Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Mobile: Intel Will Overtake Qualcomm In Three Years

Last response: in Reviews comments
Share
January 18, 2012 5:52:08 AM

Intel Will Overtake Qualcomm In Three Years, If Qualcomm sits on hiz balls and do noothing.
Score
14
January 18, 2012 6:27:24 AM

Quote:
Three years ago, Internet Explorer was the industry’s dominant Web browser. Today, Google Chrome is in the lead.

Really?
Putting this sentence aside, its an interesting article.
Score
8
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 18, 2012 6:56:05 AM

There seems to be a lot of speculation in the article and some assumptions that people apparently only buy what is to be considered the best technology? For one, if intel has the stigma of not having the ability to manage the power threshold, how hard are they going to have to fight to change that for consumers to buy their product? How well is windows phone doing to fight their stigmas? Secondly, the markets where the phones are sold are important and I have seen other articles break them down more regionally. I have read, and may be wrong, that the initial medfield phones are motorola and lenovo designs for Chinese consumers. If this is the limited market for adoption, they may sell volume, but it might not be a global volume. Another thing is how low is intel to go for return on their price for chips verses, will it be more cost effective for them to really ramp up on the cloud/platform support side for all of these new devices to come online. This may provide more ROI and atoms might not be worth the cost and marketing effort. I honestly think they have a problem as hardware becomes good enough for a decent experience and software needing less processing power, intels X86 processes are less useful for the everyday user and the added cost to a chip. I don't think that it is due to their inability to create a great product, but the need for them to be there if the margins are small and there is no significant performance/experience advantages (I could see them benefit in tablets, but not as much as phones...but that could be my bias...), they might not pay a premium if they expect that. I think as devices become more convergent, there is a desire for any large company to enter into that field and hope to get a piece, but it really may be an ill fit for the company at large.

Finally, I would say I did not like these global claims that intel has never failed in fab as I think they have been delayed for a bit on their last process or always demonstrated great platforms (since the original atoms I would not consider great to use for running windows...). I like intel and own their stock so I hope they do well, but I think they face more of an uphill battle that you see. I don't think that people did not think they would come into the market at a somewhat competitive place in analysis, but I really feel they are a disconnected fit (and this could just be me...) to this market. I have read money market people say that they will have a harder time entering into the smartphone market with ARMS market share expanding greatly in the next 3 years. I like the idea of the pairing with motorola for their chips because I think that will a) tie them to android (as I think meego is dead...) b) may let them offer solution akin to what the Atrix ideal could have been. Overall, an interesting article about future challenges with FAB/Design
Score
2
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 7:33:41 AM

this article suggest that intel is holding back in its mobile design, b/c it views the competition to be insignificant. Thus if intel can make a SOC designed from the simplest archeticture, in-order pentium, they can spit out yearly updates of newer pentiums up to the current sandy bridge-like mobile cpu without much worry. they basically have half a decade in design spec'ed out. and if any of the competitors happen to hit all marks and make a good chip, intel can skip a generation to leap frog them.
Score
2
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 7:55:19 AM

You don't look at the economic aspect at all (Intel can't afford to sell cheap,low margins chips) and you just assume the traditional CPU core ,GPU (GPU wise,anyone can license PowerVR,Intel has no advantage and other major players can always block Intel from buying Imagination) and wireless are the parts that will matter most.
You look at just Intel and Qualcomm,ignoring players that are more than capable to compete.
You also assume that performance is the most important aspect when in the end the reality is that CPUs are getting cheaper,a lot cheaper and those cheap chips will keep gaining market share while Intel can't match those prices without getting crippled. Servers and a growing market will help Intel for a while but at some point the funds available for R&D and fabs will start to shrink.(BTW my post,unlike this article,is not sponsored by anyone.)
Score
-3
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 8:18:07 AM

What other parts of ARM ecosystem will do during those 3 years? They are already competing with Qualcomm quite heavily. And besides Qualcomm there is another ARM architecture license player: Marvell.

Also (and more importantly) will the software help Intel in the same way as during the Wintel dominance? Microsoft itself has planned Windows 8 for less resource requirements than Windows 7 has now. Will there any need be for "above the ARM level" of performance in the coming years?

Also (and even more importantly) how Intel will cope with the mounting pressure on its chip prices? If Intel will not be able to held those prices high enough it could fast loose the revenue it is getting now.

In other words: during those three years Intel's ware may become a commodity where only price or Price/performance what is counting. Even now, as noted in today's news by Digitimes:
"TSMC seeing 3G chip orders boom, sources say
...
Qualcomm, MediaTek and Broadcom have all introduced their more integrated single-chip solutions targeted at the market for low-priced 3G smartphones in China. Each of the new chips - manufactured using 40nm and below node technologies - accounts for less than US$10 of total component cost a model would carry, the sources pointed out."

How Intel will compete with that, not in 3 years, but in 2012? Than in 2013? And finally in 2014?

So, given all that above I could subscribe to your prophecy at all!
Score
2
January 18, 2012 8:23:18 AM

I am more interested with the BitBoys guys and its new start-ups with Siru and Vire Labs.. During the 90's, I was amazed of how this 4k and 64k demos do such things with such low file-size.. These guys are such Geniuses..
Score
7
a b å Intel
January 18, 2012 8:49:13 AM

interesting article. very enjoyable read, especially the bitboys history.
though at the end of the article, christian bale didn't have a twin.
Score
2
January 18, 2012 10:05:58 AM

"To that end, the future of MSoCs will depend on, first, SoC architecture, second, fabrication skill, and third, graphics technology."

The most important piece of the Jigsaw is missing, power consumption. But you would expect thaf from somebody fixated on performance. Intel will struggle to make X86 work in anything other than tablets and High end handsets, it will have a tiny niche in three years, if it is lucky. And with MS opening up Windows they will lose share in thin clients and laptops.
Score
-4
January 18, 2012 10:10:47 AM

interesting read. still this is just a prediction from a technological perspective. The economy n marketing aspect will also play their role in time. 3 years is not a short time. These companies will make other counter moves too. Acquisition, buyout or just patent trolling will throw a wrench into things.
Score
4
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 10:48:21 AM

Hmm... I am not sure I agree, it boils down to price in the MSoC market, and that is one place Intel have never been good at doing, selling chips for cut-throat prices!
Score
5
January 18, 2012 10:51:10 AM

Quote: (PowerVR) "it saw some financial success by powering digital poker machines in casinos, where the magic of deferred rendering was immediate."
LOL
no one got away with seeing the underside of the cards on the table
Score
-1
January 18, 2012 11:00:29 AM

realjjjYou don't look at the economic aspect at all (Intel can't afford to sell cheap,low margins chips) and you just assume the traditional CPU core ,GPU (GPU wise,anyone can license PowerVR,Intel has no advantage and other major players can always block Intel from buying Imagination) and wireless are the parts that will matter most. You look at just Intel and Qualcomm,ignoring players that are more than capable to compete.You also assume that performance is the most important aspect when in the end the reality is that CPUs are getting cheaper,a lot cheaper and those cheap chips will keep gaining market share while Intel can't match those prices without getting crippled. Servers and a growing market will help Intel for a while but at some point the funds available for R&D and fabs will start to shrink.(BTW my post,unlike this article,is not sponsored by anyone.)



The problem of course is that because Intel can use a much more advanced node it can make the chips extremely cheaper than what ARM chips can be made. Medfield is somewhere around 65mm^2 while the Tegra 3 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 90mm^2. After Intel's SoC moves to a 22nm node the die size should shrink to around 45mm^2. Which means Intel will be able to push these things out for pocket change.
Score
4
January 18, 2012 12:14:46 PM

Author mentions how qualcomm is making a full out of order design but practically considers its benefits trivial and basically writes them off all the while hyping up intels fab process and how their out of order atom coming in the next 1-2 years will just be amazing.

Great spin but waaaaaaaaaaay too much Intel bias in here to really be objective. Dont just assume Intel is the only one in the market that will advance in the future and everyone else will try to peddle by on what they already have.
Score
0
January 18, 2012 12:30:34 PM

Interesting article. I did some searching on LinkedIn for these engineers and and what's crazy is that no other journalist picked on the fact that these Qualcomm Finland guys left almost a year ago. Stuff like that makes me want to start writing again!

I don't think Intel 2015 will beat Qualcomm 2015 *and* Qualcomm 2012 proportionally. Intel 2015 will beat Qualcomm 2015 also because NVIDIA 2015, TI 2015, Samsung 2015, Marvell 2015, and Apple 2015 will be eating away at Qualcomm.
Score
1
January 18, 2012 12:31:11 PM

DjEaZyIntel Will Overtake Qualcomm In Three Years, If Qualcomm sits on hiz balls and do noothing.

intel has a lot more money and experience....it could happen...btw nice phone, where can i get one :) 
Score
-3
January 18, 2012 12:40:09 PM

Quote:
Everything starts back in 1991. In the early 90s, Finland was home to the demo scene, which is where programmers (many of whom were just high school kids) would get together and write software able to push computer hardware to its limit.


I remember when the demo scene started and downloading them from local BBSs in South Florida.. The scene went from dedicated groups pushing the limits, to every pirating group releasing their own demos and including them in all of their releases along with ANSI graphics and/or ASCII file_id.diz's..

Anyway, back on topic.. As dragonsqrrl already mentioned, Intel already has Medfield and it seems to be very competitive already.. If Intel wants into this market, nothing can stop them.. They have the fabs, engineers, and more importantly the capital to invest to such a point that they could someday dominate this market as they do the desktop CPU market..

Score
2
January 18, 2012 12:56:16 PM

No one can accurately predict what will happen now when so many pieces of the puzzle are in motion,Intel manages to get the atom down to the required power budget for smart phones, Arm gets support in Win8 ect.

My bet is on Intel + MS, why? The x86 windows platform. If MS puts all the basic api's ect in the phone OS i look forward to be able to run the same software ect both on the phone and the computer. Windows is also the standard in desktop OS with a huge software library and they are trusted by most corps and that should give WP the push it needs. My guess of a possible future but new things surface the whole time so it could change tomorrow - I love progress!
Score
2
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 12:57:21 PM

fine article.. enjoyed it very much. Well written. Thanks.

Don't "Follow the money". Follow the People.
Score
1
January 18, 2012 1:02:08 PM

Now this is the kind of well written article that got me following Tom's all those years ago. Very interesting prediction of things to come. I hope that Intel doesn't just shoot to the top of yet another market, dominating the rest of the competition. Instead, hopefully they light a fire under the other mobile SoC players behinds and catalyze some good old healthy competition and innovation. The big companies slugging it out for our consumer dollars will only make the mobile phone/tablet/pc boundaries blur ever further as the performance of phones approaches that of modest PC's from only a few years earlier.
Score
5
January 18, 2012 1:32:42 PM

Before I even read the article I want to applaud the bolded introduction. It's been a while since an article convinced me I needed to read it based on an intro and not my own interest in the content.
Score
2
January 18, 2012 2:05:33 PM

Aaaaaand the article was pretty darn good. I liked the intro the most, but the author's style appeals to me. For those that are interested, there are still demo scene competitions every year, and they're wild. If you like trippy videos with awesome music, I would highly recommend.

On the subject of the article, I'd have to agree that Intel has a significant advantage in IP, engineering, and manufacturing experience and technology, but it remains to be seen whether or not they have a team that will take all of the above-mentioned technologies and thoroughly implement them in a new mobile SoC.
Score
3
January 18, 2012 2:27:40 PM

The Author is dreaming, if Intel were to utilise their ARM License than maybe.
1. Intel is fighting in a Ecosystem were ARM instruction set dominates. Adding another layer of incompatibilty will have consumers returning phones, when they can't play their favourite game.
2. Intel historicaly only plays the high volume low margin markets when it can cripple some features.
3. Medfield is only competitive with last years shipping product's & even some of them are better when run in the same environment.
4. SmartPhone's are already very powerful Qualcomm will not need to compete on raw power.
5. the same argument's could have been leveled at the discreet graphics market "Larrabee" look how that turned out.
Score
0
January 18, 2012 2:27:43 PM

rpgplayerThe problem of course is that because Intel can use a much more advanced node it can make the chips extremely cheaper than what ARM chips can be made. Medfield is somewhere around 65mm^2 while the Tegra 3 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 90mm^2. After Intel's SoC moves to a 22nm node the die size should shrink to around 45mm^2. Which means Intel will be able to push these things out for pocket change.


You make a very good point. With Intel moving to 450mm Wafers in the next 5 or so years, these tiny Atom chips may yield major margin at low cost because so many chips will fit on each wafer. Economies of scale are what will drive Atom prices down, while keeping it profitable.

So many people are so quick to bash Atom, but consider that it was never even a major focus of Intel's until recently. That's why the Atom architecture is so simple compared to Sandybridge. Atom was recently added to Intel's core business, and you can bet that Intel has many of the world's top engineers are working on it. This means Core, Xeon and Atom now have the same weight behind them in terms of people and $$. Let's consider the market share for these products core products. ~80% (Core), ~95%(Xeon) and ~0%(Atom, smartphones & tablets). While I don't think Intel will have 80% market share any time soon, I think it's safe to be they will be a major player.
Score
4
January 18, 2012 3:11:41 PM

Wrong, wrong and wrong again.....

Intel has a "good enough" approach to GFX, as has been demonstrated again and again.

Intel always aims at exclusivity level pricing.... Even during economic downturns.

Their is no question that they WILL be able to produce a higher "compute" performance solution.... But as for system level design for mobile "truly mobile" platforms, they have 0 experience. It will be like PowerVR all over again, "we didn't realise that users would want 3D video calling on their handset" they will say.... etc.

It will all turn out ok though. they have the money to burn. But I heartily dispute your predictions. Mobile is all about features and balance. Intel do not walk the same tightrope/slackline that the east has shown to be so adept at.
Score
-2
January 18, 2012 3:24:40 PM

Very interesting article, but there's something fundamentally wrong with 1 assumption.

You say that "because Qualcomm let go brilliant folks is somewhat doomed". Come on... Their expertise and knowledge might be enormous, but they're not the only ones that might have it or can come close to it. Let alone, the only smart guys; there are tons of smart folks willing to work for Qualcomm.

Now, what Qualcomm is doing with it's 28nm fab could be the real game changer in favor of Intel. Intel cannot be taken lightly in fab processing. In any area but that one IMO. If they license from PowerVR or even Qualcomm itself, they can come up with a superb product. Hell, like you say, they could work with SIRU and make something new and awesome.

At the end, IP, money and process will rule over creativity in this world; sad but true. And Intel has them all.

Cheers!
Score
2
January 18, 2012 3:32:46 PM

americanbrianIntel has a "good enough" approach to GFX, as has been demonstrated again and again.Intel always aims at exclusivity level pricing.... Even during economic downturns.Their is no question that they WILL be able to produce a higher "compute" performance solution....


So why is "good enough" suitable for Qualcomm's and AMD's CPU and not for Intel's GPU? Isn't the main selling point for AMD/ARM that their CPU is "good enough?"

If all of them can run the Android UI fluidly and play 1080p@60fps then what other use is there for a GPU on a phone? If you're looking to play Skyrim on ultra high graphics on your smartphone then I think the best route would be an external GPU.
Score
4
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 4:02:19 PM

Intel needs fatter margins. Intel need BIG volume, see previous sentence. Intel won't put different application specific implementations onto their SOCs. Rather, a one size fits all and depend on software for innovation. That might be a good strategy after they capture a high percentage of the market, not a good plan to enter.

Intel is going to have pressure on their traditional markets from below.
Score
3
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 4:08:14 PM

This article is serious flawed. In between all the imprecise arm and hand waving which isn't worth a bag of beans there is the biggest mistake, TSMC produce Qualcomm's chips (40nm, not 45nm, and 28nm) not Glo-Fo.

http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/display/201110241345...

This article is best summed up by the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :-)
Score
-3
a b å Intel
January 18, 2012 4:34:21 PM

DjEaZyIntel Will Overtake Qualcomm In Three Years, If Qualcomm sits on hiz balls and do noothing.

But it sounds like Qualcomm may have lost their balls.

rpgplayerThe problem of course is that because Intel can use a much more advanced node it can make the chips extremely cheaper than what ARM chips can be made. Medfield is somewhere around 65mm^2 while the Tegra 3 is somewhere in the neighborhood of 90mm^2. After Intel's SoC moves to a 22nm node the die size should shrink to around 45mm^2. Which means Intel will be able to push these things out for pocket change.

...except I don't think Intel's mindset is ready for competitively low pricing. The article points out that many of the other guys are run by engineers, and it seems that Intel (while heavily influenced by engineers) is run by suits. Now maybe their prices have been kept high in other areas for fear of attracting too much attention from regulators and other parasites; they may be fearful that low pricing (even if economically feasible for the company) would appear to be an attempt to force competitors out of business. This may be a limitation which does not apply here, where Intel is not yet a major player.
All in all, I find much more agreeable in the article than disagreeable. A lot will depend on what Intel wants to do, and the coming global economic meltdown makes that very hard to predict.
Score
2
January 18, 2012 4:34:51 PM

If I am not wrong? Intel tried to get into cell phone arana a few years back and sold it off. So much buzz but what happened to WMAX¿¿?? Intel only. Creates hipe not product! To get you early and if it does not work tell sell it.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 4:45:24 PM

Intel sure has one massive mountain of cash to help people argue its case. Qualcomm had one big problem, namely the use of an also-ran GPU design. It does not matter how fast Adreno was in the early days of ARM SoC design wins. The ARM GPU winners are going to be chosen from MALI, Nvidia, AMD (soon to announce), and PowerVR. Of these 4, at least two are available for Qualcomm to license. Dropping Adreno will gain Qualcomm far more than it loses.

Meanwhile, Intel continues to circle the drain. x86 + PowerVR is not, and never will be ARM + PowerVR. Intel's driver support is putrid, always has been, and always will be. Whatever GPU Intel uses, it is Intel that is 100% responsible for creating the GPU driver. PowerVR on ARM however can use drivers that are mostly universal to all modern ARM SoC designs using PowerVR, allowing a driver maturity and stability that Intel can only dream about.

Intel's x86 designs are often quoted as superior to ARM, but this is a complete nonsense. Where ARM is currently slower, clock-for-clock (usually on internal caches), the slowness is explained by design choices that balance performance with power consumption. The engineers at ARM know how easy it is to design faster units, if greater power consumption is allowed (say,with mains powered servers). Intel, on the other hand, hasn't a clue how to get sufficient performance when the power usage has to be as low as current ARM mobile devices.

The irony is that Intel relies on the heavy computational lifting being moved from Intel's dreadful CPUs, to the GPU, so that future Intel mobile SoC designs can compete. What does a mobile CPU need to do, when MP3 decoding, Video decoding, and 2D rendering (screen output) occurs entirely on dedicated units, or the GPU? The x86 architecture is so bad, Intel believes that almost never using x86 processing on a mobile device will be its saviour.

All Intel can bring to the mobile marketplace is the INTEL TAX- the tax you pay in power consumption, extra die size, extra coding costs, and Intel IP costs, when you use the Intel x86 architecture. Who will win? Those products that include the Intel tax, or those that do not? Of course Intel will win, just like the Z80 and CP/M won- oh wait, the Z80 and CP/M went the way of the dinosaur, despite being the x86 + windows of their day!
Score
-2
January 18, 2012 4:54:01 PM

marsavianThis article is serious flawed. In between all the imprecise arm and hand waving which isn't worth a bag of beans there is the biggest mistake, TSMC produce Qualcomm's chips (40nm, not 45nm, and 28nm) not Glo-Fo.http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other [...] lcomm.htmlThis article is best summed up by the axiom that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing :-)


Except that it doesn't change the fact that Qualcomm isn't using HKMG which was the important idea in the article.

From the link you posted:

At present, TSMC produces chips using 28HP [high-performance with HKMG], 28HPL [high-performance low-power with HKMG] and 28LP [low-power with SiON]


28LP isn't going to use HKMG, later in the article:

The Snapdragon S4 class of processors are manufactured in TSMC’s highly sophisticated 28LP


GF may also be producing 28nm for Qualcomm if this article is to be believed

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news/2011/10/12/qualcom...

Qualcomm is working with both TSMC and GlobalFoundries, although TSMC will produce the first chips.


Read more here:

http://semimd.com/blog/2011/02/07/qualcomm-shies-away-f...
Score
2
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 5:21:52 PM

There is nothing to stop Qualcomm using HPM or HPL later, it was just a time to market and low risk option for the first chips which will be the first 28nm mobile chips on the market coming out the same time as 32nm Medfield. This whole gate-first switch story is a fantasy, Glo-Fo was only a prototype option, TSMC was always their main production option as shown be the fact they produce the current 40nm Snapdragon. They are also only giving up a 20% power reduction by not waiting for HPL ...

http://www.tsmc.com/advanced_technology_AD/28nm.htm

Qualcomm have also taken out Power VR licenses for the future ...

http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4233204/Qualcom...

which doesn't leave much of a factual basis left for this article.
Score
2
January 18, 2012 5:22:53 PM

Why is the author only known as "Mark"? Why no last name? Seems odd. Anyway, I enjoyed reading this article.

I didn't read all the comments, but at some point, when is performance enough? If we're still using a touch interface, with a response time of around 200ms, any additional horsepower that completes tasks under that number, seems to be a waste.

To tap into this additional horsepower, beyond the typical smartphone uses, all smartphones should be able to dock to a keyboard/screen device to be used as a netbook/laptop. It'd also be nice to see docking a common occurrence in the everyday automobile as well, beyond just music playlists and the the typical bluetooth phonecalls through a car deck.

I guess they need to focus on India and China markets. That's where the billions of users are.

Anyway, its nice to see more and more performance and efficiency, but with the lag time of a touch interface, it becomes less and less important once you reach a certain point in performance/efficiency. I'm excited to see new innovative ways to utilize smartphones and tablets, but they all really need to be able to dock to a keyboard/screen and/or a typical video game controller to really benefit from the extra juice.

Whoever moves forward in that direction in the biggest way, will probably get my money in 1.5 yrs when my contract is due for an upgrade.
Score
0
January 18, 2012 6:43:32 PM

Kind of overly optimistic that Intel will take over ARM in the next few years. But I am not. Intel and MIPS couldn't take over ARM's dominance in the smartphone field. A few years back intel realizes that it could not do that with its StrongARM cpus (remember those) so they sold it off.

Second, so far, Medfield just came out and we have yet seen any benchmarks outside from Intel made ones.

Third is cost. Will Intel sell Medfield for less than $15 per cpu? When Intel realizes that they do not make enough profit on their CPU's, they will quickly abandon the endeavor.
Score
3
January 18, 2012 6:55:20 PM

I could make the same comment about Intel overtaking Qualcom but never give the detail of this article! I would just say: When it comes to making chips Intel does it better than anyone!

Great article!
Score
-1
January 18, 2012 8:18:08 PM

Interesting article, a great read for sure (especially for those of us old enough to remember the BitBoys)!

Overall, I agree with the assessment. After reading the comments a lot of people are still concerned with the economics. A few people have pointed out the upcoming larger wafers and diminutive size of the SoC, but more importantly I think they overlooked that Intel is probably willing to 'buy' itself into the market by accepting smaller profits in the short term to get a foot in the door, but once that foot is in the door and they have the leverage, they can start wringing more $$$ out of partners. Plus, Intel wins either way, as they'll be powering the backend (all those portable devices have to pull their content from somewhere!)

This assumes they will have a competing product in 3 years time. I wholeheartedly agree they will on the CPU side, they are a slow moving company but once they set their sites on a target, look out! (Just ask our friends at AMD).

The elephant in the room in my opinion are the other SoC designers. I think graphics will play an ENORMOUS role in future designs, and I think the companies pushing the best graphics will have the largest advantage. This puts Intel at a disadvantage, but companies like nVidia become wildcards. While the Tegra 3 might not trounce the competition, they the potential for them is there.
I'm not sure how much impact the new BitBoys startup will have in this space only because (and I'm speculating) I doubt Qualcomm gave up the IP it acquired with them, so they'll have to navigate that nasty patent minefield everyone loves so much...

I'd love to hear more thoughts on this subject...
Score
2
January 18, 2012 8:31:13 PM

True, but someone else will surpass qualcomm and Intel.
Score
2
January 18, 2012 9:24:28 PM

This article forgets to mention some points. Intel may have all this expertise with cpu but Qualcomm has paved the way in CDMA technology. They have all the expertise with phones. A phone isn't just about raw CPU power. Also Qualcomm makes more than just the cpu cores, we have a chipset. The chipset includes the PMIC a special IC that controls all power in the phones. Also what does Intel have along the lines of phones technology. There is probably more debugging and testing that goes into just getting all the cell technologies up and running than what goes into testing just a cpu. Technologies like WCDMA and LTE are ridiculously complicated. Then you add in things like beam forming etc. Good luck to Intel on starting from scratch from there.

If Intel goes down the path of design the whole phone they will lose. Yes they could possibly make a better cpu for them but that's only one part of the design.
Score
1
January 18, 2012 9:25:29 PM

BTW I hadn't read the entire article here when I commented.
Score
-1
January 18, 2012 10:14:10 PM

Maybe all this will push linux/Andriod based high end desktops for gaming. Id love to be able to do that.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 18, 2012 10:47:55 PM

In three years, Qualcomm should have just about completed the purchase of Intel.
Score
-2
January 18, 2012 11:19:04 PM

Right now Qualcomm's problem seems to be mostly factors outside of their own company, Intel has hurdles to cross both in their own company and among other companies they will need to work with. Intel might dominate Qualcomm but they might not. Three years may not be enough time for Intel to dominate in the market but they probably will get a strong foot hold at some point.
Score
1
Anonymous
January 19, 2012 12:28:41 AM

Quote:
Additionally, we all know that graphics hardware is only as good as its supporting software driver. Updated GPU drivers for the Adreno 205 were responsible for an almost-50% performance improvement.[unquote]

Very interesting article... it reminds me when i was waiting for each new demo released by Future crew, those guys were amazing!

When i started as an engineer, we needed to develop an application running on the new VGA Card (successor of the EGA). I started to develop in C and accessed the video card through the standard INT13... i was barely getting 1 frame per 2 sec. So i went directly into the VGA BIOS, but still i was barely getting a couple of frames per second. My last attempt was to get pass all those and access directly the GPU, so i rewrote my own code to drive the VGA card components... i could get over 30 FPS!!!

My point is, and it's to support the above quote from this article, i don't think the hardware is the real issue nowadays, they are all fairly equal (or powerful enough) but the software...far too complex, not optimized and waste of useless code!
Score
3
January 19, 2012 1:44:46 AM

Money, fab plants and teams of engineers really help. The question is, can Qualcomm win a war of attrition? Intel has lots of resources and wants the mobile market share, Qualcomm's resources are a lot smaller. One of them can afford to make lots of mistakes and recover from it, the other can not or will face a slow painful death.
Score
0
Anonymous
January 19, 2012 3:46:42 AM

You are missing the paradigm shift that is happening...the idea of the personal computer is changing from a desktop to a device with more power than today's workstations in a form factor that fits in your pocket and runs for weeks on a single charge. For those that need a keyboard, large monitor, mouse, printer, scanner....all those will have wireless interfaces...you can bet that Intel is not going to miss out on this.
Score
0
January 19, 2012 7:43:24 AM

@ Blandge:

"isn't the selling point for AMD and ARM that the CPU is good enough?"

No, the main selling point is that it is AFFORDABLE. You are taking one of my points and disregarding the other.

High end handsets are priced at the limit of what the market will tolerate. Those billions of revenue that Qualcom currently makes are off the back of budget, mid-range and high spec phones. I am willing to bet in terms of revenue (not necessarily profit) the majority is from budget and mid-range.

Intel will not offer enough VALUE is my arguement. And also they will move too slowly when it comes to FEATURES on handsets. Like I say, powerVR all over again. I have confidence that qualcom and its manufacturing partners operate in a way that allows them to move quickly with market trends.

I am confident Intel will try to maintain exclusivity deals with customers etc. in the vain of Apple. It worked for Apple, but I don't think it will for Intel. That's it. My opinion.

Score
2
!