You are currently viewing SemiWiki as a guest which gives you limited access to the site. To view blog comments and experience other SemiWiki features you must be a registered member. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
I still think that the new 14nm process from Intel is a great engineering achievement and probably, this core M, is the most advanced consumer chip released by date (see also this SemiWiki topic for some technical details https://www.semiwiki.com/forum/f2/c...-14nm-process-minimum-features-size-4801.html)
Anyway, not only is Intel missing the time to market promise (most likely because of some yield issues), but it also looks like the claimed performance boost and power saving is not yet meeting the expectations.
What everyone agrees on is that the system throttles constantly, possibly in part because Lenovo chose to set a 3.5W target for the chip rather than the 4.5W TDP that Intel specifies (the Yoga 3 Pro allows for bursts of up to 12W total system consumption, however).
Lenovo’s claim of “up to nine hours” on battery life is farcical.
Multiple reviewers have commented that the laptop runs remarkably poorly in Chrome, that its gaming performance is sometimes a regression over the Yoga Pro 2 and other Intel laptops, and that the Yoga Pro 3 is incontrovertibly slower than its predecessor. The overall picture painted by multiple reviews is of a product straining and gasping to manage more than a minimally acceptable level of performance. This is in direct opposition to the sleek, razor-thin Core M devices that Intel has previously demoed.
There are some good comments with that article. Even if Intel could up their game re: performance and power they'd still have a lot of catching up to do. Matching the entrenched competition isn't good enough.
Apple owns the entire hardware and software ecosystem system so they have a distinct implementation advantage over Intel, Microsoft, and the systems companies. For me a Windows 7 Dell XPS is the last Intel based laptop I will own ( I started with MS-DOS on an IBM PC XT). My next laptop purchase will be a Mac Air.
I've used PC computers since 1981, but several years ago I opted for a MacBook Pro that allows me to run:
Mac OS X
Windows 8
Windows 7
Redhat Linux
Because of Apple OS licensing limitations, a PC is not legally allowed to run Mac OS X, although you can do a Google search on hackintosh and learn how to create such a machine at a much lower cost than any Apple computer.
I agree with Nenni that Intel doesn't own the entire OS, HW and SW to optimize in the same way that Apple is able to. Theoretically IBM should've been able to control the OS, HW and SW but they exited the OS field and PC market awhile back.
If the technical specs on the Core M really are that bad, then Intel has a few choices:
1) Go back to the drawing board and re-engineer the next generation
or
2) Have marketing create some Core M specific benchmarks to show that the chip performs better than what other testers have shared
Hi Daniel, I almost didn't comment on Mac vs. PC because it almost always turns into a religious argument!
I am not religious about it but I don't see what the fuss is about.
Yes, paying Apple prices to run Windows or Linux doesn't make much sense. Both platforms deliver a computer that people can use to get things done so if you don't need whatever special sauce (?) Apple offers a PC is a sensible choice.
With Apple designing their own ARM architecture chips and Qualcomm powering most Android phones, I'm not seeing an easy way for Intel to get into the mobile chip business.
For Q1 2014 comScore reported that Android had a 52.5% share, Apple iOS a 41.4% share for a total of 93.9% share in the US. Microsoft and Blackberry filled in the bottom categories with a 3.3% share.
Let's see if Intel's investments in both Rockchip and Spreadtrum (Tsinghua Unigroup Ltd) pay off. Aiming at the low-end of the mobile market seems like a slow way to gain market share to me, instead of the high-end where they could gain more profits.
ARM has a market cap of $19.36B, while Intel has a market cap of $162.36B, so how bold would it be for Intel to acquire ARM and really enter the mobile market?
Perhaps they feel they can crush them without resorting to that. Acquiring ARM would be a shortcut with long term effects. If they gave up on x86 in mobile it would make x86 less relevant all around. As ARM makes gains it's sure to gnaw away at Intel's x86 businesses.
Not being dominant in mobile isn't an option for Intel if they want the consumer market. Desktops are great for serious work but with phones, tablets, consoles, and TV apps, the desktop is not ideal for casual information consumers.
Unless Intel makes their mobile offerings MUCH better than market leaders they are not going to catch up. Offering unique hardware features that are a must have for users would set them apart.
If Intel did try to buy ARM, they would end up paying a very significant premium and it still wouldn't do much good for I don't see them having a snow balls chance in a fusion reactor of getting approval of all the countries involved. Just look what AMAT is going through trying to acquire Tokyo Electron. Coming from the investment world, I feel for the deal to go through the restrictions and divestment or required licensing of key technologies would render the strategy useless or at the very least uneconomic.
You're correct in that such a deal between ARM and Intel would have barriers, one of which is that Intel would have to admit that their architecture and design prowess is lacking compared to ARM. Still, it's a popular past time to guess who Intel will buy next in order to catch up in the mobile space.
Intel better put their thinking caps on, for if they fall to much father behind, they'll have to cede mobile, which will put the rest of their near monopoly at risk. Sooner or later the competition will be in a position to go on the attack of their near monopoly and they will be in trouble. The side that wins will come out with some innovation that surprises everyone with its inventiveness and puts the competition to rest until the next generation innovation.
You're correct in that such a deal between ARM and Intel would have barriers, one of which is that Intel would have to admit that their architecture and design prowess is lacking compared to ARM. Still, it's a popular past time to guess who Intel will buy next in order to catch up in the mobile space.
Warren East always said that Intel could not buy Arm without running into regulatory difficulties. As for crushing it they have to crush Qualcomm and Mediatek or, perhaps, persuade Apple and Samsung to stop using their own chips. Possible but I doubt it. My own view is that the only player able to buy Arm without destroying all the value that they pay for would be IBM
