Intel once made an X86-based mobile phone processor, but it failed and withdrew from the mobile phone processor market. The X86 architecture CPU is not suitable as a mobile phone processor for two reasons: power consumption issues and compatibility issues. Let’s talk about it in detail below.
Power consumption issues
Compatibility issues
In short, the market structure has been formed. After long-term development, X86/X64 architecture CPUs are more suitable for PCs and servers. In the field, ARM architecture processors are more suitable for mobile phones. X86-based processors have failed to enter the mobile phone processor market, and ARM-based processors have also faced difficulties in entering the PC and server fields.
It’s not that Intel and AMD don’t want to produce mobile phone processors. Many years ago when the PC market gradually became saturated, they realized that there was not much space in the PC processor market, and they could no longer obtain huge sums of money as easily as before. Profits, especially Intel, have been very crowded into the mobile phone processor market. During this period, they also developed low-power processors such as Atom, but unfortunately they all ended in failure.
Some people may ask why Intel cannot make mobile phone processors with such strong financial strength. This is mainly because Intel's X86 architecture processor is more suitable for use in large devices such as computers. The power consumption is also higher. Even if Intel formed a dedicated team to launch the From now on, Intel simply gave up on the mobile phone processor market.
AMD’s own financial resources are very tight. It fights on two fronts in the CPU and graphics card markets, and there is no spare time to develop mobile phone processors. AMD did develop low-power GPU technology back then, but it had no choice but to do so due to lack of money. It was sold to Qualcomm, which then independently developed the Adreno GPU core of the Snapdragon processor. The graphics performance is very good. It has been the most powerful GPU for Android mobile phones for many years and is loved by many gamers.
The most important thing is that neither Intel nor AMD had the most critical baseband technology for mobile phone processors. The baseband involves many patents, and most of these patented technologies are controlled by Qualcomm. Other manufacturers want to come in. It was very difficult. The mobile phone processors of NVIDIA and Texas Instruments failed because of the lack of baseband technology. After years of huge investment in research and development, Intel has finally launched a good baseband chip in recent years, but it is limited to baseband. In an era when the mobile phone market is beginning to become saturated, I think Intel and AMD have little interest in making mobile phone processors.
Intel used to have the Atom series of processors, which were mainly aimed at mobile, lightweight and portable devices. This kind of processor has also appeared on mobile phones, but the compatibility is generally not good enough. Now the Atom processor is basically They are all used with entry-level Windows tablets, dual-system tablets, mini-Win consoles and other portable devices. The performance is still relatively good, so they have not entered the field of smartphones. Like the previous NVI Tegra processor, they are not suitable for use in SoCs on smartphones. It is true that Tegra graphics cards are very powerful when they come out. Some large PC games that have been ported to Android are specifically designed for this processor. They can only be played on mobile phones or tablets equipped with Tegra processors. You can imagine how powerful the graphics card is.
AMD used to have a mobile phone processor business, but it was not well run and was almost bankrupt due to economic pressure, so it had to sell it to Qualcomm. Let me tell you why Qualcomm's GPUs have always been good, because when AMD sold it to Qualcomm, it also sold it to Qualcomm. Mobile phone GPU technology has also been sold to Qualcomm, which shows that AMD has completely cut off the mobile phone business and concentrated on making hardware in the PC field. I think AMD is also the only hardware manufacturer with no shortcomings among PC hardware manufacturers, although it is definitely better than the all-rounder. Although it is a professional type, it can handle everything. For example, nvi has a very powerful graphics card, but what about the processor? Intel processors are powerful, but the core graphics are not as good as AMD. Or does it have a very powerful independent graphics?
Intel has developed mobile processors: Atom series. The instruction set is still x86. Typical devices equipped with Atom chips include Xiaomi Mi Pad 2.
It should be noted that the chip of a mobile phone is not strictly a CPU, but an SoC, which includes CPU, GPU, ISP, baseband, etc. Among them, Qualcomm, HiSilicon, and Intel can independently develop basebands. However, Intel's baseband is only at a usable level. Last year, Apple devices equipped with Intel's baseband experienced poor signals.
Secondly, the number of Android software based on the x86 instruction set is too small. Without a software ecosystem, how can there be user experience?
Therefore, after spending a few years, Intel basically gave up the mobile processor business.
Intel has mobile phone processors, but the customers for Atom processors are all on tablets, so mobile phones cannot be sold.
Mobile phone processors are ultra-low-end products, and Intel is like this Big brands won't do it
If you knew the instruction set, you wouldn't ask this question. First, understand the basic structure of the processor.
The same principle applies to why China does not develop its own processors. Both require instruction sets and binary systems to match.
Intel cannot afford to use the ARM architecture. The ARM architecture of mobile phones regardless of system support or power consumption. Both are far better than x86. Not to mention baseband, the 2G, 3G, and 4G patents are all owned by Qualcomm.
Both companies have done it, but it is too expensive, because now the patents for the ARM architecture of mobile phones and the patents for the Android system are not in their hands.