Slashdot Mirror


Intel To Manufacture Rival ARM Chips In Mobile Push

An anonymous reader writes: Chip maker Intel has entered an unlikely partnership with British semiconductor firm ARM in an effort to boost opportunities for its foundry business. The licensing agreement, which was confirmed at the Intel Development Forum in San Francisco, means that from 2017 Intel's Custom Foundry will manufacture ARM chips -- used by smartphone giants such as Apple, Qualcomm and Samsung. On the announcement of its latest earnings report, Intel was clear to highlight a shift in focus, away from the traditional PC market, to emerging areas such as the Internet of Things and mobile -- a sector dominated by one-time arch rival ARM. It seems that Intel has now decided to surrender to the latter's prominence in the field.

11 of 81 comments (clear)

  1. Mobile! by geek · · Score: 2

    Do it for the mobile! Talk about late to the game though. Even Microsoft got the clue before this. I'm hoping Intel chokes on desktops enough to let AMD get another foot in the door. Competition is sorely needed on the desktop/laptop front.

    1. Re:Mobile! by dj245 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I am not sure the concept of "emerging market" has much relevance any longer...mainly due to "time". Manufacturing has gotten so fast and mimicry so entrenched as a business plan that anything emerging this year won't be emerging next year. It will either be fully emerged or, worse, stale. Companies look at what Apple did to some markets and are now determined not get Appled by Apple or anyone else. There is an article on NYT about how companies are evading anti-trust laws by buying any startup that looks like it might become a competitor.

      Every smart phone looks like an iPhone to me, there's no differentiation that regular customers could care about. Self-driving cars seems like a hot new area. Except no car company of any reasonable size is not working on them. There will be no emerging market for these, it will be created fully merged. Robotic assembly lines make it relatively easy and quick to switch on production of just about anything requiring mass quantities. Scaling up is easier with robotics.

      I see this as a consequence of global supply chains, subcontracting, and little if any vertical integration. All the little details that used to be trade secrets of a vertically-integrated company are now quite transparent. You open up the device, see who made all the different components, and call them up and ask for a quote. We have come a long way from the days when a company manufactured most of their core products in-house. Just as one example, GE has been subcontracting out the manufacture of steam turbines, to their own competitors, since at least the 1970s. You could argue that they were simply divesting themselves of "mature" technology in order to focus on the more profitable cutting-edge stuff, but I would argue that steam turbine technology only became fully mature because they gave away (licensed) the technology to Hitachi, Toshiba, Doosan, and Ansaldo and let them run with it.

      --
      Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
  2. Makes sense for Intel by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Intel doesn't just make CPUs, they make whole systems. A PC with an Intel chipset has Intel NICs, Intel SATA controllers, Intel PCIe bus controllers, Intel USB controllers etc. They actually do a whole lot more, including cellular modems, flash memory controllers and all sorts stuff that gets integrated into smartphone SoCs.

    So even if the CPU core is ARM instead of Intel Atom, the rest of the system will be Intel custom hardware. Getting that accepted and widely used is even more important than getting their CPU ISA used in mobile devices.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Makes sense for Intel by edxwelch · · Score: 2

      No. This is about Intel's foundry business. Seemingly, Intel will make LG's new SoC on their 10nm process. Intel does not supply any IP, it just provides the foundry service.

  3. Shouldn't have sold XScale... by dlenmn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is amusing in part because Intel made ARM processors from 1997-2006 (branded StrongARM and later XScale), but decided that ARM processors were silly and sold their ARM processor business in 2006. In hindsight, that was the worst possible timing since the mobile market started to take off shortly thereafter (the first iPhone was 2007. Oh well. At least they're no longer wasting their time trying to cram x86 processors into phones.

    1. Re:Shouldn't have sold XScale... by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

      2002-2005 was right when Intel was being controlled by their marketing division. Prior to about 2004-2005, the easiest way to improve performance was to increase clock speed. Consequently clock speed was pretty much doubling every 1.5 years, and the public correlated clock speed with CPU performance. Intel's marketing division, with the backing of management, forced their engineering division to increase clock speed at all costs.

      The resulting fiasco was Netburst and Prescott, which ran headfirst into the laws of physics. To reach higher frequencies required higher voltages. But CPU power consumption is proportional to frequency times voltage squared. Prescott ran too hot to yield the promised performance increases and Intel's CPU progress stalled. This resulted in AMD capturing the CPU performance crown (which is why the 64-bit instruction set is AMD64).

      Intel was trying to do the same thing with XScale - increase clock speed at all costs. They ended up with a mobile processor which doubled the clock speed but didn't yield 2x the performance.

      What ended up saving Intel's butt was their laptop division. High power consumption is death for a laptop since it reduces battery life, and laptops weren't as big a market back then. So Intel's laptop CPU engineering division hadn't been pressured by marketing to increase clock speed. They'd come up with a CPU based on the Pentium 3 which made improvements which didn't increase power consumption. The Pentium M allowed Intel to quickly recover from their stumble, and became the basis for the Core, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo CPUs, with the lessons learned leading to the Core i CPUs we use today.

      But there was no Pentium M-equivalent for XScale. They'd lost too much ground to ARM to play catch-up, so Intel ended up jettisoning the project and selling it to Marvell. Their new tack was to reduce the power consumption of the x86 (and eventually AMD64) CPUs enough to compete with ARM. You call it a waste of time, but they eventually did reach power-parity with ARM once they moved to 14nm (partly because ARM was still on 28 and 22nm). But by then the ARM ecosystem was well-developed (iOS and Android), and the fact that you could run x86 software (Windows) on Intel's offering didn't matter anymore.

    2. Re:Shouldn't have sold XScale... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      This time, it looks more like Intel is just being a fab for ARM, rather than being a licensed seller. This may sound like quibbling, but in the latter case, Intel would have licensed the ARM architecture and sold it under its own brand, whereas here, Intel is just trying to fill fab capacity

  4. Re:I thought Intel already had an ARM license by dlenmn · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's more like 20 years ago. Digital Equipment Corporation sued Intel into buying their ARM processor business in 1997 (sounds kind of weird, but it's basically what happened), and Intel kept making the processors until 2006, when it sold the business.

  5. Robotics by sjbe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Robotic assembly lines make it relatively easy and quick to switch on production of just about anything requiring mass quantities. Scaling up is easier with robotics.

    Speaking as someone who has spent a fair bit of time working with robotic assembly lines, I think you are overestimating the plug-and-play nature of them severely. Mass production does not require robots nor is it particularly made easier by their presence. The advantages of robots are that they can work in hazardous environments, they can lower unit costs in some (not all) cases by reducing labor costs, they can produce repeatable products, and they sometimes can work faster. Downsides include: High up front tooling costs, less flexible than humans, require substantial programming time/expertise, too expensive for low-medium volume, maintenance and repair, and high setup costs.

    As a general proposition scaling up is not any easier with robotics than with people and generally not any faster either. In some cases it can actually be more difficult. There are advantages to automation but ease of scaling is generally not one of them.

  6. Summary is a bit misleading and lacks context by StandardCell · · Score: 5, Informative

    Intel needs to be viewed as several businesses, one of which is their discrete CPU business, another being their flash memory, yet another being the McAfee software acquisition, and yet another something called the foundry business.

    Foundry refers to having a business where you are simply the manufacturer of chips for other companies for their specific purpose without selling into the end market. These other companies contract to Intel to be able to build anything from a network chip to a graphics chip to a microcontroller or virtually anything else (besides memory), either as a standard product off-the-shelf, or as an application-specific integrated circuit. In order for Intel to make that happen, they need to provide the know-how to these manufacturers of chips either directly or through providers of chip intellectual property. This includes logic libraries (standard cells, hence my name), memory cells and compilers for SRAMs, analog I/O cells, mixed-signal like ADCs and DACs, PLLs, non-volatile storage, design rule decks for the process rules, and a few other things that constitute the building blocks of any chip.

    Other foundries such as TSMC, Global Foundries, etc. have the same model, though Intel's foundry manufactures more of their own CPU (and other) products than for other folks. Intel decided to farm out some of that capacity to third parties and make additional money on any spare capacity they might have, particularly with their leadership in logic processes over other rivals in the discrete CPU business. One of the key aforementioned building blocks is the IP offered by ARM for CPUs, GPUs and bus interconnect. This ARM IP needs to be validated to work in their silicon process, and this is the essence of the deal - Intel's foundry customers would not do business with Intel without basic blocks like the CPU since ARM is essentially the most important embedded CPU architecture in chip design currently.

    The way the summary comes out makes it sound like Intel is manufacturing chips for its competitor, but it isn't necessarily so since the Intel microarchitecture is very highly vertically integrated as a business with their discrete CPU division whereas ARM itself is just a provider of IP with their microarchitecture. Yes, in theory Intel foundry customers could be making chips to compete in some segments of the Intel discrete CPU business, but that business is still largely dominated in the server and desktop markets by Intel and its associated software ecosystem. In the same way, ARM dominates the handheld device markets where Intel has had very little comparative presence.

    I can guarantee that Mr. Krzanich and the Intel board would never allow their foundry business to cannibalize their current core discrete CPU business for a "competitor" if they felt it was detrimental to their overall financial and operating picture. This ARM deal is a piece of a larger plan of maximizing their ROI on their very very expensive chip fabs in a market where they have typically had a lead in logic process technology at least one node ahead of their competitors historically. That advantage can be very important in mobile due to the cost and power savings vertical transistor process nodes now offer along with superior manufacturing capabilities as the scale of their other businesses has long demonstrated.

    1. Re:Summary is a bit misleading and lacks context by Kjella · · Score: 2

      I can guarantee that Mr. Krzanich and the Intel board would never allow their foundry business to cannibalize their current core discrete CPU business for a "competitor" if they felt it was detrimental to their overall financial and operating picture. This ARM deal is a piece of a larger plan of maximizing their ROI on their very very expensive chip fabs in a market where they have typically had a lead in logic process technology at least one node ahead of their competitors historically. That advantage can be very important in mobile due to the cost and power savings vertical transistor process nodes now offer along with superior manufacturing capabilities as the scale of their other businesses has long demonstrated.

      I think you have it a bit backwards, Intel would love to use their process node advantage to push their own x86 chips. But now TSMC and Samsung have 14/16nm processes up and running just like Intel, though some still argue about what's "real" and not. Since they haven't even released the 14nm Kaby Lake yet it seems Cannonlake and 10nm production is still far off while TSMC has created a 10nm test chip "Artemis" indicating they won't be far behind if at all. So because they can't stay ahead in process technology they'd rather have ARM companies make chips on Intel foundries than other foundries, more money for Intel and less money for other foundries. They wouldn't be doing it if they could keep 10nm production as an Intel exclusive.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings