Slashdot Mirror


Intel Eyes Smartphone Chip Market

MojoKid writes "Intel has been rather successful at carving out a large percentage of the netbook market with their low power Atom processor. Moving forward, Intel's executives believe there's a good potential to increase Atom's traction in adjacent markets by targeting its low-cost, energy-efficient chips at various multifunctional consumer gadgets including smartphones and other portable devices that access the Internet. Code-named Moorestown, a new version of the chip will offer a 50x power reduction at idle and reportedly will deliver enough horsepower to handle 720p video recording and 1080p quality playback. It is with this upcoming chip that Intel will begin targeting the smartphone market In 2011. Intel also plans to introduce an even smaller, less power-hungry version of the chip known as Medfield, which will be built on a 32nm process with a full solution comprising a PCB area of about half the size of a credit card."

22 of 84 comments (clear)

  1. Really.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Really Intel could excel in the smartphone chip market where they can't in the netbook market because of MS and their speed/power restrictions on netbooks. The problem I see with the smartphone market is that x86 is terribly hard to make power-efficient enough and still be fast. Could Intel do it, sure, but unlike desktop CPUs they can't just increase the clock speed and get faster CPUs, they have to work at it.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  2. Can't wait to by msgmonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

    watch those 1080p movies on my smart phone screen.

    But on a more serious note, Intel will always be able to leverage their advanced fabrication processes to reduce power consumption. Most ARM chips I've seen use older (in terms of desktop CPU) process technology but the good architecture still gives you excellent power consumption.

    1. Re:Can't wait to by e4g4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I do believe that was the GP's point - but really - the ability to playback 1080p is more of a performance metric than an actual handy thing to have in a phone (unless, of course, you're plugging it into a TV)

      --
      The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. - Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Can't wait to by supersat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Intel already had an ARM processor for smartphones -- the XScale PXA family. They decided to sell it off to Marvell a few years ago as part of their cost-cutting strategy. We'll see if that was a wise thing to do.

    3. Re:Can't wait to by BikeHelmet · · Score: 4, Informative

      good architecture

      Don't you mean ludicrously good architecture?

      I'm thinking Cortex A8's, which have been out for over a year. Stuff like the OMAP 3530(present in the Beagleboard, upcoming Pandora Handheld, and Palm Pre) consumes remarkably small amounts of power.

      The Pandora developers said their device consumes around or just over 1 watt. Most of that is from the LCD. They did experiments completely shutting off certain hardware, to measure power consumption, and concluded...

      CPU - about 20-40mw
      DSP - about 30-60mw
      SGX GPU - about 30-60mw

      (Hard to get exact measurements due to the nature of how components interact. Anything loading the CPU probably loads up the memory as well. Anything hitting the GPU will hit the CPU, and DSP load varies greatly depending on the codec and video being decoded.)

      The entire SoC uses a ludicrously small amount of power; something like 0.2-0.4w. Then add another 0.6w for the LCD, and a bunch more for wireless.

      Now, compare that to the current Atoms, with 6+ watts just for the CPU/chipset, another 2+ for the HDD/SSD, at least 6-15w for the LCD, etc...

      If any company can drive down their power consumption, Intel can, but that doesn't mean it'll be easy to catch ARM!

      I just can't wait for Cortex A9's. Quad-core ARM in the exact same power envelope!

    4. Re:Can't wait to by msgmonkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes that was my point, but another point is that 1080p playback does n't really mean anything as a CPU metric either because I seriously doubt it would be the CPU that would be doing the decoding. Most likely like the SoC arm based processors used on todays smartphones there would be dedicated hardware to assist with the video encoding/decoding.

    5. Re:Can't wait to by BikeHelmet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wish there was an edit button. :)

      Found the link: http://www.gp32x.com/board/index.php?s=&showtopic=48259&view=findpost&p=733993

      If interested, you can search the forums for more info, and look up the Palm Pre battery life.

    6. Re:Can't wait to by ciroknight · · Score: 3, Insightful

      good architecture

      Don't you mean ludicrously good architecture?

      I'm thinking Cortex A8's, which have been out for over a year. Stuff like the OMAP 3530(present in the Beagleboard, upcoming Pandora Handheld, and Palm Pre) consumes remarkably small amounts of power.

      The Pandora developers said their device consumes around or just over 1 watt. Most of that is from the LCD. They did experiments completely shutting off certain hardware, to measure power consumption, and concluded...

      CPU - about 20-40mw DSP - about 30-60mw SGX GPU - about 30-60mw

      (Hard to get exact measurements due to the nature of how components interact. Anything loading the CPU probably loads up the memory as well. Anything hitting the GPU will hit the CPU, and DSP load varies greatly depending on the codec and video being decoded.)

      The entire SoC uses a ludicrously small amount of power; something like 0.2-0.4w. Then add another 0.6w for the LCD, and a bunch more for wireless.

      Now, compare that to the current Atoms, with 6+ watts just for the CPU/chipset, another 2+ for the HDD/SSD, at least 6-15w for the LCD, etc...

      If any company can drive down their power consumption, Intel can, but that doesn't mean it'll be easy to catch ARM!

      I just can't wait for Cortex A9's. Quad-core ARM in the exact same power envelope!

      To be fair, the Atom runs at 6 Watts max, where average TDP can down to as little as 0.4W. The problem with Atom, as you say, is all of the other hardware to make it work. Its current chipset is incredibly power hungry, but they're working on that (integrating more and doing even deeper clock gating). Future Atoms will likely use even less power, with Intel already shipping chips with a max 2.4W threshold.

      And yes, you are being unfair comparing a device which has a hard drive with hundreds of gigabytes of space and a WXSVGA screen to a handheld device with a couple of gigs of flash memory and a HVGA screen. Nobody's stopping you from making an Atom device with those components (though it will take more power right now, it'll be vastly faster than the Cortex A8, and you won't have to recompile or use highly specialized toolkits, which is a huge Intel advantage).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    7. Re:Can't wait to by vlm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      [Can't wait to] watch those 1080p movies on my smart phone screen.

      There are already phones which can play 780p (and record too). Why the sarcasm? Would you rather watch a lower quality movie?

      I don't have a brick sized smartphone, I have a tiny flip-phone. The screen is the size of a postage stamp, and the speakerphone sounds like a broken cb radio, which is plenty good enough for phone use. I will never be able to tell the difference between 320x240 and mono sound vs 1080p and 5.1 surround. Even on a slightly larger brick sized smartphone, I don't think it would be a noticeable difference, other than the dramatic decrease in battery life and maybe waves of heat wafting off the CPU.

      At this time, can the average smartphone battery survive a low res feature length movie, and how much does it cost at five cents per kilobyte? Then extrapolate to ten times the data transfered (equals ten times the profit) plus ten times the processing equals roughly a tenth the battery life?

      The other problem is the past decade has been spent trying to convince mindless consumers that nirvana is buying the largest big screen TV with the most surround speakers, then even the stupidest most formulaic movie is great. They have had some success with this sales pitch. Now all the marketers have to do is convince them they were just kidding, and nirvana is using the worlds highest resolution tiny phone, then even the stupidest most formulaic movie is great. Good luck! They'll need it!

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    8. Re:Can't wait to by msgmonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well as far as I remember they got XScale when thet aquired DEC so it probably was n't a division that was taken very seriously. Whilst they did make some improvements other manufacturers started producing ARM based chips that were as good as if not better so they got rid of it. I suspect the problem for Intel was that they did n't own the ARM architecture so for them it was better to sell off what they had since they would always be competing with other ARM licensees.

    9. Re:Can't wait to by BikeHelmet · · Score: 4, Interesting

      To be fair, the Atom runs at 6 Watts max, where average TDP can down to as little as 0.4W. The problem with Atom, as you say, is all of the other hardware to make it work. Its current chipset is incredibly power hungry, but they're working on that (integrating more and doing even deeper clock gating). Future Atoms will likely use even less power, with Intel already shipping chips with a max 2.4W threshold.

      Right, so if you're actually doing something, you don't get to use your computer as long.

      And yes, you are being unfair comparing a device which has a hard drive with hundreds of gigabytes of space and a WXSVGA screen to a handheld device with a couple of gigs of flash memory and a HVGA screen.

      The Pandora has dual-SDHC slots, so you could have 64GB of space. (More if bigger SDHC cards were actually made)

      Fine, an HDD is unfair, but SSD vs dual-SDHC is a valid comparison. The EEE PCs with SSDs had about 25MB/sec read/write speed. High end SDHC cards are slightly below that, and you can have two.

      Now that better SSDs are available(like the Vertex), it changes things - but the Vertex is also a whole other price range.

      Nobody's stopping you from making an Atom device with those components (though it will take more power right now, it'll be vastly faster than the Cortex A8, and you won't have to recompile or use highly specialized toolkits, which is a huge Intel advantage).

      Nobody makes x86 programs that work on such tiny screens. I would cite the "highly specialized toolkits" as an advantage for ARM, in this case... you will need linux and those fancy toolkits. Maemo, Android, etc. all work very well on tiny screens.

      And by the time Intel has an x86 Atom chip that will work in a fanless tiny device like a Pandora, ARM will have quad-core A9's available, so your point regarding performance is moot...

      After all, there is no Atom that will fit in a device that small... yet. I have news for you though - my Phenom II in a cellphone (lol) beats your Atom in a cellphone. ;)

    10. Re:Can't wait to by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC, Intel got the rights to all of Digital Semiconductor's design portfolio, bar AXP, as part of the DEC v Intel lawsuit settlement in about 1997. This included things like the 21x4x tulip NICs, the 21x5x PCI-PCI bridges, the SA-110 StrongARM.

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  3. wrong info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Intel talked at the press release about 50% reduction, not 50 times...

    1. Re:wrong info by caladine · · Score: 3, Informative

      TFA has it here and here as a 50x reduction.

  4. Innovation in all market segments by symbolset · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "It's a loser mentality to not develop one segment because you're worried about the other," he said. "I think we have several years ahead of us where we can innovate the heck out of any of these categories without getting defensive about the other one. You just need to unleash innovation in all of the segments and see what happens." - Sean Maloney

    It's interesting to see Intel expanding out of their traditional markets and unleashing innovation in every direction. Since they're also staying pretty open about interfaces, people are going to do some pretty amazing stuff with their new products.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  5. Re:processor for the old and poor by causality · · Score: 2, Funny

    recent studies [appleinsider.com] demonstrate that only iphone users are young, hip, cool, earn more than 70k a year and in general are more educated and productive

    In other words, you own one?

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  6. Intel vs. ARM by moon3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It would be interesting to see what will Intel pitch against ARM's current superior offering. ARM is cheap and already has Power-VR OpenGL accelerator and other stuff integrated, while being very power efficient. Bundled GPU and power efficiency is a deal breaker in the mobile arena. Intel doesn't have integrated GPU nor a track record of being very power efficient.

  7. Xscale? by areusche · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously what happened to Intel's Xscale processor? After they sold it to Marvell it went into the abyss of forgotten tech. That ARM processor had the entire Palm and Pocket PC market by the balls a couple of years ago since every device worth its weight was using it! They left that market and now want to reenter it? Last I checked every smartphone still uses ARM.

    1. Re:Xscale? by NP-Incomplete · · Score: 3, Informative

      Intel had to license ARM technology from ARM, Ltd. This was not a viable long-term business strategy.

    2. Re:Xscale? by hattig · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's in the SheevaPlug device from Marvell - that's a 1.2GHz ARMv5 device (1.2GHz StrongARM / XScale effectively).

  8. It's the other way around by symbolset · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The Microsoft definition is driven by Intel. It's dumb of both of them, as it defines "premium netbook" as one that doesn't have either of their products in it but which has a bigger screen, more memory, more storage or a faster processor. It's a "loser mentality" that tries to protect the notebook market that's already in "race to the bottom" mode.

    Since neither of them can prevent other manufacturers from innovating outside of this specification, that just make it easier for an up-an-coming manufacturer to create a new market without them, and enjoy the benefit of not having to compete with them in that market.

    So of course after that happens the restrictions will go away and it will be a free-for-all again.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  9. Good luck with that by Taxman415a · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The current atoms run about 2 watts, way too much for a smartphone even if they are able to cut that in half, and that's not even counting the power hog chipsets needed for the atom that require 5-12+ watts. By comparison the current cortex A8 packages with video etc that are able to do 1080p are able to make it under the 300 milliwatt line smartphone manufacturers are looking for.

    And even better, if you're talking about Intel's chips two generations out, then consider the Cortex A9 quad core chips that are claiming to be ready to go and at reasonable power consumption in the same time frame if not sooner than Intel's offering. That article is actually claiming dual core Cortex A9 phones within a year that use about the same power as current chips with much better performance.

    So as noted it looks like ARM is going to have a much easier time scaling up performance at the smartphone power draw level than Intel is going to have getting anywhere near it. And the Cortex A9 will probably spank the Atom. The race should benefit everyone though. Maybe we'll actually get some decent performing netbook, laptop, and desktop chips out of it that run on extremely low power.