Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. ...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
This is true and it's illustrative of their stock's weakness for many, many years.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead. ...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
No confusion. A modern x86 processor bears about as much resemblance to the original 8086 as the A10 does the ARM2.
And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept. Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
No confusion. A modern x86 processor bears about as much resemblance to the original 8086 as the A10 does the ARM2.
And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept. Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm
Sorry, but an I7 is nothing but a shrunken version of the original x86 with multiple cores. And the A10 is still an ARM processor. Saying that they have both come a long way does not change that fact. My original point was -- and you have not refuted it: Intel never progressed beyond their x86 model. That's where they started and that's where they're at. And, like the mainframe of the 80's that platform is slowly being eaten by smaller, more efficient processors.
But, it is good to see them trying to branch out into wireless modem chips. Unfortunately they are doing that to fill a hole that Qualcomm is leaving in the marketplace with their short sighted business strategy rather than by generating anything particularly innovative.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
No confusion. A modern x86 processor bears about as much resemblance to the original 8086 as the A10 does the ARM2.
And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept. Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm
Sorry, but an I7 is nothing but a shrunken version of the original x86 with multiple cores.
Repeating an incorrect statement ad nauseum doesn't make it true. It just makes you look silly.
There isn't anything that makes the ARM microarchitecture significantly more "modern", "better" or "innovative" than Intel's (or AMD's) latest x86s microarchitecture. They optimize for different aspects of processor design.
Typical for Intel, they waste more money jumping into things they will never be successful at. I lost count on how many businesses they shut down over the years. But the markets loves Intel's failures. Google it's possibly running a close second to all the Intel failures and Google has not been around as long.
Trust me, the market gives them no leeway. I've held Intel stock for quite a few years and it's been a dog the entire time I've held it.
That is because you bought in too late. Intel stock should have been hammered for all their mistakes. They only did well because of the whole wintel deal from the 80's. Today no one cares what processors is in their products and Intel does not like that.
Conversely, without Intel we would not have had the computer revolution... Even mainframes eventually converted to using them...
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
#19 in profitability and #47 overall Intel does just fine. Likewise #7 in profitability and #28 overall Microsoft isn't far behind Alphabet at #5 in profitability and #27 overall.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
Your arguments sound disturbingly similar to arguments used 30+ years ago in the PC vs Mainframe debates....
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
Given that Intel is building 10nm ARM processors they aren't missing anything but lowered ASPs. This is safer than lower cost Atoms for them because it lacks x86 compatibility.
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
"Intel has thus far successfully defended their .... market from ARM "
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
There really aren't any ARM servers or for that matter ARM desktops of note. The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks. That Intel missed out on the mobile market is a different thing. They also deliberately exited that market when they sold their XScale product line. Doesn't seem like a bright move in hindsight but an easily fixable thing.
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
" The only encroachment on Intel markets have been netbooks" ?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
Nope.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
It sounds like you are confusing ARM based chips (as well as modem chips) with Intel's x86 chips...
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
No confusion. A modern x86 processor bears about as much resemblance to the original 8086 as the A10 does the ARM2.
And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept. Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm
Sorry, but an I7 is nothing but a shrunken version of the original x86 with multiple cores.
Repeating an incorrect statement ad nauseum doesn't make it true. It just makes you look silly.
There isn't anything that makes the ARM microarchitecture significantly more "modern", "better" or "innovative" than Intel's (or AMD's) latest x86s microarchitecture. They optimize for different aspects of processor design.
LOL... Weren't you saying before that there is no difference and even that Intel makes ARM processors? Good to see you abandoning the smoke and mirrors and coming around to reality.
Comments
Intel may not be a high flyer. Instead it chugs along like a locomotive year after year. But, I do fear that they have been surviving the past 10 years or so on simply refining their old technology and have not developed anything new or successfully branched into newer areas... Worrisome.
What newer areas do you think it needed to branch out into? They tried mobile but the pricing is too low for them to want to cannibalize their other offerings. Which is why Atom was never priced sufficiently competitively vs ARM and why it died on mobile.
This article is a year old but it shows Intel vs Arm in terms of "refining" their old technology and why Apple might be very happy with them on the desktop:
"When is a worthy alternative to Intel's Xeon finally going to appear? That is the burning question in the server world. If PowerPoint presentations from various ARM-based SoCs designers released earlier this decade were to be believed, Intel would now be fighting desperately to keep a foothold in the low end server market. But the ARM SoCs so far have always disappointed: the Opteron A1100 was too late, the X-Gene 1 performed poorly, consumed too much power, and Broadcomm's Vulcan project is most likely dead.
...
Meanwhile, Intel listened to their "hyperscaler customers" (Facebook, Google...) and delivered the Xeon D. We reviewed Intel's Broadwell SoC and we had to conclude that this was one of the best products that Intel made in years. It is set a new performance per watt standard and integrated a lot of I/O. The market agreed: Facebook's new web farms were built upon this new platform, ARM servers SoCs were only successful in the (low end) storage server world. To make matter worse, Intel expanded the Xeon D line with even higher performing 12 and 16 core models."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores
"The 90W TDP Xeon E5-2640v4 consumes 67W more at peak than in idle. Even if you add 15W to that number, you get only 82W. Considering that the 67W is measured at the wall, it is clear that Intel has been quite conservative with the "Broadwell" parts. We get the same impression when we tried out the Xeon E5-2699 v4. This confirms our suspicion that with Broadwell EP, Intel prioritized performance per watt over throughput and single threaded performance. The Xeon D, as a result, is simply the performance per watt champion."
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/19
For evidence of the decline in Intel processors look no further than Apple: You can buy an Apple laptop with an Intel processor. Or, you can buy Apple's laptop killer, the iPad Pro with an ARM based processor for a fraction of the cost.
Your argument on profitability also sounds disturbingly similar to the PC vs Mainframe debates where the mainframes would cost millions and the Intel based processors kept undercutting them.
But, more than profitability, Intel based processors are increasingly isolating themselves in their castles of larger, less mobile devices -- while the market moves ever forward towards smaller more mobile devices (tablets, phones, watches, IoT...). That's not to say that more mobile ARM type processors will completely replace the Intel processors -- just as the Intel type processors have not completely displaced the mainframe.
In other words, I see history repeating itself....
This isn't anything like PC vs Mainframes...which by the way still generates quite a bit of money for IBM. Not to mention your view of history is wrong anyway...PCs didn't kill mainframes. Cheaper mainframes (mini computers e.g. DEC) killed mainframes. Then even more cheaper mainframes (micro computers e.g. Sun) killed those. Intel based servers have replace many of those. Who made the heavy iron may have changed over the years but that's orthogonal to the dominant computing paradigm.
For a little while we moved away from centralized computing (aka servers/mainframes) dominated paradigm to distributed computing (PCs) paradigm and now moving back toward centralized (IoT). Each IoT device may be "smart" but the computing and storage load is pushed back into the "cloud". Hence the I part of IoT.
Intel has thus far successfully defended their server market from ARM which was in doubt a few years ago.
You can try to argue that ARM based chromebooks and tablets will significantly impact Intel's profitability if it has to shift to building lower priced ARM processors from building higher priced Core processors but I expect that at that point Intel ARM products, and not Qualcomm Snapdragon, will be the mobile CPU gold standard for everyone not Apple.
Intel is currently a 32 bit ARM architecture licensee and has a new foundry license agreement with ARM. Moving up to a 64 bit ARM architectural licensee is not an insurmountable incremental upgrade for Intel.
ROFL... Yep! They're doing just about as good at it as IBM did defending the mainframe against the PC....
/shrug.
That you have to argue via deception by omitting what I wrote indicates that you don't feel your position is sufficiently strong to argue honestly.
Intel isn't a PC, tablet or phone maker anyway. They don't compete with Apple or Google but with AMD, Qualcomm, Samsung, nVidia etc that make processors.
?
Sorry, but there are quite a few people out there who use their ARM based wearables, smart phone and tablets more than their desktops... Actually, a LOT more. And, as the power or the ARM processor grows, products like the "laptop killer" iPad Pro grow, and grow, and grow....
Your arguments sound very much like the arguments I heard back in the 90's over how the little Intel PC's could never threaten a real computer... Will ARM based processors take over the server market? Right now the Intel servers look pretty safe. But then, so did the internal combustion engine just a few years back. Since Intel has simply been shrinking the 80xx processor for decades now, I think they should maybe start thinking in terms of actual innovation.
First ARM has been around since the mid 80s, x86 since the mid 70s. Not much difference.
Second, Intel has been in the mobile business selling ARM processors with design wins with the then dominant Palm and Blackberry. They left it and have publically stated they made a mistake to not make Apple chips but are now well positioned to fix that if they and Apple wants to.
Third, Intel's innovation has been with process. Shrinking any processor is tremendous effort. They are more successful at it than anyone else. If Apple and Intel hooks up it would give Apple an even larger advantage over Qualcomm based phones. Only Intel is likely able to challenge Apple.
But I agree with you that Intel's innovation (since their creation of the x86) has been in process. And, I agree that they have done well there. Very well indeed.
And Intel was a past manufacturer of the well regarded ARM v5 processors with SpeedStep and other enhancements which for some reason repeatedly refuse to accept. Intel could fab Apple chips better than any other foundry and is best positioned to offer a product more on par with the A series than say....Qualcomm
But, it is good to see them trying to branch out into wireless modem chips. Unfortunately they are doing that to fill a hole that Qualcomm is leaving in the marketplace with their short sighted business strategy rather than by generating anything particularly innovative.
There isn't anything that makes the ARM microarchitecture significantly more "modern", "better" or "innovative" than Intel's (or AMD's) latest x86s microarchitecture. They optimize for different aspects of processor design.
Good to see you abandoning the smoke and mirrors and coming around to reality.