Intel CEO Doesn't See Arm-based Chips as Competition in the PC Sector

[Vayra86]

Just an anecdote.

Notice how x86 CPUs are morphing into ARM structure CPUs and ARM CPUs as of late morph into more x86 structure ones (the use of very powerful X cores).
There's a market realization that a good hybrid build of strong next to weaker more efficient silicon needs to be a thing.

ARM's challenge is definitely not bringing compute. An ARM with a couple of X4 cores and a bunch of A715 cores at 15-20W could bring monstrous compute for day to day tasks.
Most of the issue falls on the fact that x86's software is exactly what it is.

That's really it isn't it...

I couldn't give two shits if all my software will keep running and performing as it used to on any chip, ARM, x86, heck even Cheetos are fine if they could cheese through it

 

[bug]

Already Apple's processors are competing, in some tasks, on equal grounds with Intel/AMD's latest.
This guy is delusional, and it's another proof why Intel lost the battle with TMSC and Samsung.

What would you expect him to say? "Oh crap, we already have our headaches with our fabs, now this?"?
It's possible he knows where the competition stands and there are no reasons for concerns right now, but Apple has clearly proven there can be a transition from x86 to ARM. And a pretty painless one at that. For Windows, device drivers that only come in x86 form with no source available might pose a threat to a similar transition, but other than that, I don't see a problem if the ARM chips ever get fast enough.

 

[Vayra86]

Relating back to our diversity conversation, everyone is pro-ARM just most don’t know it. ARM is everywhere which is something Intel wanted with IoT. Every US home has a multitude of OSes and devices using different hardware architectures. Diversity in internet connected devices is working. More specifically in the end-user day to day ‘computer’ crowd:
View attachment 319499
Many people use their smartphones as their primary computer. Paying bills, checking email, browsing the web, gaming. For some it may be the only ‘computer’ they ever own.

The world is already primed for a wide array of diverse devices. Where multiple architectures failed on desktop form factors in the 80s giving rise to Wintel, today’s compute everywhere anytime approach requires different chips, OSes and experiences. Intel’s leadership knows this but continues to downplay reality as if they can will it all away.

Yep, this is also part of the reason 'One' Windows isn't going to fly. Probably also why Windows Phone wasn't becoming a thing (even though it wasn't bad!). People really don't care... much like my comment above: just get my shit working, and that's that. Windows might be much more valuable being 'the x86 OS' than it is being the OS for everything.

It's never a good idea to have a single point of entry to something, and we're at the point where we have multiple, that can all achieve similar results, for different form factors and use cases. There's a tool for every job.

 

[Regenweald]

What would you expect him to say? "Oh crap, we already have our headaches with our fabs, now this?"?
It's possible he knows where the competition stands and there are no reasons for concerns right now, but Apple has clearly proven there can be a transition from x86 to ARM. And a pretty painless one at that. For Windows, device drivers that only come in x86 form with no source available might pose a threat to a similar transition, but other than that, I don't see a problem if the ARM chips ever get fast enough.

Yeah, I think a lot of folks just choose to examine things in a bubble. This is a CEO of a publicly traded company, everything he says is processed as 'how will this affect shareholder impression and the share price?' Not really much else he could have said that wouldn't spook shareholders.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

While i think snapdragon x elite can be a fantastic chip, what apple also has is SOFTWARE.
qualcomm has to rely on microsoft for that which is known for it's "prowess".
So if they can't get a translation layer that is at least as good as rosetta and apps for arm, then they can have whatever chip they want cause they can't magically make a 5x performance chip that will overcome all the shitty software support from microsoft.

Not to mention MS doesn’t allow you to directly purchase a WOA license—those only come with the device it’s installed on. Apple has said they aren’t holding MS back from allowing WOA in a bootcamp situation, but there’s no way to get an installer/license to do so. Maybe Apple is bluffing, but the ball is currently in MS’s court.

Dont forget, linux doesnt have ANYTHING in the space. Given how poor MS support is, I cant imagine their rosetta competitor getting any better anytime soon. IIRC it still doesnt support 64 bit software.

God if only apple supported vulcan.

There has been a Linux port for AS Macs n development since the M1 debuted. It’s been a slow row, but I think they got a GPU driver going, which is a huge milestone. Before that, it was bootable, but performance was severely lacking without GPU acceleration. I don’t follow things that closely to see where it’s at now, but at least we know it’s possible to run another OS on AS Macs.

 

[Deleted member 229121]

Coming from a company who has perfected the art of stagnation

 

[Luminescent]

Intel is entrenched everywhere, government contracts, government subsidy, the usual anti competitive practices "you sell Intel more and forget AMD" in laptops, prebuilds...etc.
With these kind of advantages you don't need to innovate.

 

[FeelinFroggy]

I have been working in offices for my entire career and have been issued numerous laptops over my career. I have never been issued one laptop with an AMD CPU. While I dont know much about the business of selling computers, I cant help but think that Intel sells a lot more laptops than desktops. Go to any computer store and there maybe a couple of desktops for every 20 laptop they have on display.

I am not a CPU engineer, but from what I know is that ARM CPUs biggest advantage is the low power usage. This makes sense because ARM chips power all of our phones that are cooled by passive heatsinks.

One of the biggest drawbacks to laptops is battery life. It's the reason why they have to slow down CPU's, GPU's, etc. The excess power will make the battery life nonexistent. I cant help but see the application of using ARM based CPU's in laptops. Particularly the millions and millions of laptops companies have that employees only use for Microsoft office and web browsing.

Why Intel does not see this as a threat to their laptop computer dominance is beyond me. I'm sure they have a lot of smart people working their, but I'd be worried about Nvidia going after market share, particularly because Intel's fab process is not improving at the rates they expected.

 

[AnotherReader]

I have been working in offices for my entire career and have been issued numerous laptops over my career. I have never been issued one laptop with an AMD CPU. While I dont know much about the business of selling computers, I cant help but think that Intel sells a lot more laptops than desktops. Go to any computer store and there maybe a couple of desktops for every 20 laptop they have on display.

I am not a CPU engineer, but from what I know is that ARM CPUs biggest advantage is the low power usage. This makes sense because ARM chips power all of our phones that are cooled by passive heatsinks.

One of the biggest drawbacks to laptops is battery life. It's the reason why they have to slow down CPU's, GPU's, etc. The excess power will make the battery life nonexistent. I cant help but see the application of using ARM based CPU's in laptops. Particularly the millions and millions of laptops companies have that employees only use for Microsoft office and web browsing.

Why Intel does not see this as a threat to their laptop computer dominance is beyond me. I'm sure they have a lot of smart people working their, but I'd be worried about Nvidia going after market share, particularly because Intel's fab process is not improving at the rates they expected.

Your comment about longer battery life is very relevant. However, Qualcomm is a bigger threat than Nividia when laptops are concerned. Qualcomm can sell you a SOC and bundle their Wi-Fi and 5G modem. Nvidia can only offer a CPU and GPU, and the CPU is much slower than the one Qualcomm will be shipping.

I suspect Intel sees ARM on Windows as a threat, but publicly, they have to claim that they aren't concerned.

 

[rv8000]

Yeah there's no chance at all that arm could out X86 in all computation device's, just look at apple, they ditched X86 and it went terrible for them.

Except it didn't, and that makes these words actually FOOLISH.

I hate apple and don't want to do X86 emulated but even I am not blind to realities, the ecosystem is already in place pretty much.

I mean, apple wouldn’t be around in the consumer pc space if they hadn’t used intel as a crutch for several years.

Closed ecosystem garbage needs to stay where it belongs, in the trashcan. Every time I listen to people brag about having to find loopholes and workarounds to get software working or non-apple compatible devices working, I just laugh internally at how much money they wasted to torture themselves when they want any non apple device/software to work.

More OT, nothing agaisnt ARM and it can most certainly be viable, but fragmenting software support seems like the perfect way to cause even more issues for device software compatibility.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I mean, apple wouldn’t be around in the consumer pc space if they hadn’t used intel as a crutch for several years.

Closed ecosystem garbage needs to stay where it belongs, in the trashcan. Every time I listen to people brag about having to find loopholes and workarounds to get software working or non-apple compatible devices working, I just laugh internally at how much money they wasted to torture themselves when they want any non apple device/software to work.

More OT, nothing agaisnt ARM and it can most certainly be viable, but fragmenting software support seems like the perfect way to cause even more issues for device software compatibility.

What is this bragging? Like running bootcamp or parallels? Hardly a monumental effort to do either. Having used both platforms since the single core days, I can say things have gotten much better for Apple, where I don’t find myself missing some random legacy program anymore. Most software I buy these days works on either platform so I get to choose. Fortunately, for photo editing, that’s pretty much every powerful tool that exists. The last time I required Windows was to play Destiny 2, because running it in Linux can get you banned. Otherwise Linux and macOS work just fine. Of course not everyone can say the same, but there are millions and millions of users that chose a smartphone as their primary, or even exclusive, personal device. There might always be a place for Windows and x86, but it’s not the 2000s anymore.

 

[AnotherReader]

What is this bragging? Like running bootcamp or parallels? Hardly a monumental effort to do either. Having used both platforms since the single core days, I can say things have gotten much better for Apple, where I don’t find myself missing some random legacy program anymore. Most software I buy these days works on either platform so I get to choose. Fortunately, for photo editing, that’s pretty much every powerful tool that exists. The last time I required Windows was to play Destiny 2, because running it in Linux can get you banned. Otherwise Linux and macOS work just fine. Of course not everyone can say the same, but there are millions and millions of users that chose a smartphone as their primary, or even exclusive, personal device. There might always be a place for Windows and x86, but it’s not the 2000s anymore.

I can't speak for others, but speaking as someone who uses an iPhone and prefers it to Android, I think another reason people dislike Apple is their attitude: no expandability and willingness to throw old APIs under the bus when the new shiny arrives. The latter point makes it a pain to run older applications. Contrast this with how long Microsoft maintained Win32. As someone who likes the minutiae of hardware, I don't like it that their hardware is also less documented than Intel or AMD even though both of them have clammed up too.

 

[rv8000]

What is this bragging? Like running bootcamp or parallels? Hardly a monumental effort to do either. Having used both platforms since the single core days, I can say things have gotten much better for Apple, where I don’t find myself missing some random legacy program anymore. Most software I buy these days works on either platform so I get to choose. Fortunately, for photo editing, that’s pretty much every powerful tool that exists. The last time I required Windows was to play Destiny 2, because running it in Linux can get you banned. Otherwise Linux and macOS work just fine. Of course not everyone can say the same, but there are millions and millions of users that chose a smartphone as their primary, or even exclusive, personal device. There might always be a place for Windows and x86, but it’s not the 2000s anymore.

External media devices, home security devices/software/ecosystems, tons of third party software and devices that more or less work under windows and linux.

It was more just an ironic comment on how apple wouldn't exist in the pc space had it not been for limping on intel x86 hardware and eventual success of the iPhone. As is, apple remains the compromised choice for no beneficial reason as far as PCs are concerned.

 

[bug]

The thing is, upcoming Qualcomm silicon looks really good: https://www.xda-developers.com/snapdragon-x-elite-benchmarks/
It even beats the supposedly magical Apple M2.

 

[AnotherReader]

Pride comes is right before the fall.
Patsy should better realise that standing still performance-wise for the last 5 generations isn't going to win them customers.
Apple already left a long time ago and are now unbeatable with their ARM line of processors. Intel and MS aren't really serious. Pridefully blundering and fleecing their customers.

Microsoft, unlike Intel, is laughing all the way to the bank. They are poised to challenge AWS for the top spot in cloud computing.

 

[mechtech]

Already Apple's processors are competing, in some tasks, on equal grounds with Intel/AMD's latest.
This guy is delusional, and it's another proof why Intel lost the battle with TMSC and Samsung.

Well with $170 million in compensation, I would probably be delusional too

 

[R-T-B]

I love the pro-ARM brigade. Funny dudes!

ARM absolutely can compete with x86... if the software is compiled natively. Apple has proven this with their chip, even if you don't like their walled garden the performance is there.

All that old x86 software running through binary translation is gonna suck though, and there is a lot of it. That alone is a reason not to make the jump.

 

[Wirko]

Well with $170 million in compensation, I would probably be delusional too

Exactly. Intel pays him fabulous amount of dollars to not see and not understand. Otherwise he would, he's not blind and he's not stupid.

 

[Darmok N Jalad]

I can't speak for others, but speaking as someone who uses an iPhone and prefers it to Android, I think another reason people dislike Apple is their attitude: no expandability and willingness to throw old APIs under the bus when the new shiny arrives. The latter point makes it a pain to run older applications. Contrast this with how long Microsoft maintained Win32. As someone who likes the minutiae of hardware, I don't like it that their hardware is also less documented than Intel or AMD even though both of them have clammed up too.

Yeah, I really think they peaked with the 5,1 cMP, which is why I have one. With the way they have moved to unified memory and the secure storage model, they’ve all but eliminated upgradeability. That said, what they have is really efficient and can perform very well in a low power environment. It’s just that you’re stuck with what you got. To folks in forums like this, a lack of upgrading is a huge issue, but many folks never upgrade their machines. My wife’s Lenovo had upgradable storage and RAM, and we never upgraded it in the 8 years of use it got. Now it’s simply too old and slow to bother.

ARM absolutely can compete with x86... if the software is compiled natively. Apple has proven this with their chip, even if you don't like their walled garden the performance is there.

All that old x86 software running through binary translation is gonna suck though, and there is a lot of it. That alone is a reason not to make the jump.

That’s one thing Apple really did well with Rosetta 2. Non-native apps perform really well. They have a delayed launch the first time they are installed, but after that, it feels like a native app. My guess is the developer toolkits have been designed for this change long ago. Native legacy Windows apps are another beast entirely. Because they can behave quite differently, I wouldn’t be surprised if the experience is poor in some cases.

 

[R-T-B]

That’s one thing Apple really did well with Rosetta 2. Non-native apps perform really well.

Works less well in gaming environments that are CPU intensive. KSP is an example where it falls flat, and that is all single-threaded physics horsepower.

 

[LabRat 891]

This is either a tactical statement (ie, false but, useful for market/media control)
or
We've got a new flavor of de-innovation @ Intel.

I'm not an ARM fan, but there's reason it's taken off.
TBQH, with WinARM quietly developing in the background (from consumer PoV), I could see hybrid uArch MCM SoCs running hybrid Windows.
Let the OS scheduler take care of assigning tasks between the uArchs, and basically all OS-functions taken care of on the ARM segment.

Seems like it could free-up resources, improve overall efficiency, and retain 100% backwards compatibility without ARM-x86 emulation.

 

[InVasMani]

As native software matures and software emulation improves it absolutely will be increased competition to PC ecosystem. I won't eliminate it outright in all instances, but can supplement it in many instances. Also the fact that much of the software maturity is native to ARM and not emulation of x86 there are positives to that in that it forces developers to re-imagine new ways to re innovate the wheel so to speak.

Take something like music hardware and software things will absolutely evolve in various ways hell it wasn't that far back that we didn't have "smart phones" we had landline phones that operated like you're rewinding the vinyl on a turntable to dial the god damn numbers and took about half a minute to dial a number. They did have a "satisfying" tactile feel though if you're old enough to remember them.

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I'm reading through a bunch of people pissed that someone doesn't agree with their opinions about the future...and I'm just dying on the inside. Are any of you guys actually reading, or are you just projecting because you don't like the subject of the article?

Let me clarify. What was said is that ARM is not a competitor in the PC sector. The Personal Computer sector.
It is not the laptop market.
It is not the server market.
It is not the high performance computing market.
It is not the AI market.

With these words alone you can see what is actually being flagged here. He's saying that Intel has a lock on x86-64 for the PC market because it's not going to change over to new software. Think about all of your software having to either be interpreted or recompiled for a new architecture, with an entirely different instruction set. Oh boy, that sounds terrible.
What is more interesting is that because he chose to focus on a single sector it implies that there is significant concern in others. I'd guess that the huge amount of money that could be gained by even minor improvements in efficiency would be silly to ignore if you're coding databases and other professional systems....so the investment into rebuilding things there is entirely reasonable. That seems to spell trouble when Intel's efficiency cores are still more gimick than value add for most consumers.

I read this as Intel trying to put a spin on a market they've got locked, and thus trying to remove visibility from markets that they don't have. It's the classic attempt to hide bodies in plain sight...and not a particularly good one. I for one find that funny...because it's basically forcing recognition of this by their recent actions in attempting to purchase power players in other markets.

 

[Daven]

I'm reading through a bunch of people pissed that someone doesn't agree with their opinions about the future...and I'm just dying on the inside. Are any of you guys actually reading, or are you just projecting because you don't like the subject of the article?

Let me clarify. What was said is that ARM is not a competitor in the PC sector. The Personal Computer sector.
It is not the laptop market.
It is not the server market.
It is not the high performance computing market.
It is not the AI market.

With these words alone you can see what is actually being flagged here. He's saying that Intel has a lock on x86-64 for the PC market because it's not going to change over to new software. Think about all of your software having to either be interpreted or recompiled for a new architecture, with an entirely different instruction set. Oh boy, that sounds terrible.
What is more interesting is that because he chose to focus on a single sector it implies that there is significant concern in others. I'd guess that the huge amount of money that could be gained by even minor improvements in efficiency would be silly to ignore if you're coding databases and other professional systems....so the investment into rebuilding things there is entirely reasonable. That seems to spell trouble when Intel's efficiency cores are still more gimick than value add for most consumers.

I read this as Intel trying to put a spin on a market they've got locked, and thus trying to remove visibility from markets that they don't have. It's the classic attempt to hide bodies in plain sight...and not a particularly good one. I for one find that funny...because it's basically forcing recognition of this by their recent actions in attempting to purchase power players in other markets.

The ‘PC’ market has always included laptops and yes Pat is referring to both desktops and laptops in his statement.

 

[bug]

I'm reading through a bunch of people pissed that someone doesn't agree with their opinions about the future...and I'm just dying on the inside. Are any of you guys actually reading, or are you just projecting because you don't like the subject of the article?

Let me clarify. What was said is that ARM is not a competitor in the PC sector. The Personal Computer sector.
It is not the laptop market.
It is not the server market.
It is not the high performance computing market.
It is not the AI market.

With these words alone you can see what is actually being flagged here. He's saying that Intel has a lock on x86-64 for the PC market because it's not going to change over to new software. Think about all of your software having to either be interpreted or recompiled for a new architecture, with an entirely different instruction set. Oh boy, that sounds terrible.
What is more interesting is that because he chose to focus on a single sector it implies that there is significant concern in others. I'd guess that the huge amount of money that could be gained by even minor improvements in efficiency would be silly to ignore if you're coding databases and other professional systems....so the investment into rebuilding things there is entirely reasonable. That seems to spell trouble when Intel's efficiency cores are still more gimick than value add for most consumers.

I read this as Intel trying to put a spin on a market they've got locked, and thus trying to remove visibility from markets that they don't have. It's the classic attempt to hide bodies in plain sight...and not a particularly good one. I for one find that funny...because it's basically forcing recognition of this by their recent actions in attempting to purchase power players in other markets.

The thing is, the market Intel has got cornered is already much smaller than it used to be. Email and even text processing and spreadsheets have made the jump to the cloud, so they're available everywhere. Pretty much all open source projects are available on Linux, so they already compile to ARM. This leaves Intel with games and a handful of other closed source apps that only run on x86.

Don't get me wrong, Intel is safe for now, the road to displace them is long. But it's (much) shorter than it used to be.