Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Is Qualcomm the New AMD?

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the champing-at-the-bit dept.

AMD 331

colinneagle writes "It's a darned shame, but the writing is on the wall for AMD. The ATI graphics business is the only thing keeping it afloat right now as sales shrivel up and the company faces yet another round of staffing cuts. You can only cut so many times before there's no one left to innovate you out of the mess you're in. Qualcomm, on the other hand, dominates this space, and it has the chips to back it up. The Snapdragon line of ARM-based processors alone is found in a ridiculous number of prominent devices, including Samsung Galaxy S II and S III, Nokia Lumia 900 and 920, Asus Transformer Pad Infinity and the Samsung Galaxy Note. Mind you, Samsung is also in the ARM processor business, yet it is licensing Qualcomm's parts. That's quite a statement."

cancel ×

331 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

If AMD Dies... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717179)

If AMD folds Intel will bend the consumer over and stuff them even harder than they are now. But if you like being penetrated by cement-filled pringles cans....

(Intel does make good stuff, but they gouge you for the brand and they behave very unethically).

Re:If AMD Dies... (5, Interesting)

Pinhedd (1661735) | about 2 years ago | (#41717279)

Intel is already years ahead of AMD. They have well over 80% market share in the PC market and over 90% in the server and workstation market. There's a large performance spread between AMDs processors and Intels processors in both single threaded performance and overall performance per watt. If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.

Re:If AMD Dies... (5, Interesting)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41717491)

If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.

Have you looked at Intel CPU prices lately? It hasn't been this bad since the Pentium II times. I would also point out that there are no Ivy Bridge server processors available, nor is their 6 core processor based on Ivy Bridge despite the first Ivy Bridge processors coming out a long time ago.

Re:If AMD Dies... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717583)

Have you looked at Intel CPU prices lately?

Yes. A high-end i7 costs less than my Pentium-4 did last time I built a Windows PC.

Re:If AMD Dies... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717607)

What are you talking about? In performance per US dollar, Intel has been winning the race hands down. I can get a Core i-5 3570k for about $220 USD. With decent memory, motherboard and cooling I can clock it up to 4.4 ghz and it's stable and not running too hot. To get that kind of performance at that price from AMD... oh, wait.. I can't.

Re:If AMD Dies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717677)

And you can get a 1090T at half that price with just about the same stock clock speed... but you want to talk about overclocking your equipment by 30% and pretend like that's not a time/cost sink worth considering. Intellectual dishonesty is dishonest.

Re:If AMD Dies... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717721)

And you can get a 1090T at half that price with just about the same stock clock speed...

Isn't that the one that's beaten in benchmarks by a slow i3 that uses half the power?

You see, AMD don't sell their top-end CPUs cheap because they like you, they do it because they can't compete with Intel at higher prices.

Re:If AMD Dies... (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717761)

No, they do it in large part because Intel has engaged in some pretty obnoxious antitrust violations over the last decade or so and got what's barely a slap on the wrist. AMD for it's part did some really stupid stuff as well, but it's hard to make a profit when your competitor is paying systems integrators not to use your products.

Also, while most folks here seem to be on the AMD is walking dead meme, the fact of the matter is that Intel can't afford for AMD to go out of business any more than MS could have afforded Apple to go out of business during the '90s. If it really does get to that point, you'll see Intel laying off for a while to let AMD catch up.

The big problem that AMD has right now is old debt and an inability to produce enough chips to satisfy demand. That's not something that's generally true of chips that are being sold for the maximum price people will pay.

Re:If AMD Dies... (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717819)

No, they do it in large part because Intel has engaged in some pretty obnoxious antitrust violations over the last decade or so and got what's barely a slap on the wrist.

Right. If not for EVIL INTEL they could sell their chips for much more money even though Intel's are superior in almost every respect. The only reason I could see for buying AMD would be if I wanted a cheap CPU with a mildly capable GPU, such as the low end of the laptop market which AMD now pretty much seem to own.

The big problem that AMD has right now is old debt and an inability to produce enough chips to satisfy demand. That's not something that's generally true of chips that are being sold for the maximum price people will pay.

It's something that's generally true of poorly run companies. If you're right, AMD should just increase the price of their chips, and they'll be able to sell all they make even though Intel's are better. Why wouldn't they do that if people are prepared to pay more?

Re:If AMD Dies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717827)

You know, you can just say somebody is right without having to move the goalposts.

To answer your rhetorical question, though, yes, it has been beaten by a processor using a fabrication process two generations more advanced. It has also slammed all of the current i-series processors against the wall on a handful of other benchmarks, including modern, high-demand games -- the very market where Intel's current offering should be untouchable.

Your implication is quite clearly that they cannot offer a competitive product... and while that's certainly true of the very highest-end of the Intel line, it's certainly not as black-and-white as you suggest across the board. AMD is down, for sure, but they're not out by any stretch of the imagination; just hearken back to the day of the K5 and the K6, and this situation will look very familiar.

Re:If AMD Dies... (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41717933)

The Phenom IIs were not that bad. They had the best value. It was the bulldozer ones that suck goatballs. But they are from 2009 and there time has come. They were only 10% slower than the first generation icore5s/icore7s, but I could get a whole cpu + motherboard for $229! Not just the cpu. If you want the extreme edition of intel you would pay$700 just for the chip and that would cover the cost of the whole system.

Today though you are correct. The newer Bulldozers that just came out are competitive with icore5 with games on laptops due to intels abysmal HD graphics which are in the process of improving by the way but still suck. Better than the icore3s with integer performance.

But I agree AMD lost and bet that accelerated HTML and flash would be much bigger now back in 2009 when AMD designed Bulldozer. Worse the Windows 7 kernel can't utilize the cores to share the FPU properly. Windows 8 can but it doesn't count as no one is going to run it due to METRO.

I am really worried and afraid Apple or someone will eat htem up and you can expect your intel cpu that is $225 to turn into $550 by years end!

Re:If AMD Dies... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717669)

Intel is already years ahead of AMD. They have well over 80% market share in the PC market and over 90% in the server and workstation market...

Gee, that's nice for them. Too bad in another few years there will be no such dominant animal as the "PC". It can and likely will be replaced by the ever-growing tablet and smartphone environment, which as the article has nicely pointed out, Qualcomm is dominating quite well in.

As far as multi-threaded, multi-core performance, well chances are that will live solely within the server market in the future as they look towards massive virtualization efforts, which is about the only thing left truly driving CPU architecture...unless you actually somehow think you really are going to maximize that i7 processor you have now. 99% of people I know don't even come close, which is yet another reason Intel may be dominated by other architectures. The average computer simply no longer has the CPU demands anymore, regardless of what Intel is trying to shove down our throats. Hardware caught up and surpassed software demands in that space LONG ago (as evidenced by the 5-year old systems that are still plenty capable of running the latest OS and productivity packages).

Re:If AMD Dies... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41717831)

If Intel wants to bend consumers over, they are already in a position to do so. However, they seem to be sticking to their roadmap despite the fact that AMD has been falling farther and farther behind.

Of course they are, because their process and IPC improvements is how they have such a huge gross margin - I think around 62%. AMD has been in the 40s but their last quarter was an abysmal 37%. Look at this chart [anandtech.com] over die sizes. From Lynnfield in 2009 to Ivy Bridge in 2012 their mainstream die has shrunk from around 300mm^2 to 150mm^2 which makes the chips far cheaper to produce while their prices stay high and Intel pockets the difference. That might be good for Intel but with fierce competition they could have easily delivered an 8-core chip for $332 instead of a 4-core IVB. And with AMD increasingly bailing on the traditional CPU market, it's not going to get better.

Re:If AMD Dies... (3, Insightful)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | about 2 years ago | (#41717899)

Only in tech would someone consider a gross margin of 37% abysmal.

Maybe so ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717315)

But one day, all that R&D and manufacturing plants that were sent overseas will come to bite them in the ass.

Some sharp engineer over there will learn enough to go and start his own company and make chips - perhaps better than Intel or even come up with something so revolutionary that it makes Intel obsolete overnight.

And we have no idea what the future holds. Maybe this quantum-light computing becomes commercially viable and that makes Intel obsolete.

People thought Microsoft would be on top forever and look at them now.

Re:Maybe so ... (1, Informative)

the_other_chewey (1119125) | about 2 years ago | (#41717441)

But one day, all that R&D and manufacturing plants that were sent overseas will come to bite them in the ass.

What are you talking about?

All current-generation Intel fabs [wikipedia.org] are in
the US (note that 65nm is far from being current).

Re:Maybe so ... (3, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | about 2 years ago | (#41717479)

Intel has sent nothing overseas. Their manufacturing R&D is all done in Oregon, and most of their leading edge chips are made in Oregon and Arizona with fabs in Israel and Ireland as well. They have exactly one fab in China that makes 65nm products, which now just consists of some old chipsets.

Re:Maybe so ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717929)

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/10/2236228/us-justice-dept-investigates-it-hiring-practices

Re:If AMD Dies... (1)

symbolset (646467) | about 2 years ago | (#41717661)

You can say goodbye to the 32 core AMD64 dually for the rest of this decade. If you want one, buy it now.

We NEED Processor Competition (3, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 2 years ago | (#41717189)

We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market. Intel has a long history of abuse and monopolistic practices. Without a decent competitor, you can expect your processor prices to soar, just as they did in the past when Intel was essentially the only player.

This is not an option. We MUST have somebody to compete with Intel.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717229)

I've been boycotting intel for years because of their anti competitive bullshit. Nvidia too. Unfortunately I'm in a tiny minority. Nobody really gives a fuck.

anti competitive? (-1)

ArchieBunker (132337) | about 2 years ago | (#41717273)

Intel makes a superior product. What solution do you propose?

Re:anti competitive? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#41717363)

Split the company in two. Mandatory patent cross licensing between the two plus mandatory licensing to any 3rd party that asks.

Re:anti competitive? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717741)

You want to punish them for being superior?

Yeah, that's a good idea. I wish when the first genetic mutation that lead to modern humans arised, the inferior/earlier specie, split the head of that mutant, so that no human would ever arise. After all, if it becomes too powerful, to smart, that's bad. So any innovation, anyone that shows promise, must be squashed and split! that will teach the innovators.

So listen up all you people who want to create their own companies! If your company is successful, 1. Microlith will want you to start paying at least 80% in taxes to support garbage like him. 2. If you don't like it, he will ensure that you will not be able to leave the country, or transfer your corporation to another nation. and 2. If you're really successfull, Microlith will want the government to split and destroy your country, and maybe give me some part of it too!! that will teach you. Next time, you'll think twice before being more ambitious than those who are either too stupid to start their own companies, or those who lack all ambition and prefer to live with their parents and get fat while eating twinkies!

Re:anti competitive? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717775)

And you want them to triple their CPU prices? That would affect the entire world. Of course it would mean that others would try harder to compete but it would take ten or twenty years.

Re:anti competitive? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717823)

So if you ever create anything of your own (not that it would ever accur, you have zero potential, I can tell, hence you are nothing but a parasite...), it's ok if as soon as you reach some level of success, it should be ok for me to come in, and break your company into bits. Do tell, what exactly is then the motivation to create and innovate, after all, as soon as I reach success after years of strugle, the governtment and garbage like you would then simply show up and break up my company.

After reading your bullshit, I'm actually quiet happy that wealthy and rich are taking their companies out of nations where parasites like you exist. I say good for them for outsourcing, so that garbage like you can't get jobs. It's parasitic shit like you why as soon as we become successfull, we leave your shitty nation and take our wealth with us, and feel zero remorse for your struggles.

I can't believe that garbage like you which itself can not innovate, beleives it has the right to break apart companies built by superior men that take the world higher.

Re:anti competitive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717851)

So if you ever create anything of your own (not that it would ever accur, you have zero potential, I can tell, hence you are nothing but a parasite...), it's ok if as soon as you reach some level of success, it should be ok for me to come in, and break your company into bits. Do tell, what exactly is then the motivation to create and innovate, after all, as soon as I reach success after years of strugle, the governtment and garbage like you would then simply show up and break up my company.

After reading your bullshit, I'm actually quiet happy that wealthy and rich are taking their companies out of nations where parasites like you exist. I say good for them for outsourcing, so that garbage like you can't get jobs. It's parasitic shit like you why as soon as we become successfull, we leave your shitty nation and take our wealth with us, and feel zero remorse for your struggles.

I can't believe that garbage like you which itself can not innovate, beleives it has the right to break apart companies built by superior men that take the world higher.

For a coward with an inferiority complex you sure have inferior spelling.

Re:anti competitive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717871)

You mean superiority complex, it's "superiority complex" when someone thinks they are better than everyone else.

Re:anti competitive? (2)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#41717859)

You want to punish them for being superior?

Punish? No, punishment would be a fine or confiscation of assets or something. Dividing the company into two would simply mean that shareholders would have a stake in each company until they sorted things out.

We, the buying public, would have two companies with top-end technical capabilities, duking it out in the market. Unless you want to assert that corporations in ultra-powerful positions should be left alone even when it goes against the interests of, well, everyone but the company in question.

I wish when the first genetic mutation that lead to modern humans arised, the inferior/earlier specie, split the head of that mutant, so that no human would ever arise.

Ah, so you're in the CORPORATIONS = PEOPLE camp. Or maybe CORPORATIONS > PEOPLE camp.

So any innovation, anyone that shows promise, must be squashed and split! that will teach the innovators.

No, no corporation should ever be allowed to stay a monopoly.

So listen up all you people who want to create their own companies! If your company is successful, 1. Microlith will want you to start paying at least 80% in taxes to support garbage like him. 2. If you don't like it, he will ensure that you will not be able to leave the country, or transfer your corporation to another nation. and 2. If you're really successfull, Microlith will want the government to split and destroy your country, and maybe give me some part of it too!! that will teach you. Next time, you'll think twice before being more ambitious than those who are either too stupid to start their own companies, or those who lack all ambition and prefer to live with their parents and get fat while eating twinkies!

Ah, good 'ol Anonymous Coward. Gotta hide to speak your fascist, corporate supremacist Ayn Randian garbage, right?

Re:anti competitive? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717911)

So anyone who believes that the coporation that they created and bled for should stay in their control, and wish to defend creations, are imedietly "fascist, corporate supremacist Ayn Randian garbage"? If you yourself can NOT innovate (otherwise you'd have your own company by now, and would be singing a different tune), how dare you tell the CEOs and founders, that their creations should be split?

Re:anti competitive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717765)

Someone should split your head in two.

Re:anti competitive? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717367)

Split Intel in two companies.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

n30na (1525807) | about 2 years ago | (#41717331)

I've never heard of nvidia having anticompetitive practices.. not questioning you, just curious if someone could expand on it.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

GarretSidzaka (1417217) | about 2 years ago | (#41717695)

your not alone, brotha.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717301)

We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market

AMD really hasn't competed in the high-end CPU market They've made most of they money in the low-to-mid range market and their line up hasn't even been close to Intel's offerings since the Athlon XP days.

Someone will eventually enter the market to compete with Intel, it's not going to be AMD though. The writing has been on the wall since they spun off their fabrication unit.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

Buminatrain (1737926) | about 2 years ago | (#41717381)

Perhaps you mean since Phenom II was butting it out pretty much head to head with Intel's Nephalem based chips. Which was just 3 years ago, as opposed to the 9 years you are suggesting.

If you don't understand why AMD is the only company that can compete with Intel I suggest you look into the history of why AMD was/is allowed to continue manufacturing Intel compatible chips, and you might as well read about the 64 bit architecture that Intel uses while you're at it.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

TheKidWho (705796) | about 2 years ago | (#41717437)

You mean like how a new FX-8150 just keeps up with an i7 920 that was released 4 years ago?

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

Buminatrain (1737926) | about 2 years ago | (#41717613)

What does that have to do with my statement, that at the time Phenom II's were competitive with Nephalem? I completely agree that Bulldozer is a non-competitive chip.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41717873)

It is pretty sad that a previous generation chip beats the current. I love my phenomII. It was very price competitive than an icore5 (1st generation) and I do not care if it is just 10%. I got the whole damn desktop including an ATI 5750, 8 gigs of ram for just $550. Not bad for a gamer and VMWare workstation computer that is fast. Sure it is not the $1200 but I am on a budget. I do plan to replace the powersupply and vidoe card with an ATI 7850 within the next few months. It runs fine for what I need and all 6 cores only run at 65W!

The Bulldozer would run over 110W and be loud, require a 700 watt power supply with that video card listed above (not the quiet 500 watt powersupply) and actually be slower unless I overclocked it and it produced heat and noise.

The Thunderbird is AMDs pentium 4.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717629)

Phenom II was butting it out pretty much head to head with Intel's Nephalem based chips

You're on crack.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717675)

Perhaps you mean since Phenom II was butting it out pretty much head to head with Intel's Nephalem based chips.

The only time I ever saw a Phenom II 'head to head' with a comparable Nehalem (i.e. not the fastest Phenom II vs slowest Nehalem) was in the GPU-limited benchmark results the AMD fanboys kept pushing, which were, you know, GPU-limited. It would have been sad if their rabid fanboyism wasn't so funny.

When I build a new PC I buy the best hardware for the job, and that hasn't been AMD for a long time.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#41717399)

Usually, I'm all for efficiency, and think it's a good thing when everybody isn't in on the game, as it wastes time for all of us on the average. If Amazon eat up all the smaller outlets (including in meatspace), and only two or three car manufacturers remain in the world, I would see that as progress, as it streamlines production, without unnecessary duplication (often by those who would be less efficient anyway).

However, I do agree with you that I think at least TWO companies are required for any particular product, maybe three, and would be sad to see AMD go.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

sphealey (2855) | about 2 years ago | (#41717537)

Well, you are assuming that there are never dis-economies of scale. Which in my personal experience at least is not the case. Not always, and certainly a task such as designing the 787/A350 takes a very large entity. But I have seen many cases where the optimum entity size was exceeded and inefficiencies increased exponentially.

sPh

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (1)

jalefkowit (101585) | about 2 years ago | (#41717733)

If Amazon eat up all the smaller outlets (including in meatspace), and only two or three car manufacturers remain in the world, I would see that as progress, as it streamlines production, without unnecessary duplication (often by those who would be less efficient anyway).

It certainly would cut out all that complicated "setting competitive prices" stuff that Amazon has to do now. Efficiency FTW!

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41717427)

You need architecture competition, who cares if AMD makes x64 knockoffs? Who cares if 10 companies make them?

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717507)

Knock-off? You do realize that AMD pretty much invented (derivation aside) the x86_64 instruction set that Intel now uses in their Core lineup, right?

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (2, Informative)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 2 years ago | (#41717577)

AMD created x64; Intel licences it from them. In return AMD licences x86 from Intel. If AMD does go tits up at some point, it will almost certainly be Intel at the front of the queue to buy all the x64 rights.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (2)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41717657)

We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market.

Strictly speaking you don't have that now. The best AMD offering is barely at the mid range of an Intel lineup. But that is, believe it or not quite secondary to the story.

AMD bought ATI, that was probably good from a technical sense, but they went from having no money to having 5 billion dollars less than no money. So they sold their ARM business to Qualcomm. Who, if you frequent job boards for these things, are either actually at old AMD/ATI facilities, or they are right next to them, including ATI headquarters.

Qualcomm have money, they have marketshare, and AMD is worth nothing, oh, and they've had tremendous success buying AMD's arm business. See what I'm getting at? AMD is in deep trouble, but someone has the foresight to be very well positioned to pick up all of the pieces...

See now that AMD doesn't own globalfoundries they're free to do business with other customers, like Broadcomm, Qualcomm and a few others use them a major supplier, Qualcomm avoids anti trust issues buying from them, they can probably scavenge the remnants of the x86 licence for a pittance if they want it, and if not they can just pull in all of the staff worth having.

We may see two high end processors, one ARM and one x86. That's probably bad for the market as a whole, but with windows and their 90% marketshare forking windows 8 to be both that's certainly a direction the industry can move in.

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717681)

Bet you don't boycott Apple or Google over their practices. But maybe Microsoft?

Re:We NEED Processor Competition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717689)

We MUST have competition in the high-end processor market.

You mean in the chip fabrication business. It's not just a lack of competing designs. Intel is not a full process generation ahead of the entire industry. This along with their new tri-gate transistors is giving them huge advantages. The only company I can think of that might be close is IBM, but I don't know because I don't really follow them and last I checked Power 7 was either 28 or 32nm. TSMC sounded like they were going to have no trouble with the next few process nodes, but talk is cheap and they don't seem to be keeping up.

Oh wait, is this whole dilemma an example of outsourcing vs vertical integration? Does this lesson apply more universally? That would be interesting.

What is Samsung licensing the competing CPUs for? (1)

PhrostyMcByte (589271) | about 2 years ago | (#41717193)

I know one area where they really don't have a choice: Windows Phone. Microsoft standardizes the hardware, and so far Qualcomm has been the only option available.

Re:What is Samsung licensing the competing CPUs fo (2, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41717667)

Samsung has to run its parts and products business independently, otherwise their parts business would lose Apple as a customer, and loathe as anyone is to admit it, Apple is a customer you'd rather not lose.

Re:What is Samsung licensing the competing CPUs fo (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717901)

Why? The amount that Samsung makes from Apple is a drop in the bucket. Samsung has like 3 times the amount of money that Apple has.

Samsung's relationship (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717201)

Samsung is licensing the SoCs for the US market only. The flagship products (Galaxy S II,III and Note) are all using Exynos for every other market.

Re:Samsung's relationship (3, Informative)

Buminatrain (1737926) | about 2 years ago | (#41717283)

Yup, entire article (if you can call it that) is garbage. Not even really clear to me what they're trying to say... "Qualcomm dominates this space"? what does that even mean? Qualcomm has no slice of the x86 market, Adreno GPU a success where AMD failed? Ummm... pretty sure Qualcomm needed a quality chip to integrate into it's Snapdragon and AMD was happy to sell one, unless AMD had some secret ARM program that they were planning on taking over the mobile market with that didn't succeed that I never heard of.

Re:Samsung's relationship (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41717877)

They did, it was Adreno. They ran out of money due to the ATI acquisition before mobile really took off.

Had they been able to hang onto everything they sold to Qualcomm they'd be doing much better right now.

Re:Samsung's relationship (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41717373)

Samsung is licensing the SoCs for the US market only. The flagship products (Galaxy S II,III and Note) are all using Exynos for every other market.

Yeah, the summary misses that. And, frankly, my takeaway from this is exactly the opposite of the submitters' - Qualcomm is beholden to the competition, and that's not a good situation to be in. Apple has shown where the future probably lies, being well on their way to bringing their chip production completely in-house; and Samsung obviously has the means to do so. I wouldn't be surprised to see Google itself do some strategic purchasing in this area, if it hasn't already.

Microsoft might also get into this game, but I imagine they'll wait a bit longer and see how the Windows tablet market develops (or fails to develop). They're already in the weird position of moving into direct competition with their existing partners while pretending not to be, and right now they seem to be trying hard to pretend the elephant in the room doesn't exist. If they started buying up chip makers, that would basically be the official announcement "goodbye, guys, and thanks for all the fish". Not that Asus and others don't already know what's coming, but they probably would just as soon play along for a couple more years while they try to figure out what the heck they can do, since their entire business model involves being completely dependent on Microsoft.

Re:Samsung's relationship (1)

DamageLabs (980310) | about 2 years ago | (#41717529)

We all know what is coming but it feels like the industry has been moving backwards the past few years. Features that were standard are disappearing being replaced by much more elaborate procedures in the name of idiot friendliness. The OS is being marginalised by it's shell UI. Not more computers, just appliances.

I am starting to miss Microsoft. And that is not a good thing.

Re:Samsung's relationship (1)

ReeceTarbert (893612) | about 2 years ago | (#41717391)

Samsung is licensing the SoCs for the US market only.

Not to mention that the "article" is making it sound as AMD and Qualcomm are even in the same market: "Qualcomm, on the other hand, dominates this space". What space is the author talking about, exactly?

Also, Qualcomm is licensing ARM Holdings PLC's technology, like just about everybody else, but you won't find many people waxing lyrical about them.

And yes, we need AMD around -- unless we want to go back to days when a Pentium costed an arm and a leg just because Intel said so.

RT.

Re:Samsung's relationship (1)

PCM2 (4486) | about 2 years ago | (#41717847)

Does Qualcomm even "dominate" the ARM space? Last I heard, Nvidia SoCs are showing up in quite a few "prominent devices," too, and there are numerous other vendors. Some of them target niche applications, but what does that matter? It just demonstrates that the ARM processor market is much less homogeneous than the x86/x64 market traditionally has been, so it's less likely that any single chipmaker will dominate. If anything, it's ARM Holdings that wins, not Qualcomm.

Anything that ends in a question mark.... (4, Informative)

chris200x9 (2591231) | about 2 years ago | (#41717203)

...can be answered with a "no"

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717239)

Anything that ends in a question mark.... ...can be answered with a "no"

9 of 10 times.

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (4, Funny)

ThePeices (635180) | about 2 years ago | (#41717263)

Anything that ends in a question mark.......can be answered with a "no"

Can anything that ends in a question mark be answered no?

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717295)

No.

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about 2 years ago | (#41717299)

I see what you did there.

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (5, Funny)

ericloewe (2129490) | about 2 years ago | (#41717671)

I must ask that you refrain from creating paradoxes. You might trap a defenceless AI that happened to be reading these comments.

Have a heart and help those who can't defend themselves.

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717893)

shut the fuck up nerd. you aren't funny. go back to watching futurama where your kind can laugh at dumb predictable shit and jerk off to a one eyed cartoon girl

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717709)

You mean any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered "no".

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (1)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41717889)

In this case that would probably be incorrect.

A major portion of Qualcomm is quite literally old AMD, because they bought it, and they've positioned themselves to be not the new AMD, just the new owners of anything AMD ever had worth paying for.

Re:Anything that ends in a question mark.... (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41717905)

But this is Slashdot, the navel-gazing, furiously-masturbating group of guys who flunked high school journalism. So expect a lot of question marks.

i love propoganda (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717259)

aint it great to have a qualcomm employee posting....and other posters wonder where people have gone ....well to real news places....after all , all your doing here is posting links to other news places....haha

Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (1)

bug1 (96678) | about 2 years ago | (#41717343)

Qualcomm manufacture ARM chips, like a dozen other companies, there is nothing special about them.

AMD are doing real long term innovation with integrating CPU and GPU.

Qualcomm is licensing other peoples innovation and putting them near each other.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (1)

Microlith (54737) | about 2 years ago | (#41717385)

AMD are doing real long term innovation with integrating CPU and GPU.

From all the reports coming out of AMD, they're doing no more than what every ARM SoC vendor is doing and including GPU cores on the CPU die, which they were doing well before AMD released the Fusion line.

Only for AMD, the SoC design process they've adopted has resulted in newer processors being slower than older ones.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41717469)

Remember the Cyrix MediaGX? What the ARM vendors are doing isn't new either.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (2, Interesting)

Sir_Sri (199544) | about 2 years ago | (#41717739)

In AMD's defence - CPU speed doesn't actually matter that much. This is one of those odd quirks of where we are in the software - hardware cycles. A good GPU will likely have *much* more impact on your noticeable computer performance than a 10% faster CPU. It's really bad form to release a brand new CPU that is actually slower than your old one (clock for clock, in absolute terms, etc.) and the tech press pounced on them for it. But AMD *could* have and should have made the argument probably correctly that you're better off with an AMD Fusion product than an Intel i5 with on chip piece of shit HD graphics 3000 from intel. Granted intel has improved a lot now that they've given up on Larrabee but their HD graphics chips are still horrible compared to what AMD (ATI) can bring to the table.

I will point out that it was AMD's ARM SoC lineup (which they Acquired from ATI) that Qualcomm is actually doing this with, because Qualcomm bought the whole ARM SoC business from AMD where they were leading the competition. So sure, they aren't doing anything the other guys aren't but they were at the forefront with SoC when they still had the ARM business.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 years ago | (#41717957)

From all the reports coming out of AMD, they're doing no more than what every ARM SoC vendor is doing and including GPU cores on the CPU die, which they were doing well before AMD released the Fusion line.

Their goal is far more than that, it's not just about the die but integrating CPU and GPU cores into what they call a Heterogeneous System Architecture (HSA) where they live in the same address space and you can alternate between CPU and GPU processing with extremely little overhead. It's a huge change in the way you think of computing. The downside is that nothing changes without software support, your regular CPU or GPU-based code will take no advantage of it and in practice AMD doesn't have the weight to throw around to make people write for HSA, not to mention you're locking yourself into an AMD solution. In short, it's a bit too niche and they haven't really gotten much synergy from it.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (4, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | about 2 years ago | (#41717423)

Qualcomm manufacture ARM chips, like a dozen other companies, there is nothing special about them.

This is explicitly false. Qualcomm designed their own cores that implement the ARM instruction set. They did not license the Cortex A-x designs and glue them together (like every other ARM SoC vendor, including Samsung.) That also ignores the fact that they are the only ones making usable LTE basebands right now. Qualcomm right now is so dominant that if anything, they're the Intel of the mobile world.

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717571)

why would anyone want to reimplement the arm instruction set? not that it is super complicated, it has been done before, but ARM has shown every time that they intent to protect it with lawyers and patents so you'll need a license from them whether you get the source from them or write it your self

Re:Qualcomm is but a shadow of AMD (2)

cheesybagel (670288) | about 2 years ago | (#41717455)

Well Qualcomm designs their own chips. They don't just license a CPU core. In that regard they do something similar to AMD which licenses the X86 architecture from Intel but design their own chips. It used to be that AMD had their own manufacturing capabilities but this is no longer true. We can thank Hector Ruiz for that.

$la$hdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717353)

Ofc...

The reason Samsung is using Qualcomm stuff... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717355)

...is simple. They simply can't produce enough Exynos chips to put in all the mobile phones they are selling right now.

Re:The reason Samsung is using Qualcomm stuff... (1)

Buminatrain (1737926) | about 2 years ago | (#41717417)

It's actually due to the way carriers operate within the US.

Re:The reason Samsung is using Qualcomm stuff... (2, Informative)

Btarlinian (922732) | about 2 years ago | (#41717503)

No it's because Qualcomm owns the LTE market. In order to sell a phone with LTE you have to buy a baseband from Qualcomm since they make the only capable LTE chips on the market. Qualcomm (i.e., it's foundries) have been capacity constrained for at least a year now so they can insist you buy their entire SoC with integrate LTE baseband if you want an LTE chip. (That's ignoring the fact that you usually have less power consumption if your baseband and SoC are on the same die.)

Re:The reason Samsung is using Qualcomm stuff... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717617)

Samsung's latest Galaxy S3 now comes with Exynos quad core with LTE, so your information is outdated.

Sideshow (1)

rssrss (686344) | about 2 years ago | (#41717409)

FTA:

Qualcomm started life in 1985 as a maker of cellular communications semiconductors, and it hasn't strayed far from that formula. It's pretty much the go-to company for CDMA chips and is now taking a lead in 4G LTE as well.

.

General purpose processors are a sideline for Qualcomm.

In related news /. signal-to-noise at all time low (1)

BumpyCarrot (775949) | about 2 years ago | (#41717425)

The summaries are complete turd of late, never mind the articles. Sort something out.

Re:In related news /. signal-to-noise at all time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717723)

At the bottom of every page is a "submit story" link. You fix it.

AMD ~= Qualcomm (2)

ThePeices (635180) | about 2 years ago | (#41717495)

Not a fair comparison. AMD design their CPU's in-house. Qualcomm licence theirs from ARM.

Re:AMD ~= Qualcomm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717713)

And AMD will be doing both (more x86, add ARM) in the near future. If they can manage to stay afloat for the next 12-24 months, AMD will emerge a strong competitor (albeit with a pretty late start) in the ARM-licensee space.

Re:AMD ~= Qualcomm (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | about 2 years ago | (#41717759)

My impression is that what ARM licenses out is the high-level architecture - instruction set, external hardware interface, that kind of thing. But not low-level hardware design that implements all that stuff, so every vendor really does their own thing there. In which case it wouldn't be all that different from AMD, since they also license a lot of the architecture from Intel, and then implement it differently.

Semi-Accurate on why AMD is cratering (5, Interesting)

steveha (103154) | about 2 years ago | (#41717635)

AMD management made some bad decisions, then got rid of all the people who argued against those decisions. Now they are going to cut costs by firing the engineers who could develop new products. It is now inevitable: AMD is doomed.

"Unless the entire board and their puppets are removed in the next week or two, the little chance AMD has now will vanish. There is no up side here."

AMD's layoffs target engineering -- Board incompetence dooms the company [semiaccurate.com]

"AMD senior management, or (mis)management, as we are now calling them, have delayed the roadmap past the critical point. Project Win was survivable, barely. The churn of technical talent made things worse, far worse, and put the company at the breaking point. Layoffs sapped confidence, and senior management was negligent in not messaging a damn thing to those who mattered internally and externally. The cuts that will follow ensure that the plans in place are not achievable, and SemiAccurate can not see AMD surviving at this point."

AMD is imploding because management doesn't understand semiconductors -- Analysis: You can't Win by ignoring fundamentals [semiaccurate.com]

Re:Semi-Accurate on why AMD is cratering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717867)

Not quite different of what happened at HP. The difference lies in the amount of cash they have to slow down the sinking.

Re:Semi-Accurate on why AMD is cratering (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about 2 years ago | (#41717909)

You realize that AMD management doesn't care if they succeed right? They're just riding the wave as long as they can, before they switch to other jobs.

Is this article the next worst article ever? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717711)

Only in a metaphorical sense could an ARM chipmaker, competing in the mobile space, be "the next AMD", when AMD barely touched mobile and hasn't touched ARM, nor has Qualcomm touched x86. A less disingenuous way of putting the question is "is Qualcomm Intel's main rival now?" due to the shift in the marketplace toward mobiles. If anything, "Is Qualcomm the next ARM?" would have correctly represented their argument, but would not be so sensational.

The article also doesn't reconcile the supposition with its own timing, now that AMD looks to collapse in on itself (which they acknowledge). So saying that Qualcomm is the next AMD is equivalent to saying that Qualcomm is the next Intel rival likely to fail, but that's not what they were saying at all.

In short, article sucks, is badly written, why is it on front page, etc.

Qualcomm powers no GS2 and few GS3 variants (1)

Kotoku (1531373) | about 2 years ago | (#41717715)

Article is wildly inaccurate. Worldwide, all GS2 phones have exynos processors from Samsung. GS3 all have exynos except for LTE capable variants made for the U.S. and those have Krait series qualcomm processors, not snapdragon. The Note2 is launching with the new LTE capable exynos everywhere, further cutting qualcomm from the largest android manufacturer. If the author can't even get the details right, why would I trust their conclusion?

Re:Qualcomm powers no GS2 and few GS3 variants (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717793)

Actually, the LTE version of the G2 has a snapdragon SoC in it. The US LTE G3 also has a snapdragon, not a krait as you suggested.

my wife USED to work for these jerks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717809)

this company hasnt been the same since the doctor retired.
the son hasnt been able to fill his fathers shoes at all
without this chip you wouldnt hear of them at all
id give them 5 years MAX
posting as AC because i know stuff

Intel and Qualcomm (1)

ChefJeff789 (2020526) | about 2 years ago | (#41717811)

Intel has been riding the high-margin wagon for too long, though I suspect that may begin to change very soon. I am really looking forward to the next few years with new tablet, phone,and computer technologies rising up and trying to be the perfect product for everyone. While I doubt that any one product can be the 'one and only,' this focus on totally disparate form factors from what Intel has been working with for so long should bring some serious power consumption and heat reduction research from Intel. We've already seen a peak of this with Haswell, and I believe that if Intel doesn't get a better foot in the door with smart phones and tablets soon (Core iX's in tablets don't count for me, they don't match the performance-per-watt of ARM chips), they might eventually find themselves playing catch-up with Qualcomm, Samsung, Nvidia, and maybe even Apple if they begin producing processors for the MacBook. Frankly, I would be perfectly ok with that. They couldn't sit on their haunches and watch other companies take their market share, because that would be, you know, bad...

They sold their founderies (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about 2 years ago | (#41717837)

But hey their shareprice didn't go down as much and that was the most important thing right? Investors rewarded them for selling all their assets to make money ... then act all shocked the following quarter later they lost money!

As it was it is unfair as they had to make a better chip than intel just to break even speed wise as they were always 1-2 generations behind fabrication wise. Intel as the best foundries so they simple can make their transistors and wires smaller. It was rigged against AMD from the beginning.

Now they have to outsource them and pay someone else a hefty margin while intel doesn't and can just make the same chips faster and it even has a better architecture to boot too!

If the phenom II had the same size circuits and wires it could have been competitive with the core2's easily.

stealing broadcomm technolgy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41717865)

gulity of infringment
LMAO

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>