What do AMD CPUs have over Intel?

[TymmVonD]

TDP

[harrynowl]

AMD still remain king for most low to mid laptops and most low to mid desktops - i.e. a huge chunk of the market.

I can quite handily disagree with this statement. AMD should be winning here but they aren't.

 

Go to PC World or some store where the masses go and buy computers and you'll find that Intel domintate the shelves with the odd A8 APU system here and there.

 

 

I would not exactly say an AMD 7850k constitutes a high-end PC... You can build a "decent" gaming computer for $700 including case, monitor, keyboard, and mouse. That's cheap gaming to me.

Nope, but it constitutes a better "cheap gaming" rig than a 4790K, 16GB of RAM, no GPU and a $300 monitor does...

[patrickjp93]

decent pc in my opinion isn't a pc that you play btf4 ultra in 6 4k monitors with 843650456 fps.........

also as i told you before.... people don't have money to spend... you may have a good salary that allows you to buy more expensive items..... but most people don't!

Frankly no one should be having a problem in this economy. There's more opportunity than ever to get a STEM job and firms all over the U.S., Canada, and Europe are looking to hire and finding no one. If you have a problem in this economy, the problem is you.

[patrickjp93]

I can quite handily disagree with this statement. AMD should be winning here but they aren't.

 

Go to PC World or some store where the masses go and buy computers and you'll find that Intel domintate the shelves with the odd A8 APU system here and there.

 

Nope, but it constitutes a better "cheap gaming" rig than a 4790K, 16GB of RAM, no GPU and a $300 monitor does...

Did you not read the qualifying statements in that post? I said if you stripped that machine's luxury items down to 8GB of RAM, get a cheap monitor, and a cheap board, you can grab a whole computer for about $800 that will play the vast majority of games at 1080p perfectly well at medium settings.

[harrynowl]

Did you not read the qualifying statements in that post? I said if you stripped that machine's luxury items down to 8GB of RAM, get a cheap monitor, and a cheap board, you can grab a whole computer for about $800 that will play the vast majority of games at 1080p perfectly well at medium settings.

And for $800 that still makes absolutely no sense when you can drop to a much cheaper CPU, get rid of the Z97 board and throw in a dedicated GPU that will trouce the HD4600. As such, and this is including a windows license. Will play most games 1080p ultra at 60FPS, not low-medium 25-35FPS with meh frametimes.

 

Have you tried gaming on a HD4600? I can tell you now it won't play 1080p medium settings on a lot of games making it a poor investment.

 

 

Frankly no one should be having a problem in this economy. There's more opportunity than ever to get a STEM job and firms all over the U.S., Canada, and Europe are looking to hire and finding no one. If you have a problem in this economy, the problem is you.

The guy said salary, not the lack of getting a job. Not everone is cut out to work a STEM style job; a lot of people can't afford to get into higher education during adult life to get the necessary qualifications to apply for these jobs.

 

And the economy in a lot of places is pretty bad right now, just because there's a lack of jobs in one specialized area doesn't mean that getting a job should be super easy.

 

I imagine there's a shortage of nuclear physicists, does that mean everyone should have jobs?

[ZeroBreaker]

Most people don;t buy on a budget. Let's stop with that fallacy. I would be considered a low-range builder because I never spend more than $1200 on a PC on a 5-year upgrade cycle. The number of people who build on $600-900 budgets is tiny. Universities and businesses buy a decent amount of secondhand equipment, but that doesn't qualify as a build.

 

Also, the market share of laptops held by AMD is about 14%. When I say mobile, I mean phones, and no, Intel is pushing harder than ever, hence the push to drop power consumption and maintain the same performance, because X86 is still 4x faster than the best ARM architecture. The problem is the higher wattage, but that won't last long because ARM is pushing towards being CISC and Intel has been shaving 20% or more off the power consumption on its mobile chips with each generation.\

 

Furthermore, Intel's onboard graphics solution is no slouch. Just because it wasn't optimized for gaming doesn't mean it's weak. Yes, it has a limited 1.7GB frame buffer size, but at 1080p Intel performs equally as good as AMD on integrated graphics. As per video rendering, the FX line is good for it, not contesting that, but the difference in performance on that front is much less drastic now than it has been. 

 

Intel is innovating towards APU-style architecture, and frankly they have to because CPU cores can't get too much faster without switching to Graphene or another more-efficient semiconductor, and, on Intel's side, the efficiency is already 0.86 IPC. given an even distribution of instructions used in an application. Efficiency gains will be tapering off very, very soon.

 

Whens the last phone you saw with an intel chip? I haven't seen a single one this year and i remember one from last year, no more. My phone has an intel chip, they did focus for a while, but recently it has definitely been put to one side by intel. And amd integrated graphics outperforms intel integrated graphics on most fronts, so while intel integrated graphics is adequite for very light gaming and watching videos, AMD's solution can basically replace a GPU in most situations. And ARM chips perform very well in the mobile space in part thanks to the massive optimisation there, hence why my 2ghz intel chip matches 2ghz arm chips, and why intel need to rethink their strategy.

 

In regards to buying on a budget, I am talking about the GENERAL CONSUMER. The general consumer sees a black box and pays for the black box either recommended by the shop or at the lowest price or at the specified budget. Very few people know what the inside of a computer looks like, never mind understand the performance benefits and implications of high end hardware. The general consumer DOES buy on a budget, what on earth makes you think the average person spends around £700 on a PC? That's utterly ridiculous. I don't know the situation over the pond, but i know personally that schools in my area refresh their suites of PC's rarely, but always buy brand new stock because of deals with vendors (in the uk, that's pretty much always dell). I can only speak from my experience. In the average brick and mortar store in the UK, they don't stock PC's above £600. And from what I hear constantly, the US is in a poorer situation than us, and even less people would be able to afford high end components. Heck, half the people posting on this forum are using low end components, because they make far more sense to most people.

 

Intel may be training monkeys to speak arabic in their R&D departments for all we know. Nothing has been truly groundbreaking in any sense recently save for the battery life of devices with haswell chips, which is a poor show from the top brand in CPU's. And nothing groundbreaking has been announced, partly because they don't need to - they are comfortable in their position, so are AMD, which could make things costly for the consumer.

 

Try and understand that YOU are not the average consumer. The average consumer has an average iq, average knowledge of computers (that is to say basically none) and has an average income. On a worldwide scale, they could barely afford AMD chips. On a USA scale, they likely still would struggle to afford much more than a basic athlon or pentium. It's clear you have some issues with your worldview.

 

 

I can quite handily disagree with this statement. AMD should be winning here but they aren't.

 

Go to PC World or some store where the masses go and buy computers and you'll find that Intel domintate the shelves with the odd A8 APU system here and there.

 

Nope, but it constitutes a better "cheap gaming" rig than a 4790K, 16GB of RAM, no GPU and a $300 monitor does...

 

Honestly, in my local PC world it's filled with a4's - a lot of i5's but definitely mostly amd chips at the low end.

 

 

Frankly no one should be having a problem in this economy. There's more opportunity than ever to get a STEM job and firms all over the U.S., Canada, and Europe are looking to hire and finding no one. If you have a problem in this economy, the problem is you.

 

You are making an utter fool out of yourself. A blind man can see the world economy is going down the toilet, people everywhere are struggling, and the lack of specialists is due to the lack of education / promotion of such education. I am heading to a course in electrical and electronic engineering in september. I have relatively good job prospects because of the lack of specialists here in the UK. I know no one who even considered this course. That's scary, considering we were not too long ago the centre of computer technology in the world. The situation is no different anywhere else.

[patrickjp93]

Whens the last phone you saw with an intel chip? I haven't seen a single one this year and i remember one from last year, no more. My phone has an intel chip, they did focus for a while, but recently it has definitely been put to one side by intel. And amd integrated graphics outperforms intel integrated graphics on most fronts, so while intel integrated graphics is adequite for very light gaming and watching videos, AMD's solution can basically replace a GPU in most situations. And ARM chips perform very well in the mobile space in part thanks to the massive optimisation there, hence why my 2ghz intel chip matches 2ghz arm chips, and why intel need to rethink their strategy.

 

In regards to buying on a budget, I am talking about the GENERAL CONSUMER. The general consumer sees a black box and pays for the black box either recommended by the shop or at the lowest price or at the specified budget. Very few people know what the inside of a computer looks like, never mind understand the performance benefits and implications of high end hardware. The general consumer DOES buy on a budget, what on earth makes you think the average person spends around £700 on a PC? That's utterly ridiculous. I don't know the situation over the pond, but i know personally that schools in my area refresh their suites of PC's rarely, but always buy brand new stock because of deals with vendors (in the uk, that's pretty much always dell). I can only speak from my experience. In the average brick and mortar store in the UK, they don't stock PC's above £600. And from what I hear constantly, the US is in a poorer situation than us, and even less people would be able to afford high end components. Heck, half the people posting on this forum are using low end components, because they make far more sense to most people.

 

Intel may be training monkeys to speak arabic in their R&D departments for all we know. Nothing has been truly groundbreaking in any sense recently save for the battery life of devices with haswell chips, which is a poor show from the top brand in CPU's. And nothing groundbreaking has been announced, partly because they don't need to - they are comfortable in their position, so are AMD, which could make things costly for the consumer.

 

Try and understand that YOU are not the average consumer. The average consumer has an average iq, average knowledge of computers (that is to say basically none) and has an average income. On a worldwide scale, they could barely afford AMD chips. On a USA scale, they likely still would struggle to afford much more than a basic athlon or pentium. It's clear you have some issues with your worldview.

I didn't say that was where Intel was succeeding. I said that was where they are pushing to break into the market. Can you please keep up? 

 

Also, most consumers know what the inside of a desktop looks like and know what performance is. You can somewhat thank the laptop vendors for this by offering options on processors in their laptops.

[ZeroBreaker]

I didn't say that was where Intel was succeeding. I said that was where they are pushing to break into the market. Can you please keep up? 

 

Also, most consumers know what the inside of a desktop looks like and know what performance is. You can somewhat thank the laptop vendors for this by offering options on processors in their laptops.

 

You are still being absolutely nonsensical. Where is the evidence, or even the indication, that intel are still pushing into mobile? They havn't announced anything, released anything or hinted at anything so where is the justification for this statement?

Most consumers know that bigger numbers equals better performance, and even that isn't accurate. Even that can't be taken for granted. And in what situation would the average consumer see the inside of a desktop? I can think of none. Please use logical arguments.

[harrynowl]

Honestly, in my local PC world it's filled with a4's - a lot of i5's but definitely mostly amd chips at the low end.

Fair enough, from the few PC Worlds and similar I've been into it's all Pentium/Celerons and i3s.

 

Where I work people are willing to buy 7 year old laptops to save £100 over a new one.

 

But I do live in what's considered to be a poor area.

 

Also, most consumers know what the inside of a desktop looks like and know what performance is. You can somewhat thank the laptop vendors for this by offering options on processors in their laptops.

They don't. I work in customer support and I see people with stickers to show them where the left and right click keys are on a trackpad.

 

And Intels naming schemes are a mess. i7 is better right? Not necessarily. There are mobile i3s that are better than i7s, but vendors will take advantage of the i7 name to sell inferior hardware to the average consumer that thinks they're getting an amazing deal on a 'high end' laptop.

[patrickjp93]

You are still being absolutely nonsensical. Where is the evidence, or even the indication, that intel are still pushing into mobile? They havn't announced anything, released anything or hinted at anything so where is the justification for this statement?

Most consumers know that bigger numbers equals better performance, and even that isn't accurate. Even that can't be taken for granted. And in what situation would the average consumer see the inside of a desktop? I can think of none. Please use logical arguments.

Most consumers know they need to blow out the dust in a computer to preserve it.

And can you not do a logical extrapolation? Intel is pushing lower and lower wattage, and it's the most constraining factor in mobile phone chips. Intel has pushed some all the way down to 10 watts, and there is no ARM chip which performs on the same level of an equal-rate x86 chip unless someone turned off the optimization on their compiler. ARM 9 has only a .55 IPC efficiency, and they're simpler instructions incapable of the full repertoire of tasks which x86 can handle. If Intel can push it down to 7 watts, all of a sudden phone makers will jump on top of them wanting the best performance to build the best smart phone.

 

Even Apple has been quoted as saying they'd prefer an x86 chip in their newest IPads, but the battery life wouldn't be there.

[Leonard]

Price, size and name.

[harrynowl]

10W is double a typical tablet TDP and 2W is the typical phone TDP.

 

Intel aren't there yet either. ARMv8 is just around the corner and Cortex-A57 aims to make massive gains on the existing Cortex-A15 used in high end phones.

 

4.3W TDP Intel: 

2W TDP Snapdragon 801:

 

Yes Intel have come a long way since the debut of the Atom, but so have ARM CPUs. Coming from ARMv6 400MHz Pentium 3 speed things to competitive ULP quad cores. Of course Apple want x86, that would unify their OSX and iOS platforms. Cross platform benchmark. The Adreno 330 is also superior to the GT1 underclocked.

[ZeroBreaker]

Most consumers know they need to blow out the dust in a computer to preserve it.

And can you not do a logical extrapolation? Intel is pushing lower and lower wattage, and it's the most constraining factor in mobile phone chips. Intel has pushed some all the way down to 10 watts, and there is no ARM chip which performs on the same level of an equal-rate x86 chip unless someone turned off the optimization on their compiler. ARM has only a .55 IPC, and they're simpler instructions incapable of the full repertoire of tasks which x86 can handle. If Intel can push it down to 7 watts, all of a sudden phone makers will jump on top of them wanting the best performance to build the best smart phone.

 

Even Apple has been quoted as saying they'd prefer an x86 chip in their newest IPads, but the battery life wouldn't be there.

Do you sincerely think haswell, and subsequent efficiency increases intel is promising, has anything to do with mobile? ARM absolutely dominate the market. Cheap, powerful chips that android is already optimised for, vs x86 chips that are faster but more expensive and need optimisation with android. My phone, with an x86 chip, cannot run around 10% of the apps on the google play store. It used to be more like 20 but it settled to 10 last year or so, and has not changed because intel refuses to cooperate with motorola on the OS. Does this sound like a company wanting to get into mobile? I have to wait a month for android 4.4 because intel is refusing to work with motorola. That in itself isn't damning evidence, but that combined with no plans and a very solid market means intel would have to have something massive up their sleeve, not just raw power, to disrupt the current state of affairs. Since intel hasn't been doing much on their main front, chips for computers, It's safe to say they have very little ambition for the mobile market left.

 

And now you are arguing without a point. Most consumers don't know dust builds up in computers, because no one tells them. Some will logically gather that fans mean airflow meaning dust, some will find out somehow either online or maybe in the manual, but most won't be told and so won't know. Few people have the same enthusiasm for computers as people on this forum, and thus few will know how the black box works or care for anything to do with it other than social networks, youtube and word documents.

 

On the point of apple, this was back in december 2012 and was a rumour, not a quote. The whole thing was intel would make ARM chips for iphones, and apple would use x86 intel chips for ipads. It clearly didn't go through. The idea was intel would make sales from the mobile market, exploiting it rather than actually innovating and moving technology forward. Nothing about battery life was mentioned even in the rumour. I don't know which fantasy land you live in, but please return to earth.

[patrickjp93]

Do you sincerely think haswell, and subsequent efficiency increases intel is promising, has anything to do with mobile? ARM absolutely dominate the market. Cheap, powerful chips that android is already optimised for, vs x86 chips that are faster but more expensive and need optimisation with android. My phone, with an x86 chip, cannot run around 10% of the apps on the google play store. It used to be more like 20 but it settled to 10 last year or so, and has not changed because intel refuses to cooperate with motorola on the OS. Does this sound like a company wanting to get into mobile? I have to wait a month for android 4.4 because intel is refusing to work with motorola. That in itself isn't damning evidence, but that combined with no plans and a very solid market means intel would have to have something massive up their sleeve, not just raw power, to disrupt the current state of affairs. Since intel hasn't been doing much on their main front, chips for computers, It's safe to say they have very little ambition for the mobile market left.

 

And now you are arguing without a point. Most consumers don't know dust builds up in computers, because no one tells them. Some will logically gather that fans mean airflow meaning dust, some will find out somehow either online or maybe in the manual, but most won't be told and so won't know. Few people have the same enthusiasm for computers as people on this forum, and thus few will know how the black box works or care for anything to do with it other than social networks, youtube and word documents.

 

On the point of apple, this was back in december 2012 and was a rumour, not a quote. The whole thing was intel would make ARM chips for iphones, and apple would use x86 intel chips for ipads. It clearly didn't go through. The idea was intel would make sales from the mobile market, exploiting it rather than actually innovating and moving technology forward. Nothing about battery life was mentioned even in the rumour. I don't know which fantasy land you live in, but please return to earth.

No need to re-optimize. The logic is already implemented and optimized in the code. You just recompile it to a more powerful architecture. Do you have any clue how software development and cross-platform compatibility works? Any Java program runs on the JVM, not on the processor. The JVM runs on the processor, and the one in the Android phones already exists on the x86 platform, which is why Java programs run on a desktop. You can get rid of ARM in phones and not lose a day of productivity.

 

And I didn't say the work on Haswell specifically was proof. The proof is across-the-board pushing wattage down. The desktop market doesn't care, but mobile does, and mobile is where they want to crack open the phone market, because every company wants to grow. You just lack vision.

 

Also, Intel rents space out to AMD to let them produce their ARM chips. Intel can jump in and make better ARM at any point, but what they want is to get rid of ARM so they don't have to split up R&D on two fronts, hence the ATOM processor.

[Thony]

Nothing. Very unfortunate thought. Intel has no real competitor and that allows them to do whatever or dont do anything at all

[Tda62]

AMD is cheaper that is it

[ZeroBreaker]

No need to re-optimize. The logic is already implemented and optimized in the code. You just recompile it to a more powerful architecture. Do you have any clue have software development and cross-platform compatibility works? Any Java program runs on the JVM, not on the processor. The JVM runs on the processor, and the one in the Android phones already exists on the x86 platform, which is why Java programs run on a desktop. You can get rid of ARM in phones and not lose a day of productivity.

 

And I didn't say the work on Haswell specifically was proof. The proof is across-the-board pushing wattage down. The desktop market doesn't care, but mobile does, and mobile is where they want to crack open the phone market, because every company wants to grow. You just lack vision.

 

Also, Intel rents space out to AMD to let them produce their ARM chips. Intel can jump in and make better ARM at any point, but what they want is to get rid of ARM so they don't have to split up R&D on two fronts, hence the ATOM processor.

 

You're absolutely bonkers mate. 'you just lack vision' made me laugh though, so at least this convo was worth something.

Android apps, including major ones like BBC iplayer (at least for us UK folk) do some programming that cannot be replicated by an x86 platform. Not sure on the details why, but the only two phones with intel processors, the orange san diego and the razr i, could not even launch the app, and after a couple of months it was listed as incompatible. You cannot get android and all it's apps, especially major, cpu intensive apps, onto x86 without messing about with it. In the end, BBC released three versions (maybe more) of the app that claimed to fix the problems but didn't. Then they gave up, seperated the video playback app from the iplayer app and gave us some compatibility. I experienced this firsthand because I own both phones. There is problems with android on x86 than intel could not or did not care to solve.

 

I already told you - intel HAD a mobile focus, specifically phones, for a good while. It basically, for all intents and purposes, got canned. It would take them years to try again, or something absolutely revolutionary, which does not seem likely at all. Vision plays no part in it, wishy washy arguments do not a good point make.

 

The atom processor was a laptop chip. It was optimised in the razr i and san diego to run very efficiently. My phone outperforms most current flagships in battery life and in most performance situations, thanks to hyperthreading it keeps up well. They ALREADY had a high end functional chip, but it had issues with apps and clearly intel had some seperate issues because they refused to support it beyond android 4.1 and that was released a LONG time ago. Motorola picked up the slack but without intel's help. They CLEARLY have no interest in mobile, or at least are waiting it out because it's still potentially volatile. In no way is it reasonable to suggest they are innovating in mobile when considering this.

 

Youve forgotten your original argument it seems. Intel are NOT innovating in mobile, as you stated.

[Faa]

Nothing. Very unfortunate thought. Intel has no real competitor and that allows them to do whatever or dont do anything at all

Intel has more competition with AMD's fanboys than AMD alone. The majority of them still think their 8350 is futureproof and better than a i7.

[patrickjp93]

You're absolutely bonkers mate. 'you just lack vision' made me laugh though, so at least this convo was worth something.

Android apps, including major ones like BBC iplayer (at least for us UK folk) do some programming that cannot be replicated by an x86 platform. Not sure on the details why, but the only two phones with intel processors, the orange san diego and the razr i, could not even launch the app, and after a couple of months it was listed as incompatible. You cannot get android and all it's apps, especially major, cpu intensive apps, onto x86 without messing about with it. In the end, BBC released three versions (maybe more) of the app that claimed to fix the problems but didn't. Then they gave up, seperated the video playback app from the iplayer app and gave us some compatibility. I experienced this firsthand because I own both phones. There is problems with android on x86 than intel could not or did not care to solve.

 

I already told you - intel HAD a mobile focus, specifically phones, for a good while. It basically, for all intents and purposes, got canned. It would take them years to try again, or something absolutely revolutionary, which does not seem likely at all. Vision plays no part in it, wishy washy arguments do not a good point make.

 

The atom processor was a laptop chip. It was optimised in the razr i and san diego to run very efficiently. My phone outperforms most current flagships in battery life and in most performance situations, thanks to hyperthreading it keeps up well. They ALREADY had a high end functional chip, but it had issues with apps and clearly intel had some seperate issues because they refused to support it beyond android 4.1 and that was released a LONG time ago. Motorola picked up the slack but without intel's help. They CLEARLY have no interest in mobile, or at least are waiting it out because it's still potentially volatile. In no way is it reasonable to suggest they are innovating in mobile when considering this.

 

Youve forgotten your original argument it seems. Intel are NOT innovating in mobile, as you stated.

They ARE innovating in mobile, as I claimed. You seem to have gotten lost. And the ATOM is a phone/tablet/ultrabook chip (Ipad or Surface Pro) not a laptop chip. And Motorola has been making enemies with everyone. I can hardly blame Intel for ending support with them.

[vm'N]

Well, the whole AMD vs Intel really is a sad debate. First of all, the two companies aren't directly competitive against eachother. Intel is a much bigger company. This would be like saying Nokia was competitive with Samsung.

Second; It the past, it have been proven how complex and advanced the x86 are (even so it can seems rather legacy), and how much they are constantly improved it.

The real fight currently is at x86 against ARM. What we are seen it two different architecture-models compete, and in the end (we can be talking more than 20+ (even much more)) only one would stand. It might even be a combination or even a third party architecture-model. Intel have showed some very promising numbers in regards to the x86 vs ARM. Intel do have extreme focus on the entire mobile platform.

As we have seen in the past, bigger companies are trying to reach into newer markets. Some will success, and some will fail. A good company can be spotted by how fast the pull out of that market.

Haswell and silvermont was Intels first processors, to start the battle against ARM. Check out future processors by Intel, and check their wattage-consumption. It will greatly be reduced over the upcoming architecture update.

We see how companies are spending resources on areas, which can give back profits. Intel is having major plans, especially on the iGPs (which should greatly advanced within the next couple of years).

Intel is still holding control of the "high-end" market. They are currently the leading company for SIMD clusters (on CPUs), and are lending out their technologies to AMD(Not for free, no company would directly do that. Just like AMD didn't lend out their x86_64 technology to Intel(If I remember correctly, AMD was running short on their existing x86 license).

However the x86 would never end in monopoly (This was one of the demands from IBM), so if AMD would end up closing (which I'm truly doubting, AMD is regaining control), I would guess Intel would need to cut their business into half (so two sub-companies), or an third party would enter (Normally that would have been IBM, but I doubt they would enter).

Also, Intel rents space out to AMD to let them produce their ARM chips. Intel can jump in and make better ARM at any point

How does Intel rend out space to AMD for them to produce ARM processors?

Intel would need a license first (They could afford it no doubt). Intel won't jump into the ARM market the same reason why they are not jumping into the GPU market.

They would end up wasting a ton of resources, because the other companies have more experience with the architecture-model, and they don't believe in that architecture-model for the longer term.

The ARM and GPU market is quite full, a even Intel sized company join it, would end up in chaos.

Intel is however directly fighting back on other fronts. Like lowering power-consumption and increasing iGP performance. It is currently only a question of time before an APU would fulfill a gamers requirements. (The GPU will still exist, but would end up more like an co-processor). The vision about the future regards x86 and ARM is quite blurry, and are hard to make any direct guess on the outcome.

We are entering an existing era, this is the movements where we see an companies reaction in desperate times.

[patrickjp93]

Well, the whole AMD vs Intel really is a sad debate. First of all, the two companies aren't directly competitive against eachother. Intel is a much bigger company. This would be like saying Nokia was competitive with Samsung.

Second; It the past, it have been proven how complex and advanced the x86 are (even so it can seems rather legacy), and how much they are constantly improved it.

The real fight currently is at x86 against ARM. What we are seen it two different architecture-models compete, and in the end (we can be talking more than 20+ (even much more)) only one would stand. It might even be a combination or even a third party architecture-model. Intel have showed some very promising numbers in regards to the x86 vs ARM. Intel do have extreme focus on the entire mobile platform.

As we have seen in the past, bigger companies are trying to reach into newer markets. Some will success, and some will fail. A good company can be spotted by how fast the pull out of that market.

Haswell and silvermont was Intels first processors, to start the battle against ARM. Check out future processors by Intel, and check their wattage-consumption. It will greatly be reduced over the upcoming architecture update.

We see how companies are spending resources on areas, which can give back profits. Intel is having major plans, especially on the iGPs (which should greatly advanced within the next couple of years).

Intel is still holding control of the "high-end" market. They are currently the leading company for SIMD clusters (on CPUs), and are lending out their technologies to AMD(Not for free, no company would directly do that. Just like AMD didn't lend out their x86_64 technology to Intel(If I remember correctly, AMD was running short on their existing x86 license).

However the x86 would never end in monopoly (This was one of the demands from IBM), so if AMD would end up closing (which I'm truly doubting, AMD is regaining control), I would guess Intel would need to cut their business into half (so two sub-companies), or an third party would enter (Normally that would have been IBM, but I doubt they would enter).

How does Intel rend out space to AMD for them to produce ARM processors?

Intel would need a license first (They could afford it no doubt). Intel won't jump into the ARM market the same reason why they are not jumping into the GPU market.

They would end up wasting a ton of resources, because the other companies have more experience with the architecture-model, and they don't believe in that architecture-model for the longer term.

The ARM and GPU market is quite full, a even Intel sized company join it, would end up in chaos.

Intel is however directly fighting back on other fronts. Like lowering power-consumption and increasing iGP performance. It is currently only a question of time before an APU would fulfill a gamers requirements. (The GPU will still exist, but would end up more like an co-processor). The vision about the future regards x86 and ARM is quite blurry, and are hard to make any direct guess on the outcome.

We are entering an existing era, this is the movements where we see an companies reaction in desperate times.

Intel rents out production floor space. AMD can run whatever programs it wants on the fabrication equipment. Essentially it isn't Intel making the chips so it doesn't need a license. But, it could probably learn by observing AMD and then come in later.

[vm'N]

I already told you - intel HAD a mobile focus, specifically phones, for a good while. It basically, for all intents and purposes, got canned. It would take them years to try again, or something absolutely revolutionary, which does not seem likely at all. Vision plays no part in it, wishy washy arguments do not a good point make.

 

The atom processor was a laptop chip. It was optimised in the razr i and san diego to run very efficiently. My phone outperforms most current flagships in battery life and in most performance situations, thanks to hyperthreading it keeps up well. They ALREADY had a high end functional chip, but it had issues with apps and clearly intel had some seperate issues because they refused to support it beyond android 4.1 and that was released a LONG time ago. Motorola picked up the slack but without intel's help. They CLEARLY have no interest in mobile, or at least are waiting it out because it's still potentially volatile. In no way is it reasonable to suggest they are innovating in mobile when considering this.

 

Youve forgotten your original argument it seems. Intel are NOT innovating in mobile, as you stated.

Intel HAVE focus on the mobile platform, saying otherwise is false. Intel will move forward, bringing even more support for the mobile market.

The ATOM wasn't only an laptop chip, and are actually only seen in lower-end laptops. A processor-model having trouble with some preexisting apps, isn't the processor-companies fault. Intel are offering ton of information towards their processor architecture for every coder or compiler to OPENLY support. You are blaming the wrong end. You cannot blame a diesel car for not function well enough if you try to tank it up with benzil.

Intel did ALL they could, they are also realizing their are just entering the market. Not all will support an newly entry of the market (as some won't make it, so they waste time and resources for supporting their architecture-model).

So would you stop saying Intel have no interest in the mobile market, which they have showed so many times. They would even PAY the manufactures the fee for some of the components that aren't on their die. This is a extremely stupid way of saying "we don't care about this market).

[vm'N]

Intel rents out production floor space. AMD can run whatever programs it wants on the fabrication equipment. Essentially it isn't Intel making the chips so it doesn't need a license. But, it could probably learn by observing AMD and then come in later.

You mean Intel is lending out their fabs to AMD? I know recently Intel did open their fabs for thirds parties, however I haven't read that AMD would take this opportunity on this.

Do you have any sources on that?

[Zolton]

I like AMD for their cores because its great for multitasking, but I've always stuck with Intel. I feel it has better performance in gaming.

[Scratchy1215]

Never thought this post would go this far. Interesting learning a lot about the CPUs though, everyone posts a little bit of truth and its nice learning all the differences