3 ms·
1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm an
by causi 4y ago
1) Completely missed the boat on mobile. Their ARM-competitive chips (Atom, etc.)... weren't. Missed on every measure from power to performance. Let Qualcomm and Samsung eat their lunch.
I'm gonna add the caveat that the failure didn't happen out of the gate. Xscale was leagues ahead of anything else two decades ago. Atom stumbled at the start but Cherry Trail had a better price to performance ratio than anything that followed it. Intel's failure was nothing but pure avarice.
- bluGill 4y agoIn this market what counts is performance/watt ratio. Battery power is a big selling point for cell phones, and so you can charge a bit more for less watts. Though of course price does matter too. There are also embedded markets where you have to be passively cooled, again watts matter. My impression is Intel hit the price for embedded just fine, but at higher watts, and thus they can't compete.
- causi 4y agoIn this market what counts is performance/watt ratio. That was also excellent for Cherry Trail, with an SDP of 2 watts. When you have some time sit down and compare the benchmarks from a Cherry Trail tablet like the Surface 3 and its successor chips like the 4415Y. The 4415Y like the one in the Surface Go is three years newer, has a 60% higher TDP, a Recommended Customer Price over four times higher, and while its 3D chops are better it actually benchmarks lower than the Cherry Trail chip in PCMark.