Slashdot Mirror


Intel Demos Phone and Tablet In New Mobile Chip Push

holy_calamity writes "Intel is making another assault on the mobile processor market, showing off a prototype phone and a tablet using its newest mobile processor Medfield. The company claims that products based on the chips will appear in the first half of next year. There's reason to believe that Intel might get somewhere this time. Its chipsets traditionally comprise three separate chips, a design that guzzles power. Medfield introduces an all-in-one chip, mirroring the power efficient design of the ARM-based chips that run smart phones and tablets in the market today."

7 of 99 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Intel brand fading? by gasmonso · · Score: 4, Informative

    Disagree! From their 3rd quarter financials...

    "Intel managed to exceed analyst predictions, posting record revenue of $14.3 billion -- up $3.2 billion, or 29 percent year-over-year. The company also set new records for microprocessor units shipped, and expects further growth over the next quarter, with notebook computer sales driving $14.7 billion in predicted Q4 revenue."

    gasmonso ReligiousFreaks.com

  2. Every time I read about a new Intel chip ... by JabrTheHut · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... I eagerly scan the article to see if the predictions here were true: http://www.tealdragon.net/humor/startrek/power.htm

    "It's that miserable 80986 with the 512K bit bus multiplexed down to one pin."

    That's so Intel...

    --
    Work like no one is watching. Dance like you've never been hurt. Make love like you don't need the money.
  3. "mirroring the power efficient design of the ARM" by timeOday · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That's a bit of a cheap shot. Increased component integration has been a driving force for longer than Intel has been a company, and Intel has been as much of a driving force as anybody else. In fact Intel should excel at system-on-a-chip, since it's all about getting lots of transistors on a small piece of silicon, something they happen to be pretty good at.

  4. Why we might possibly care by SirGarlon · · Score: 5, Informative
    Apart from just rooting for different companies as if they were in a horse race, which seems to be a popular pastime in the press and blogosphere, the summary omits any reason why we might care about Intel's new offering. In what way is it different from the prevailing ARM chip? The answer is buried on page 2 of TFA:

    Intel has tested its reference handset against a handful of the leading phones on sale today. It says these tests show that Medfield offers faster browsing and graphics performance and lower power consumption than the top three, says Smith.

    and

    "Medfield is based on 32-nanometer technology, while the biggest fabs making ARM-based processors are today shipping either 40 or 45 nanometers," he says.

    So it looks like a bit of incremental leapfrog (if that), not some kind of breakthrough. Meh.

    --
    [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
    1. Re:Why we might possibly care by Baloroth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The prevailing difference is it isn't an ARM chip. It is an x86 chip, meaning off-the-shelf x86 programs and OSes should run on it. Getting an x86 processor below the performance/power threshold of an ARM chip (while keeping it small enough to fit in a phone) is a pretty major breakthrough.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Why we might possibly care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Who is going to run current desktop software/OS on a mobile device that has a drastically different spec in other areas (memory, screen size, touchscreen, etc.)?

      Intel getting better performance/power threshold compared to ARM is a great selling factor; but x86-compatibility especially for off-the-shelf program isn't one of them.

  5. Re:Find a new market! by asliarun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dunno, I remember Centrino being a very good mobile processor line back in the day. I'm more surprised they didn't enter the market until now, maybe it's because they've been dominating the desktop market pretty hard? I have a hard time recommending AMD with a straight face nowadays for desktops... haven't read too much about what came in the past few months, I know AMD released something decent, but all they're doing is joining in on the party, not starting one there.

    They didn't enter the market because they rested on their laurels like they often do, and also got completely blindsided by how quickly smartphones and tablet computing took over the world. Intel is a great company in many respects, but too often relies on a kick in the pants to get moving. Traditionally, AMD has done the kicking like they did with x64 and Athlon, which is why Intel got blindsided when the whipping came from ARM. They responded eventually to AMD with Centrino, Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest, and eventually with Quickpath and Nehalem, and AMD is still recovering.

    They are finding it harder to do the same with ARM because both companies are moving in different directions - ARM has an extremely low power and low performance architecture while Intel's x86 is extremely high power and high performance. Plus, Intel has to deal legacy support in every subsequently new "tock" which is why x86 improvement will always remain evolutionary in nature. ARM also found it much easier to scale up its performance at a similar power envelope while Intel has found it much harder to scale down its power consumption while maintaining adequate performance.

    Atom was probably the first x86 redesign that targeted power consumption first and only then performance. Even with this design goal, it only managed to scale down to single digit wattage while ARM operates in the sub-watt to milliwatt range. This is still a crucial difference - it is the difference between the weight and size of a netbook sized laptop and a handheld device. On top of this, ARM has been steadily integrating more and more peripheral chips back into the chip while keeping the same power envelope, which makes it even simpler and more attractive to device manufacturers.

    Anyway, rambling aside, I suspect that Intel gave up the race for a brief period of time and instead waited for its manufacturing process to shrink to a level (22nm) where it could finally combine its process node lead with the Atom architecture to reach the sub-watt power level. It still hasn't got there, but it will - by 2013. Don't count them out, and I say this mainly because Intel is still the only surviving company that still designs AND manufactures its own chips. The advantages of this kind of vertical integration is huge. Companies love to talk about outsourcing everything but there are significant advantages to being vertically integrated as well. To digress slightly, look at how mainframes continue to survive and thrive in this age of commodity computing.

    It is also interesting to reflect that this fortuitously coincides with Microsoft's Win 8 release and MSFT's own struggle to compete in tablet and handheld computing. Again, their true credible answer will be Windows 9 if not Windows 8. I suspect that at least in the tablet playing field, Win 8 will be a very credible competitor, and Win 9 will probably merge back almost fully with x86 architecture. The allure of x86 and its backward compatibility should not be underestimated. Legacy app support is extremely attractive for enterprise IT even if it is not so much so for normal consumers.