The next question is "on what year will we get a Smartphone/Tablet with the same desktop-class clock speed of 4.4 GHz?"
Another simple word is to downsize the operation.
Some people have to leave the company!
Anomynous, 18 Nov 2014your comment is the utter garbage, except for Pentium 4 Intel has dominated the market and eve... moreYou know nothing about architectures in question here, AMD vs Intel is x86 space. The article is not about x86 its about how Intel has failed in the mobile space. They are trying to peddle x86 into an ARM dominated world. The reason ARM is doing so well is the types of workloads it is designed to handle. The MicroArc doesn't have to be a speed demon chewing up vast amount of watts to get a lot of things done. It only needs to eat tiny amounts of power to get just enough workload done. x86 is simply no where near the efficiency required for sub 1.5 watt computing.
You need to understand a thing or two about ISAs before spewing off standard Intel arranged FUD you seem to be well versed with. No matter how much ARM instructions have added more functionality, they are still far simpler compared to x86 instructions. The more complex the instrctions the higher the gate (transistor) count. Just like how OoO chips have logic that sometimes dwarfs compute blocks entirely for transistor count. This is because x86 world is design with heavy lifting in mind. Power is not a big constraint as long as it is not 130 watts or such high numbers, for the server/desktop workloads 65-90 watts is just normal and they go after how much work can be done. In that space 35-65 watts is considered super efficiency low watt usage. In the mobile world its 5-8 watts for tablets and 1.5 to 2 watts for smartphones and that max TDP. Worlds apart.
Intel employs a marketing sham name called SDP, scenario design point which is a fancy way of saying "well we expect our chip to be mostly in this region if you don't do anything at all, but the moment you push then chip it will gobble more power than we are happy to reveal". The real TDPs are way higher than the SDP numbers. While Qualcomm or even Nvidia quote TDP here we have con company quoting SDP. THIS is the real reason why no one really wants Intel's subsidies. Subsides are hard to pass up even when the chip is poor but their chips are so poor that even ARM's lowest end offers equal pricing and better TDPs to do really well.
Go read up if you don't know the subject. Intel can rule desktop and server world but their behemoths are not suitable for the mobile world. That's the plain fact of the matter.
A little birdy told me subsidized chips are not the only things these companies are getting, it's marketing dollars and added icing for execs to entice them to accept their rubbish chips. Yeah bribes. You can put lipstick on a garbage bin but in the end it's still a garbage bin. Look at the losses Intel are making by doing this, shareholders are not happy :). They will and they have started asking questions which is why subsidy based garbage selling will come to and end, probably signalling Intel's admission of defeat.
ISAs are a case of trade offs, Intel has a substantial portion of server and desktop market they can go on with that without even competing in the mobile sector. They just got gready and tried to do everything and found out the same ISA can't do both. If you optimize for one area you suffer elsewhere. ARM is not for speed demon workloads it will always be about doing enough with little power there is. Understand this and you will know why Intel's x86 chips are rubbish for the task.
ThePhabletGuy, 18 Nov 2014AMD since the loss in the Cpu warfare they looked to the GPU side Of things and thier Radeons ... moreWell ATI is already there.. it had Radeon lineup for desktop and Imageon lineup for mobile.. AMD took away the desktop line..
Qualcomm took away the Imageon - its now called Adreno
Anomynous, 18 Nov 2014your comment is the utter garbage, except for Pentium 4 Intel has dominated the market and eve... morei'm afraid you're wrong, sir..
most of the 90's intel and AMD were at parity.. And there were other instruction sets out there too.. Alpha, MIPS, Power to name a few..
then in 1999, AMD came out with K7 and patented x86-64 in 2000.. That patent is the only thing giving AMD legal immunity..
Coming back to the topic - the K7 totally destroyed anything intel had. And when they finally came out with pentium 4 AMD didnt even have to tweak the architecture. They just shrunk a node and voila - cheaper, higher performance at lower TDP.. Over the years intel got desperate and made the NetBurst.. A 37 stage architecture in a mad pursuit for performance.. AMD just 64 bit-ised its K7 and again it exterminated the Intel lineup.. The fastest AMD consumed less power at full load than the slowest Intel at idle.. And it was almost an order of magnitude faster. All of this at an older process node.
The only way intel survived is by sabotaging, paying off OEMs, bleeding money and manipulating benchmarks.. AMD did absolutely nothing for half a decade.. There were some supply issues with AMD and volumes remained low.. but as a result, high end AMDs were selling for over $1000.. it was finally in 2009 (penryn core) that Intel attained parity with AMD when they invested heavily in illicit compilers (optimum code for Intel's and cripple AMD/Via).. and it is in 2011 (sandy bridge) that they finally crushed AMD..
Intel's battle with AMD is the closest it came to shutting shops.. and now it is doing the same to AMD..
BTW AMD's jaguar/puma cores are faster per clock and per watt than Intel's silvermont.. A Beema/mullins chip made at 28nm performs faster than a baytrail made at 22nm 3D.. And that too at a lower TDP.. the only way intel is surviving this is again - bribing the manufacturers..
Anomynous, 18 Nov 2014your comment is the utter garbage, except for Pentium 4 Intel has dominated the market and eve... moreAMD since the loss in the Cpu warfare they looked to the GPU side Of things and thier Radeons Rock mate. I See lnvidia is Joining the tablet Market with thier Shield Series of tablets. I can Only wonder when will AMD Join in.
Phones and tablets are a lost cause for Intel. They need to focus on hybrids and laptops before they lose those too to Snapdragon, Exynos and Mediatek.
MHanz, 18 Nov 2014Substandard parts for subsidies. Sometime you can't buy your way into market share when your p... moreyour comment is the utter garbage, except for Pentium 4 Intel has dominated the market and even at that time they had total superiority over AMD in laptops with the Pentium M. After Core 2 AMD never had a chance, and before AMD could even get close the i7 came out and put AMD so far behind that its not even fun anymore. Intel hasnt gone anywhere with inferior products, the problem now is to make the mobile industry embrace x86 but unfortunately even the 64 bit craze isnt helping them.
Intel know how solid Qualcomms position is, Intel holds the same role for x86, making it impossible for other architectures to penetrate, Intel couldnt even penetrate it themselves with Itanium. Thats why they know subsidies is the only chance they have, no matter how superior x86 processors they could throw into the mobile market they cannot make x86 popular without cash injections.
Seems like some buget PC users here are trying to make this into a Intel vs AMD fight, if you hate Intel that much then sorry to say its like drinking poison and hoping the one you hate will die in your place, not gonna happen. Hate and bias are the roots of stupidity.
Substandard parts for subsidies. Sometime you can't buy your way into market share when your products are utter garbage.
Intel subsidy tactics worked vs AMD (disregarding the fine part as the damage was already done) as it was the only competition and Intel was ahead in tech. In the mobile world it just can't yet.