3 ms·

Just to second this point, most people just have no conception of what semiconductor manufacturing is like and this article seems especially misinformed about t

Just to second this point, most people just have no conception of what semiconductor manufacturing is like and this article seems especially misinformed about the manufacturing side. For example: "The ARM collective simply show up to Samsung or TWSC, or TI or Global Foundries, ask for a zillion processors to run off the manufacturing lines and wonder if they can have them by Tuesday?" which is just total bullshit. The reason Apple had to buy so many processors from Samsung for so long is because setting up a new processor is expensive and difficult, whether it's an Intel or Global Foundries and it sure as hell doesn't take less than six months, let alone a week before you can get a reliable shipment of chips for a consumer product. (and before you can talk about volume of ARM vs Intel, compare the dozen+ companies that can manufacture 24-60-something nm to the ONE company that can do 22 and lower: Intel) There are many competitors in the semiconductor manufacturing space because COMBINED they don't have the manufacturing or scientific resources of Intel (TI and Qualcomm have massive R&D arms but they're more concerned with wireless and other electronics). Intel's first mass market 14 nm facility is supposed to go live this year and Samsung just BARELY got their 14nm demo out this year. Intel's plant was $5 billion and started in 2011 which means that Intel has years to improve their power, bus speeds, and reliability before any manufacturer will even be able to sell their first processor. As the technology nears sub-10nm, the gaps between performance and power consumption between the architectures will be more and more obvious. All of the other semifab manufacturers are extremely reliant on third party suppliers for their factories whereas Intel helped develop a huge portion of their technology, many times outright owning part of the equipment manufacturers (for example, http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132604-intel-invests-in-asml-to-boost-extreme-uv-lithography-massive-450mm-wafers http://www.extremetech.com/computing/132604-intel-invests-in...). 14nm was the point where they hit a lot of physical phenomena that prevent e-beam lithography and some of the other methods from working and Intel's pretty much the only one that can really push this technology forward. Edit: Also, http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-processor-5nm,17578.html http://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-processor-5nm,175... - it's over. Notice how Intel said they're going to push their SoC's to their current processes? Hopefully this means that in 2015 we'll have 10nm x86 SoCs (at which point ARM will be, best case scenario, nearing end-of-life 22nm)

ricw 13y ago
This is marginal compared to the two major factors that matter for the majority of web services: acquisition cost and power consumption. On both fronts intels current business case cannot ever compete with arm, no matter how much more advanced their manufacturing may be. Sure, intel is likely to keep on driving the high end single machine market, but the vast majority of web services will go with the market. And that market is arms to take, unless intel drives down its price dramatically. A bloodshed is about to happen. Better start shorting intel..
- akiselev 13y ago
  Please read this, it's old but still applies: http://www.geek.com/chips/why-amd-mhz-dont-equal-intel-mhz-557914/ http://www.geek.com/chips/why-amd-mhz-dont-equal-intel-mhz-5... Since Intel is the driver for cutting edge technology they, by a wide margin, have the most potential for drastic improvements. ARM is mostly restricted to the mercy of Qualcomm, Snapdragon, and a few other companies who rely on third party manufacturers of semiconductor fab equipment. Also, I laughed out loud at "bloodshed." Intel has about half the assets of Apple with plenty of cash in the bank and controls something like NINETY-SIX PERCENT of the server market. Even if they lost half the market in the next ten years, the only bloodshed would be the cost of engineering and IT time wasted moving architectures. Worst case scenario they become a contract manufacturer for the best ARM chips.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    Intel isn't "the driver for cutting edge technology" they eek out incremental improvements to their products in as miserly a fashion as they can get away with. When a firm challenges them and takes the lead in performance, they scramble and catch up while doing their best to ruin their new competitor with nasty business tricks.
    - akiselev 13y ago
      This is so absolutely wrong that I can't even.... When a firm challenges them, they change philosophies and strategies (and they win). Remember the GHz race that Intel eventually won? They won not because they had better manufacturing technology than AMD (which they did), but because they totally changed direction away from increasing the clock to improving the communications buses and optimizing instructions/cycle. Yes they're often anticompetitive, but this isn't something new in the semiconductor industry (Intel was the only one that had enough market share to go after). As for incremental improvements, you're kidding right? Every jump in semiconductor manufacturing is a huge leap, both in performance and technological complexity and they've been first to mass market with (i think) every new process in the last decade.

ricw 13y ago

This is marginal compared to the two major factors that matter for the majority of web services: acquisition cost and power consumption. On both fronts intels current business case cannot ever compete with arm, no matter how much more advanced their manufacturing may be. Sure, intel is likely to keep on driving the high end single machine market, but the vast majority of web services will go with the market. And that market is arms to take, unless intel drives down its price dramatically. A bloodshed is about to happen. Better start shorting intel..

akiselev 13y ago
Please read this, it's old but still applies: http://www.geek.com/chips/why-amd-mhz-dont-equal-intel-mhz-557914/ http://www.geek.com/chips/why-amd-mhz-dont-equal-intel-mhz-5... Since Intel is the driver for cutting edge technology they, by a wide margin, have the most potential for drastic improvements. ARM is mostly restricted to the mercy of Qualcomm, Snapdragon, and a few other companies who rely on third party manufacturers of semiconductor fab equipment. Also, I laughed out loud at "bloodshed." Intel has about half the assets of Apple with plenty of cash in the bank and controls something like NINETY-SIX PERCENT of the server market. Even if they lost half the market in the next ten years, the only bloodshed would be the cost of engineering and IT time wasted moving architectures. Worst case scenario they become a contract manufacturer for the best ARM chips.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Intel isn't "the driver for cutting edge technology" they eek out incremental improvements to their products in as miserly a fashion as they can get away with. When a firm challenges them and takes the lead in performance, they scramble and catch up while doing their best to ruin their new competitor with nasty business tricks.
  - akiselev 13y ago
    This is so absolutely wrong that I can't even.... When a firm challenges them, they change philosophies and strategies (and they win). Remember the GHz race that Intel eventually won? They won not because they had better manufacturing technology than AMD (which they did), but because they totally changed direction away from increasing the clock to improving the communications buses and optimizing instructions/cycle. Yes they're often anticompetitive, but this isn't something new in the semiconductor industry (Intel was the only one that had enough market share to go after). As for incremental improvements, you're kidding right? Every jump in semiconductor manufacturing is a huge leap, both in performance and technological complexity and they've been first to mass market with (i think) every new process in the last decade.