3 ms·

You don't realize what has taken place in the market, to enable you to have a portable web-browser in your phone. Costs have been cut in every place possible i

by Andys 16y ago

You don't realize what has taken place in the market, to enable you to have a portable web-browser in your phone. Costs have been cut in every place possible in order to maximize shipment volume to make consumer-level smartphones possible on thin margins. Intel's Atom x86 is Intel's lowest margin x86 CPU. Accordingly, it is built on years-old hand-me-down fabrication process, with very little investment put in to power saving technology. Despite this, for years now it only consumes a watt or so per core, with the cut-cost platform (chipset) surrounding it in the average laptop, consuming vastly more. Intel already has a 32nm System-on-a-chip platform developed, simply waiting for the right time that it makes sense to ramp up volume. And so, the thing that can kill Intel, is that performance from a budget-priced CPU out of a Taiwan fab is all that consumers want or need any more in any device.

wtallis 16y ago
The first i7 processors to use a newer fabrication process than the one used on all Atom processors so far was released one year ago. A 1-1.5 year lag for the low-end parts is completely normal, and the 45nm process is not yet horrendously outdated. AMD hasn't made the switch to 32nm yet, so you couldn't even claim that Intel has squandered their monopoly advantage of always having the newer, smaller process.
wisty 16y ago
We are already just about there. My MacBook 1,1 (late 2006) gets about 2300 on Geekbench 2. A new Mac Pro gets 25,000, so it's over 10 times as fast, right? Wrong. A new Mac Pro has about twice the single-threaded performance, according to the Geekbench scores. Compare this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 to this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 OK, memory bandwidth is a lot better, about 5 times as fast, but otherwise the performance gains are pretty shoddy. Processors have not been getting much better at single-threaded work. Keep in mind, this is comparing a cheap laptop to an expensive workstation. If a cheap fab is 5 years behind Intel, it's already breathing down Intel's neck.

by Andys 16y ago

wtallis 16y ago

The first i7 processors to use a newer fabrication process than the one used on all Atom processors so far was released one year ago. A 1-1.5 year lag for the low-end parts is completely normal, and the 45nm process is not yet horrendously outdated. AMD hasn't made the switch to 32nm yet, so you couldn't even claim that Intel has squandered their monopoly advantage of always having the newer, smaller process.

wisty 16y ago

We are already just about there. My MacBook 1,1 (late 2006) gets about 2300 on Geekbench 2. A new Mac Pro gets 25,000, so it's over 10 times as fast, right? Wrong. A new Mac Pro has about twice the single-threaded performance, according to the Geekbench scores. Compare this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/339104 to this: http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 http://browse.geekbench.ca/geekbench2/view/281328 OK, memory bandwidth is a lot better, about 5 times as fast, but otherwise the performance gains are pretty shoddy. Processors have not been getting much better at single-threaded work. Keep in mind, this is comparing a cheap laptop to an expensive workstation. If a cheap fab is 5 years behind Intel, it's already breathing down Intel's neck.