ARM Likes That Intel is Getting into Smartphone CPU Business

[fidgewinkle]

They like it now, for some strange odd reason, but they won't for long....

Yes, they won't like having their generic competing against the Intel brand, not one bit. The assertion that Intel is making ARM visible and that is a good thing is a very short sighted view and can potentially get one squashed.

 

[junixophobia]

My samsung smart tv... I wonder what DoC it has in it?

 

[__Miguel_]

[citation][nom]fidgewinkle[/nom]Krait is a Qualcomm proprietary design which conforms to ARM ISA. It is probably their only reasonable defense against Intel's far better performance architecture and process technology. As many hurdles as Intel has going down in power consumption, ARM has just as many or more improving their performance in a world ruled by Intel patents they will never have access to. Intel has been working on low power a lot longer than ARM or Qualcomm have been working on high performance. I like Intel's position as more processing power ends up in smaller packages.[/citation]
Thanks for the correction, I was thinking about the generic ARM architecture where Krait comes from. Cortex-A15, is it not? Ugh, so many names...

As for the rest of your post, you make a very interesting point, Intel has in fact a lot more of experience packing high performance on tinier and tinier spaces.

The only thing I don't 100% agree with you is that ARM might be blocked by patents. Sure, that might happen, but then again so might Intel, if it steps on any ARM low-power related patent, right? I've said it before, I think there are many ways of achieving the same goals (just look how radically different AMD and Intel CPUs are, even if based off the same architecture and instruction set), so they can probably get around each other (hopefully).

In any case, thumbs up for you, very good post.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]velocityg4[/nom]We'll see how happy ARM is when they are facing 22nm trigate CPU's at the same power usage of their 45nm fab. So Intel will be packing four or more times the transistor count and probably a higher clock rate. ~[/citation]
Just because it has "intel" in the name, doesn't mean it will be THE BEST. ATOM is crap compared to AMD's E-350. Llano compared pretty good against the i3s when it come a to a basic all-around PC. Intel has constantly failed in the GPU/graphics business - but they sell more GPUs than everyone else combined (onboard graphics). Intel has screwed up on BTX, the original ATX 1.0 spec with PSUs sucking air in from the back (being pre-warmed) before blowing onto the Pentium II CPU. The RD-RAM debacle is perhaps their biggest blunder.

Intel does very good.. but not always #1.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]jurassic512[/nom]Really? You're going that far back? And you're mad at Intel for losing to AMD also way back when. You must have hated AMD and ATi for losing to Intel and nVIDIA since Conroe and nVIDIA since the G80 architecture.NONE of what you said makes any sense, yet you got rated up. Sad.[/citation]
Er... actually you are the sad one. Learn to read. How does "selling crappy-ass Pentium 4 CPUs to suckers when AMD ran circles around them" sound like I'm an intel fanboy? I work with all the players. I used and sold only AMD systems until Core2... then I did mostly AMD AMD never did well with mobile CPUs. More than half the time, my GPU is an AMD since the ATI 9800Pro. I'm currently on an AMD 4000 series and will upgrade to a 7000 series soon. The G80 was a kick-butt GPU... it wasn't until AMD came out with the 3850/3870 that they got their game right.

If a client or friend need something low cost that works, it will be an AMD CPU that is $60~110. If they want performance, it'll be an Intel i5 CPU.

As of lately, AMD seems to be screwing up a lot of things.