Intel

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
#1
From Technology Review article The China Chip Advances—and May Compete with Intel Soon

The country's first homegrown microprocessor could be used in Internet servers and routers.


The processors at the heart of computers and mobile devices today come in two basic flavors: Intel- and ARM-compatible. But since 2002 the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been working in a public-private partnership, BLX IC Design Corporation, to establish a third type of processor—designed and made in China. Early next year, the latest fruit of that project will be unveiled, reports ComputerWorld—a new chip in a family of designs known as Loongson that is intended to drive PCs, servers, and supercomputers.

The latest chip, the Godson-3B1500, is the same size as its predecessor, launched in 2011, but is said to have twice as many transistors and to be 35 percent more power efficient. Earlier members of the Godson chip family were used as the basis of the chips for China’s first fully domestically built supercomputer.

Despite that progress, Loongson chips are still far behind Intel’s technologically. The chip to be launched next year is made using a process that creates features as small as 32 nanometers, but Intel already sells processors with features as small as 22 nanometers. Loongson chips are also incompatible with Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which many consumers in China and elsewhere find synonymous with desktop computing.

However, China's chips may have a significant impact on Intel and the world in general in an area of computing where Windows isn't so critical. That's because Godson chips could ease the adoption of Internet-centric computing in China and other developing nations by cutting the cost of the the servers that underpin Internet and cloud services.
Reply
#1
From Technology Review article The China Chip Advances—and May Compete with Intel Soon

The country's first homegrown microprocessor could be used in Internet servers and routers.


The processors at the heart of computers and mobile devices today come in two basic flavors: Intel- and ARM-compatible. But since 2002 the Chinese Academy of Sciences has been working in a public-private partnership, BLX IC Design Corporation, to establish a third type of processor—designed and made in China. Early next year, the latest fruit of that project will be unveiled, reports ComputerWorld—a new chip in a family of designs known as Loongson that is intended to drive PCs, servers, and supercomputers.

The latest chip, the Godson-3B1500, is the same size as its predecessor, launched in 2011, but is said to have twice as many transistors and to be 35 percent more power efficient. Earlier members of the Godson chip family were used as the basis of the chips for China’s first fully domestically built supercomputer.

Despite that progress, Loongson chips are still far behind Intel’s technologically. The chip to be launched next year is made using a process that creates features as small as 32 nanometers, but Intel already sells processors with features as small as 22 nanometers. Loongson chips are also incompatible with Microsoft’s Windows operating system, which many consumers in China and elsewhere find synonymous with desktop computing.

However, China's chips may have a significant impact on Intel and the world in general in an area of computing where Windows isn't so critical. That's because Godson chips could ease the adoption of Internet-centric computing in China and other developing nations by cutting the cost of the the servers that underpin Internet and cloud services.
Reply
#2
They should learn why cyrix and Linux failed. If they are unable to integrate the hardware and software like Apple did, and which apple learnt the hard way back in the 80s, then it is difficult for china architecture to take off

But to china's advantage it is the sheer domestic market that can make the process easier RELATIVELY. And Chinese government is very keen on having local computing technology to deter any possible intrusion from US centric architecture and hence NSA.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
#2
They should learn why cyrix and Linux failed. If they are unable to integrate the hardware and software like Apple did, and which apple learnt the hard way back in the 80s, then it is difficult for china architecture to take off

But to china's advantage it is the sheer domestic market that can make the process easier RELATIVELY. And Chinese government is very keen on having local computing technology to deter any possible intrusion from US centric architecture and hence NSA.
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
#3
Linux may fail in desktop computing, but linux powered server keep growing.
The Linux Foundation survey : "And over the next five years, 79.4% of respondents plan on adding more Linux, relative to other operating systems, compared to only 21,3% planning on adding more Microsoft servers in the same period."

The popular Android operating system is based on Linux.
Specuvestor: Asset - Business - Structure.
Reply
#3
Linux may fail in desktop computing, but linux powered server keep growing.
The Linux Foundation survey : "And over the next five years, 79.4% of respondents plan on adding more Linux, relative to other operating systems, compared to only 21,3% planning on adding more Microsoft servers in the same period."

The popular Android operating system is based on Linux.
Specuvestor: Asset - Business - Structure.
Reply
#4
Agree but we were talking about PC architecture and Linux has been successful with professionals, and maybe prosumers. Mandrake and Redhat and other Linux OS has not been doing so well. Certainly it has fallen short of the aspiration of GNU. The community was excited when Eee PC adopted Linux. But Asus missed an opportunity.

Android is interesting topic because strategically Google needed an OS as platform to launch browsers to access their core services as Apple and Microsoft has. Hence it was never meant to be profitable but as a cost centre. Google is not interested in OS nor even handsets (even today) which is why initially HTC was forced to launch Android with T-Mobile, because for fear of the commitment of Google. Ironically fear drove development of Android as Apple was dominating the eco-system and becoming a monopoly. On hindside history would be dramatically different if Nokia was able to improve on its Symbian or MeeGo, or Samsung to promote their Bada (alas they are not a software company).

With the convergence of tablets and notebooks, the PC and mobile devices are clashing, and hence their architecture. It will be interesting to see how companies strategises since the lynchpin Jobs is no longer around. My main regret is that Jobs was not around to make iCloud work seamlessly. It would be the fulfillment of techie dream after like 2/3 decades (depending on your reference)
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
#4
Agree but we were talking about PC architecture and Linux has been successful with professionals, and maybe prosumers. Mandrake and Redhat and other Linux OS has not been doing so well. Certainly it has fallen short of the aspiration of GNU. The community was excited when Eee PC adopted Linux. But Asus missed an opportunity.

Android is interesting topic because strategically Google needed an OS as platform to launch browsers to access their core services as Apple and Microsoft has. Hence it was never meant to be profitable but as a cost centre. Google is not interested in OS nor even handsets (even today) which is why initially HTC was forced to launch Android with T-Mobile, because for fear of the commitment of Google. Ironically fear drove development of Android as Apple was dominating the eco-system and becoming a monopoly. On hindside history would be dramatically different if Nokia was able to improve on its Symbian or MeeGo, or Samsung to promote their Bada (alas they are not a software company).

With the convergence of tablets and notebooks, the PC and mobile devices are clashing, and hence their architecture. It will be interesting to see how companies strategises since the lynchpin Jobs is no longer around. My main regret is that Jobs was not around to make iCloud work seamlessly. It would be the fulfillment of techie dream after like 2/3 decades (depending on your reference)
Before you speak, listen. Before you write, think. Before you spend, earn. Before you invest, investigate. Before you criticize, wait. Before you pray, forgive. Before you quit, try. Before you retire, save. Before you die, give. –William A. Ward

Think Asset-Business-Structure (ABS)
Reply
#5
One example of company fund share-buyback via debt, which is feasible only with current cheap borrowing cost. Tongue But is it rational to do so?

Intel launches S$7.3b debt sale

SAN FRANCISCO - Intel yesterday launched a US$6 billion (S$7.3 billion) debt sale to fund share buybacks and other activities.
- TODAYonline

http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC1...-debt-sale
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#5
One example of company fund share-buyback via debt, which is feasible only with current cheap borrowing cost. Tongue But is it rational to do so?

Intel launches S$7.3b debt sale

SAN FRANCISCO - Intel yesterday launched a US$6 billion (S$7.3 billion) debt sale to fund share buybacks and other activities.
- TODAYonline

http://www.todayonline.com/Business/EDC1...-debt-sale
“夏则资皮,冬则资纱,旱则资船,水则资车” - 范蠡
Reply
#6
This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.
Reply
#6
This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.
Reply
#7
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?
Reply
#7
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?
Reply
#8
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

Hi Yeokiwi, I am not familiar with tech but is it because Apple designed IOS to work only with their own SoC?

I am wondering, if Intel loses on the SoC level competition with Qualcomm and others like Apple, can they still earn monopoly profits if they eliminate competition at the chip level by winning the battle with ARM?
Reply
#8
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.

They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

Hi Yeokiwi, I am not familiar with tech but is it because Apple designed IOS to work only with their own SoC?

I am wondering, if Intel loses on the SoC level competition with Qualcomm and others like Apple, can they still earn monopoly profits if they eliminate competition at the chip level by winning the battle with ARM?
Reply
#9
(20-01-2013, 11:49 AM)wee Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.
They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

Hi Yeokiwi, I am not familiar with tech but is it because Apple designed IOS to work only with their own SoC?

I am wondering, if Intel loses on the SoC level competition with Qualcomm and others like Apple, can they still earn monopoly profits if they eliminate competition at the chip level by winning the battle with ARM?

Yes. Without the customised SoC, there is no way to run iOS. Apple has been distributing iOS binaries without any fear that any pirate will use it on any platform. Unlike wintel platform.

It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Reply
#9
(20-01-2013, 11:49 AM)wee Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:35 AM)yeokiwi Wrote:
(20-01-2013, 11:09 AM)freedom Wrote: This is one of my value play in the US market. It seems that Intel is priced to fail in its mobile strategy. But I increasingly feel that Intel will make a breakthrough in mobile chips starting from tablet. Personally, I like Surface tablet much better than IPad. to me, IPad is just a toy, I certainly will not work on it. Surface Pro could well be a laptop + a tablet.
They need to allow software companies to customize the mobile chips.
Have you ever wonder why there is no clone of apple iphone that can run iOS?

Hi Yeokiwi, I am not familiar with tech but is it because Apple designed IOS to work only with their own SoC?

I am wondering, if Intel loses on the SoC level competition with Qualcomm and others like Apple, can they still earn monopoly profits if they eliminate competition at the chip level by winning the battle with ARM?

Yes. Without the customised SoC, there is no way to run iOS. Apple has been distributing iOS binaries without any fear that any pirate will use it on any platform. Unlike wintel platform.

It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Reply
#10
(20-01-2013, 12:06 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Thanks.
Can you elaborate on the savings and maintenance bit? why would it make a huge difference if one day Apple shifts its desktop to ARMs based platform?
Reply
#10
(20-01-2013, 12:06 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: It is possible to run OSX on customised PC or some specific laptops though. With the performance narrowing between arm and intel, apple may shift its desktop to arm based platform one day.

The savings to software development and maintenance is immense.
Thanks.
Can you elaborate on the savings and maintenance bit? why would it make a huge difference if one day Apple shifts its desktop to ARMs based platform?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)