Recent Posts
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Intel's Death are Widely Exaggerated!!
Posted on 3:49 PM by Admin
If
you've ever struggled through a skiing lesson, you know exactly what
the expression "too far over your skis" means: You're headed in the
right direction, but you're leaning so far forward you're going to take a
tumble. And that's what's going to happen to my colleague Galen Gruman,
who along with other pundits is falling all over himself to bury Intel under the oncoming ARM tsunami.
Yes, as many of us have written, the old PC-centric computing model is running out of gas as tablets and smartphone become more powerful
and more central to how we live, work, and play. That's the right
direction. But timing is everything -- there's lots of evidence that
Wintel (the Microsoft-Intel partnership) still has many years left in it
-- which is why Gruman and others are seriously ahead of themselves.
[ Read Galen Gruman's case for why Intel will struggle against ARM given Microsoft's and Apple's support. ]
This is a big topic, so I'm going to stick to one part of it: Intel's
ability to compete with ARM in delivering high-performance, low-power
chips in packages tailored for mobile devices. One name to keep in mind
in this discussion is Zolo, the Android-based smartphone from Lava now
selling in India.
"People who have seen it say that it is comparable in performance to
[smartphones based on] Qualcomm's Snapdragon and Nvidia's Tegra," the
ones used in practically every Android smartphone sold in the United
States, says Nathan Brookwood, the principal analyst of Insight64 and a
longtime observer of the semiconductor industry. The smartphone's energy
efficiency is likewise comparable to these established ARM chips --
except Zolo uses Intel's x86-based Atom chip. That's why counting Intel
out, Brookwood says, is a big mistake.
Intel versus Qualcomm and Nvidia: An uneven match
The chip inside Lava's Zolo is based on Intel's new Medfield design.
Without getting overly geeky, it's important to note that the chip used
in the Zolo is still being produced on the old 32-nanometer process. A
year from now, Intel will shift its mobile chips to the same
22-nanometer process used in the just-shipped Ivy Bridge laptop and desktop chips.
Why is that important? The smaller process means far more transistors
and far less heat. If Intel is competitive at 32 nanometers, what
happens when it shifts to a more aggressive process?
It's also important to remember that Intel owns its own fabs and
controls its own process technology, while its competitors generally use
foundries owned by companies like TSMC that do not have the same
mastery of process technology, notes Brookwood. Don't forget the
addition of trigate, or 3D, transistor technology to increase both
computational power and efficiency.
That's not to say Nvidia and Qualcomm won't be improving their own
ARM chips. Ditto for Apple, which designs its own ARM chips for its iOS
devices. Of course they will, Brookwood says. But now that Intel has
decided to focus on performance per watt, as opposed to pure
computational performance, it's a very different ball game.
A pair of announcements during last September's Intel Developer Forum
demonstrated Intel's power in the mobile industry. Intel CEO Paul
Otellini and Google's Android development boss Andy Rubin appeared on
stage together, and Rubin promised, "We're going to collaborate very
closely to make sure that Android is optimized the best it possibly can
be for the Intel architecture."
He added, "Going forward, all future releases of Android will be optimized [for Intel]."
Moreover, Intel is one of the largest suppliers of code to the
Android code base, says Dean McCarron, principal analyst of Mercury
Research. If Intel didn't believe it was going to get something
significant out of Android, would it make those contributions just to be
a good citizen? Of course not.
So why does Gruman believe that "Intel is kept at the back of the line in terms of support and access to the pseudo-open source Android code"?
I don't see any evidence of that, but maybe I'm missing something.
Gruman tells me it's the utter lack of Android 4 "Ice Cream Sandwich"
devices using Intel chips, though Android 4 first shipped for ARM
devices six months ago. Intel says to expect Intel-based Android 4
devices soon and notes the first Android 3.3 "Gingerbread" Intel-based
devices shipped last month.
The other key announcement at the Intel Developer Forum came from
Motorola Mobility, which signed an extensive "multiyear, multidevice
strategic partnership" with Intel to produce Android-powered smartphones
and tablets. Motorola wouldn't have done that without looking very
closely at Medfield, and it must have concluded that the Intel platform
is indeed competitive with ARM in power consumption and raw performance.
Once these devices are in the market, we'll see something new:
serious competition for the Qualcomm and Nvidia ARM chips used in most
Android devices.
Will you get work done on ARM?
Another exaggerated story line is the threat ARM chips pose to Intel
in the productivity market. Sure, Qualcomm showed off a PC-like device
earlier this year, but what anyone will be able to use it for is hardly
clear.
"I'm quite skeptical," says Mercury Research's McCarron. The software
infrastructure is dominated by the classic x86 architecture of Intel
and AMD. In particular, Windows 8 on ARM will not support binary translation, so any apps written to run on it will have to be rewritten from the ground up, he says.
Here, too, there is some nuance. McCarron notes that the rise of the
app stores will make it easier for independent developers to write and
sell ARM-specific apps that could get some traction with the public.
Plans on the drawing board for new chips by Qualcomm and Nvidia,
expected to debut around 2015, could change the game, he says.
A report by Flurry, a mobile analytics company, found that an
astonishing 1.2 billion apps were downloaded between December 25 and
December 31, 2011. About 20 percent of those were tablet-specific,
estimates Flurry's Peter Farago. However, only 1.4 percent of those
downloads were productivity-related, meaning that most people are not
relying on their mobile devices as the primary means of getting their
work done.
So with all due respect, Galen: Your pronouncement of Intel's death
is greatly exaggerated. I hope you're wearing a crash helmet.
For More Details, Click Hare
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No Response to "Intel's Death are Widely Exaggerated!!"
Leave A Reply