Is Intel becoming irrelevant?

A

aphexcoil

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 4, 2011
Messages
322
First they laid off 12,000 of their workforce. Now they are cancelling "Braxton," their (previously) upcoming Atom chip and have conceded defeat to ARM in the mobile market. They're apparently bowing out of the PC market as well.

What the hell is happening? Is there something going on within Intel that isn't apparent? I'm confused as to how such a huge multi-billion dollar CPU leader is tucking their tails between their legs and just "giving up" so easily. Is Intel afraid of AMD's Zen CPU?

Seems like with each news story related to Intel, they're falling further behind technologically.
 
Stop reading clickbait headlines, and start digging deeper and reading between the lines.
 
Intel are in a REALLY difficult place for a multi-billion dollar corporation. When you have that amount of money, and the control over the market Intel has, you can't move and react to the industry very quickly. Take for instance. ARM RISC CPUs are inherently more efficient than Intel's X86 CISC CPUs per cycle, at the same process node. RISC CPUs are just MUCH better for tight, efficient cycles, given that software works for them. But here's the thing: ARM can be licensed and used pretty easily. Samsung, Apple, AMD, Qualcom, everyone licenses and makes different ARM-based silicon.

Why doesn't Intel just license ARM?

Whelp, that's the thing: They cant because they are the big multi-billion-dollar corporation. Licensing ARM would reduce the value of their own X86 technology IP, which they hold all the rights to and sunk trillions of dollars over the years in producing and promoting. They are one of three companies who have a license to x86, and the other companies are a fraction of the size and Intel own the IP. They have secured the market, and nearly ALL PCs and servers run X86 operating systems and hardware because of this. Licensing ARM would mean they enter into a market they don't control, and also give MORE viability to the ARM market. This would mean lower profits for Intel.

So what's the issue?

Well, the X86 market is shrinking. ARM devices are starting to be seen in servers, ARM is almost totally conquered the tablet and phone market, and because its efficient and cheap to license, many MANY companies are producing highly competitive chips with ARM-based OS software taking advantage of them. With Intel being the only real company making X86 chips, the consumer computer market is moving to more competitive (read: cheaper) landscapes, including ARM. This means lower profits for Intel.

Well, why doesn't Intel sell licenses to X86?

Whelp, that's the thing: They cant because they are the big multi-billion-dollar corporation. Selling licenses to other companies would then affect their share of X86 PC market, which is how they generate literally all their profits and investments. The X86 PC market is shrinking rapidly, but Intel CAN'T loose market share in a shrinking market while there is still profit to be made. If they sold licenses for X86, its highly likely other (non AMD) companies would release hardware that competes aggressively with Intel's products, forcing Intel to cut prices to compete. This would mean lower profits for Intel.
 
People thinking Intel are in trouble or irrelevant are not so well informed.
We are a small part of the market. Servers/commercial/industrial/mobile/blah dwarfs us. And that's just the computing stuff..

But first up;

50bn profit. Per year.
edit: this is hookers and blow powering a mars mission or ten type budget. Per year. That's a lot of cash they're sitting on each year to distribute, invest, R&D, etc.... a craptonne of options.

The desktop PC market has plateaued. It is not rapidly shrinking. PC gaming is bigger than either of the consoles, so nothing to worry about there, this seems to be accelerating, as people grow discontent with the way consoles are becoming an even more obvious money sucker than before.. pay less now pay more later etc. Pay for shitty online experience with kids abusing you etc.. crappy hardware. Overall mostly mediocre games. Few exclusives.

What Intel is doing, is what any smart company with no room to expand in current market would do. Buying companies and technology relevant to future applications, expanding out of its' typical market. Moving out of your typical market worked for my company, went from nearly closing the doors to a nation leading company (in its' field). If managed correctly, it can be the key to success in times of necessity.

Intel have made some very big moves lately, in fields you would never expect, or if you knew, it would be hard to put two and two together to work out the long term strategy - but rest assured it's all under control. I'd love to elaborate further but an enn deee ayye makes that rather impossible..
 
Last edited:
What do you think most of all the world's supercomputers are made of? This title is ridiculous.
 
Is Intel afraid of AMD's Zen CPU?
Click to expand...

I expect not at all. AMD has not done anything to push Intel in a decade.

They're apparently bowing out of the PC market as well.
Click to expand...

They are certainly not bowing out of the PC market.
 
Last edited:
I don't think I've ever seen an Intel Atom based device that wasn't slow as shit. Android, iOS, etc can get away with "slow" ARM chips because the OS was built from the ground-up to work around that fact. What did Intel have going for it with Atom? Trying to run Windows on an Atom is noticeably slow most of the time. I think it's good that they cancelled Atom, because it could never realistically compete with ARM in it's core market, and the market that it does have just gives Intel a bad reputation since Atom is so damn slow... Did I mention that Atom is slow?

The Desktop PC market shouldn't be an issue for them, even with much less company resources pushing it. Going forward, they can just continue to repackage and relabel server chips as desktop PC chips and do so at very little expense to them.
 
GotNoRice said:
I don't think I've ever seen an Intel Atom based device that wasn't slow as shit. Android, iOS, etc can get away with "slow" ARM chips because the OS was built from the ground-up to work around that fact. What did Intel have going for it with Atom? Trying to run Windows on an Atom is noticeably slow most of the time. I think it's good that they cancelled Atom, because it could never realistically compete with ARM in it's core market, and the market that it does have just gives Intel a bad reputation since Atom is so damn slow... Did I mention that Atom is slow?

The Desktop PC market shouldn't be an issue for them, even with much less company resources pushing it. Going forward, they can just continue to repackage and relabel server chips as desktop PC chips and do so at very little expense to them.
Click to expand...

In addition to that, they now have Core M CPUs (based on their main architecture) sipping power almost like the Atoms while providing good performance on demand.
 
Tsumi said:
In addition to that, they now have Core M CPUs (based on their main architecture) sipping power almost like the Atoms while providing good performance on demand.
Click to expand...

Yeah but how much do they cost? That's one area Intel refuses to budge.
 
Someone mentioned Intel canceled atom, they didn't cancel atom.

They canned the cell/tablet atom chip and mobile modem platform it would operate. Which btw can be brought back at any time or released under a different program. The chip was working great just gained zero ground even though Intel tried to buy their way into the market. Intel underestimated driver compatibility and OEMs giving a shit enough to write proper software for their platform.
 
Trimlock said:
Someone mentioned Intel canceled atom, they didn't cancel atom.

They canned the cell/tablet atom chip and mobile modem platform it would operate. Which btw can be brought back at any time or released under a different program. The chip was working great just gained zero ground even though Intel tried to buy their way into the market. Intel underestimated driver compatibility and OEMs giving a shit enough to write proper software for their platform.
Click to expand...

So, does that mean that if a manufacturer like Microsoft approached them and said they were interested in something to power an x86-compatible phone, they'd be able to come up with something rather than just shrugging and telling them to use ARM like everyone else?

I ask because I've always really wanted a phone that could run PC applications and be plugged into a bigger monitor like a laptop. It would be great for me because I would be able to use a full-sized keyboard and monitor for texting, which is something so many people want to do these days and I have to tell them to e-mail me instead because I don't like having conversations via text message. Not to mention all the other applications I could run.
 
aphexcoil said:
Seems like with each news story related to Intel, they're falling further behind technologically.
Click to expand...

It is a matter of marketing Intel proceeded by dominating the x86 market and there for making a killing. Now that markets have shifted to other devices Intel can not leverage their chest pounding "x86 domination" any more since people in stock markets know that the technology is useful but it is not the only party in town any more.

Since Intel is hell bent on doing things their way they lost track a long time ago of what would happen in the market. Windows for Intel (mobile) devices is not selling how hard they have been trying it is as dead as a doornail. Even when there trying to run Android on those devices it still does not want to make any waves in a matter where Intel could have some wiggle room to improve upon so market share can be captured and gained.
 
Intel is still relevant, but has not been innovative for years.
 
Intel powers a HUGE chunk of hardware from car engine control modules to a crap load of embedded devices. they are not going anywhere anytime soon

Core series has a huge jump over Pentium 4 and Sandy Bridge was a huge improvement over Core. Atom has made leaps and bounds since it's introduction and the current one is great for powering tablets.

The problem the entire industry faces is related to process improvement/shrinks and that is going to get that much harder as they near the absolute limits....
 
athenian200 said:
So, does that mean that if a manufacturer like Microsoft approached them and said they were interested in something to power an x86-compatible phone, they'd be able to come up with something rather than just shrugging and telling them to use ARM like everyone else?

I ask because I've always really wanted a phone that could run PC applications and be plugged into a bigger monitor like a laptop. It would be great for me because I would be able to use a full-sized keyboard and monitor for texting, which is something so many people want to do these days and I have to tell them to e-mail me instead because I don't like having conversations via text message. Not to mention all the other applications I could run.
Click to expand...
Yes they can. It was rumored to be done and ready for mass production, so it could possibly still hit the market.

I think cancelled it in order to restructure their approach to ultra mobile. They started with a normal Atom core and turned things off in order to get their intended power envelope, that wasn't working well for them.
 
athenian200 said:
So, does that mean that if a manufacturer like Microsoft approached them and said they were interested in something to power an x86-compatible phone, they'd be able to come up with something rather than just shrugging and telling them to use ARM like everyone else?

I ask because I've always really wanted a phone that could run PC applications and be plugged into a bigger monitor like a laptop. It would be great for me because I would be able to use a full-sized keyboard and monitor for texting, which is something so many people want to do these days and I have to tell them to e-mail me instead because I don't like having conversations via text message. Not to mention all the other applications I could run.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's possible but unlikely.

People are choosing ARM because it has better performance and lower power consumption compared to X86. Almost every time Intel made a breakthrough in making X86 more power friendly ARM has countered and kept the delta around the same. That's not to say that Intel will never catch up, but it isn't going to be any time soon. If there's going to be a surface phone announced anytime next year it's going to be ARM based, and use RDP like services, likely through Azure.
 
Ryokurin said:
Yes, it's possible but unlikely.

People are choosing ARM because it has better performance and lower power consumption compared to X86. Almost every time Intel made a breakthrough in making X86 more power friendly ARM has countered and kept the delta around the same. That's not to say that Intel will never catch up, but it isn't going to be any time soon. If there's going to be a surface phone announced anytime next year it's going to be ARM based, and use RDP like services, likely through Azure.
Click to expand...


they chose arm because it is cheap and that's it

EDIT: the original Motorola flip phone was powered by a x386
 
Last edited:
Tsumi said:
If you have a product that no one else can provide, why wouldn't you milk it?
Click to expand...

Yeah but nobody's obliged to buy it, that's the problem. If Intel is admitting that market demand is softening than lowering prices is what usually comes of that.

If they think they're going to sell Core-M in low-end devices and charge a premium -- and they do think that -- they're only kidding themselves. Like these $1100 Chromebooks that HP is putting out.
 
Probably, with only 60%+ of **total** worldwide microprocessor market revenue (yes, including all the zillions of ARM processors going into tablets and phones, console chips and various server processors), which is over 5x bigger than its next biggest competitor (Qualcomm), Intel might as well close up shop now and start making pens with little digital clocks in them.

Seriously, this thread? Intel is not "bowing out of the PC market". If you read that somewhere and believed it, you should look for higher quality news sources instead.
 
Ryokurin said:
People are choosing ARM because it has better performance and lower power consumption compared to X86. Almost every time Intel made a breakthrough in making X86 more power friendly ARM has countered and kept the delta around the same. That's not to say that Intel will never catch up, but it isn't going to be any time soon. If there's going to be a surface phone announced anytime next year it's going to be ARM based, and use RDP like services, likely through Azure.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say better performance. Just lower power consumption. Really, the only reason ARM is doing as well as it is, is because there have been no advances at all in battery technology. We're stuck with Lithium-Ion, so people are making do with ARM.

I mean, I actually wanted to buy a low-power set-top box recently, thought about going with ARM... but I found that for the same price and about a watt or two more power, I could get a Bay Trail SOC that wiped the floor with the ARM box I was considering, and could run full Windows 10 rather than just Linux. All for the same price. x86 is better, ARM is a bad compromise that works when you need low power consumption and every watt counts.

I'm really not interested in buying a thin client that uses RDP services. You can basically already use RDP on Android, so I'm not impressed by that.

Then again, I've never liked what people or the market chose. I always think their choices are stupid and end up resenting what they stick me with... I guess this shouldn't be any different.
 
Last edited:
Remember when Intel said that Haswell was going to be the end of ARM and AnandTech was riding that one hard?

It's amazing to see how much of the tech media is captured.
 
Dropping the phone processors isn't particularly important. It's not like they were selling that great anyway. Even if Intel died out entirely we'd still have new interesting CPUs, another company would jump in to the preexisting market. Could you imagine ARM processors with 95W TDP? More cores, frequency, who knows what they could do.
 
I wish the Intel disinformation group would just stop.

Intel has been in the future for the past 10years. They know that there is no more headroom for improvements until they can create a new architecture and programming language to make use of all the cores they can produce. AMD is just getting in the door, but have not seen the immovable wall that is going to stop x86 CPU progression. Intel is pocketing the money and trying to solve problems while AMD keeps trying to solve their i7 920 problem.
 
GothamsReckoning said:
Exactly that. IPC improvements by Intel even with newer architectures is small and even smaller with die-shrinks. Compare that with Penryn to Bloomfield and onwards. From Ivy Bridge and newer architectures and die-shrinks the gains over multiple die-shrinks and architectures have been more focused on features and power consumption than actual IPC improvements.
Click to expand...
If only Intel could go from FSB based memory subsystems to IMC every generation that would be awesome. The IPC gains are huge when you do that! I feel like I'm repeating myself because I think I explained that in another recent thread. Adding an IMC was a one-time boost. Crystalwell has some impressive boosts in certain application categories, but it adds significant cost to the processor. Also, it doesn't give as much of a boost as Nehalem got from an IMC. Lastly, again, incremental gains each generation in legacy software are minor miracles. For comparison, look at what actual stagnation is on AMD's side. AMD has maybe an average 10% IPC improvement over the past 10 years in legacy software. AMD is still sensitive to power consumption, but on the mid to higher end, it consumes 2x more power than fast Intel chips.

The problem really is that Intel, way back in the pre-Nehalem days, decided that it would not prioritize performance at the expense of power. This required that architecture changes improved performance at least 2% for a 1% increase in power consumption. See the last paragraph on this page: The Dark Knight: Intel's Core i7

While that's a great strategy for keeping power consumption in check (which isn't just a desktop user's concern, it affects the CPU's design and manufacturing choices), it leads to the kinds of frustrations often vented here. Not only that, while desktop sales continue to drop (including channel parts like CPUs), it makes little sense tweak and release "all out" desktop CPUs optimized for performance, power consumption be damned. In its place are unlocked desktop models and a lower end 1P server socket. It's impossible to make everyone happy, especially those who just want to complain about Intel and not actually buy available products which already address those concerns. :p
 
someone needs to close this thread down and contact AMD to have their disinformation group checked.
 
It does seem like the PC market in general, at least our segment of it, is fading away fast. I know the GPU market is still pretty vibrant but the CPU end is just awful. AMD carries a large chunk of the blame by not being competitive since 2007 but then the ipad is probably the real culprit here. I know more people that have an iPad as their personal computer and dont have a desktop or laptop at all than I do people that have a desktop PC. Hell even I use my Note 4 smartphone for most of the stuff I used to do on a computer.
 
MacLeod said:
It does seem like the PC market in general, at least our segment of it, is fading away fast. I know the GPU market is still pretty vibrant but the CPU end is just awful. AMD carries a large chunk of the blame by not being competitive since 2007 but then the ipad is probably the real culprit here. I know more people that have an iPad as their personal computer and dont have a desktop or laptop at all than I do people that have a desktop PC. Hell even I use my Note 4 smartphone for most of the stuff I used to do on a computer.
Click to expand...
I suffer using a laptop for work. God bless you on managing with a phone, even if it's the note series.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
I suffer using a laptop for work. God bless you on managing with a phone, even if it's the note series.
Click to expand...

Well dont get me wrong, its not like Im running a business or anything. I just meant email, banking, bill paying and stuff like that. Im not doing any productivity work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top