Phynaz
Lifer
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
Intel cannot maintain their margins while competing in mobile. It's just not possible.
Margin is a function of volume.
How else do you think Qualcomm does it?
Intel cannot maintain their margins while competing in mobile. It's just not possible.
My argument would be simply, Intel has never faced the kind of competition they are trying to usurp. Whatever money Intel can throw around, Qualcomm can double it.
Qualcomm is firmly entrenched. I don't believe the onus is on me to prove Intel will fail - I do believe they are failing however and their lack of traction in mobile is all the proof I personally need. The onus is on Intel to prove they are capable of breaking the mobile market, something they are currently as far away from as they've ever been.
Even if the ARM crowd can take just 20% of Intel's server market, the damage will be huge. The ARM guys can afford to lose some tablet and even some amount of phone share to Intel, but Intel can't afford to lose server share to the ARM crowd.
AMD wasnt the first with an integrated memory controller. They wasnt even close by decades.
AMD wasnt the first with SOI either, it was IBM.
AMD wasnt the first with a native quadcore either. They was atleast a couple of years late there.
You sure like hypes.
We are talking x86
Which would still make you wrong about the memory controller.
Intel's 386SL was the first x86 CPU with an integrated memory controller.
What could have helped BT - and to a smaller degree Temash - to get off the shelves was success for win8. But its a failure. Both on desktop and tablets. Its a bad os. The user dont want it even for free.
Not a problem. You can experience Bay Trail in Android flavors and win8/android hybrids.
SOI...They were "first"(and only) to a manufacturing technology that everyone - including themselves - is abandoning. It actually makes Intel look smart for not going SOI.
SOI...They were "first"(and only) to a manufacturing technology that everyone - including themselves - is abandoning. It actually makes Intel look smart for not going SOI.
Technology for technologies' sake isn't a win.
AMD was first to use SOI in x86, it gave them a complete technological advantage over Intel.
They give it up because after 20nm they will use Fin-Fets(no use of SOI needed)...
There's no denying AMD bundled together a lot of great ideas, even if they weren't there own, into making the most of the 130-90-65nm progression. (not so much the 65nm, but at least the start anyways).
What "complete technological advantage" would that be, please?
And if they have that advantage, why have they not been able to develop any chips to exploit it?
So you rolled your eyes at Intel developing Fin-FET technology instead of SOI, but AMD abandoning SOI for Fin-FET is somehow a good thing?
What did they bundle here? They had no process node research, it was acquired from IBM and Motorola. More important, who would have sold them a non-SOI node if they wanted? Was SOI AMD's choice or was the only thing available on the market for purchasing? Maybe TI?
You can have SOI or non SOI for every process. You can even have SOI with Fin-Fets. AMD Chose to go with SOI at the time because it gave them an advantage. But they didnt continue to pursue that process advantage with FD-SOI later on, so PD-SOI at 45nm and beyond was not that impressive, giving them less and less on each node.
Funfact: Intel's finFETs are FD. Not sure if you knew that.
yes i know that, it is one of the reasons why AMD will not use SOI after 20nm.
What did they bundle here? They had no process node research, it was acquired from IBM and Motorola. More important, who would have sold them a non-SOI node if they wanted? Was SOI AMD's choice or was the only thing available on the market for purchasing? Maybe TI?