Breaking News
Comments
Newest First | Oldest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 2   >   >>
tangey
User Rank
Author
Re: Mali on the SoC?
tangey   5/29/2014 7:46:14 AM
NO RATINGS
Rick,

Do we know who is actually doing the chip design. Is it really rockchip ?

If it is Intel, then Intel would need a Mali license.

Also, if by whatever way, Mali could theoritcally be an option for this chip, does ARM have any history whatsoever in Mali x86 graphics drivers ?

Also it seems a strange chip design alliance. Rockchip will have zero experience in designing a chip using Intel's internal chip bus structure, all of rockchips designs, and any IP they bring, will have been built around the standard ARM interconnect bus.

All of the IP will be driven in the past using ARM designed/customized and debugged drivers.

aeassa
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
aeassa   5/28/2014 3:08:13 PM
NO RATINGS
Hi Wilco1, 

Glad to oblige. 

You have to look at this from a long-term perspective -- this is a *war* and sometimes there will be short-term tactical sacrifices to achieve the long-term goal. 

In this case, what Intel is doing with SoFIA, is essentially recognizing that for the low-end smartphone and tablet markets, it needs a fully integrated part in order to compete. Not coincidentally, this market matters because it is not only likely the *largest* in terms of unit volume, but it is also the most robust in terms of growth. 

Anyway, so Intel has 2 fundamental problems in mobile: 

(1) X86-64 is currently a second class citizen in the world of Android. While Intel has spent a lot of money trying to enable this ecosystem for X86 (and it has done a pretty decent job), developers ultimately don't care to optimize for architectures that are the minority. AMD had a very difficult time convincing developers to use its proprietary X86 extensions and AMD had reasonable market share. To remedy this, Intel needs lots of volume. 

(2) Intel, unlike Qualcomm/MediaTek/etc. has traditionally not focused on bringing down the bill of materials cost of its platforms. This is why Bay Trail requires significant BoM-equalizing contra-revenue to be saleable. On top of that, Intel's products have typically lacked the integration that its competitors have, further damaging its competitiveness. 

So, to solve (1), Intel needs to go broadly and deeply, and it needs to do so ASAP. Every moment Intel loses is a moment that an Android developer doesn't bother to optimize for X86. That is why Intel is offsetting the bill of materials issues with contra-revenue with Bay Trail, and why it is so keen to get these TSMC 28nm products out (they are designed to not require contra-revenue). 

To solve (2), Intel needs an integrated modem. The Infineon Wireless team that Intel acquired was likely working on a whole pipeline of baseband/RF chips on TSMC's processes. So, in order to integrate a modem, Intel couldnt' spend additional time/money to port the WIP designs to its own 22nm process -- it needed to get something out now. So, they ported over the Atom core to 28nm and are building the first iteration of integration-competitive, BoM-competitive parts on TSMC's 28nm process since that's where the modem is already.

Now, in the short term (2015), this means that Intel hands over the foundry margin, but it no longer has to pay the enormous BoM offset (~$20/unit per Intel CFO), so net/net, the SoFIA chips should be marginally profitable rather than money-losers per unit. However, you correctly note that Intel doesn't benefit much here from a profit standpoint and TSMC wins. 

But do note now that with market share for IA established, the partnerships with the OEMs stronger, and with time to port over all of the relevant IPs, Intel will bring these parts to 14nm during early 2016 and beyond. This means now that Intel collects the foundry margin, doesn't pay too much for IP royalties (using its own CPU core), and has a manufacturing lead over everybody else. 

At this point in time, even if Intel outsourced the SOC integration to Rockchip for some low-end SKUs, it would still in effect collect foundry margin AND the margin of an IP vendor (ala ARM). This is extremely profitable, especially as the 14nm factories will have pumped out 10's of billions of dollars worth high end Broadwells and Skylakes to cover most if not all of the depreciation of the factories by then. 

At this point, if Intel can deliver competitive products, it will have a cost structure edge over all of the fabless players, thus starting the chain reaction to ultimate long-term business success in this area. 

It's a good strategy, but for it to work, Intel needs to execute, something its mobile group has had difficulty with in the past. Time will tell, however. 

--AE

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
rick merritt   5/28/2014 2:37:34 PM
NO RATINGS
I think at this stage Intel just needs to get high volume sales of mobile SoCs. It sold 10 m tablet SoCs last year. Tiny Rockchip sold 40m. Qualcomm might have sold 2-3x that.

Intel needs to get the busienss now and worry about making profits on it later.

elctrnx_lyf
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
elctrnx_lyf   5/28/2014 9:55:56 AM
NO RATINGS
Intel finally has decided to partner with low cost chinese processor makers to gain the share of the high volume low cost tablet market in future. This is a must requirement for Intel.

Wilco1
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
Wilco1   5/28/2014 6:12:40 AM
NO RATINGS
Well I would like to see an explanation that makes sense. First of all Intel needs to get high volume with these SoCs to make a profit at all. That's not a given since x86 on Android has so far not been very successful, and the low end already has already several highly efficient CPUs (eg. Cortex-A7 and A17) that will compete with Silvermont.

Using 28nm TSMC means most of the profit will now go to TSMC, not to Intel. While the higher volume will offset the lower profits per chip, Intel now has additional costs, both in terms of porting to TSMC 28nm as well as even lower utilization of their 22nm fabs. Still think this is a win-win situation?

aeassa
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
aeassa   5/28/2014 1:17:03 AM
NO RATINGS
Wilco1

Do you actually wonder, or is this a rhetorical question? If it's the former, I would be happy to explain it to you. 

--AE

aeassa
User Rank
Author
Re: Mali on the SoC?
aeassa   5/28/2014 1:10:37 AM
NO RATINGS
Rick 

Intel is unlikely to use ARM GPU IP, but Intel's own IP is out of the question for this generation as well given that Intel's major graphics overhauls happen at 14nm (and the current Gen 7 GPU from Intel is very poor).

My guess is that the entire SoFIA lineup, as with the 22nm Merrifield/Moorefield platforms, will use Imagination IP. Intel has experience writing drivers for ImgTec AND Intel is Imagination's largest shareholder. 

--AE

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
Mali on the SoC?
rick merritt   5/27/2014 9:52:59 PM
NO RATINGS
I think Kevin Krewell had an interresting speculation that Rockchip might use its ARM Mali license to put a smaller, cheaper graphics core on the SoC instead of the Intel block.

NathanB
User Rank
Author
Re: Not ARM?
NathanB   5/27/2014 8:49:35 PM
NO RATINGS
If Intel can sell Rockchip SoCs without any "contra-revenue" that will be a big help to Intel's bottom line. Actually, just a little help, since there's not a lot of revenue involved in low-end tablet chips, regardless of what core is inside.

NathanB
User Rank
Author
Re: intel wants access to ARM IP w/o paying for it
NathanB   5/27/2014 8:45:34 PM
NO RATINGS
Mike, the only IP transferred in this deal is Intel's Silvermont core (and maybe other SoFIA elements) to Rockchip. How does that give Intel access to ARM IP?

Page 1 / 2   >   >>


Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST

What are the engineering and design challenges in creating successful IoT devices? These devices are usually small, resource-constrained electronics designed to sense, collect, send, and/or interpret data. Some of the devices need to be smart enough to act upon data in real time, 24/7. Specifically the guests will discuss sensors, security, and lessons from IoT deployments.

Brought to you by:

Most Recent Comments
resistion
 
David Ashton
 
David Ashton
 
MattCrowley
 
MattCrowley
 
elizabethsimon
 
resistion
 
Kevin Neilson
 
David Ashton
Like Us on Facebook
Special Video Section
The LTC2380-24 is a versatile 24-bit SAR ADC that combines ...
In this short video we show an LED light demo to ...
02:46
Wireless Power enables applications where it is difficult ...
07:41
LEDs are being used in current luxury model automotive ...
With design sizes expected to increase by 5X through 2020, ...
01:48
Linear Technology’s LT8330 and LT8331, two Low Quiescent ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
LED lighting is an important feature in today’s and future ...
05:27
The LT8602 has two high voltage buck regulators with an ...
05:18
Silego Technology’s highly versatile Mixed-signal GreenPAK ...
The quality and reliability of Mill-Max's two-piece ...
01:34
Why the multicopter? It has every thing in it. 58 of ...
Security is important in all parts of the IoT chain, ...
Infineon explains their philosophy and why the multicopter ...
The LTC4282 Hot SwapTM controller allows a board to be ...
This video highlights the Zynq® UltraScale+™ MPSoC, and sho...
Homeowners may soon be able to store the energy generated ...
The LTC®6363 is a low power, low noise, fully differential ...
See the Virtex® UltraScale+™ FPGA with 32.75G backplane ...
Vincent Ching, applications engineer at Avago Technologies, ...