4 ms·
> They weren't even considering something as grand for desktop/laptops as Apple was with the M1 (i.e. a fully integrated SOC). Perhaps I misinterpret your arg
by q-big 5y ago
>
They weren't even considering something as grand for desktop/laptops as Apple was with the M1 (i.e. a fully integrated SOC).
Perhaps I misinterpret your argument, but it is my impression that Intel (and also AMD!) did huge steps into that direction, just in a more incremental way than what Apple did:
- integrated GPU: check
- integrated memory controller: check
- integrated northbridge: check: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northbridge_(computing)&oldid=1070541069#Evolution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Northbridge_(comp...
- developing a smartphone SoC: Intel did invest serious money into it and developed SoFIA and Broxton. Intel even strongly subsidized smartphone producers to use them. This all turned out to be a huge commercial failure and thus Intel left the smartphone SoC business.
It is also not the case that a fully-integrated SoC is "better". Rather having not everything in one SoC enabled much more flexibility for OEMs. Fully integrated SoC versus more chips is rather a trade-off between various goals.
- Closi 5y agoIntegrated GPU's have been around since 1991, so I wouldn't personally point to that as an example of Intel continuing to be highly 'incrementally' innovative. Similarly the M1 chip came out of a smartphone SOC - it was just that Apple saw the potential for laptop/desktop adoption while Intel clearly didn't (maybe because they failed to get into the smartphone business - but their failure in that market is yet another example of 'too slow, too little, too late').