It's so funny though (IMO) how over the years intel has gone from a position of "not sure if they care" to make enough chips for Apple computers, through deciding that "they might be interested," past "Apple is great!" and "we're partners!," and now after the breakup, is all "well, maybe they will come back if we are really good."
It's like the history of a dating relationship. If Apple continues to reject them, the next logical position for intel is "Well, we never liked them anyway, so we're seeing other companies now."
Before Apple will come back, they will probably demand a serious (metaphorical) act of contrition from Intel for (metaphorically) paying for several (metaphorical) hookers (by subsidizing
MacBook Air competitors). I suggest Intel give Apple a huge price break on the next generation of PC processors.
I think AMD is way too late in the game for mobile. What counts in mobile is performance per watt divided by battery life. So a device that is 22nm and lasts 12 hours is a win, while a device at 32nm and lasts 8 is a fail. This is the reason for the choices made in the iPads, and why we don't see the newest chip in the iPhone first. Tick-tock, expect the iPhone 5 to have the the revised A5 CPU at a higher clock.
Intel messed up when they got rid of their ARM chips. They should have stayed on, but oh no they had the Itanic ship to steer, and weren't even thinking about ULV CPU's. When netbooks were all the rage they came out with... Intel Atom? A rebadged Pentium 3 on a smaller die process. What a joke. This isn't a low-power laptop part, it's a embedded SoC part that belongs in the U-scan's at the grocery store. The power TDP is going up very little on ARM, while Intel is having no luck reducing the power on a Intel CPU except via a die shrink. Intel's server parts have TDP's of 135 watts when they should have the 40 watt TDP of the laptop parts. I'll take Intel seriously wanting to play in the mobile market when they can put out Server, Desktop and Laptop parts all at the same TDP of a laptop part.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
He's absolutely right about that being their job, it's the only rational way forward for them. Whether they succeed or not is another question entirely.
It's so funny though (IMO) how over the years intel has gone from a position of "not sure if they care" to make enough chips for Apple computers, through deciding that "they might be interested," past "Apple is great!" and "we're partners!," and now after the breakup, is all "well, maybe they will come back if we are really good."
It's like the history of a dating relationship. If Apple continues to reject them, the next logical position for intel is "Well, we never liked them anyway, so we're seeing other companies now."
It's not like Apple is not giving them any mobile business. Intel gets all of Apple's Mac Book business now and most likely into the future.
Apple has the enviable position of being able to come out with a Intel-based table or iPad at any time without having to abandon the iOS base. This could be done for the enterprise market who may want devices with MS Office or some other features that are more PC-centric. Since Apple is bringing OSX and iOS closer together as an experience, they are even in a more solid position, moving forward, then Microsoft is with Windows 8, which is really barely beta compared to Apple's mature and established OS.
I can hardly believe that today's reality is stronger for Apple and ARM than it is for Windows and Intel.
we have to compare apples to apples though (pun unintended). because the xolo is running android, we cant directly compare to the iphone in terms of battery life, because we dont know how much of the difference is due to the os and how much is due to the soc.
while xolo's results are not earthshattering, it does show that intel can go toe to toe with arm on battery life. and imo it effectively kills the claim that x86 will never be as power efficient as arm. i say that intelms outlook on mobile is alot brighter than it was a year ago.
will apple use intel socs? i dont know, but i can imagine apple abandoning all the investments they made into designing their own arm chips
not sure what data you are looking at but the battery life of that intel based phone is horrible and no where near "toe to toe" with ARM. Have fun charging your intel phone over twice as often as i will on my iphone.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
The PC = Intel inside while tablet≠ Intel inside.
So it is a no brainier that Intel needs to get their a** in the tablet market because tablets will outsell PCs meaning Intel will loose out.
However there lies anther problem. Tablets are cheap; so how will Intel make large profits off of tablets? Has anyone seen the sheer glut of cheap a**, no name tablets all over the tech space? Damn!
$99.00 for a Shookeeka tablet at Kmart.
What the hell is a Shookeeka? I don't know but it sounds cheap as f*** and it would sell for $99.00 at Kmart!!!
Intel would have to make their own tablets so they wouldn't have to share in the profits with 3 rd party manufactures.
That's my 2 cents.
not sure what data you are looking at but the battery life of that intel based phone is horrible and no where near "toe to toe" with ARM. Have fun charging your intel phone over twice as often as i will on my iphone.
First of all, I'm speaking of medfield power efficiency. Second, I'm not sure what data you are looking at, but AT places medfield right in the middle of the pack:
So both the data shows, and Anand himself concluded that Medfield can go "toe to toe" with ARM.
WTF data were you looking at?
First of all, I'm speaking of medfield power efficiency. Second, I'm not sure what data you are looking at, but AT places medfield right in the middle of the pack:
So both the data shows, and Anand himself concluded that Medfield can go "toe to toe" with ARM.
WTF data were you looking at?
guess you failed reading comprehension. See the iPhone 4S at the top? See how long the bars are? Where is the intel based cloner phone? Yeah.... So WTF are you looking at?
I think we're in that strange lull period that is the transition from A9 to A15, so I can't really fault samsung for going with a quad A9 design; A15 might have not been feasible when they were in the development stages of that SoC.
People are quick to point to power consumption; but considering that Samsung has stated that each core can be individually power gated, I'm skeptical, at least in theory, that power consumption will that bad. Yes, when everything is going at 100%, power consumption would be higher, but the added performance also means a quicker "return-to-idle-state" ie. for a given task, the quad CPU will spend less time at 100% to complete it than the dual CPU.
Of course, this is all dependent on the software being optimized such that it doesn't wake gated, idle cores when not needed.
guess you failed reading comprehension. See the iPhone 4S at the top? See how long the bars are? Where is the intel based cloner phone? Yeah.... So WTF are you looking at?
guess you failed reading comprehension.
So run a new test with Android 2.2 on the iPhone. Until then we can't really say anything.
So run a new test with Android 2.2 on the iPhone. Until then we can't really say anything.
What? that doesn't even make sense.
Do you guys understand the concept of a controlled experiment?
When we want to test the effect of a variable (in this case, the SoC), we need to do it while keeping all other variables constant.
That is why when we want to determine if intel can go toe to toe with ARM, we need to compare it to other android phones, to keep the OS variable constant.
That way, we can be certain that any difference in power consumption is due to the SoC variable, and NOT the OS variable.
And when we make such a comparison, the data shows that the intel phone is right in the middle of the pack.
What? that doesn't even make sense.
Do you guys understand the concept of a controlled experiment?
When we want to test the effect of a variable (in this case, the SoC), we need to do it while keeping all other variables constant.
That is why when we want to determine if intel can go toe to toe with ARM, we need to compare it to other android phones, to keep the OS variable constant.
That way, we can be certain that any difference in power consumption is due to the SoC variable, and NOT the OS variable.
And when we make such a comparison, the data shows that the intel phone is right in the middle of the pack.
disagree. ARM clearly kicks the crap out the intel chip as evidenced by the ARM in the iphone doing the same tasks and consuming much lower power. Intels chips have always been power hogs..and this shows they still are. The tests are run across multiple platforms with multiple variables...there is no way to get an apples to apples comparison; you are comparing _different_ hardware architectures, after all. In most cases there are 50% of android cloner phones way ahead of the intel cloner phone in power consumption. Each of those phones has differing chips, circuit boards, displays, etc... Tons of variables.
My point, is an ARM implementation in the iPhone4s has over twice the battery life than the intel power hog. Therefore, Intel is no where near "toe to toe" with ARM as there exists an ARM implementation which is over twice as efficient doing the _same_ tests.
Run a new test comparing Android on this X86 device with Android on the iPhone to get the appropriate numbers.
Do you guys understand the concept of a controlled experiment?
When we want to test the effect of a variable (in this case, the SoC), we need to do it while keeping all other variables constant.
Which this has not done, as the iPhone is running iOS, not Android. Put Android on the iPhone and run it against the Intel thing and you'll have closer to the right numbers.
To have a truly controlled experiment, you'd use identical hardware SAVE for the X86 chip and ARM chip.
disagree. ARM clearly kicks the crap out the intel chip as evidenced by the ARM in the iphone doing the same tasks and consuming much lower power. Intels chips have always been power hogs..and this shows they still are. The tests are run across multiple platforms with multiple variables...there is no way to get an apples to apples comparison; you are comparing _different_ hardware architectures, after all. In most cases there are 50% of android cloner phones way ahead of the intel cloner phone in power consumption. Each of those phones has differing chips, circuit boards, displays, etc... Tons of variables.
My point, is an ARM implementation in the iPhone4s has over twice the battery life than the intel power hog. Therefore, Intel is no where near "toe to toe" with ARM as there exists an ARM implementation which is over twice as efficient doing the _same_ tests.
Once again, the problem with your reasoning is that you're attributing all of the difference in power consumption between the iPhone and the Xolo to the Intel SoC while dismissing the effect running a different OS has on it.
)
Yes I acknowledged that previously in the thread. Apple isn't likely to abandon its own design and go with Intel. Just a guess though, if Apple did go with Medfield, it would likely have the chance to tweak and optimize it and match up the current performance of A5S, caeteris paribus. It doesn't seem from the data that Medfield is lagging because of inherent shortcomings in the design, but rather from being less optimized for the OS than A5S, for example.
Hate to break it to you, but Apple controls the release cycles with their ARM SoC hybrid and it's ImgTec selection. They design, internally test and have it stamped out in massive volumes when they want to pull the switch.
Neither IBM, Intel or even AMD offers this and Apple's been burned by decades of waiting for these fab companies to produce for the Desktop/Laptop market. Now that TSMC/Samsung/Global Foundries; especially TSMC and their working relationship with Apple only expanding globally it's rather clear that Intel will never get this business.
The best Intel can do is make sure they don't lose their Desktop/Laptop business exclusivity to AMD.
