How the SoC Is Displacing the CPU | Hacker News Reader

How the SoC Is Displacing the CPU

medium.com

27 pointshunglee214 comments

I have always wondered on those SoC prices. That Apple SoC price is basically what Apple paid to TSMC for using leading edge node Fab price. Which already includes the cost of TSMC operation and profits. But for Apple, does it include all the cost up front for design and testing those SoC, which should be in 100s of millions. Does it include ARM, IMG, and other Licensed IP? Qualcomm would have the same cost just as Apple, the different would be Apple not making any margins on SoC, but Qualcomm needs to ( much helped by their inclusion of Modem ) My main question is, how is it When a $20–30 dollar SoC manage to have many companies behind them thriving, while Intel’s Pentium, Core M etc have an ASP, lets assume $100. ( Retail have their margin, and Intel sell big lot to OEM, but I still think that is a low estimate ) Intel is earning 20–50x the margin then all of those SoC combined. ( Assume Qualcomm make $2 on a $25 SoC, Intel would likely earn $80–90 on $100 chip, as they earn everything Qualcomm, ARM, TSMC etc combined )But Even if you discount the 5:1 mobile SoC to PC volume Intel’s profit still doesn’t reflect that. It seems, Intel has higher cost structure which I fail to comprehend, any one could shine some light?

1. Intel CPUs are much more powerful and complex than a typical Apple/Qualcomm SoC, and so are more difficult to design and more expensive to manufacture.

2. Intel has its own internal fabs, which allows them to control the entire process, but also eats into their margins.

3. Intel maintains a vast variety of CPUs of different classes (Atom all the way up to Xeon etc.)

4. Intel's CPU related R&D expenses are much higher than either Apple or Qualcomm. On top of this, Intel does a ton of research into process optimization, materials science, and general circuit design, which obviously needs funding.

1. They are not that much more powerful. Apple A10 is pretty close. It is Faster then a Macbook Air CPU in Geekbench 4 test ( This is version 4, much better then the Version 3 which Linus rant about) with less Power envelop and node behind Intel. While it is not fair to compare Apple which doesn't sell their chip, Qualcomm's Kryo 200 and ARM A73 should be pretty close to A10.

Basically I dont see how Intel's x86 Core is any more complex, and expensive to manufacture. Especially when you consider these cost of design are now spread out over three years or more.

3. That is even worst, and why specifically said Desktop processors at $100, they make little numbers of Atom, but they made LOTS of Xeon which is even higher Margins. ( They dominate the Server market with 90%+ market share )

2/ 4. These process, R&D, process optimization, materials science are all cover by their cost to TSMC / Samsung. Btw TSMC's 2016 Capex ( including R&D ) is now equal to Intel $9.5B. When you consider TSMC is Pure Play and Intel being IDM, this is very significant mile stone.

Yes http://www.extremetech.com/computing/190946-stop-obsessing-o...

But Intel likes wasting a lot of its R&D money on things that never go anywhere. Such as tablets/smartphone https://www.google.com/amp/www.fool.com/amp/investing/genera... https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/227720-how-intel-lost-10... If Intel would have been able to make a good RISC architecture, they probably would have been more successful but, even with all Intel's R&D, they are still a desktop CPU company.

2. Intel has its own internal fabs, which allows them to control the entire process, but also eats into their margins.

[...]

Isn't this double-accounting? TSMC and Samsung have the same process-related expenses; indeed Samsung is very close on Intel's heels, process-wise. But somehow this isn't reflected in SOC price? Again, it doesn't seem to make sense to me that Intel chips go for around $100 but Qualcomm chips list around $25.

Intel uses its fabs internally and does not allow other companies to use its process, unlike Samsung.

Again, an ARM SoC running in a power-constrained phone is nothing compared to a desktop-grade processor when it comes to complexity. I think you're underestimating what's on a modern Intel chip.

This "complexity hole" is a problem they've encountered before with the Pentium 4 line of chips. They ended up being too complicated and too costly to produce, so they had to scrap it and go back to the Pentium III design and iterate from there.

I wonder if they'll ever have to back-track even further and use an ARM core but add on an x86-64 mode via microcode.

I was surprised there was no mention of gaming consoles, where a similar dynamic is playing out with integrated CPU/GPU systems specially designed for the systen.

Today we have quad core socs for $4 retail. Your estimates are off. Cost per wafer is $5k for orders of 10k at 14nm.

Profits of a fab always hover around 30 percents.

When poking around for Allwinner H3 docs, I was getting quoted $1.50ea when ordering 100 or more of the H3 SOC, so quad cores can be had for that. It is kinda disconcerting to see how far SOCs have fallen in price.

Again, exactly this. Mediatek was Cheap and Cheerful. Way too good to be true to be honest. It was basically eating into Qualcommm lower to mid end market. ( Lucky Qualcomm has it modem integration )Then there comes Allwinner. I have no idea how money/ profits are being made at these sort of price level.

There has to be trade off somewhere.

The H3 is using an older 40nm process and is small in footprint, with no custom IP. Nothing really too exciting going on there, an 8 year old process is going to be cheap to use compared to a modern 14nm process.

How is it disconcerting? Lower prices are good for the consumer!

If lower prices mean that the market moves to more close and less documented platforms, then I'll stick to my old €50 CPU. The issue here are the hidden strings attached to that price fall.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com