AMD and Nvidia are reportedly venturing into the development of Arm-based processors for client PCs, which will inevitably bring additional competitive pressure for Intel. However, Intel CEO Pat Gelsinger expressed limited concern over the potential impact of these new processors on Intel's dominant market position. Meanwhile, even if Arm-based CPUs succeed, this could be an opportunity for the company's Intel Foundry Service (IFS) unit.
"Arm and Windows client alternatives, generally, they have been relegated to pretty insignificant roles in the PC business," Gelsinger told analysts and investors at the company's earnings conference (via SeekingAlpha).
The potential introduction of Arm-based chips by Nvidia and AMD is a direct challenge to Intel's stronghold in the PC CPU market. Apple's M-series SoCs for Macs demonstrated very competitive performance efficiency, increasing its market share significantly. They have also shown some great potential for PCs. Meanwhile, Gelsinger draws confidence from historical data, where Arm and Windows clients have typically held marginal positions in the PC industry. For example, Qualcomm has failed to grab any significant market share with its Windows-compatible Snapdragon SoCs in recent years.
"We take all competition seriously," Gelsinger said. "But I think history as our guide here, we do not see these potentially being all that significant overall. Our momentum is strong. We have a strong roadmap."
With PC-oriented SoCs coming from AMD, Nvidia, MediaTek, and Qualcomm, there will be multiple offerings targeting different market segments, which could force Intel to bring more innovations to the PC sector. However, the advantage of Arm — the availability of different SoCs from different makers — could be its biggest drawback too as they might not offer a consistent experience.
Intel made a big bet on its AI accelerator which is now supported by over 100 independent software developers (ISVs). These AI enhancements will be coming from different software makers offering consistent experience on tens of millions of Meteor Lake, Arrow Lake, and Panther Lake-based computers. Intel may well be right about the lack of at least an immediate threat from Arm-based SoCs for PCs.
Looking ahead, Gelsinger sees a silver lining in the advent of Arm-based processors. He believes that the proliferation of Arm-based chips by other manufacturers could inadvertently spur growth in Intel's foundry business, turning potential competition into an unexpected avenue for expansion and revenue generation.
Stay on the Cutting Edge
Join the experts who read Tom's Hardware for the inside track on enthusiast PC tech news — and have for over 25 years. We'll send breaking news and in-depth reviews of CPUs, GPUs, AI, maker hardware and more straight to your inbox.
Anton Shilov is a Freelance News Writer at Tom’s Hardware US. Over the past couple of decades, he has covered everything from CPUs and GPUs to supercomputers and from modern process technologies and latest fab tools to high-tech industry trends.
New Chinese GPU arrives to challenge Nvidia's AI dominance but falls woefully short - Loongson unveils LG200 GPGPU, up to 1 Tflops of performance per node
Yes, you can have too many CPU cores - Ampere's 192-core chips break ARM64 Linux kernel in two-socket systems, company requests higher core count support
We take all competition seriouslyOh really?
It seems very strange to me that some people seem to think Intel could never in its life ever figure out how to create, implement, and then retail package an ARM processor and compete in a market with other ARM processors. Or RISC-V(or etc.) for that matter.Reply
I have confidence Intel could switch up and they could do this.
Somehow I see this announcement right next to the "Don't Look Up" movie poster...Reply
Be careful to not become the next Steve Ballmer…Reply
This claim might be a big regret in a not so far furture.
I think it's fair to say the only real competition here would be from Qualcomm and they've historically refused to compete across the stack. AMD has the same concerns as Intel would which is hurting their own market so I'm not sure AMD would be designing full client unless they were abandoning low-mid range with their x86 CPUs. Nvidia has no need for more high volume low margin products, and if they were going higher would probably be hurting their discrete business.Reply
Long term they're all worth keeping an eye on, but short term I can't imagine any of those companies shareholders being happy with what would be required to be a threat.
Intel will be on risc 5 market :)Reply
This statement will go one of 2x ways realistically with very little middle ground:Reply
1) He'll be absolutely right, ARM Client CPU's on Windows will fail miserably to gain traction as in the past.
- OR -
2) He's going too be majorly wrong and ARM Client CPU's from nVIDIA & AMD will be game changers.
I doubt they think Intel couldn't, but they instead assume that Intel wants to remain x86 forever. Which is silly, as you point out.ezst036 said:It seems very strange to me that some people seem to think Intel could never in its life ever figure out how to create, implement, and then retail package an ARM processor and compete in a market with other ARM processors. Or RISC-V(or etc.) for that matter.
It's too early for RISC-V. The software ecosystem is rapidly maturing, but the market for it in mainstream or cloud computing really isn't there, just yet.ezst036 said:I have confidence Intel could switch up and they could do this.
As for ARM, you need only look at what ARM is putting Qualcomm through, to see why Intel doesn't want to go down that path. ARM is trying to make Qualcomm's customers pay a royalty to ARM, for using Qualcomm/Nuvia-designed cores! I think Intel would quite like to avoid having such an overhead added to the cost of their CPUs. As for AMD and Nvidia, they already have ARM architecture licenses that were negotiated under the old terms.
Not AMD or Nvidia?thestryker said:the only real competition here would be from Qualcomm
They did get their Centriq server CPUs nearly to market, until the whole Broadcom hostile takeover thing happened and it had to get cancelled.thestryker said:and they've historically refused to compete across the stack.
So, you not only think the rumor about them is false, but you also think AMD will stay x86-exclusive until death? In spite of the fact that they previously sold an ARM CPU (Opteron A1100) and designed the K12?thestryker said:AMD has the same concerns as Intel would which is hurting their own market so I'm not sure AMD would be designing full client unless they were abandoning low-mid range with their x86 CPUs.
Then why'd they supply the SoC for Nintendo Switch?thestryker said:Nvidia has no need for more high volume low margin products,
Unless AMD APUs go high enough to hurt Nvidia's dGPU business. Then, Nvidia would be a fool not to respond.thestryker said:and if they were going higher would probably be hurting their discrete business.
The hardest thing for successful companies to do is cannibalize their own products with ones that anticipate market trends. Yet, failure to effectively anticipate & respond to the market also spells eventual doom.thestryker said:Long term they're all worth keeping an eye on, but short term I can't imagine any of those companies shareholders being happy with what would be required to be a threat.
I think AMD just sees the writing on the wall. TBH, I expected the transition to post-x86 already to be happening by now.
I think it's a bit early for that.bit_user said:I think AMD just sees the writing on the wall. TBH, I expected the transition to post-x86 already to be happening by now.