Why does Intel need Arm for collaboration, and what does Arm get out of optimizing "Arm’s IP for Intel’s upcoming 18A process technology?" Why doesn't Intel license Arm designs like anyone else, and optimize it themselves? I also don't quite get why Intel doesn't just design their own competing high efficiency architecture, after abandoning x86 and backwards compatibility, of course, something they should have done two decades ago at least.
This is IFS, Intel Foundry Services. They are a fab that will make parts for anyone that pays them. This isn't Intel the x86 vendor, that is a different business unit.
> I also don't quite get why Intel doesn't just design their own competing high efficiency architecture, after abandoning x86 and backwards compatibility, of course, something they should have done two decades ago at least.
They've tried, at least twice. Itanium and Atom come to mind. It turns out, it's not as easy as it sounds, even back when Intel was near the top of its game.
Atom cores are x86, and aren't just close; they're near exactly the same. They use the Gracemont microarchitecture in the Efficiency cores, which is the fourth generation Atom built on Intel 7.
My understanding was that Atom was x86 instruction set (or whatever Intel calls amd64?), but its own arch. I very easily could be wrong about that though.
Itanium was supposed to be powerful, not efficient, and it originated at HP. Atom was x86. If Intel designed something new from the ground up with high efficiency specifications, I don't think it could be too terrible, and I think it would advance SotA to have real competition with ARM designs. The i860 may be Intel's last innovative chip design solely designed in house. Every advance in x86 is just another ugly monstrosity.
Intel bought the StrongARM line if ARM cpus from DEC (used in some PDAs of the late 90s) and rebranded it XScale. Had some minor successes, but no huge design wins. Sold it to Marvell in 2006 right before the iPhone was released and smartphones exploded the market for ARM cpus.
Intel is already an long-term Arm licensee[1], meaning that they can build and optimise Arm designs for their own use. I'd expect the terms of an Arm IP license restricts them from sublicensing any Intel-optimised Arm designs to foundry customers. If I understand correctly, this deal is Intel Foundries in future being able to offer the implementation of optimised Arm designs to customers.
Even if Intel design something similar to ARM, legacy wins. It’s not replacing mobile OS any time soon. Just like ARM isn’t replacing the Windows ecosystem soon.
As others have said Intel failed. There were Intel phones back in the days. Maybe they should have kept going even if it lost money. Maybe not. Who knows.
Not to mention Apple isn’t moving regardless since they were 1 of the founders of ARM.
20 years ago, probably. I don't understand why it is still the case today that legacy is important. Who is still running very old, 25yo software, and just how are they wagging the dog?
SF's subway system is still using floppy disks. Being on HN might feel like everyone is on Rust or Rails or something else but sadly in the real world under the hood there's lots and lots of legacy - yes important 1s too.
> I also don't quite get why Intel doesn't just design their own competing high efficiency architecture, after abandoning x86 and backwards compatibility, of course, something they should have done two decades ago at least.
Intel structurally sucks. That’s the simple answer.
