I fail to see why they talk about greater standby times for a smart phones, If I only wanted to use it for calls I would have got a "dumb" phone. I want a greater in use time please!
Intel is planning a two-pronged attack on the smartphone and tablet markets, with dual Atom lines going down to 14 nanometers and Android providing the special sauce to spur sales. Mobile and communications group VPs Mike Bell and Hermann Eul laid out Chipzilla's plans for slurping up market share in the sector. Intel has …
Friday 11th May 2012 08:06 GMT Giles Jones
They know full well that x86 based designs totally suck for mobile. Okay, I had a phone with a 486 in it once, but it was Nokia communicator brick and the 486 was pretty old and relatively efficient by then.
If you like open source and freedom then don't let Intel take over the mobile market, you don't want another monopoly. While you think ARM is a monopoly in mobile, they don't actually make any chips and anyone can licence their designs. ARM's income isn't vast but they aren't a huge company in terms of employee count.
Friday 11th May 2012 08:21 GMT AdamSweetman
Since when was ARM open source? Talk about mixing your terminology.
Intel is one of the the biggest contributors to Linux as well as one of the biggest supports of standard and open source, both of which lead to interoperable open ecosystems.
X86 designs totally suck for Mobile? Back that up a little with some facts please. If you mean traditional x86 cores didn't have the power/performance envelope to work in a modern mobile phone you are spot on, that's been the case right up until Medfield. Things are changing quickly though, and that's what the article describes.
Success in the mobile arena is about hardware, software and telco combinations, its very different from other markets.
Friday 11th May 2012 09:49 GMT theblackhand
Re: X86 designs totally suck for Mobile?
Yup - my summary of the Medfield reviews is that performance is there as long as you don't have to emulate ARM for your apps (i.e. games), battery life is about average for a smartphone and I suspect ARM will destroy Intel on SoC price.
While moving to smaller process sizes will give Intel an advantage in increasing performance/battey life and the requirement to emulate ARM will be greatly reduced/disapper if they are successful in the marketplace, their ARM competitors are at least half a process node (i.e. 40nm vs 32nm for Medfield) behind Intel allowing them a significant cost advantage that they will retain regardless of the process node used by Intel.
Remind me what the upside of X86 in mobile is again?
Tuesday 15th May 2012 08:40 GMT N13L5
I welcome Intel muscling in on the mobile market
From all accounts, the purpose for which x86 is the optimum solution might be found back in the 80's or something, but then, I doubt any argument against x86 can also be refuted by someone else, or negated by a new development or adjustment.
However it plays out, Intel spending time and money to become one of the larger players in this market can only be good for customers and technical advances overall.
I would have preferred Intel sticking with Nokia and their Linux flavor, but I guess that opportunity has long passed, and currently, Android ICS is easily the best Mobile OS
I'll judge what I buy after I see new products released and tested - not based on forum arguments regarding issues nearly as complex as calculating the movement of waves on the ocean.