Is this based on anything besides conjecture? And even if it is cheaper, the question is how much cheaper. Do you really think Intel is doing all this to set itself up in a line business that it can't make money at?
I'm going to assume they've targeted a price point that is competitive with the ARM community and will still make them some money (after reduction of contra-revenue).
Intels plans are to reach 80M tablets per year.
Meanwhile Apple and Nvidia have been trying to do just the opposite of Intel and focus on having two larger more powerful cores.
Is this based on anything besides conjecture? And even if it is cheaper, the question is how much cheaper.
Do you really think Intel is doing all this to set itself up in a line business that it can't make money at?
I'm going to assume they've targeted a price point that is competitive with the ARM community and will still make them some money (after reduction of contra-revenue).
While Cherry Trail will be an improvement over Bay Trail, I don't believe four small cores will be the answer. Sure, the processor will be good....but I don't think it will be as good as it could have been.
Instead of four small cores, I would have rather seen Intel consolidate Cherry Trail/Braswell and Core based Celeron lines into one SOC SKU with a single fully enabled big core with HT enabled.
Give me that with Core M style power managemnt and AVX/AVX II over four little cores without AVX any day of the week for tablets. Likewise for the 17 watt and 53 watt SKUs, I would much rather have a much higher clocked single big core with HT (and AVX/AVXII) over the current heavily disabled and downclocked 2C/2T arrangement.
Cheap enough for OEMs and ODMs to really be interested in using ATOM SoCs for Tablets. There are Chinese ODMs right now that only take orders for hundreds of thousands of Tablets and dismiss any lesser volume orders. Last year nobody was even been interested in ATOM SoCs for Tablets. When Intel introduced Contra Revenue, suddenly everyone was in the line for those golden SoCs.
That high volume is going to bring 14nm depreciation down faster, also it keeps ARM Tablet market share in check. It also helps Windows and X86 penetration in to ARM Tablet courtyard. They may not be able to gain money directly from ATOM SoCs but they will make money indirectly from it.
As i have said before, i believe Intel will focus on rebates as they are doing with every other Intel product. So, large OEMs and ODMs may still use ATOMs aiming for large rebates at the end of each year(or quarterly).
How does that look from a heat management perspective? Doesn't the higher clock speeds make more heat than the extra cores for the same processing power?
NVIDIA will still make use of smaller Cortex A-series cores in markets such as China that demand "moar cores", even as it pursues using larger and more performant CPU cores.
I think the Chinese mentality is 4 cores are better than 2 cores all things being equal (ie, four Cortex A9s are better than two identically clocked Cortex A9s).
But I am skeptical they would trade two stronger cores for four weaker ones.
Considering how many 8 Core A7 & A53 SOC's have been sold (esp by Mediatek) and are currently expected to be sold in the Chinese market, there is a rather massive amount evidence against your supposition.
I think the Chinese mentality is 4 cores are better than 2 cores all things being equal (ie, four Cortex A9s are better than two identically clocked Cortex A9s).
But I am skeptical they would trade two stronger cores for four weaker ones.
Do you really think Intel is doing all this to set itself up in a line business that it can't make money at?
Cynical side of me says- Intel doesn't need to make a profit from these markets, but Qualcomm, Mediatek etc all do. Intel can support rock bottom SoC prices indefinitely, but Qualcomm can't. Once their competition exits the market or goes bankrupt, they raise their prices again and start making a profit.
No evidence of this, just speculation. And if proven it would obviously break many laws, and I doubt/hope that Intel would not be dumb enough to do that. But it's a possible interpretation.
Cynical side of me says- Intel doesn't need to make a profit from these markets, but Qualcomm, Mediatek etc all do. Intel can support rock bottom SoC prices indefinitely, but Qualcomm can't. Once their competition exits the market or goes bankrupt, they raise their prices again and start making a profit.
Intel's modems should kick Qualcomm's ass, once they finally get ported to 14nm.Qualcomm with its modem monopoly isnt in any danger.
Intel does have pretty good volume, though. They've got something like 5% of the tablet market, and Qualcomm's around, what, 30%? They're not doing half bad.Volume is the key for low prices. R&D is the same nomatter if you sell 1 or 100 million chips.
OEMs and companies worldwide started using ATOM SOCs not because they are faster or for anything else but ONLY because both SOC + BOM was cheaper than ARM SOCs. In 2013 Intel only sold 1M of ATOM SoCs for Tablets. In 2014 they will sell more than 40M because OEMs and everyone else gets the SOC + BOM + technical advice almost for free.
And next year Intels plans are to reach 80M Tablets and that without Contra Revenue, i dont see how they will manage this with Cherry Trail on a very expensive 14nm.
But there is the rebate strategy as well, OEM will get a rebate next year if it will buy certain number of SOCs. So even without Contra Revenue for 2015, they can lure OEMs in to using Cherry Trail and aim for rebates for 2016 and so on.
x86 is hands-down better than ARM. I can run more software and better software. Its more than just cost.
An ARM tablet is a novelty. A x86 tablet I can do 'real' things on.
Honestly if they wanted to make money in the mobile space they should just buy a license for ARM and make their own custom chip.
The OEM's avoid proprietary solutions though. This is Intels big issue in the Android business. Intel must be much better or much cheaper to succeed.That just makes them another player in a commodity market. That's not where you make money.
The real money is in proprietary designs.
They've got "better" down. Cost will come with time.The OEM's avoid proprietary solutions though. This is Intels big issue in the Android business. Intel must be much better or much cheaper to succeed.
There's not a chance in hell that Intel would be allowed to purchase ARM, even with governments being as corrupt as they are now.You can still make a lot of money in a commodity market if you've got a premium product. Apple, for example makes an embarrassingly large amount of money with their phones. Intel could dominate the ARM market just as well as they can the x86 market and when you have the premium product, you don't need to race to the bottom.
If Intel could make an ARM SoC that beats everything else, they can charge more for it. They've been trying to push x86 on the mobile market and there hasn't been a lot of success in doing so.
The only difference between using ARM and x86 is that they have to pay for a license to use ARM. Is the cost of that really so much that they're willing to bleed billions to try to push an x86 solution?
Right now ARM Holdings has a market cap of ~$19 billion. It probably makes more sense for Intel to buy the company out, because at the current rate they would lose as much money over 5 years with their strategy.
I think it just comes down to stubbornness and pride.