Why Intel Keeps Losing Money In Mobile (Op-Ed)

[amk-aka-Phantom]

x86 & Android doesnt work.

Really? Asus' Android lineup based on x86 begs to differ.

I don't know if Intel will ever succeed in the mobile CPU space, but they're sure putting a lot of effort into killing off the extremely profitable quasi-monopoly they have on x86 CPUs and Motherboard chipsets.

What will they fund their mobile CPU ambitions with, once they've finished killing off the x86 platform ?

What are you even talking about?

 

[Cyril Ardin]

What are you even talking about?

I'm saying x86 performance gains since 2011 is a mix of +20% Core performance and -20% overclocking ability, resulting in a rough 0% performance increase in 4 years.

Not because x86 performance reached it's peak 4 years ago, but because Intel is possibly the only CPU manufacturer in the world that spends more resources researching how to best hold back it's own (x86) CPU performance (locking the multiplier, locking the FSB, packing it's expensive CPU with the worst combination of air-cooler and Thermal Interface Material it's research team could come up with, dedicating most of the CPU die on GPU at the expense of the CPU part...), then it spends on how to best improve it's performance per dollar to keep it's platform relevant in both price and performance gains, with the heavy yearly performance per dollar gains of competing (mobile) platforms.

It was bad enough to know that Intel wasn't using their huge x86 profits to improve x86 CPU performance per dollar the way mobile CPUs performance per dollar keeps massively improving.

It's worse to know their x86 profits are going straight towards funding a competing platform, and a x86 platform decline.

 

[Vlad Rose]

What are you even talking about?

I'm saying x86 performance gains since 2011 is a mix of +20% Core performance and -20% overclocking ability, resulting in a rough 0% performance increase in 4 years.

Not because x86 performance reached it's peak 4 years ago, but because Intel is possibly the only CPU manufacturer in the world that spends more resources researching how to best hold back it's own (x86) CPU performance (locking the multiplier, locking the FSB, packing it's expensive CPU with the worst combination of air-cooler and Thermal Interface Material it's research team could come up with, dedicating most of the CPU die on GPU at the expense of the CPU part...), then it spends on how to best improve it's performance per dollar to keep it's platform relevant in both price and performance gains, with the heavy yearly performance per dollar gains of competing (mobile) platforms.

It was bad enough to know that Intel wasn't using their huge x86 profits to improve x86 CPU performance per dollar the way mobile CPUs performance per dollar keeps massively improving.

It's worse to know their x86 profits are going straight towards funding a competing platform, and a x86 platform decline.

You do know that overclocking is not a required feature and by terms can void the warranty; thus it is not Intel's concern except as a marketing tool to sell more of a certain chip.
The cooler they supply with their chips work perfectly fine with their stock coolers. Why offer a CPU for cheap that can be overclocked to a certain speed when you can just release a CPU at that speed in the first place?
Years ago during the Pentium 4 days they had hit a physical ceiling in clock rate (netburst) during the Mhz wars and why they started going multi-core. Else they'd be selling CPUs at 10Ghz+ right now as they original had planned. That is why there isn't much overclocking since these chips are near their ceiling limit in the first place. They are now hitting a ceiling with the multi-cores as software has to catch up. Programs that take advantage of multi-core are much more difficult to write in comparison.
The newest fad now going on in the CPU industry is efficiency where the lower the watts a CPU can draw at the same performance, the better. This is in the desktop, mobile, and server sector where 2 out of the 3 seriously benefit from it. It is something that is improving each generation by Intel. Same way with on-die graphics which AMD started.
The only reason why something like their Pentium anniversary edition is so overclockable is to target a specific low end market held by AMD.