Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Intel Announces Major Reorg To Combine Mobile and PC Divisions

Posted by Soulskill on from the goes-together-like-peanut-butter-and-motor-oil dept.

MojoKid writes: For the past year, Intel has pursued what's known as a "contra-revenue" strategy in its mobile division, where product is deliberately sold at a loss to win market share and compete effectively. This has led to a huge rise in tablet shipments, but heavy losses inside Intel's mobile division. Today, the company announced that it would take steps to fold its mobile and conventional processors into a single operating division. While this helps shield the mobile segment from poor short-term results, it also reflects the reality that computing is something users now do across a wide range of devices and multiple operating systems. Intel may not have hit anything like the mobile targets it set out years ago, but long-term success in laptops, tablets, and smartphones remains integral to the company's finances. Desktops and conventional laptops are just one way people compute today and Intel needs to make certain it has a robust long-term presence in every major computing market.

75 comments

  1. Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    where product is deliberately sold at a loss to win market share and compete effectively

    Isn't that also called dumping?

    1. Re:Dumping by Roodvlees · · Score: 0

      I'd say dumping is done to get rid of old stock or an attempt to bankrupt the competition.
      I think Intel very well realizes that they are not going to bankrupt their competition and the processors sold where newly designed.

      --
      Thank you, Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden and so many others, for courageously defending humanity, my freedom and more!
    2. Re:Dumping by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It tends to be; but I think regulatory authorities only get nervous if it shows signs of being dangerously effective, or if there is reason to believe that the pockets behind it are deep enough to ignore losses almost indefinitely(as with international dumping/tariff slapfights, where a mixture of xenophobia and the fact that a nation state can typically afford to keep dumping longer than a company can afford to keep competing).

      In the case of Intel trying to break into tablets, my understanding is that it's a known matter of fact that Bay Trail parts are being practically given away(along with a nontrivial amount of Intel software work, including an emulator to handle ARM NDK stuff and general porting and polishing to make the x86 Android not look like, say, the blasted hellscape that is MIPS Android); but it is less clear whether Intel has been able to dump hard enough to actually damage competition.

      The one product line that they definitely helped bury was Windows RT (which was mostly an unloved bastard child anyway, even before you could cram an x86 into the same chassis, and definitely had no reason to exist afterwards); but that didn't hurt MS much, since the quality of Windows tablets went up. In the wider ARM ecosystem, ARM Ltd, themselves seem to be riding high and unbelievably cheap SoCs continue to pop out of the woodwork.

      Their Bay Trail pricing has definitely made x86 Android something you might actually see in the wild, and tablet-Windows something you might actually consider at a sub-Windows Surface price point; but it doesn't seem to have crushed the ARM market very much.

    3. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Technically yes.

      It's not very effective though. Android x86 tablets are basically garbage as they can't run Android ARM Native binaries, and have extremely weak GPU's compared to the ARM parts.

      But Android on a tablet is a lost cause. Intel hasn't a hope in hell. Android made some headway against the iPhone because Samsung was offering something "compelling enough" compared to the iPhone, but it's having the low-end completely washed out from beneath it. In the tablet space, you can't get away with the weak Mali GPU's on a tablet.

      Like the user experience for Android on a tablet device is horrible compared to the iPad.

      The best "use case" for x86 tablet parts might actually be in the same slot the Surface RT filled. The "slighty better than an ebook reader" slot that can also run normal windows applications.

      But Android, no, android's dead in the water for tablets.
      http://readwrite.com/2013/04/12/samsung-dominates-list-of-top-android-tablets

      http://www.techtimes.com/articles/10173/20140710/tablet-sales-tanking-bit-thanks-phablets.htm
      And they're dying because of Phone-Tablets, not because of Apple's iPad.

    4. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Technically yes.

      It's not very effective though. Android x86 tablets are basically garbage as they can't run Android ARM Native binaries, and have extremely weak GPU's compared to the ARM parts.

      Intel's Android platform has a ARMv7 translation layer called houdini, and their mobile parts use the same GPU's (PowerVR) as ARM parts, so I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that 'information' from.

    5. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup, and they can always make it up in volume right?

    6. Re:Dumping by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 1

      LOL really? All the Android tablet makers should just fold their tents? Because "the user experience for Android on a tablet device is horrible compared to the iPad"? And "[Android] is slighty better than an ebook reader"? I'm sure they'll all discontinue making Android tablets later today. iPad/iPhone 4ever!!1!!!

      And Google and Samsung disappeared in a puff of fanboyism.

    7. Re:Dumping by CajunArson · · Score: 2

      Venn Diagram:
      1. People who claim that x86 can't run Android.

      2. People (like me) who actually own Baytrail Android Tablets and have seen what they can do first hand (hint: for $150 I got a tablet that's flat-out better than an iPad Mini. I also get the warm & fuzzy feeling of supporting the only Android hardware vendor in the world that supports Linux with both money, developers, and gobs of GPL compliant driver code).

      3. Overlap between the two circles: Empty Set.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    8. Re:Dumping by SourceFrog · · Score: 1

      Selling your product at market prices in order to try increase market share toward levels where economies of scale kick in enough to cover R&D and operational costs, is not "dumping", it's just normal business that basically every company that makes a product does.

      If e.g. BMW makes a new model of car, the first sale of that car will be at a loss of hundreds of millions. It requires selling many cars to break even on a new model, and if they don't sell enough of that model in the end, the model is just a normal business failure (there are always going to be products that don't make money) - it doesn't mean BMW must try charge customers billions for each car - they can't, they have to sell cars at market rates.

      It's the same for any old widget.

      --
      My other UID is three digits.
    9. Re:Dumping by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      Considering that the USA reciently put tariffs on Chinese produced solar panels, because they were being subsidised by the Chinese government. I wonder if the Chinese could do the same thing, as Intel's subsidised SoC's are competing primarily in the Chinese market against local Chinese companies (i.e Mediatek)

    10. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't hold your breath. Do you know how much Intel business is located in China? (I mean both Chinese businesses that buy Intel for eventual export as well as Intel's actual business presence in terms of Fabs, A/T's, and subcons.) It's not negligible.

    11. Re:Dumping by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that China could. Half the fun of being a nation state is that you can do all kinds of stuff with no more risk than a stern letter from the WTO. That said, taking action against a private company, selling at a loss out of its own pocket, would likely play differently than taking action against a company being supported by the state to sell at a loss. They could still do it; but the diplomatic angle might be less favorable.

      It'd also be interesting to know if they would want to or not: Aside from some very feeble stirrings(I think some of the Loongson 3 MIPS64 stuff was supposed to have hardware assisted x86 emulation; but nobody seems to have heard from that recently), China has basically zero domestic x86 production, so they may well prefer to just get cheap silicon for themselves and more demand for (Chinese-assembled) devices built around cheap Intel silicon.

    12. Re:Dumping by vakuona · · Score: 1

      It could be predatory pricing, or dumping, if you sell below marginal cost, i.e. the cost of producing each additional car (or chip). However, even then, it can be tricky, as companies can sell below marginal cost as they expect marginal costs to fall as production is bedded in.

    13. Re:Dumping by zieroh · · Score: 1

      2. People (like me) who actually own Baytrail Android Tablets and have seen what they can do first hand (hint: for $150 I got a tablet that's flat-out better than an iPad Mini. I also get the warm & fuzzy feeling of supporting the only Android hardware vendor in the world that supports Linux with both money, developers, and gobs of GPL compliant driver code).

      It's easy to make a competitive tablet when the parts are free or -- worse yet -- when the manufacturer gets kickback for using Intel chips.

      Fortunately, it's an unsustainable business model, so maybe you should cherish this moment of smug before it disappears.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    14. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically yes.

      It's not very effective though. Android x86 tablets are basically garbage as they can't run Android ARM Native binaries, and have extremely weak GPU's compared to the ARM parts.

      Intel's Android platform has a ARMv7 translation layer called houdini, and their mobile parts use the same GPU's (PowerVR) as ARM parts, so I'm not entirely sure where you're getting that 'information' from.

      FWIW, Intel's mobile parts stopped using the PowerVR GPU a generation ago (now they use a sized down core borrowed from their laptop gpu). Intel is houdini/armv7 layer is kind of grey ware (proprietary license, but widely "available"), and it also runs pretty slowly...

    15. Re:Dumping by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their one old fab in China?

    16. Re:Dumping by CajunArson · · Score: 1

      Uh.. I thought companies making profits was evil. Shouldn't we be applauding Intel for not making any money? Would you insult the Raspberry Pi project for giving away free devices?

      I'd much rather live in a world with a made-up "Intel monopoly" that doesn't exist where Intel is literally the largest contributor to the Linux kernel that isn't a Linux-specific company (look it up, Intel is usually #3 right after the Linux foundation & Red Hat) vs. the very real ARM monopoly of intellectual property minefields, backdoored binary firmward blobs, opaque drivers, and poor support.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    17. Re:Dumping by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Uh.. I thought companies making profits was evil. Shouldn't we be applauding Intel for not making any money?

      There's not making any money, and then there's hemorrhaging billions in a vain effort to break into the market.

      And for the record, I don't happen to think that making profits is inherently evil.

      I'd much rather live in a world with a made-up "Intel monopoly" that doesn't exist where Intel is literally the largest contributor to the Linux kernel that isn't a Linux-specific company (look it up, Intel is usually #3 right after the Linux foundation & Red Hat) vs. the very real ARM monopoly of intellectual property minefields, backdoored binary firmward blobs, opaque drivers, and poor support.

      Try to stay on topic.

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    18. Re:Dumping by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      It tends to be; but I think regulatory authorities only get nervous if it shows signs of being dangerously effective, or if there is reason to believe that the pockets behind it are deep enough to ignore losses almost indefinitely(as with international dumping/tariff slapfights, where a mixture of xenophobia and the fact that a nation state can typically afford to keep dumping longer than a company can afford to keep competing).

      In the case of Intel trying to break into tablets, my understanding is that it's a known matter of fact that Bay Trail parts are being practically given away(along with a nontrivial amount of Intel software work, including an emulator to handle ARM NDK stuff and general porting and polishing to make the x86 Android not look like, say, the blasted hellscape that is MIPS Android); but it is less clear whether Intel has been able to dump hard enough to actually damage competition.

      The one product line that they definitely helped bury was Windows RT (which was mostly an unloved bastard child anyway, even before you could cram an x86 into the same chassis, and definitely had no reason to exist afterwards); but that didn't hurt MS much, since the quality of Windows tablets went up. In the wider ARM ecosystem, ARM Ltd, themselves seem to be riding high and unbelievably cheap SoCs continue to pop out of the woodwork.

      Their Bay Trail pricing has definitely made x86 Android something you might actually see in the wild, and tablet-Windows something you might actually consider at a sub-Windows Surface price point; but it doesn't seem to have crushed the ARM market very much.

      Will we see the I7 47xx cpus drop in price, or will that price increase to sustain the Intel mobile market/tablet?

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    19. Re:Dumping by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      "That said, taking action against a private company, selling at a loss out of its own pocket, would likely play differently than taking action against a company being supported by the state to sell at a loss. "

      The USA has done it on many occasions. Farming tariff barriers spring to mind immediately (USA farmers are extremely inefficient and are very good at lobbying their politicians for protection+subsidies instead of getting their shit together).

  2. Looks like they want to hide their loss in mobile? by Crashmarik · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seems like they want to conceal how well/poorly they are doing in the mobile sector. Makes a certain amount of sense most people see the mobile market as the hot new future.

  3. only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phones, tablets, laptops, all is mobile. The days of tower rigs are over.

    1. Re:only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      Phones, tablets, laptops, all is mobile. The days of tower rigs are over.

      Given that a 'tower rig' is basically a server turned on its side, with fewer 40mm fans and some of the classy reliability features cut, that category will take a great deal of killing. On the other hand, the CPU in a server or tower is almost certainly using nearly as many of the power gating, adjustable clock speed, and various other thermal protection and power saving strategies as the mobile CPUs are. Overall efficiency is still going to be lower ('eh, we're on AC, just keep the PSU energized so a USB peripheral can wake the system!' isn't god's gift to brilliant standbye power numbers); but 'mobile' and 'desktop' have been on something of a collision course ever since the P4 flamed out, almost literally, and Pentium M derivatives took over.

    2. Re:only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by BlackHawk-666 · · Score: 3, Informative

      That might be marginally true, but only for consumers. The people who actually make the shit everyone consumes still need those tower rigs. Try running MSVC, Photoshop, Max, CRYENGINE and other DAW tools, all at once on your phone or tablet. You could run it on a beefy laptop, but that would seriously cost several times more than a standard PC and still be worse at the job.

      So sure, over for the people who's only real need is a web browser...still going strong for the rest of us.

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
    3. Re:only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by confused+one · · Score: 2

      This. My core i7 laptop with AMD graphics and maxed out on memory, is only marginal for use doing electronic design, eCAD and PCB layout. It's OK for software compiles; but, all my projects target smallish embedded processors. Time is money... If I have to wait for something then I'm pissing away money. I have the laptop because I needed a portable machine to carry with me to customer sites.

    4. Re:only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Phones, tablets, laptops, all is mobile. The days of tower rigs are over.

      From an architectural POV, I wouldn't bundle laptops w/ phones/tablets. ChromeOS is still a fringe OS, and Linux/BSD even more so. Laptops are still overwhelmingly Wintel, and even WinRT failed to make any impact. You might as well bunch laptops w/ your 'tower rigs'.

      ARM pretty much owns the phone & tablet markets with not just Android, but iOS as well. Intel pretty much owns the laptop and server markets w/ Wintel. A good indicator is Apple, who've gone w/ ARM for their iOS toys - iPhones & iPads, while they've gone w/ Intel on all their OS-X boxes.

      The only 'mobile' area that Intel could do well is the Surface Pro clones, once it's recognized that it's a de-facto laptop, rather than a tablet market that they are playing in. There is no reason to go Intel for Android.

    5. Re:only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Phones, tablets, laptops, all is mobile. The days of tower rigs are over.

      Have fun running a decent flight simulator on any of those. How do you fit three full size graphics cards into your phone?

      Pretty much only ancient games run on mobile devices, short of the extremely large laptops that are only "mobile" by a huge stretch of the imagination.

  4. Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by glennrrr · · Score: 2

    Given the fairly lame update to the Mac Mini caused mainly by the lack of choices in Intel's mobile CPU offerings (and Apple's refusal to design and stock a separate motherboard just for quad core), I'm wondering just what would it take for Apple to make yet another CPU transition. They must hate being dependent on the release schedules of Intel for when it comes to putting out Macs, and the A8X is nearly the performance of a couple years ago MacBook Air.

    1. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      They're not talking about the Core i3/i5/i7 mobile processors for laptops. Those are just the low power versions of the desktop processors. They're talking about atoms, quark and other processors targeting tablets and phones and small embedded applications, those designed to compete with ARM. Apple made a choice, there were options they could have used in the Mac Mini that they didn't offer.

    2. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Given the fairly lame update to the Mac Mini caused mainly by the lack of choices in Intel's mobile CPU offerings (and Apple's refusal to design and stock a separate motherboard just for quad core), I'm wondering just what would it take for Apple to make yet another CPU transition.

      Abject stupidity. At least, they're not changing instruction sets again any time soon. They won't do that until they feel bytecode translation becomes a viable option for a desktop OS.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A comment I left on Apple Insider after doing all the math required, suggests that Apple can do it with the current A8X just by clocking it to 3Ghz. But that would only bring it within performance parity of a Dual Core i5 Mobile, not a desktop. How much energy it would use at twice the clock speed is something we might never know.

    4. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 1

      How would that 3Ghz A8X benchmark against an Atom SoC such as the 14nm Cherry Trail?

      Sufficiently well enough to justify a switch away from x86-64 to ARM?

    5. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by raxx7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Short answer: an A8X won't work at 3 GHz, period.

      Long answer:
      All CPU, and other digital logic circuits, designs have a maximum target frequency at which they can operate correctly.
      And by targeting a higher maximum frequency there is penalty to pay in area, power and performance. A well designed CPU targetting 3 GHz but running at 1.5 GHz will consume more power and perform worse than a well designed CPU targetting 1.5 GHz.

      All available evidence and educated guessing points that Apple's CPUs are in fact targetting the frequency range in which they are shipping (~1.5 GHz) and there is no chance in hell they will work at much more than 2 GHz.

    6. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I don't see a transition happening any time soon, Apple make a lot of money selling high-end Intels and the A8X is not nearly a replacement for that. They might pull a WinRT though, as long as they:

      a) make a meaningful merge of iOS and OS X
      b) make it detachable for use as an iPad
      c) most importantly, make sure to say it's not a Mac

      If Google can sell "ChromeBooks", I think there's a market for Apple to sell something similar, maybe with an emphasis on the pad-side since it runs all pad software. Maybe call it the iPad Flex or something like that

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    7. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have no idea how you did your math but 3Ghz seems way off. The 1.5Ghz A8X beats a Core i3 Dual Core 1.5Ghz chip in Geekbench. The i3 scores ~11,000 in Google Octane (Chrome), while the iPad gets maybe ~9000 (Safari). So Apple is almost at parity right NOW assuming the same clock frequencies. The mobile i5 and i7 processors score significantly higher only because of turbo frequencies which they cannot sustain. They especially cannot sustain it in any thin tablet. The entry level MBA i5 is 1.3Ghz (2.6Ghz Turbo). The new "fanless" Core M is clocked even slower 0.8~1.1Ghz (2.6Ghz Turbo). So really it comes down to whether the A8X can turbo to 2-2.6Ghz for brief periods (Assuming Apple is OK with inconsistent performance).

      Of course, desktop is out of the question. But desktops don't really matter anyways.

    8. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by zieroh · · Score: 1

      Are you brave enough to post this kind of tripe under your own slashdot ID?

      Magic Eight Ball says "no way, Jose!"

      --
      People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
    9. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Yeah, at this point, I don't see why Apple can't just make some of their Airbooks and Mac Minis around the A7s & A8s. They just need to toss in more cores if the performance is inadequate, but I don't see why that would be. OS-X and iOS are architecturally identical, w/ only the UIs being somewhat different for touch interfaces vs non-touch. So Apple could indeed put OS-X on an A8 platform and either lower costs, or make bigger margins on their boxes.

    10. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Except that since there is no shortage of native apps for A7, Apple gets to lose nothing by building a laptop on A7, and then attracting developers there. Just like going from PPC to Intel was painless given that the OS was already there on the latter in the form of NEXTSTEP, here, the OS is already on A7 in form of iOS, so there's not much work to be done to bring OS-X to the A7

    11. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Not just that, unlike in past generations, both their OSs - OS-X and iOS are SMP capable, and most apps are multithreaded. So if power & budget is no constraint on Apple, they can easily toss in 1 or 2 more A8s or A7s, and get the performance they need. All this assumes that A8 has a major cost advantage over a mobile i7 core

    12. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Given the fairly lame update to the Mac Mini caused mainly by the lack of choices in Intel's mobile CPU offerings (and Apple's refusal to design and stock a separate motherboard just for quad core), I'm wondering just what would it take for Apple to make yet another CPU transition. They must hate being dependent on the release schedules of Intel for when it comes to putting out Macs, and the A8X is nearly the performance of a couple years ago MacBook Air.

      Highly unlikely.

      First of all, the Mac Mini, like the Mac Pro, isn't a strong seller. Apple pretty much updated it "because it was there" - the Mini was last updated in 2012 and it was lacking all the nice stuff like Haswell.

      The only thing is, enough people buy Mac Minis and Mac Pros that they're still relevant, just not enough to put any design effort into. See the iPods - they still sell, but not in huge enough quantities to put much effort making a next-gen version. We're at the A8, and the iPod Touch is running on an A5 core.

      Apple went with Intel not because of the roadmaps or delays, but because when intel says they can make a million of a part, they can actually do it. Apple dumped Motorola for IBM when the former over promised and under-delivered (Motorola didn't really care for Apple's business anyways since their embedded PowerPCs were doing quite well). But then IBM had the same problem (and IBM was getting distracted by Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft) making high-end G5s, so Apple looked around. They could've gone AMD, but AMD also has issues making high end parts in sufficient quantity, leaving only Intel.

      Intel owns super high end fabs, and they have plenty of capacity so when Apple places the order for 1M top end parts, they can be reasonably sure they will get 1M parts within the timeframe specified.

    13. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having many cores is good, but when your single threaded performance sucks (A8 is awesome compared to other ARM, lousy compared to an i7) certain applications will suffer in the performance arena.

    14. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      Many caveats there.

      First, Apple A8 cores are relatively big. They clearly are optimized for power and performance, not size and cost.
      Not sure how much advantage they have over a Broadwell core.

      Secondly, a higher performance design would require a major work. Current A8X chips are not multi-socket capable, so you can't just put more of them together. Compared to desktop Intel/AMD chips, they also have relatively weak memory systems (less than 50% of bandwidth), smaller caches and weaker GPUs.
      So Apple would need to design a new SoC based on the A8 core, with more cores, more cache, faster memory interface and faster GPU.

      Third, single thread performance still matters a lot. Not all things are multi-threaded and Amdahl's law is generally a bitch.
      There have been many who have tried to compete by putting many weak CPUs core together and they have mostly failed.
      That's why Intel has the market share it has. And that is why Apple went through the trouble and expense of designing their own CPU cores, which have arguably the best single thread performance of all available ARM cores.

    15. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Multiple CPUs require the ability to synchronize cache. This requires more pins - a lot more pins. The A8x is already saturated with pins so adding this feature is not simple. A much better solution would be to remove the GPU and replace with additional CPU cores. Such a CPU could have 8 real cores and would post some impressive benchmarks.

    16. Re:Can Apple Move to ARM on the Desktop? by nateman1352 · · Score: 1

      Given the fairly lame update to the Mac Mini caused mainly by the lack of choices in Intel's mobile CPU offerings (and Apple's refusal to design and stock a separate motherboard just for quad core)

      Why would you be faulting Intel for this?!?

      Not only that, but your argument is based on factually incorrect information. If Apple designed the new Mac Mini using the FCBGA1364 socket (high end mobile Haswell) instead of the FCBGA1168 socket (often referred to as Haswell ULT) then they could offer 2 core and 4 core minis without any board change.

      The truth is Apple's designers care more about form and power dispation than having a quad core mini. Consider that the 13 inch Macbook Pro uses FCBGA1168 and the 15 inch uses FCBGA1364, just a screen size change is enough to justify a different socket and different inventory on the Macbook line up.

      In fact, motherboard layout differences between the FCBGA1364 socket and the FCBGA1023 socket (used on the previous SandyBridge Mac Mini) are minimal compared to the amount of design change needed to go from FCBGA1023 to FCBGA1168. Apple has access to Intel's roadmaps >1 year before they are public, they knew that Intel would not have quad core on FCBGA1168 and they knew it would be more work to change thier design to use FCBGA1168 but they did it anyway. It was a deliberate design decision.

  5. Intel lost the ARM wrestling then by rodrigoandrade · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is Intel basically admitting defeat in the mobile space. It's good they don't feel so cocky anymore. Competition is good for everyone.

  6. Old term is Loss Leader by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Been used effectively for years.

  7. The problem is cost per mm of silicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Intel is the world leader when it comes to silicon advancement, there's no doubt of that. Their quite real and appropriately named 14nm process starts shipping incredibly soon, and TSMC/Global Foundries, now seemingly their only competition, don't even hope to have their inappropriately named "16nm" process shipping in products for two years out, a process not actually much to any denser than the just now shipping TSMC 20nm process.

    Intel's Core technology is also excellent in terms of silicon to performance. The problem comes in at the cost of that world leading silicon. TSMC has concentrated on costs, and while 20nm process might be a day late and a few dollars short in terms of performance and density, in terms of cost TSMC can make a profit at the same price Intel can produce chips at, let alone sell them.

    And with mobile products being relatively cheap, and their prices coming down for the most part, its that profit at a low cost to consumers and high volume that's selling. Intels Atom products are actually perfectly competitive for performance. They just cost Intel too much to produce at their super fancy fabs and that just have to be cutting edge instead of cost efficient.

    1. Re:The problem is cost per mm of silicon by edxwelch · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, also it's quite telling that Intel's low cost SoFIA SoC (i.e. they one that will not require contra revenue to sell) is made at TSMC, not at Intel's own fabs.

    2. Re:The problem is cost per mm of silicon by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I think we have long passed the points where die shrinks translate to cost savings. At best, costs are a wash, but with higher die/wafer, while at worst, the newer chips are actually more expensive than what currently exists.

    3. Re:The problem is cost per mm of silicon by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I do believe Samsung is making high end chips for their own use as well, but for foundry companies it's down to TSMC and GloFo. The real question is whether they're in the same hurry as their customers though or if they just need to stay ahead of the other guy. Take for example the graphics market, in March 2012 nVidia launched the GTX 680 on a 28nm process. Fast forward to September 2014 and they launch the GTX 980 still on a 28nm process. That's 2.5 years with no progress on the process side and AMD has been the same, but is TSMC hurting? No. They'll continue to sell wafers to both sides anyway. And I bet Apple paid well for those 20nm wafers.

      Intel still has a 60%+ margin. They could stop funneling tons of money into R&D (and profits) and fight TSMC on their turf any time they want to. Intel's never been the one to go for cheaper though, they want to make a premium chip and have you pay a premium price. They ran AMD into the ground that way and probably think they can do it again with ARM. Remember that Intel has a massive war chest from $1000+ server CPU sales and $300+ desktop CPU sales, they can afford buying their way to becoming a mobile player.

      From AMD Athlon until Intel responded with Intel Core was 7 years (1999 to 2006). The iPad launched in 2010 and Intel has been busy mounting a defense and counter-offensive ever since, my guess is that over the next couple years many of those long term projects start reaching production. With AMD way, way on the defensive they're free to pretty much point all the guns towards ARM, Ivy Bridge and Haswell hasn't done too much for the desktop but with the AMD FX line comatose a little progress beats none. Those billions Intel use on R&D must be going somewhere else.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:The problem is cost per mm of silicon by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      Intel still claims a reduction of cost per transistor in their 14 nm process.
      Not sure whether TSMC claims the same for their 16FF process.

    5. Re:The problem is cost per mm of silicon by willy_me · · Score: 1

      Remember that Intel has a massive war chest from $1000+ server CPU sales and $300+ desktop CPU sales,

      This is true, but if Intel does not design better CPUs in a timely manner then those sales are going to drop dramatically. This is precisely the problem they are now facing. People are not buying new computers because those new computers are no faster then their old computers. But they are buying new mobiles.

      Intel is competing against themselves. Unless they expand into a new market, as they are attempting to do with the mobile market, then the limited PC market will result in their demise. They can no longer rely on improved manufacturing to grow their market because we are reaching the limit of what is practical to manufacturer. Intel needs to produce a product people will want in the future or they will die. Everything Intel is currently doing demonstrates that they understand this and are acting accordingly.

  8. only greyneckbeard dinosaurs use PCs anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yea yea, my tower rig completely agrees, and need a new graphics card real soon. Maybe a new motherboard also, and a new SSD or two after that. I'm gonna name him "zombie" and call him undead liberator of carrying useless stuff with me to places where I would not use it anyways.

  9. Convergence ftw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because a chip that extends battery life is EXACTLY what I needed for my desktop PC!

  10. Not dumping by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    Isn't that also called dumping?

    Strictly speaking no it is not dumping. Dumping is the act of charging less in a foreign market than you charge in your domestic market. That isn't what Intel is doing. What Intel is doing might be considered a form of predatory pricing but it isn't dumping. All dumping is predatory pricing but not all predatory pricing is dumping.

    1. Re:Not dumping by hendrips · · Score: 3, Informative

      In U.S. legal parlance at least, all of the following must to be true behavior to qualify as "predatory pricing" for predatory pricing:
      -The business in question must have a dominant or substantial market share,
      -It must be more likely than not that the company's practices are affecting not only specific rivals but the entire market as a whole,
      -There must be a "substantial likelihood" that the predatory pricing will result in successful market monopolization,
      -The company's prices must be below any reasonable measure of the cost of production,
      -And, there must be evidence of actual harm to consumers (merely having a monopoly is not necessarily illegal, as long as the monopoly isn't provably causing actual harm).

      Point 4 might be true for Intel, but the others definitely are not.

    2. Re:Not dumping by hendrips · · Score: 1

      Yuck - please excuse my poor phrasing. It was early in the morning.

  11. Anti-competitive? by SkunkPussy · · Score: 1

    Surely using their market power in one segment to sell at a loss in a different segment is anti-competitive.

    --
    SURELY NOT!!!!!
    1. Re:Anti-competitive? by Gavagai80 · · Score: 1

      Anti-competitive is legal if you're not a monopoly. Intel has a lot of market power in desktops/laptops, but certainly no monopoly, so they're well within their rights to use that power to break into mobile.

      --
      This space intentionally left blank
    2. Re:Anti-competitive? by hendrips · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily. Legally speaking, "tying" as you describe is only a problem if it demonstrably restricts consumer choice (consumers in this case being the phone OEMs). In this case, Intel's actions have if anything increased consumer choice, by providing an alternative to the market-dominating Qualcomm.

  12. We need a business phone!! by tom229 · · Score: 2

    Intel needs to get behind an organized effort to bring us a business-grade mobile device. That's the only low hanging fruit left. Take the following excerpt I pulled from an article:

    Let's rewind to 2007. RIM owns the mobile space for business, while consumer devices are primarily "dumb phones". In comes Apple, flush with iPod money, and looking for the next evolution of it's highly profitable device. The solution is simple: why carry an iPod and a phone? Thus, the iPhone is born.

    In a single generation the iPhone brings massive innovation to the market. The device is targeted at Apple's primary demographic: the consumer, but the features are so beyond what is currently available that this type of smartphone doesn't take long to become a favorite in the business commnuity as well.

    The large touch screen destroys the conventional track ball/pad, allowing the user to display more text, and use multi-touch to navigate more efficiently. The full webkit browser completely destroys the WAP-based dinosaurs giving the user a desktop grade browser at their finger tips. The user can carry all forms of media with them and display it at their whim. And, finally, and most importantly, the design of the operating system is centered around a robust API which doesn't take long to bloom into a wealth of independent applications that let the user do things they never before thought possible.

    The response at RIM is unforunately short-sighted. RIM sees the device as a "toy". It sees it as a consumer-grade flash in the pan that will eventually collapse in the face of the established security and familiarity of their Enterprise Server platform, and BBM. RIM does opt to borrow some of the innovations - like the touch screen - and implement it their own, poorly advised ways but, ultimately, things at RIM continue as usual.

    Now let's fast forward to 2013. The market has spoken. Blackberry market share is down to single digits and the company needs to do something quick to turn things around. They've been working for years on something that is supposed to change our lives and we're finally going to get to see it. What they unveil is astonishing: a consumer-targeted device.

    The playing field in consumer-grade devices is now beyond saturated. We've had Google, Apple, and even Microsoft all battling each-other for the last 5 years. Innovation year-over-year is staggering. Why blackberry decided to try to compete in this market is baffling. What's worse, is they released an inferior product, on their own independent platform, that - of course - is going to gather no developer support in an already saturated market.

    So here we are, 2014 and - still - no business-grade device in the mobile market. We have a dizzying amount of consumer-grade choice, but nothing properly designed with business in mind. In response I would like to say the following to the entire tech community involved in mobile device development:

    We're here. We have money. We have a lot more money than all these teenage kids. Please, please, I want to spend it. Someone give me a business-grade mobile phone and tablet. Important things to me are: checking my email, security, centralized device management, and integration with existing business technologies. Reward: see Microsoft's stock price in the 90's.

    --
    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    1. Re:We need a business phone!! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      We don't need any x86 phones. For business, both iPhones & Lumias are great. iPhones have all the apps that one could want, while Lumias have most of the important ones that are useful. I use my Lumia for work purposes and iPhone for FaceTime w/ my kids.

    2. Re:We need a business phone!! by tom229 · · Score: 1

      The phone doesn't necessarily have to be x86 based, but it needs to be designed with business in mind. You'd be hard pressed to argue that either your Lumina, or iPhone is designed with business in mind. They are designed with the primary concern of taking pictures and uploading them to facebook.

      In the last 5 years, all work being done has been focused on the consumer. Phones now have pedometers, FM radio chips, and IR transmitters, but we're no closer to having real business support. This extends way beyond reading your emails and spreadsheets. We need functionality like directory integration. Let me extend the policies of my directory with mobile-based ADMX policies. Give me a smart VPN service that's also configurable through policy. How about built in device management instead of having to rely on third party "crapps" that use some cloud storage bullshit and require me to pay /user/month?

      There's SO much work to be done with regards to mobile computing in business environments. All the sales people and psuedo-technical bloggers keep telling us that mobile is the future. If it is, at some point, someone's going to have to pay attention to business.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
  13. AMD wins again by slashmydots · · Score: 0

    Want to know the difference between the 3rd gen Pentium mobile CPU and the 4th gen? The 4th gen is half the speed. I am not kidding. Its passmark rating is under 1000! Wow, now my Satellite can get 10 hours of battery life and it only takes TWICE AS LONG TO DO EVERYTHING. They turned the damn thing into a tablet/smartphone. Its average system operating wattage is 11 watts.

    What's AMD up to? Their latest release was a 220 watt desktop CPU that makes the fastest i7 look like crap. Their mobile offerings are poor, although their APUs are typically a better option overall than a dedicated Nvidia GPU plus a fast intel processor but who cares? I know laptops are outselling desktops but I don't think that trend is permanent. Everyone is dropping, overheating, and frying the battery on the computer that they run their whole life on then going back to a desktop. Trust me, I run a custom computer and repair shop and that's what I'm seeing. Intel just shot themselves in the foot.

    1. Re:AMD wins again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of Intel's desktop Core i3s are STILL running circles around AMD in single threaded performance tests. Sure, if you can use 8+threads AMD has a few decent options, but that's not most consumer workloads.

      The latest mobile CPUs didn't "get slower". They are prioritizing more mobile CPUs with better battery life and lower power but they still have higher TDP chips. The 45W laptop processors (2-3.x Ghz) were upgraded to 47W chips, some even hitting 4Ghz.

      Unless AMD has some radical new design hidden with great power efficiency, I wouldn't be surprised to see AMD exit the x86 business altogether. If their ARM investments make any headway in the server space, maybe they will wise up.

    2. Re:AMD wins again by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Most of Intel's desktop Core i3s are STILL running circles around AMD in single threaded performance tests. Sure, if you can use 8+threads AMD has a few decent options, but that's not most consumer workloads.

      Most consumer workloads won't tax either processor, the AMD chip costs a lot less, and the AMD chipset costs a lot less, too. When the system is "good enough" (even my old-ass 1045T is peppy both when puttering around and also when the system is heavily loaded) and literally a couple hundred dollars cheaper between the cost of the CPU and the cost of the motherboard, a lot of people are going to go AMD. I have other places to spend my money, and wringing a few more FPS out of a game isn't worth adding 20% or more to the cost of the system.

      For highly-parallelized tasks, AMD is still cheaper than intel flop for flop, and if you're planning to throw all your servers away every few years as many businesses do, you can punt on the power consumption issue. For a home user, it's usually not even on the radar. And it's not like AMD is just burning power, either. The lowest-end systems still have better graphics than intel; though I'm certainly no fan of ATI graphics, intel is only now getting serious about graphics performance, or perhaps that's becoming competent in.

      If you need/want balls-out single thread performance, or can be convinced that it's important to you even when it isn't, sure you're going to buy intel. But you're going to pay a premium. It has been ever thus. At times, it made great sense, because for example around the P55C vs. K6 days everyone else had apparently forgotten completely how to make a chipset. Today, not so much.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:AMD wins again by tom229 · · Score: 2

      I'm not trying to be a troll or flame here, so please don't take it like that. But, you may be comparing AMD processors and Intel in the same price range. Because the highest passmark bench results for laptops certainly belong to the 4th generation Intel mobile processors.

      You must also work in an area of the country that is either really ahead, or really behind. I'm Sr sysadmin for a medium sized company and I haven't encountered a single person - outside of a geologist or engineer that needs real power - who prefers a desktop to a laptop in many years.

      --
      If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
    4. Re:AMD wins again by raxx7 · · Score: 1

      The problem with your post is that on newegg, 48 USD gets you an AMD A6-5400K while 46 USD gets you an Intel Celeron G1610.
      The Celeron is actually a bit faster faster CPU and uses less power, although the A6 has a much faster GPU.

      Intel is, essentially, in the enviable position of having chips which are faster, consume less power and are actually smaller, thus cheaper to manufacture.
      And they are segmenting and slicing the market as they wish.
      Yes, they offer top notch performance at a premium. And even more performance if you pay an arm and a leg.
      But if you just want something cheap and competent, they got that too.

    5. Re:AMD wins again by redlemming · · Score: 1

      I'm Sr sysadmin for a medium sized company and I haven't encountered a single person - outside of a geologist or engineer that needs real power - who prefers a desktop to a laptop in many years.

      CPU power is not the only issue.

      Desktops can be made really quiet, far more so than laptops of comparable power. There are a number of clever solutions to achieve this, each addressing different aspects of computer noise, such as the huge "NoFan" heatsinks. The lack of machine noise can be very useful in many work environments. Artists, for example, often value silence when they work.

      Also, desktops can run really high end graphics cards: nice if you want good performance while running multiple big monitors (i.e. 30"). I'd really hate to develop software on even the largest laptop screen, after getting used to the convenience of the large desktop screens. One doesn't have to be a power-user (or be doing work requiring a high end CPU) to appreciate the large screens. A high end laptop might be able to drive these screens, but probably not very well.

      Some jobs generate or work with lots of data, without necessarily requiring a high end CPU (i.e. data access speed, not CPU speed, limits throughput). It's much easier (and quieter) to cool a multi-hard-drive array in a big case, leading to longer drive life and better performance. Some of the better cases have 200mm fans, which can spin a lot slower than smaller fans while generating far better cooling. Laptops can't even come close to this, either in terms of cooling or drive size. The case for the array doesn't necessarily have to be the same case as one's motherboard, of course. But if you need the big case anyway, it might make sense to put the motherboard in it (and you'll probably have fewer issues with the RAID controller).

      Physical security with desktops is much easier to enforce than with laptops, for those sites with stringent security requirements.

      From a home use perspective, you won't get good quality graphics on multiple screens using a flight simulator, without a big case and real full-size graphics cards - no laptop can do this. For that matter, you won't get good quality graphics on even single screens for high end games without a really high end laptop (and one that isn't all that portable), which makes the (much less expensive) desktop alternative pretty appealing.

      Desktops are still far more upgradable than laptops. A good case and power supply can outlast many motherboards, and give a net cost savings compared to purchasing multiple laptops.

      Laptops tend to fail more often than desktops, and are harder to repair.

      In my experience, the overhead types like the managers and marketing people prefer the laptops for convenience, but the savvy technical folks often still like the desktops.

  14. Shouldn't that be Contra-earnings? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you lower your prices below market, you lose some revenue on every unit shipped but you could potentially ship a lot more, so it's not clear that the (old) strategy is "contra revenues".

  15. Major Reorg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Like, totes obvi.

  16. Intel i8 / i8.1 by ssufficool · · Score: 1

    So does this mean they will be releasing a processor that runs applications equally as poor on mobile and desktop? They will probably straighten in out in Intel i8.1 or just skip to i10 where they re-introduce the PCI bus bridge they disabled in i8.

  17. 47W versus 15W by glennrrr · · Score: 1

    When it comes to building a compact PC, it's pretty hard to say they should have standardized on a socket which is only useable for 47W parts, versus a socket that supports parts which center around 15W. Are you actually saying that they should have designed a Mini with a 47W CPU? For home theatres and light server use? I happen to love the low energy use of the Mac Mini; I can't buy one for desktop use as I need the quad core for Xcode development, but I respect the idea of making a quiet, low energy general purpose computer.