zarx said:
| Soleron said:
That's one theory. Intel are also forced to have a 60% gross margin by their shareholders, because they include big pension funds and other risk-averse groups. This seriously limits their control over pricing. AMD is able to survive by taking 40% or less.
Also Intel is competing with themselves somewhat: they need to persuade people that buying a new PC is indeed better. Their recent focus has been more on battery life than high-end performance for this reason.
Hopefully Apple/Qualcomm/Samsung using ARM will emerge as a viable alternative for desktop chips.
|
I don't think that ARM is going to enter the X86 market any time soon, and I don't see x86 in the desktop going anywhere any time soon ether, too much legacy code. Intel are already starting (the first 2 generations of Atom were a joke but things are starting to look better) bringing the fight to ARM, and they have a hell of a lot of R&D money to throw around and Win8's tablet focus as a catalyst.
|
I'd say 95% of what people and businesses do with computers is Internet, Email, Office, Pictures, Video, Messaging. For them, you can present a tablet-like interface on top of arbitrary hardware and it still does what they want. I expect WinRT desktops within a year of 64-bit ARM, if Metro is at all viable.
Legacy code can be divided into games (which can be emulated) and professional applications (probably no fix).
I agree Intel's not going down without a fight and that ARM is not magic, but well with AMD dead, ARM is the only alternative. Dell/HP etc will be desperate to find a supplier to pressure Intel with.
