Why Intel Needs Smartphones More Than They Need Intel

An anonymous reader writes with this excerpt from ZDNet: "The launch of the Orange San Diego, the first handset using an Intel Atom processor, marks a big milestone for the chipmaker: it's finally in the smartphone market. But does the market need Intel at all? ... Intel's scale and the reach of its other divisions gives [Mike] Bell's smartphone unit a boost; for example, it can reuse code optimizations for Atom done by the desktop team. ... Even so, the smartphone team has got a tough job on its hands — but it's one Intel has to tackle, according to Carolina Milanesi, mobile analyst at Gartner. 'This is certainly an attack strategy for Intel. The smartphone market is so large now that they need a piece of the pie,' she said. But will consumers care whether their handset runs on an Intel chip? Bell conceded that aside from the tech-savvy, most people probably don't know which chip is inside their phone. It's likely, given the lack of advertising on this, that most probably don't care — making Intel's job even harder."

Comments

Games?

[JanneM]

There is games, though; some Android game engines are written in part in native code for the speed boost, and I can't imagine that an Intel phone will shine when forced to emulate an ARM CPU on the fly for those occasions.

And for most applications, the CPU really does not matter. They'll run nicely on anything able to host the Dalvik VM. At best, an Intel phone will be no different than a ARM one, and at worst it will just add an extra bit of frustration.

Re:Games?

[arbiterxero]

Unless intel is able to bring radical power efficiency. Then, having an intel chip would be sought after. With Cell phones, the battery currently rules the roost.

Re:Games?

[ThePhilips]

At best, an Intel phone will be no different than a ARM one, and at worst it will just add an extra bit of frustration.

You forget the "Intel Inside" stickers.

Promotional stickers is something mobile phones still sorely lacking.

Re:Games?

[AvitarX]

Yeah, but that's generally dominated by screen (though I guess the fact that I use the web a good bit, and my last two high-end phones were OLED could be to blame).

even if the CPU used 0 power, I would gain very little.

I've had a G1, Nexus1, Comet (it was temporary), and HTC One S for context.

Re:Games?

[poetmatt]

It's been documented on anandtech before - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5770/lava-xolo-x900-review-the-first-intel-medfield-phone - results were simply middle of the pack and down to "if the hardware is updated then whatever it is will do better".

The thing is, do we want/need intel on smartphones? I say please no. Let ARM compete and grow and remain a fairly new viable competitor.

Re:Games?

[phantomfive]

I was wondering about that too. Intel claims they have some sort of compiler that will translate that stuff on the fly, and works really well. I'm a little skeptical, but if they can make it work, it would be interesting.

Here's the article Here's the relevant quote:

“There are two kinds of Android apps,” Bell says. “Those that use Dalvik, and ones that run natively.” Dalvik is Google’s Java-like virtual machine which many Android apps run inside. Theoretically, as long as Dalvik works on x86, then all of the apps will. “We have a large team working on making sure Dalvik apps work well.” I push the mobile chief on the topic of native apps, and he hums and haws a little. “We have developed some software that translates native apps to x86, and it seems to work well,” he says. Seizing this opening, I ask if it would be possible to build the same kind of translation layer for Windows 8 and Windows RT. In return, I get a shrug, a smile, and a non-answer.

Actually, now reading that quote again, it doesn't give me much confidence in their capability. They might have to rely on going to a smaller size for it to work.

Re:Games?

[hairyfeet]

Compare the highest performing ARM and its IPC to a C2D, much less a C2Q, and you'll see its no contest, the smartphones are really much farther than a decade behind.

The same thing that has made X86 slow down in sales of laptops and desktops, the fact that X86 went past good enough into ludicrous speed, could give Intel a hell of a chunk of the market. lets face it, folks have gotten spoiled. They are so used to having laptops and desktops that do amazing things, that play HD video without a stutter, run a dozen programs at a time without skipping a beat, hell even the bottom o' the line Intel and AMD chips of today are so insanely overpowered that most users simply can't keep them fed with enough work to max them out.

The simple fact is that the best ARM chips can't get anywhere near the IPC of a 7 year old C2 or Athlon X2 and on Intel's FIRST TRY they got 30% higher performance while getting right in the middle of the pack when it comes to ARM power usage. Considering that isn't even on the latest process that is pretty damned impressive for a first try. You mark my words the way Intel is going it won't be but a couple of tick tocks until they have the Atom at 12nm, with probably equal or better than C2D or even C2Q performance and with equal or better battery life than the ARM. I don't care where you sit on the argument that's pretty damned exciting in MY book.

Why Humans Need Earth

[l0ungeb0y]

... more than Earth needs humans and why Microsoft needs PCs more than PCs need Microsoft
and even *gasp* why mammals need air more than air needs mammals

Stay tuned for more insightful and thought provoking statements here on El Slashdotto!

That's crazy!

[cvtan]

Smartphones need Intel as much as photography needs Kodak!!

always protect the low end

[alen]

performance wise ARM is crap compared to Intel. Just like Intel was crap compared to SPARC and all the other architectures they killed off in the last 30 years

one of the most important rules of business is to protect the low end of your market. if you don't then a competitor will establish a lower margin business and move up to take your high end. Just like Intel did.

even apple knows this and has products just good enough to keep low end competitors at bay

The first Intel based smartphone launched in 1996

[kroyd]

And, it used an Intel 386 cpu: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_9000_Communicator. It was probably one of the most brick-like GSM phones ever.

Later Nokia switched to AMD for their 9100, then to ARM for the 9210 series. I bought a 9201i in 2002, I believe I paid t something like 1500usd..

There were also a few Japanese intel based phones, but those ran Windows XP.. Not really what I would call a smart phone. So, it might be correct to say that this is the "first Intel based smart-phone which might launch in the US".

Re:Recompile

[Austerity Empowers]

Easier said than done. You have to test and support both versions, and recompiling C/C++ cross platform is not always straightforward. Given the already significant fragmentation in Android, I wonder when/if many places will get around to it. (The answer is when Intel gets enough market share)