5 ms·

1. Intel CPUs are much more powerful and complex than a typical Apple/Qualcomm SoC, and so are more difficult to design and more expensive to manufacture. 2. I

by Cyph0n 10y ago

1. Intel CPUs are much more powerful and complex than a typical Apple/Qualcomm SoC, and so are more difficult to design and more expensive to manufacture. 2. Intel has its own internal fabs, which allows them to control the entire process, but also eats into their margins. 3. Intel maintains a vast variety of CPUs of different classes (Atom all the way up to Xeon etc.) 4. Intel's CPU related R&D expenses are much higher than either Apple or Qualcomm. On top of this, Intel does a ton of research into process optimization, materials science, and general circuit design, which obviously needs funding.

helthanatos 10y ago
Yes http://www.extremetech.com/computing/190946-stop-obsessing-over-transistor-counts-theyre-a-terrible-way-of-comparing-chips http://www.extremetech.com/computing/190946-stop-obsessing-o... But Intel likes wasting a lot of its R&D money on things that never go anywhere. Such as tablets/smartphone https://www.google.com/amp/www.fool.com/amp/investing/general/2016/04/21/intel-corps-contra-revenue-strategy-was-a-huge-was.aspx https://www.google.com/amp/www.fool.com/amp/investing/genera... https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227720-how-intel-lost-10-billion-and-the-mobile-market https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227720-how-intel-lost-10... If Intel would have been able to make a good RISC architecture, they probably would have been more successful but, even with all Intel's R&D, they are still a desktop CPU company.
CountSessine 10y ago
2. Intel has its own internal fabs, which allows them to control the entire process, but also eats into their margins. [...] 4. Intel's CPU related R&D expenses are much higher than either Apple or Qualcomm. On top of this, Intel does a ton of research into process optimization, materials science, and general circuit design, which obviously needs funding. Isn't this double-accounting? TSMC and Samsung have the same process-related expenses; indeed Samsung is very close on Intel's heels, process-wise. But somehow this isn't reflected in SOC price? Again, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that Intel chips go for around $100 but Qualcomm chips list around $25.
- Cyph0n 10y ago
  Intel uses its fabs internally and does not allow other companies to use its process, unlike Samsung. Again, an ARM SoC running in a power-constrained phone is nothing compared to a desktop-grade processor when it comes to complexity. I think you're underestimating what's on a modern Intel chip.
  - astrodust 10y ago
    This "complexity hole" is a problem they've encountered before with the Pentium 4 line of chips. They ended up being too complicated and too costly to produce, so they had to scrap it and go back to the Pentium III design and iterate from there. I wonder if they'll ever have to back-track even further and use an ARM core but add on an x86-64 mode via microcode.
ksec 10y ago
1. They are not that much more powerful. Apple A10 is pretty close. It is Faster then a Macbook Air CPU in Geekbench 4 test ( This is version 4, much better then the Version 3 which Linus rant about) with less Power envelop and node behind Intel. While it is not fair to compare Apple which doesn't sell their chip, Qualcomm's Kryo 200 and ARM A73 should be pretty close to A10. Basically I dont see how Intel's x86 Core is any more complex, and expensive to manufacture. Especially when you consider these cost of design are now spread out over three years or more. 3. That is even worst, and why specifically said Desktop processors at $100, they make little numbers of Atom, but they made LOTS of Xeon which is even higher Margins. ( They dominate the Server market with 90%+ market share ) 2/ 4. These process, R&D, process optimization, materials science are all cover by their cost to TSMC / Samsung. Btw TSMC's 2016 Capex ( including R&D ) is now equal to Intel $9.5B. When you consider TSMC is Pure Play and Intel being IDM, this is very significant mile stone.

by Cyph0n 10y ago

helthanatos 10y ago

Yes http://www.extremetech.com/computing/190946-stop-obsessing-over-transistor-counts-theyre-a-terrible-way-of-comparing-chips http://www.extremetech.com/computing/190946-stop-obsessing-o... But Intel likes wasting a lot of its R&D money on things that never go anywhere. Such as tablets/smartphone https://www.google.com/amp/www.fool.com/amp/investing/general/2016/04/21/intel-corps-contra-revenue-strategy-was-a-huge-was.aspx https://www.google.com/amp/www.fool.com/amp/investing/genera... https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227720-how-intel-lost-10-billion-and-the-mobile-market https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227720-how-intel-lost-10... If Intel would have been able to make a good RISC architecture, they probably would have been more successful but, even with all Intel's R&D, they are still a desktop CPU company.

CountSessine 10y ago

2. Intel has its own internal fabs, which allows them to control the entire process, but also eats into their margins. [...] 4. Intel's CPU related R&D expenses are much higher than either Apple or Qualcomm. On top of this, Intel does a ton of research into process optimization, materials science, and general circuit design, which obviously needs funding. Isn't this double-accounting? TSMC and Samsung have the same process-related expenses; indeed Samsung is very close on Intel's heels, process-wise. But somehow this isn't reflected in SOC price? Again, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that Intel chips go for around $100 but Qualcomm chips list around $25.

Cyph0n 10y ago
Intel uses its fabs internally and does not allow other companies to use its process, unlike Samsung. Again, an ARM SoC running in a power-constrained phone is nothing compared to a desktop-grade processor when it comes to complexity. I think you're underestimating what's on a modern Intel chip.
- astrodust 10y ago
  This "complexity hole" is a problem they've encountered before with the Pentium 4 line of chips. They ended up being too complicated and too costly to produce, so they had to scrap it and go back to the Pentium III design and iterate from there. I wonder if they'll ever have to back-track even further and use an ARM core but add on an x86-64 mode via microcode.

ksec 10y ago

1. They are not that much more powerful. Apple A10 is pretty close. It is Faster then a Macbook Air CPU in Geekbench 4 test ( This is version 4, much better then the Version 3 which Linus rant about) with less Power envelop and node behind Intel. While it is not fair to compare Apple which doesn't sell their chip, Qualcomm's Kryo 200 and ARM A73 should be pretty close to A10. Basically I dont see how Intel's x86 Core is any more complex, and expensive to manufacture. Especially when you consider these cost of design are now spread out over three years or more. 3. That is even worst, and why specifically said Desktop processors at $100, they make little numbers of Atom, but they made LOTS of Xeon which is even higher Margins. ( They dominate the Server market with 90%+ market share ) 2/ 4. These process, R&D, process optimization, materials science are all cover by their cost to TSMC / Samsung. Btw TSMC's 2016 Capex ( including R&D ) is now equal to Intel $9.5B. When you consider TSMC is Pure Play and Intel being IDM, this is very significant mile stone.