In the past, Nvidia defended itself saying Qcomm did not get significant performance benefits from the work of doing a custom core design (less than a 15% boost they claimed). They also argued ARM is putting out so many cores and interconnects so fast these days there's no real time to market advantage doing it yourself either.
Applied Micro may find the latter point is true by the time it gets out its 64-bit server SoCs.
I understand what Nvidia is saying, and I would agree that with ARM putting out so many cores the advantage of doing a custom core design would seem limited. But I also agree with Peter. 15 percent is something. That probably makes it worthwhile for Qualcomm.
I think the big thing that got a lot of the mobile SoC guys was that the A15, while fast, used too much power, and the A9 was getting outdated. It looks like the A12 will fill this gap, but it's not going to be available for awhile.
There are so many things that make a successful processor chip. Power consumption is critical, but selling the chip into a outrageously successful end product is the most important. Maybe 10-20% more battery life makes a modest product an outrageous product, but probably not. But the cost of manning your own design team to squeeze out less current, then possibly ongoing software differences, could also kill the financials if the end product doesn't hit volume. Since Samsung sells the end product (smart phone) it *should* know it's customer the best and have a better confidence in whether those volumes will come. Not for the faint of heart.
Well said, MicroMan. I think in any industry, the creative types -- quite appropriately -- aren't really focused on costs of their endeavors, just on end results. Upper management earns the big money for making those calls on the risk/return ratios, which sometimes seem incredibly insightful or hopelessly stupid to the rest of us after the results start flowing in. We often see a CEO fired after a product fizzles; it's their job to get it right. So here's a rare moment of praise for the CFO and CEO who have the guts to say: "Yeah, go ahead, spend the money. What you guys are working on could be a winner for us."
Replay available now: A handful of emerging network technologies are competing to be the preferred wide-area connection for the Internet of Things. All claim lower costs and power use than cellular but none have wide deployment yet. Listen in as proponents of leading contenders make their case to be the metro or national IoT network of the future. Rick Merritt, EE Times Silicon Valley Bureau Chief, moderators this discussion. Join in and ask his guests questions.