this isn't the usage model that MS is talking about (using QCOM's chip). They are talking about driving two displays with different content at the same time. They had an example (which is stupid imho) where the phone was playing a movie on a large screen (for the kids), while the owner of the phone was browsing the net, and then took a call. The playing movie wasn't interrupted.
As simply as data centers vs smartphones. Which one is a growth engine and which one is slowing down?
Lucky for ARM that they are getting into Amazon AWS eh?
According to MS's announcements there is a key difference though. MS will make an x86 smartphone and it will run a version of Windows. It may be a 32 bit or 64 bit kernel but what's important is the x86 kernel. If they do that it is a relatively easy task to run full Windows 10 as a guest VM in a suitably configured device when docked. So in essence it could be a dual OS device but they'd share the same 32 or 64 bit kernel.
FYI, the Windows 'phone' 10 environment (like RT) is locked down (regardless of ISA), so unless MS formally support the VM software (via the store), you wouldn't be able to do this.
The problem is that fewer high cost smartphones will be shipped in subsequent years. What happened to pc's will happen to smartphones. TSMCs revenue will decrease accordingly unless they reduce expenses. Like Intel to some extent.
True, but you have to look where the costs actually are. As a percentage, more of the costs of a low end phone is taken up by it's main SoC than with high end phones (where the screen and other components dominate, such as the various RAM's). In short, the deference between the potential revenue 'lost' for TSMC when someone switches from a highend phone to a mid range one isn't as big as you would think.
Now, if someone doesn't buy the phone at all, well that's a different thing:)
I knew you would continue to argue.. But just partial numbers are fake. 1.4B smartphones don't say anything. without the breakup of flagship phones vs $39.99 phones. The BoM prices is complete bogus guess work, as Samsung does not publish its prices.
Anyway enough of this nonsense.
I am not arguing, I am answering your question(s). I know you don't like any formal numbers from anywhere, but having them is always better than making things up (even if you disagree with them).
If you spend 30 seconds in google, you'de find the breakdowns of those 1.4B smart phones. If you don't like IDC's numbers, use Gartner, and if you don't like them, use the financial numbers reported by Apple, Samsung, QCOM, etc. Even the cheapest $10 feature phone still needs silicon.
As for the BoM breakdowns, it's not guess work, again, if you read the articles you know why as they often cite their methodologies (fyi Samsung does sell it's SoC's and chips to third parties, so there are price lists, albeit no public ones). Even with TSMC and Apple, these firms (IDC etc) have ways to work out decent numbers. I will concede they aren't 100%, but they are better than random figures.
To add another data point, ARM (the company) earned royalty on 3.4 billion chips shipped in Q1. True, a good chunk of those will be on old nodes with ASP's closer to $1 than $10, but it gives you an idea of the number of chips involved and the longevity (the tail) of some of these nodes (ie, these fabs are amortized over a longer time frame than with Intel).
It's up to you, you can bust that ignorance is bliss bubble that is surrounding you, or continue to behave like a troll:)
Whatever dude.. I am not going to argue with you with fake numbers.
I assume you are talking about your own numbers? Mine are based on facts.
"IDC expects 1.4 billion smartphones to be shipped worldwide in 2015"
"IHS BoM for galaxy-s6-edge" $29.50 for App processor, $15.00 for baseband.
A couple of billion? you got to be kidding.. LOL. Maybe 400M flagship phones annually. That's it.
And that's revenue, not profits.
TSMC will bite the dust. That much is for sure.
A few facts for you:
Most 'flagships' have two main SoC's. The App processor and baseband. Both sell to the OEM at over $10 (TSMC charges Apple $30 for the App processor, depending on who you listen to).
Over a billion smartphones will be shipped in 2015 (again, depending on who you listen to).
So using your 400M number for flagship phones, that's 800 Million in a year. Over two years, that's 1.6 billion SoCs. Then we add in the mid range (the $10 SoC's), and the low end (sub $5 SoC's) and you should be getting the picture.