biomanbabasbiowave

[biomanbaba]

Oh yeah?

They have to firm up this niche before running to $40/share.

I think they already have FIRMED IT UP

from this:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1447081-structural-change-in-the-mobile-processor-marketplace-intel-wins-arm-amd-lose

How is an investor to evaluate the rhetoric and determine the financial outcome of this battle of words?

My position as a technical expert allows me to evaluate the true capabilities of ARM/TSMC (really ARM/ anybody_who_can_build_ARM_processors) vs. Intel - with AMD nipping at everyone's tail, when it comes to mobility applications. I am about to do that in a way that should settle this hassle for the near future.

Without further ado, I can state with certainty that the new mobile oriented processors coming from Intel later this year will capture the processor space for the leading smartphones and tablets.

There are two fundamental, related, reasons for this:

These processors are faster than anything that ARM/TSMC (or AMD) can offer at the same level of power consumption.
Their power consumption at the same level of performance is much less than anything ARM/TSMC (or AMD) can offer.
You have heard all this before, but many of you don't believe this and are still arguing that moving to 28 nanometer or 20nm (still planar) will save ARM from the Intel bomb. Well, that's just wrong! Read on!

These two statements, above, are corollaries to laws of physics relating to silicon FET-based integrated circuits. In current technologies - 32 nanometer and smaller - constructed in a planar (TSMC) fashion, the predominant use of energy occurs as a result of leakage in inactive FETs. The FETs leak because they are running at low voltage, and in order to do that, they must have low threshold voltages. When you construct a FET with low threshold voltage in a planar technology, you can't completely turn it off. So it leaks.

When you construct a FET for the same use in a 3D or "finFET" technology, the gate (the valve that controls the flow of charge carriers) has much more effective control and is more nearly able to completely extinguish the leakage current in the inactive FETs. Voila, the battery charge lasts longer. And because the gate length is shorter, the FET uses less energy for each transition from one state to another. So you can squeeze more transitions from a given amount of stored energy in the battery, i.e. it runs faster.

It's the laws of physics that controls the winner in the processor race for mobile applications, and Intel has already won this race. Anyone who disagrees is in denial, has some ulterior motive, or is just dense.

What all this means is that whoever builds phones or tablets using Intel processors can make them run faster and run longer on a given battery than by using an ARM (or AMD) processor.

This argument cuts off the other arguments about market share, design wins, better architecture and other objections by the Intel opponents.

Market share is a measure of the past. What was, not what is. What is, is that the 22nm finFET is a better transistor and it makes for a better processor. If you want the best processor in your next phone/tablet/mobility_device, it had better be an Intel processor.

Architecture is an abstract thing; the "goodness" of an architecture can only be measured by objective effects. How quickly can I do something? How long will the battery charge last? Intel wins again, by actual comparison in Motorola phones!