Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Qualcomm Tried and Failed To Steal Intel's Crown Jewel

Posted by BeauHD on from the behind-the-scenes dept.

An anonymous reader shares an article from Bloomberg: In early November, Qualcomm Chairman Paul Jacobs stood on a stage in the heart of Silicon Valley and vowed to break Intel's stranglehold on the world's most lucrative chip business. The mobile internet and cloud computing were booming and the data centers running this digital economy had an insatiable thirst for computer servers -- and especially the powerful, expensive server chips that Intel churns out by the million. Qualcomm had spent five years and hundreds of millions of dollars designing competing processors, trying to expand beyond its mobile business. Jacobs was leading a coming-out party featuring tech giants like Microsoft and HP, which had committed to try the new gear. "That's an industry that's been very slow moving, very complacent," Jacobs said on stage. "We're going to change that."

Less than a year later, this once-promising business is in tatters, according to people familiar with the situation. Most of the key engineers are gone. Big customers are looking elsewhere or going back to Intel for the data center chips they need. Efforts to sell the operation -- including a proposed management buyout backed by SoftBank -- have failed, the people said. Jacobs, chief backer of the plan and the son of Qualcomm's founder, is out, too. The demise is a story of debt-fueled dealmaking and executive cost-cutting pledges in the face of restless investors seeking quick returns -- exactly the wrong environment for the painstaking and expensive task of building a new semiconductor business from scratch. It leaves Qualcomm more reliant on a smartphone market that's plateaued. And Intel's server chip boss is happy.

106 comments

  1. Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody else could screw them like they screwed themselves

    1. Re:Intel blew their credibility by jezwel · · Score: 2
      ...and?

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king. There's no one else challenging Intel for supremacy - unless AMDs EPYC architecture does the job?

    2. Re: Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For consumers, ARM rules, but for servers XEON still rukes but only for ten years. Xeons replaced AMD Opetrons, whiched replaced SPARC..... or at least in the EDA space.

    3. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Tough+Love · · Score: 5, Interesting

      AMDs 7nm Epycs promise to be truly epic while the current 12nm ones are already good value. AMD supposedly only has a 1% share of the server market right now, but there is a whole lot of evaluating going on. I can imagine 15-20 share of that lucrative market by this time next year.

      Now what we have is AMD+TSMC vs Intel. I'm not betting on Intel in the long run. I'll repeat my prediction that Intel has no choice in the long run but to follow AMD's leave and go fabless. Now... the emerging TSMC fab monopoly, that's something to worry about. On balance, not as bad as the traditional Wintel monopoly, but still bad. Keep in mind that the lithography equipment business had been a near total monopoly enjoyed by ASML for years now, and that has somehow worked. It's beyond me why that works.

      We haven't heard the last of the ARM server effort. Intel dodged a bullet this time by pure accident. There will be more barbarians at the gate, not necessarily Qualcomm, but they are hardly out of the game.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AMDs 7nm Epycs promise to be truly epic while the current 12nm ones are already good value. AMD supposedly only has a 1% share of the server market right now, but there is a whole lot of evaluating going on. I can imagine 15-20 share of that lucrative market by this time next year.

      Now what we have is AMD+TSMC vs Intel. I'm not betting on Intel in the long run. I'll repeat my prediction that Intel has no choice in the long run but to follow AMD's leave and go fabless. Now... the emerging TSMC fab monopoly, that's something to worry about. On balance, not as bad as the traditional Wintel monopoly, but still bad. Keep in mind that the lithography equipment business had been a near total monopoly enjoyed by ASML for years now, and that has somehow worked. It's beyond me why that works.

      We haven't heard the last of the ARM server effort. Intel dodged a bullet this time by pure accident. There will be more barbarians at the gate, not necessarily Qualcomm, but they are hardly out of the game.

      intel has already becomes "fapless" compared to AMD's offerings...

      Qualcomm should just stay away from cpu and gpu design, they are clearly hopeless at that compared to intel, AMD and Apple

    5. Re:Intel blew their credibility by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Intel has slept very long and was happy to gauge its customers with inflated prices. AMD is at least 5 years ahead of Intel now, probably more. Ideal situation would be if longer-term they basically have roughly equal market shares to keep each other honest. What Intel does when they have no competition, we already know. There is no reason to assume a dominant AMD would be much batter.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    6. Re: Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude there are still whole featuresets that AMD doesn't provide.

      They do compete well in plenty of use cases though. AMD should always have a home in many servers. Qualcomm, not so much.

    7. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm should just stay away from cpu and gpu design, they are clearly hopeless at that compared to intel, AMD and Apple

      You clearly doesn't know anything about the market Qualcomm is inserted. I'm no fanboy, but let's give credit where it's due. Intel is today out of the smartphone market partly due to the competence of Qualcomm. Also, Qualcomm is a reference of high performing CPUs/GPUs on the ARM world. In terms of smartphone SoC performance it's second only to Apple, and even them it kicks Apple's butt on the GPU and Modem side.

      It all corroborates to the notion that Qualcomm, given enough time and funds, could rise to be a worthy competitor on the server market.

    8. Re:Intel blew their credibility by GuB-42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How is AMD 5 years ahead? The only thing they have over Intel seems to be their "infinity fabric" interconnect architecture, allowing them to make efficient multi-die packages. It's good, but I can't imagine that's 5 years worth of advancement.

      Other than that, AMD is in the same ballpark as Intel, maybe a little bit behind. That's still impressive, real competition after all these years, however AMD better not fall asleep now that they have (hopefully) woken up Intel if they don't want to get passed again.

    9. Re:Intel blew their credibility by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      AMD has similar architectural issues to deal with. The epic EPYC PSP problem is still a mind-numbing issue. AMD has pretty much buried it under the rug, not that Intel's Meltdown/Sceptre efforts have been successful.

      Qualcomm (or others) could turn RISC designs into something really useful, but there's a cart-and-horse problem that Oracle/Sun, IBM, Moto, Apple, and others know too well.

      Phone and IoT/industrial IoT are still growth areas. Remember that the telcos are going to try to obsolete your entire kit with 5G replacements, more expensive phones with kitchen-sink add-ons and more-- soon.

      Yeah, Qualcomm did some pretty stupid things. But AMD needs to keep looking over their shoulder. We all do.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    10. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NS what idiot wrote that piece?! They ONLY mention AMD in 2006/00s?! Whoops we forgot about Zen and ALL of the recent data showing steadily increasing marketshare ACROSS the board?! WTF?! ...and that China deal... gj... just made the entire IP worthless ffs! I'm willing to bet to make it an even more idiotic concession that they got almost no money from that province... or a pittance compared to what QC itself was pouring into it. I guess we now truly now know why QC is only using barely modified(if at all) bog standard ARM designs in their SoCs nowadays. Everyone that knew anything left. Well apparently as far as their CPU designs go. Hope that they hung on to their RF engineers at least or they're well and truly fscked.

    11. Re:Intel blew their credibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm (or others) could turn RISC designs into something really useful, but there's a cart-and-horse problem that Oracle/Sun, IBM, Moto, Apple, and others know too well.

      All modern processors are internally RISCy, so no. There is no problem. Everyone is using RISC designs. Did you mean to say ARM?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    12. Re:Intel blew their credibility by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      No, the Intel/AMD/others x86-x64 familes are CISC processors, no matter the handling underneath. It came to pass that the layers underneath were recently shown to have exposed RISC core access, but such access is disabled so far as most all humans are concerned.

      The instruction set vs execution over clock cycles that determines the practical difference. ARM is based on the 6502 instruction set, adapted for larger memory models and in some cases, math, depending upon the implementation. I consider the ARM family RISC, but not the Intel/AMD families mentioned.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    13. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      The only thing they have over Intel seems to be their "infinity fabric" interconnect architecture

      That is definitely not the entire list. Another huge one: AMD cache design is not vulnerable to Meltdown. I agree, definitely not 5 years ahead. Maybe 1 year ahead in process tech because of Intel's engineering misfortune. Roughly even in CPU design.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    14. Re:Intel blew their credibility by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No, the Intel/AMD/others x86-x64 familes are CISC processors, no matter the handling underneath.

      I didn't say otherwise, so you don't get to open with "No," there. I said they were internally RISC, and they are. It's a fact.

      It came to pass that the layers underneath were recently shown to have exposed RISC core access,

      Completely, totally, and in all other ways irrelevant. RISC won where it made sense for RISC to win, inside the processor. CISC won where it made sense for CISC to win, in the instruction set.

      but such access is disabled so far as most all humans are concerned.

      Surrrrrrre it is. If you trust your microprocessor manufacturer to get everything right, anyway.

      The instruction set vs execution over clock cycles that determines the practical difference.

      Processors are virtually all (outside of embedded) multicore and OoO now, there is no practical difference except that CISC effectively offers instruction set compression.

      I consider the ARM family RISC, but not the Intel/AMD families mentioned.

      That's why I said they were "Internally RISCy" and not "RISC". But then you went off half-cocked attacking a straw man. HTH, HAND!

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    15. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ARM is based on the 6502 instruction set

      No. Just no. Have you even looked at either of them?

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    16. Re:Intel blew their credibility by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Ok, not really the 6502 instruction set per se, but rather, similar to the 6502 in that it didn't use DMA.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    17. Re:Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I work at ASML (engineer, far from the CxO/sales/strategy folks).

      Our management tells us that we cannot be complacent, because the competition could beat ASML on cost if we stop innovating. They also tell us that we cannot raise prices without added value because of how the whole semiconductor industry works, all the way to the end users.

    18. Re:Intel blew their credibility by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Your just stringing words together, aren't you?

      6502 processor didn't use 'DMA'? DMA is when a peripheral accesses main memory. Apple 2s used DMA, pretty sure C-64 did also.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    19. Re:Intel blew their credibility by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Long day.

      Read about it here: https://www.engineersgarage.co...

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    20. Re:Intel blew their credibility by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Also, AMD can compile custom chips, including a variable amount of powerful GFX. See all the consoles with AMD CPUs.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re: Intel blew their credibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple doesnâ(TM)t do the modem - they've either bought modem chips from QualComm or Intel - with the QualComm chip performing better.

  2. Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In their effort to move stock, Bloomberg conveniently ignores the speculative execution debacle at Intel. Intel's chips are shit right now.

    1. Re:Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Not everybody's computer is left open to exploits. There are lots of places where all that matters is performance, and Intel is still competitive there.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    2. Re: Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by datavirtue · · Score: 0

      Wake the fuck up neckbeard. It follows the same pattern seen in every business the world over. Intel CPUs are used day in and day out without any type of security problems. The reasoning goes: I see your proof and I believe you but we have been using them for years and have never had a problem. In the back of thier mind the business just lost a little bit of respect for you because you keep brining it up. Sort of like when your toddler keeps running to tell you the dog rolled in poop.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    3. Re: Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone runs VMs these days, if your hypervisor OS is patched you're not vulnerable to any of them.
      If you're pushing a bare metal workload then just make sure you're only running vetted code and you'll be fine.

    4. Re:Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualcomm and other ARM chips were also affected by speculative execution problems.

    5. Re: Bloomberg Ignores the Facts by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Intel CPUs are used day in and day out without any type of security problems.

      False.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  3. This isn't rocket science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They need a registered+unregistered ECC-capable DDR4 memory controller capable of driving at least 2-4 sockets and either hypertransport lanes to a PCIe controler, or onboard PCIe 4.0-5.0 lanes ranging from 16 to 48 minimum, depending on the market segment they are trying to capture, ideally supporting bifurcation along all power of two possibilities.

    If they did that their chips would be capable of driving PCIMG passive backplane motherboards, actual x86 style motherboards, and the full range of consumer, professional, and industrial grade hardware.

    This isn't rocket science. The technologies, licensing, and engineering are all non-trivial, but also well within the capabilities of companies like Qualcomm. The fact that they managed to fumble this bad enough to take themselves down is both technological and political in nature (the trade war with china closely aligns with Qualcomm's failed attempt, doesn't it?)

    1. Re:This isn't rocket science. by Frank+Burly · · Score: 2

      When I first read about Qualcomm's ambitions in this area, the article said that they were aiming for Chinese data centers who would be developing their own OS (and therefore did not need x86 compatibility).

    2. Re:This isn't rocket science. by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Some of the best, and definitely the worst comments, all seem to come from Mr. Anonymous Coward. This is one of the best. Thank you kind sir.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  4. A Poorly Written Article by Nova+Express · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seems to have been written (or edited) by someone without a semiconductor background. The biggest question I had was what processor architecture were they building around, something the Bloomberg piece never seemed to answer.

    If they mean this it's 48 cores and based on ARMv8. Potentially interesting, but the piece lacks all the technical detail about how Qualcomm intended to position the chip technically against Intel, and what advantages it might have over competing ARM-based offerings.

    But "ARM" never even appears in the Bloomberg article...

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So yeah. We all know the real problem - Intel exerting too much pressure on Microsoft.

      Seriously, if Microsoft hadn't bowed to Intel, AMD would have had a HUGE head-start in the 64 bit world. Now, it's 2018, why hasn't Microsoft shipped Windows 10 on ARM? They have it working, so get the damn devices OUT THE DOOR.

      Break the Intel monopoly. Microsoft needs Intel far, far less than Intel needs Microsoft.

    2. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But technobabble never even appears in the marketspeak article...

      FTFY.

      Of course Bloomberg won't focus on the reason they failed. Bloomberg's too busy astroturfing for "what happens when you don't make short term invest....(*hahahahahah!* read: gamblers) happy." What made you think you'd see something like that based the source?

    3. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want to break Intel's monopoly then build a competitive alternative.

    4. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So yeah. We all know the real problem - Intel exerting too much pressure on Microsoft.

      Seriously, if Microsoft hadn't bowed to Intel, AMD would have had a HUGE head-start in the 64 bit world. Now, it's 2018, why hasn't Microsoft shipped Windows 10 on ARM? They have it working, so get the damn devices OUT THE DOOR.

      Break the Intel monopoly. Microsoft needs Intel far, far less than Intel needs Microsoft.

      This is about servers.

      Microsoft isn't really a factor.

    5. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 2

      Microsoft isn't really a factor.

      And Linus is on vacation because the social networkers got to him.

    6. Re:A Poorly Written Article by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      So yeah. We all know the real problem - Intel exerting too much pressure on Microsoft.

      Seriously, if Microsoft hadn't bowed to Intel, AMD would have had a HUGE head-start in the 64 bit world. Now, it's 2018, why hasn't Microsoft shipped Windows 10 on ARM? They have it working, so get the damn devices OUT THE DOOR.

      Break the Intel monopoly. Microsoft needs Intel far, far less than Intel needs Microsoft.

      This is about servers.

      Microsoft isn't really a factor.

      Actually, they are, when you look at their build-out of Azure.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    7. Re: A Poorly Written Article by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      Microsoft makes billions of dollars from Windows Server. Try again.

    8. Re:A Poorly Written Article by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually Microsoft did not. Microsoft launched the x86-64 (AMD64) version of Windows against Intel's will and dropped down support for Itanium. At one time Microsoft was even involved in the ACE consortium which meant to sell MIPS computers with Windows NT as a replacement for the Intel architecture. It flopped bad.

      Microsoft has tried to change architectures more than once, especially to those with more than one supplier, but the large installed base of applications makes that exceedingly difficult. Every once in a while they port Windows to a new architecture but it typically flops soon afterwards because of the lack of applications.

      Unlike Apple back when they switched from the PowerPC there isn't enough of performance difference between an Intel processor and other leading edge processors to make emulation of x86 viable across the board.

  5. ARMing good fun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why just go the fist, when you can go the whole ARM?

  6. actually focused on the corporate dealings... by johnjones · · Score: 1

    they just focused on the corporate dealings of qualcomm...

    technically if they can focus their efforts for centriq on the 5G edge (fixed in home modems and cell sites with caching, SDN etc) then they have a chance to expand their footprint otherwise intel will own the server and have a 5G modem competing with qualcomm which is not good for corporate returns at all...

     

  7. The hitch with the sales to China was that.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..the Chinese expected Qcom to just turn over the cellphone patent IP without any guarantee of the server chip sales. Qcom was too smart to fall into that trap (unlike many others) but not smart enough to not fall for the setup lure to the trap.

  8. Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by chromaexcursion · · Score: 2

    AMD has been trying to get an edge. They did for a few years, but lost it.
    Server chips are not mobile chips. Qualcomm was in over their head's before they started.
    They never had a chance.

    1. Re:Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I believe that AMD were largely, though not completely, cheated out of it by Intel's illegal payments to vendors. The article also glosses over this fact, and it is fact as Intel were convicted. It is a massive business risk IMO, it nearly broke AMD. I could imagine the business part of Qualcomm being uneasy about that more than the technical aspects of it.

      I find the article to be rather lightweight.

    2. Re:Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There was also Intel secretly altering their commercial compiler to only provide optimized paths for their own CPUs.

    3. Re:Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? Why would they do that secretly? I would expect the INTEL compiler to be optimized for INTEL chips. Much as I would expect the AMD compiler to be optimized for AMD chips. The problem would be if clang or gcc or some other third party compiler unfairly favored one over the other.

    4. Re:Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by jwhyche · · Score: 3

      I don't believe AMD really ever had an edge. From someone that has used AMD chips for years I've noticed one thing. They always lay just behind Intel in performance about 5% while maintaining a price difference just enough to offset that performance. An when AMD every really seemed to have an edge, they quickly licenced it to Intel.

      Even the FX chips, which most people agree was a dog when released, still was good enough to classify as high end performance. I still use one in my home server. Even the Ryzn chips, as good as they are, are not quite as good as the Intel counterparts. The performance gap of chips of the same class has fallen to about 3% but its still there. An the cost offset is still there.

      Plus when it seems AMD is about to cash in its chips, someone shows up with a boat load of money. I'm not ready to say intel is pulling the stings behind AMD keeping them afloat but it sure seems that way at times. Keeping the competition a float just enough so they can't be declared a monopoly but not enough that AMD is a serous threat.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re: Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      I'm going to go with this. If your CEO is making announcements like this there is a pretty good chance he is blowing smoke. When does anyone who grandstands ever dig in to find out if they can pull it off? If they can pull it off they certainly don't make a fucking announcement.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    6. Re:Maybe Qualcom should have talked to AMD by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      It's just that Intel's compiler detected instruction sets by checking the manufacturer and processor id instead of checking the processor's flags like what any reasonable person would do.

  9. They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some of us remember how much of the design of the DEC Alpha was stolen by Intel for the Pentium. See https://www.nytimes.com/1997/0.... Between this and the theft of VMS technologies to create Windows NT, DEC went bankrupt and stopped producing new technologies to be stolen.

    1. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Tough+Love · · Score: 2

      Intel and AMD carved up DEC's lead engineers between them. Among other things AMD got out of that deal was hypertransport. Intel got... um... itanic.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    2. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by _merlin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Intel got StrongARM from DEC, which became Xscale, before they sold it off. That seemed like a kind of weird decision - at the time they owned the best-performing ARM implementation on the market, but they sold it because they were betting everything on x86.

      The Pentium 4 NetBurst architecture has more in common with Alpha AXP than Itanic. NetBurst ended up going the same way as Alpha in the end, with high clock speeds but mediocre real-world performance, and horrible power/heat issues.

    3. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by _merlin · · Score: 5, Informative

      The Pentium Pro and Pentium MMX don't really look much like Alpha AXP. If anything, they look more like a desperate response to Sun. Pentium Pro copies conditional moves from SPARCv9 to help conserve branch prediction resources and avoid pipeline bubbles. MMX is a blatant rip-off of UltraSPARC's VIS - allow integer SIMD operations on values in FPU registers.

      As for WinNT, it's not stolen. It implements a lot of ideas that had ended up in VMS because Cutler had previously worked on VMS. You can't stop someone from re-implementing their own ideas in a new product. The WinNT makes different compromises to VMS, with more focus on conserving resources, which makes sense for the commodity hardware it was supposed to run on.

    4. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by PaulHammant · · Score: 1

      Prior to 2005, Intel bought a chunk of DEC to get VLIW technology (for their Itanic CPUs) as well as StrongArm. The latter turned out to be wasteful to manufacture, which is one reason it could not remain.

      Atom came from a semi-competing group was working on an X86 SoC thing. Apparently they were overly optimistic about making low power SoC processors because they sold the StrongArm/XScale stuff _early_ to create room in a number of ways for what they thought to be this super compelling X86-compatible line.

      This was convincing enough for Steve Jobs to commit to X86 and drop PowerPC as then Intel CEO, Paul Otellini, had shown the roadmap of the forthcoming CPUs to Steve Jobs. Not just Core-Solo and Core-Duo ("Intel Core" micro-architecture stop-gaps), but Atom which would deliver power savings to rival ARM.

      The intention was to flip to Atom when it was ready. I'm speculating that would have meant Atom for phones too. As the power profile of the Atom chips being released was years behind the predicted timelines, Apple pivoted to ARM for the iPhone's launch as their fat-binary tech made that easier than it would for others (still speculation).

    5. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VMS wasn't stolen. Microsoft hired many of its core developers (including its creator) because DEC didn't care that much about VMS. If anything, Microsoft saved VMS from becoming a footnote.

    6. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And some of us remember how much Ken Olsen hated the Wall Street analysts and the short term investors who didn't understand the business and were looking for quick returns. Just like the clowns that brought down Qualcomm's attempt at the data center.

      It was as much DEC's desperate attempts to keep the analysts happy as anything else that caused its demise. Wow, those were sad, pathetic days.

    7. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Intel got StrongARM from DEC, which became Xscale, before they sold it off. That seemed like a kind of weird decision - at the time they owned the best-performing ARM implementation on the market, but they sold it because they were betting everything on x86.

      It was the fastest ARM on the market, but it was also the most power-hungry and they couldn't get it to scale down. An ARM which doesn't conserve power is worthless in today's computing environments, so they unloaded it.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by jwhyche · · Score: 1

      Intel got... um... itanic

      Ever noticed how that kind of rhymes with titanic? With similar fates I might add.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    9. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 2

      Ever noticed how that kind of rhymes with titanic? With similar fates I might add.

      Poe's Law hitting hard, here.

      For whoever modded this up, the actual marketing name of the chip is Itanium. It was retroactively christened Itanic by the community specifically because it sank without a trace.

    10. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      It was called itanic long before it sank. It was called itanic because it was expected to sink.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    11. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't stop someone from re-implementing their own ideas in a new product.

      Um, actually, yes you can. Engineer Joe has a good idea. Engineer Joe's Company A likes the idea, and puts their patent attorneys on the job. A patent issues, with the name of the inventor as E. Joe, but the ASSIGNEE is E. Joe's Company A.

      If E. Joe re-implements the same idea for Company B, there will be patent lawsuits upcoming real fast from Company A, and Company A will probably win.

      Have fun, AC

    12. Re:They tried to steal the design of the Alpha? by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Intel got StrongARM from DEC, which became Xscale, before they sold it off. That seemed like a kind of weird decision - at the time they owned the best-performing ARM implementation on the market, but they sold it because they were betting everything on x86.

      Intel was not interested in producing something which would compete with their own x86 processors (until Itanium) so Xscale and the i960 were sold or discontinued.

  10. This isn't x86 science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    However, Chandrasekher had earlier brokered a deal with the Chinese province of Guizhou to fund part of Qualcomm’s server chip work. In return, the local government demanded the transfer of chip designs and exclusive rights to sell the processors in China.

    They're still walking away with the tech, no matter what. Now the open question is can their factories produce it?

    Also of note since you mentioned x86. If Linux is indeed as dominate as people say, then x86 compatibility isn't as important, as it would be if Windows was involved. Since Linux is one of the most diverse OS out there, running on more architectures than any other. It's open-source nature means it can be easily ported to many more. So a Wintel situation will never happen with Linux. Especially true in the controlled environment that's a cloud provider.

    1. Re:This isn't x86 science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Linux is indeed as dominate as people say, then x86 compatibility isn't as important, as it would be if Windows was involved.

      If?

      Dude, the world runs on Linux.

  11. Maybe Qualcomm should have hired engineers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The U.S. government blocked the deal in the end. But before that happened, many investors sided with Tan, forcing Qualcomm to slash spending plans by a billion dollars. The budding server business was the main victim of those cuts.

    The problem was never technical. Defending against a hostile takeover was the problem.

    Broadcom’s Hock Tan saw inevitable commodification and preached consolidation and cost-cutting to prepare.

    AND

    But earlier today GlobalFoundaries announced a major strategic shift and essentially abandoned development of its planned 7nm node to focus on the continued evolution of its 14/12nm processes for clients focused on high-growth markets.

    Hock Tan and Global Foundries have the same playbook.

    Qualcomm repurposed its design center in Raleigh, North Carolina, adding engineers from Intel, IBM and Advanced Micro Devices Inc. It was home to some of the most accomplished processor engineers in the industry.

    Engineers from already established producers of server chips. So much for the "over their heads" thing.

  12. 1st impression is SCAM by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

    You don't just "walk in" and take over a huge market.

    Who lost the most money in this?

  13. Gave Up Too Soon by mentil · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Intel's transition to 10nm is delayed until late next year at best, whereas TSMC is selling (similar-size) 7nm chips en-masse today. Furthermore, Intel is facing a 14nm chip shortage due to their long-term planning on having moved to 10nm already, which is hitting the server chip business hard. Now is the time when Qualcomm should've doubled-down and pushed into the market.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Luckyo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Problem being that intel is actually going for non-PR speak 10nm (which is PR speak 7nm) and intel is going for high power chips, not low power ones. Latter being the likely reason why it's so hard to get anything out in meaningful numbers. This isn't for memory or mobile chips as is the case with TSMC process. There's a reason why high power chip majors like nvidia aren't touching the TSMC's PR speak 7nm process with a ten metre pole. It's unsuitable for purpose at the moment.

    2. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which TSMC 7nm process are you referring to?

      Do you mean the one that is targeted at mobile chips, or the one that is targeted at high performance applications ...

    3. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by mentil · · Score: 1

      AMD is planning on releasing large chips made on TSMC's 7nm process later this year, and more chips in January. The first of these is expected to be a 7nm shrink of Vega, targeted at the enterprise IIRC.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    4. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem being that intel is actually going for non-PR speak 10nm (which is PR speak 7nm) and intel is going for high power chips, not low power ones.

      Unfortunately, Intel has had to give up on their original 10nm ambitions, and will be going for something less than what they had originally planned.

      It will still be called 10nm though.

    5. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think his point was that process node has largely become a marketing term and isn't useful for comparing two fabs.

    6. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Like it was planning to do it on GloFo's?

      Believe PR when you see the results, not when PR says "well, we'll do it elsewhere since this one didn't work".

    7. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Qualcomm was hamstrung by an activist investor that bought a significant chunk of the company and demanded they drop their server push, because obviously being totally reliant on a single market is a good business practice.

      This activist investor destroyed Qualcomm's long term planning, had their effort continued they would be selling chips right now while Intel is hampered by their process. Qualcomm could have conceivably snagged a significant chunk of the cloud market. But when the activist investor made their move Qualcomm was forced to idle the design process and lay off all the engineering staff. Now even if they picked up the design and moved it to fruition it would take 2 years before they had sell-able product and Intel will be back by 2020.

      It's really unfortunate, that single investor locked Qualacomm into the mobile market likely permanently.

    8. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      They've already taped out and have engineering silicon back.

    9. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Problem being that intel is actually going for non-PR speak 10nm (which is PR speak 7nm) and intel is going for high power chips, not low power ones. Latter being the likely reason why it's so hard to get anything out in meaningful numbers. This isn't for memory or mobile chips as is the case with TSMC process. There's a reason why high power chip majors like nvidia aren't touching the TSMC's PR speak 7nm process with a ten metre pole. It's unsuitable for purpose at the moment.

      The latest processes are never used for random logic parts (aka computational blocks). There's no point having 10nm transistors when when the real problem is wiring- random logic blocks wired together consume more wiring resources than transistor resources, which is why they often use larger transistors and have tons of unconnected transistors. The wiring is pushing the transistors apart and keeping density down.

      The only transistors that require the small feature size are regular block transistors - think memory used in caches and such. Here the structure is so regular that you use the smallest transistors you can to squeeze as many as you can together. (And people spend time optimizing the layout of these blocks so they can be arrayed very densely to create the biggest memory in the smallest space). These are the transistors that need the small size, and consume the most transistors when someone says "this chip has 10 billion transistors". (That usually means about 8-9billion of those are actually memory transistors and the remainder are the logic transistors. And it's dense enough that those 8-9 billion will fit in about 20-30% of the die area, while the rest of the transistors occupy the rest of the space).

      When people say "built on 10nm process" it means the smallest transistors used may be that size, but almost always the logic and processing transistors will be larger out of necessity (needing to drive a signal a log way, for example, requires a big transistor). No one computes using the minimum size transistor - it's pointless since the wires that carry the signal spread out the transistors (and you need large transistors to drive longer wires, etc).

    10. Re:Gave Up Too Soon by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      This isn't for memory or mobile chips as is the case with TSMC process. There's a reason why high power chip majors like nvidia aren't touching the TSMC's PR speak 7nm process with a ten metre pole.

      Uh, AMD's next generation, going by the name Zen 2, isn't just on TSMC's 7nm process, it's already done, taped out, in production, and sampling, with benchmarks leaking. For multithreaded/multi-process workloads, it's fast. Very fast.

      As stated elsewhere in these comments, server prototypes built around it are being evaluated by all of the major datacenter builders. AMD is slobbering all over themselves. Zen 2 was supposed to compete against Intel's Ice Lake core, which was supposed to be the 10nm coming out this year. AMD expected to be in their usual "just-slightly-slower-than-Intel's-best" position, in their usual "just-slightly-later-than-Intel" timeframe. Then Intel delayed Ice Lake. For a year. TSMC is in volume production of 7nm Zen 2 chips right now. AMD expects to make huge inroads into Intel's 2019 marketshare, and all indications are they will.

  14. What the hell has happened to Hypertransport? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... AMD got out of that deal was hypertransport

    Hypertransport was such a promising technology, but all of a sudden it kinda like vanished .

    What happened ?

  15. "Cloud Data Centers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to be a one-true Scotsman argument. ARM chips account for 85% of processors currently, Intel only 15%. Sure they dominate the Windows PC and "Cloud Data Center" markets...... Trouble is, your more likely to be reading Slashdot on a non Windows non Intel device these days, with your office or home based server being ARM based (e.g. a Synology RAID). The "true" Scotsman in this claim has changed from "processors" to "server processors" to "cloud scale data center processors".

    Sure Intel still dominates the "cloud" data centers, with Xeons running big assed server racks and Qualcomm don't have market share with their ARM based server.... but that's not how the ARM world works. It's not *one* supplier that overwhelmed Intel in the other markets, it was thousands of other companies making thousands of competing commodity products. Pecking away until Intel is driven from that market.

    The big growth in cloud servers for Intel *was* China, but the trade war means Intel gets hit with big phased in price hikes in China, while Chinese companies want to sell ARM based servers. Its not like these trade wars can end, because they never had a win scenario, the PR for the trade war *is* the win scenario for Trump. The war is the win. At best, the adults in the room, might resurrect the TPP and EU trade agreements (which locked China out of markets if it infringed IP) and label them "Trump" agreements to save face, but that's a long shot. Most likely the tarrifs will continue for years and Chinese ARM server makers will take over.

    I'm not bullish on Intel. They seem to be complacent and in decline.

    1. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by Bert64 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Intel were never entrenched in the mobile/embedded market, the market basically grew around ARM. Intel tried and failed to enter this market.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    2. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by BadDreamer · · Score: 2

      This is off the mark. Intel never had a foothold, much less any dominance, in the mobile space, so nobody was pecking away and driving away Intel. Intel grew and rose on the desktop and subsequently corporate server market, and still dominate that utterly and completely.

      Intel has, so far, not been driven from any processor market. Home servers have not really been a major market, historically (yes, most /. readers probably had home servers decades ago, but that does not a major market make) and the rise in commodity NAS servers and media servers is very recent, and not replacement of previously Intel based equipment.

      That's not to say Intel is not facing difficulties, but characterizing them as having been "pecked" away from markets or being in decline is flat out incorrect. Intel are still dominating business systems and desktop machines (including laptops), and right now that is not under credible threat.

      China is a difficult beast in this space. It is quite unlikely Chinese made server racks will find international acceptance, for many reasons, but most of all for the extremely high risk of embedded spyware and back doors - and in all likelihood several layers of them, added by government orders, company orders and enterprising individuals in the organization. China has a track record, and shows no inclination to change.

      Again, this does not guarantee Intel a continued dominance, but it will certainly dampen their fall, if it comes. What needs to happen is that Europe needs to find a chip provider that can be accepted by European governments and private actors, and by the EU. This will not be China, and seems less and less likely to be the US, so there is now an opening for enterprising, rising stars.

    3. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by dunkelfalke · · Score: 2

      Except Synology uses Intel CPUs in most of their NAS systems.
      https://www.synology.com/en-us...

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    4. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by Cmdln+Daco · · Score: 1

      China is a difficult beast in this space. It is quite unlikely Chinese made server racks will find international acceptance, for many reasons, but most of all for the extremely high risk of embedded spyware and back doors - and in all likelihood several layers of them, added by government orders, company orders and enterprising individuals in the organization. China has a track record, and shows no inclination to change.

      China, however, has their trucks and trains delivering product along massive belts and roads. Semi-authoritarian countries south and west of them are bound to listen to the 'good deals' Chinese providers can supply them with.

    5. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by BadDreamer · · Score: 1

      Indeed, they will become a great power in Asia, on all levels. And in the emerging economic prosperity of Africa, if it comes.

      But Europe and the US are not out for the count just yet.

    6. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      The "adults in the room" are the problem. They all have an interest in protecting their investment portfolios at the expense of this nations future.

      The truth of the matter is there can be only one super power. When there are two you get the cold war and proxy wars along with it. When there are none but many power you get WWI/WWII.

      We are already seeing the proxy fights with China. Russia wants to pretend it still matters and is muddying the waters but that is a distraction. China with its imperialistic plans for "a new silk road" etc place it on a collision course with our economy.

      The choice for us is do we leave or children and grandchildren a world where American hegemony remains the norm and we can continue (all be it slowly at times) push for justice and equality for all; or do we want some fat cats to line their pockets today and leave our kids in an America that must kowtow (see already using their words) to Chinese racism and oppression.

      Nobody seriously thinks a trade war is good for the economy or good for the America worker short term. However looking out 30 or 50 years its about the only option if want to make sure America remains on the top of the geo-political heap. For you folks who question if that is a positive thing for the world, for all our problems I strongly suggest you actually have a conversation with a Chinese immigrant (one who isn't trying to protect family back home anyway). The window over which we can 'win' this fight is also rapidly closing.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    7. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It seems to be a one-true Scotsman argument.

      WTF is that, you dork?

    8. Re:"Cloud Data Centers" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The American trade policy of the last 40 years or so has been to be the sucker holding the bag. We've been exporting jobs while also importing cheap labor via either visas or illegal means. And people wonder why wages are down?

      The essence of trade is an equitable exchange of goods. One party trades a good/commodity/service to another for what it considers and equal good/commodity/service. But the US has been selling off the seed corn and doesn't have much left to trade.

      This arrangement might be acceptable if all our trading partners were allies, but they aren't. In fact, China desperately wants to conquer one of our major allies, Taiwan. And they wouldn't mind bringing other allies in the region to heel. We're already at war with them, people just have to recognize the fact.

  16. SPARC M8? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, what's the story then with Oracle's SPARC M8 processor ?

  17. Anti-trust problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was an anti-trust problem for them, they couldn't both own ARM and x86, and they believed they could make smaller cheaper x86 chips to own the mobile market. If they'd been a bit nimbler and less complacent they could have done it. Instead they pretty much priced the mobile chips up and crippled them down, so as not to undercut their margins.

    https://www.vox.com/2016/4/20/11463818/intel-iphone-mobile-revolution

    They sold ARM, it developed at a furious pace, driven by its OEMs, and Intel slugged along slowly, eventually withdrawing from the mobile market.

    It's kindof a tippy point now, you could increase the clock speeds of ARM v8 chips to match Intel (with cooling) and they would outperform their Intel competitors at a lower price. Microsoft are porting Windows, lots of things coming together to swamp a complacent Intel.

    1. Re:Anti-trust problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Intel never owned ARM, they had an architecture license. ARM was created in 1990 as a joint venture between Acorn, Apple, and VLSI. The company went public in 1998. It was never owned by another company until recently, when it was bought by SoftBank in 2016.

  18. What the hell has happened to Infinity Fabric? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Infinity Fabric.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HyperTransport#Implementations

    https://wccftech.com/amds-infinity-fabric-detailed/

  19. SLAVES go back to Intel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Intel LIED and STOLE from us and gave tge NSA a backdoor OS. FUCK Intel. Only an abused wife puts up with this shit And she'ld still take the kids to her parents over this shit.

    Intel owes us money.

  20. Idiots by Crass+Spektakel · · Score: 1

    Idiots.

    I really can come up with only one description for all this childish behaviour: Idiots.

    An Investor who thinks he can enter a complex market in less than ten years is simply an Idiot.

    An Entrepeneur who promises to enter a complex market in less than ten years is simply an Idiot.

    Lets check the market:

    Google Mail needed seven years to conquer the market.

    Android needed six years to conquer the smart phone.

    Linux needed 12 years to vanquish the commecial unices.

    Whatsapp took six years to rise.

    Facebook even needed nine years to get where it is now.

    Twitter needed seven years too.

    AMD needed five years to create the Ryzen Architecture. And will need another five years to gain greater market share.

    Sooo... what is the moral of the story? If someone promises you he can conquer the world in a year take your money and put it somewhere else.

    I really think ARM might in the long run be able to catch a part of the market share from Intel. But it will take many years and many little steps.

    Where is the cheap Mini-ITX board with a Snapdron 850 and up to 32BG memory?

    Where can I get a cheap Add-In-Board with 128 ARM cores for my PC, something like an Xeon Phi for cheap?

    Whats the driver situation for ARM multi media solutions?

    Is there any standard how ARM Desktops, Workstations and Servers are working, booting, initializing?

    Bullshit. There is nothing except broken unrealistic promises.

    --
    "Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair