Zibb

Brian DipertEDN Senior Technical Editor Brian Dipert exposes, analyzes and
opines on diverse topics in technology. Follow the Brian's Brain Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/BrianzBrain.



   Advertisement

Profile

RSS Feed

  • Add this blog to your RSS newsreader!

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Most Commented On

Archives

By Category

Consumer Electronics Design Articles

Blog

Friday, August 22, 2008

The 2008 Intel Developer Forum: The Atom Bomb

Aug 22 2008 10:48AM | Permalink |Comments (9) |


One in a series of posts

Back in late March, for subsequent publication in late May, I wrote regarding Intel's Atom microprocessor:

Perhaps the biggest question on the company’s road map for the remainder of the decade is the degree to which Atom will cannibalize Intel products in a manner that is fiscally unattractive to Intel, instead of broadening the overall x86 market at the expense of competitors, such as ARM, as Intel hopes.

That was, as it seemingly has turned out (and if I do say so myself), quite a prescient observation. A month back during the company's most recent earnings briefing, in fact, Intel's CEO Paul Otellini got verbally 'roughed up' by numerous analysts as to the degree to which Atom's market entry would negatively impact corporate revenue and profit margins that are currently bolstered by profitable Centrino and Celeron CPU sales. Otellini's tepid response:

[Atom] is less than a third of the performance of our Centrino (high-end mobile processor). You’re dealing with something that most of us wouldn’t use.

did little to quell investors' concerns, although in this editor's opinion, he was largely spot-on. The PC market in the United States, for example, is saturated and as such, replacement-system sales will likely accompany a consumer expectation that the new system will outperform its predecessor in performance, storage capacity and other metrics. The bulk of Atom-fueled system sales here, therefore, will likely represent incremental per-household systems used for quick information access and other limited-function scenarios, much as I employ my Nokia N800 Internet Tablet today.

Such systems might have traditional (albeit shrunken-down) notebook PC form factors, a concept with which Asus has had tremendous success of late with its Eee PC line. I'd earlier mentioned MSI's Wind; Acer's price-just-cut Aspire One (reflective of just-launched and coming-soon competition from, respectively, Lenovo and Dell) also looks quite compelling. I confess that I've long been a fan of the thin-and-light subnotebook form factor, beginning with my first perusal of Radio Shack's TRS-80 Model 100 and accelerating from there with the first such system I owned, Dell's visionary but ultimately ill-fated 320SLi.

Conversely, Atom-centric systems might instead come in more pocketable dimensions, reminiscent of my N800 and Apple's iPod touch. Integrated cellular data and/or WiMAX connectivity is certainly possible as a supplement to the inevitable Wi-Fi. And if the manufacturer adds cellular voice service, too, you've got an Atom-based smartphone along the lines of my beloved T-Mobile Dash or Apple's iPhone.

To wit, as I've said before, I confess that I find Intel's "x86 everywhere" mantra (including the embedded verse) quite compelling, especially now that it's increasingly accompanying CPUs that don't come with the baggage of substantial performance and/or power consumption deficits versus ARM-, MIPS- and other alternative CPU architecture-based competitors. The ability to tap into an enormous, mature code and development tools base with little-to-mostly-no alteration is tremendous (right, software developers?). The same thought process applies equally well to Intel's upcoming Larrabee media processor versus existing GPUs from AMD/ATI, Nvidia and other suppliers, specifically with respect to beyond-graphics applications…but I'll save further discourse on this particular subject for a coming-soon dedicated post.

Atom's other key targets, perhaps obviously, are the emerging markets that formed the foundation of Intel chairman Craig Barrett's conference-launching keynote on Tuesday morning. Atom will enable hardware manufacturers to profitably hit price points which are currently unachievable with Celeron and Centrino CPUs and accompanying chipsets…price points necessary to stimulate broad adoption by potential customers who don't have the disposable incomes of their mature-market peers. For similar price-point-expectation reasons, along with the fact that Windows largely hasn't yet established a defensible 'embrace and extend' beachhead in emerging markets, open-source Linux and bundled application suites such as OpenOffice will be comparatively quite popular. And, as emerging market consumers' disposable incomes (and system capability expectations) grow, reflective of increasing societal prosperity, Intel and its partners will happily upgrade them to more robust hardware.

Speaking of upgrades (and price cuts), I confess that I don't have any sympathy for companies like Sony, who bemoan the "race to the bottom" that low-cost systems in laptop PC form factors potentially represent. The tech industry is an always-amazing case study of Darwinist evolutionary theory in action. As such, it's up to PC OEMs and their building-block hardware and software partners to continue stoking demand for mid-range and high-end system configurations, in parallel with cultivating new markets for low-end Atom-based gear in order to expand the overall ecosystem. If the suppliers don't continue justifying the need for traditional notebook PCs…if the technology treadmill stalls…then open-market consumers are completely within their rights to select lower-cost equipment that adequately meets their needs.

For those of you interested in test-driving Atom for potential development purposes, I'd earlier mentioned that mini-ITX reference boards are now shipping. Alternatively, you might want to go with a more assembled configuration such as MSI's $139.99 barebones system. Regardless, keep in mind that dual-core Atoms (with HyperThreading support, thereby effectively delivering virtual quad core capabilities for some instruction thread scenarios) are coming soon. Or perhaps you'd prefer an archaic, under-clocked AMD CPU, instead?


Reader Comments



at 8/22/2008 2:12:02 PM, James said:
It's interesting to see the same announcements and arguments made over and over again. Atom is a great chip - but by itself it can do nothing. A chipset is required, and there goes the power (again!).If only the chipset for an Atom didn't have several times the thermal envelope of the CPU it would be a great solution -so at the system level ARM and MIPs have it beaten for handhelds. If you disagree, as Apple why they are not using it in any of their products - or in any phone, PDA, or similiar device by ANYONE.



at 8/22/2008 2:23:30 PM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear James, thank you for qualifying that your comments are specifically referring to especially battery-stingy designs such as smartphones and other handheld equipment. In that particular light, I actually agree with you, but let's talk again in a year when Intel's 45 nm-fabricated chipset is released. My perspective in these particular market segments is long-term, not necessarily immediate; Intel has the deep-pockets luxury of being able to invest for payoff later. And anyway, for now, the 'netbook' provides Intel with a vehicle to begin ramping product volume.



at 8/22/2008 9:57:42 PM, Mike Bruzzone said:
Atom fulfills a 10 year old strategy to displace the Intel CPU surplus, that traditionally defined by desktop supply schedule, with new components offering superior utility values to end users. Utility values in relation to Intel CPU overage being bartered away toward zero value in the broker market; imposing a cost on the x86 CPU industry.

AMD and VIA have displaced traditional Intel CPU surplus that is in excess of immediate end user demand, over the last ten years, with products offering superior utility values. AMD succesfully in multiple examples and Centaur as a low power innovator.

There's a lot of hype around Atom. There are also a lot of misconceptions. Around beta product potential, around cost-price, around bundling components (SSD) within a platform solution, around the impact to and impact on Intel gross margin and net profitability.

The fact of the matter is that Atom can be given away. Given away like a trade show trinket including in so many consumer platforms that are nothing more than processor, logic and memory.

And Atom can be given away in volume. At 10% of Intel wafer capacity ATOM can be fabricated in volumes equal to Intel's highest volume desktop long runs ever.

So many Atom processors fabricated in so little time including while idling the lines between a process transition, at average total cost, and less. Which is also a long time Intel strategy.

Respectfully submitted,
mb




at 8/23/2008 7:29:01 AM, psykhon said:
seems like intel's checks to brian keep coming...



at 8/23/2008 4:21:58 PM, Brian Dipert said:
seems like psykhon's misguided, narrow-minded opinions keep coming...If you disagree with me, state why. Simply tossing out accusations and insults scores you no points whatsoever, and in fact further weakens your case.



at 8/25/2008 5:19:18 PM, James said:
Brian,

The issue is larger than just a 45nm chipset. Intel excels at high speed, small geography DIGITAL circuits. When it comes to mixing technology - Flash, logic chips (Chipsets) and microprocessors, Intel fails because each is optimized on a different process, hence they require different chips.(the 45nm process for processors is NOT the same 45nm process for chipsets) In the mixed signal world (analog and digital) Intel has nothing. They therefore will require a multiple chip solution for some years, and this means multiple packages,higher power and current to drive the signals off chip,and/or expensive multi-chip packages. Over the next few years, the guys who can combine memory, mixed signal, and a processor -on a single die, even if it is a couple of generations behind in lithography- will still have the same relative advantage they enjoy today. 5-7 yrs out, it may be different. Things can move slowly at Intel - it took over 2 years just to move the memory controller from the chipset to the CPU - that's 3 years after AMD proved it a superior method and mass produced it. So next year it may be more of the same :-)



at 8/29/2008 4:52:38 AM, Scunnerous said:
Brian, first: Centrino is NOT a CPU, but then you knew that I'm sure, so why do you call it such? While I will not be so abrasive as psykhon, you, as a journalist, are certainly pushing the boundaries with your persistent cheer-leading for Intel and bashing of AMD... as if Intel had never had a hiccup... ever, and apparently never has to do bin-sorts. Personally I'd call Itanic the mother of all hiccups and if it hadn't been for AMD, we'd all be in deep PC IA64 CPU caca by now.

All I'm saying is that your credibility is not enhanced by regurgitation of Intel hype as fact, to the extent that you are even repeating their annoying habit of predicting where they'll be in a year's time... apparently propagating the Intel hype message that the competition will do nothing in the same "year's time".

Finally your last sentence and the mocking (yes that how it comes across) use of "archaic" belies the content of the article referenced, where the conclusion is that, in a desktop low power system, the Athlon 64 system has better performance and lower power consumption than Atom (yes I know about yields and volume etc. etc. but that is not the point). I don't see how it can be seen as anything but a cheap shot, worthy of Otellini in full song.




at 8/29/2008 7:15:52 AM, Brian Dipert said:
Dear Scunnerous, I call them like I see them, without bias. You can't argue, I think, with Intel's impressive performance over the past few years. With that said, in the NetBurst days, if you were to go back and look at my coverage then, you'd see far less positive analysis from me of Intel (for good reason) and, conversely, far more positive coverage of AMD (because they deserved it then). And even now, for example with my recent Larrabee writeup, I'm more than a little skeptical. Try not to let any preference for AMD distort your impressions of others' views. I can't afford a preference...I'm an analyst, not an opinion columnist. p.s...I chose 'Centrino' intentionally, because as James rightly pointed out in an earlier comment, it's not enough to look only at the CPU



at 10/22/2008 4:58:58 PM, Mainstream said:
Let me tell you about Ultra Mobile computers. As a Fortune 500 provider to a niche market of hand-held devices that need to go for a very long time on a battery while running full-up Windows XP, Atom is a Godsend. We are FINALLY rid once and for all of XScale PDAs and WINCE crappy OS's

Post a comment



Display Name

Change Image
Before submitting this form, please type the characters displayed above.
Note the letters are NOT case sensitive.


ADVERTISEMENT

©1997-2009 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Use of this Web site is subject to its Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Please visit these other Reed Business sites