Replies to post #142667 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[chipguy]

As to the subject he brought up it does not matter if Atom is not the absolute performance leader in mobility

Can anyone point to an non-Apple ARM processor that beats Atom in
CPU performance?

If Atom's problem was lack of performance it should being doing worse
in tablets than in phones because the former has higher performance
requirements. The exact opposite is true. In fact the performance of
Atom is fine for tablets. In phones Atom is behind in the integration of
RF and system level features.

Atom is doing about as well in phones as ARM is doing in servers and PCs.
Atom is doing far better in tablets than ARM is doing in servers and PCs.
So who is behind in their new market penetration agenda?

[Koog]

AE sells gas by the MCF.

[This Causes an Error]

mas

Another inane AE idea after which android x86 software development ceases totally cutting off Intel from non-Windows mobile devices probably forever.

The article clearly says that SoCs using ARM licensed cores would be used to service the Android phone/tablet market. It also goes on to say that Atom could still be used in low-cost Windows PCs/convertible devices.

In what way would this serve to cut Intel off from non-Windows mobile devices "probably forever?" ARM compatibility on Android, especially in high performance native applications, is still superior to x86 compatibility (although Intel has seemingly done a good job of trying to tackle such compatibility issues).

As to the subject he brought up it does not matter if Atom is not the absolute performance leader in mobility it just has to be competitive in performance/price and performance/power and it is in both cases.

You are not making sense here. The performance/price is a function of both performance and price. Atom CPU cores are not smaller than competing ARM cores, even when Atom has a process advantage, so the Atom CPU cores are not inherently "cheaper."

Given that you are OK with Intel conceding performance, the implication here is that Intel should undercut it competition in the ARM space on price, sacrificing gross margin dollars. Although I would agree that Intel has a structural cost advantage because it owns its own fabs and has the scale to keep them full, moving to higher performance ARM cores that take roughly the same die space would in this case only serve to enhance the "performance" portion of the performance/price equation -- allowing it to maximize its revenue/profit per chip.

In terms of performance/watt, A57 has proven itself to fit nicely into a mobile power envelope while offering better performance than Silvermont on both Samsung 20nm and Samsung 14nm. MediaTek is also planning an A72-based SoC on TSMC 20nm. I suspect it will be fine as well, since the Snapdragon 810 "overheating" issues with its A57 implementation were probably Qualcomm-specific (since the S810 honestly seemed like a panicked reaction to the Apple A7) rather than any issue with the process.