Replies to post #116794 on Intel Corp (INTC)

[Saturn V]

Your Quote : "i totally agree. Atom is coming.....since 2007. Still less than 1% of sales for Intel."

You seem to have forgotten that the Atom objective was to take on AMD in the "good enough computing" in the PC space. It achieved that objective. It is still good enough that the 2007 design with a few tweaks outperforms ARM. Now it is being redesigned to focus on ARMs markets.

If you think that ARM and its partners will decimate Intel, go ahead and put your money in those companies, and short Intel.

[chipguy]

Those three all have bigger market caps, more cash and alot more innovation than Intel. Maybe the shoe is on the other foot.

IBM makes processors. IBM's sales are ~$100B a year, roughly triple
Intel's.

I guess you think that makes IBM the dominant player in processors?

[wbmw]

But have you seen the spec of Intel's BayTrail chip coming out in six months. Quad core, multi-threaded, 22nm FinFet, IvyBridge graphics. Looks alot like a core ULV chip to me, only its going to cost $20. Atom needed a huge upgrade to stay in-line with ARM's roadmap. That's Baytrail.

And what do you think it costs the other guys to put 4 Cortex-A15 and 4 Cortex-A7 processors on an SOC, along with enormous areas dedicated to graphics, ISP, and sudden inclusion of USB3.0, PCI-Express, wide memory interfaces, etc.

Is there an ARM cost myth now, in addition to the ARM power myth?

When you say ARM is the new AMD. What ARM chipmaker are you talking about. Apple? Samsung? Qualcomm?

I did not say that ARM is the new AMD. I asked why you think ARM can beat Intel in the PC space, when AMD had better performance and just as aggressive pricing, and yet failed to do it time after time?

Those three all have bigger market caps, more cash and alot more innovation than Intel. Maybe the shoe is on the other foot.

Oh brother... so you think AMD's problem in the processor space was that they didn't fund it well enough? The processor R&D was just about the ONLY thing that AMD funded, after chopping off everything else, just to get lean enough to survive the microprocessor fight with Intel.

AMD failed because they couldn't keep up in all the things that Intel did well - which included their process leadership, Si/process codesign, software compiler optimization, chipset and board business, OEM relationships, channel expertise, and the list goes on....

The reason Intel has had a tough time penetrating the phone and tablet business is for some of the same reasons - but it's also fair to say they didn't have a strong product until recently. Qualcomm and Samsung neither have a strong product for competing in PCs, nor the expertise and relationships to start gaining share in the PC space. And nor do they have the software legacy support, which is a big part of what it will take to make major inroads.