Technology Stocks | Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Rich Bloem who wrote (72991)1/2/2008 5:33:14 PM
From: manalagi   of 117520
 
It would be impossible to search, analyze and make a determination on thousands and thousands of patents

Is that not the job for patent lawyers to find out? Obviously, the decision of the court that matters. And even when (not if but when) QCOM has a work around, will this legal issue with BRCM go away or will that nasty company come back for another legal round?

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: slacker711 who wrote (72992)1/2/2008 5:33:52 PM
From: slacker7115 Recommendations   of 117520
 
A bit technical, but this is an absolutely awesome article about the Snapdragon chipset.

insidedsp.com 

Qualcomm Reveals Details on Scorpion Core
By BDTI, 11/14/2007


Back in 2005, Qualcomm announced that it had licensed the ARMv7 instruction set architecture and was working with ARM to create its own high-performance core based on that architecture. The new core was dubbed “Scorpion,” and at the time it was announced, Qualcomm didn’t disclose much about it except that it would run at 1 GHz in a 65 nm process and would be customized to provide a high level of performance and energy efficiency in its target mobile applications. Exactly how this combination would be achieved was not revealed, which is typical of Qualcomm; historically, the company has disclosed few details about the processor cores that live inside its chips.

Then in 2006, Qualcomm announced a new chip platform, “Snapdragon,” in which the Scorpion core would be used alongside several other processors and co-processors. According to Qualcomm, Snapdragon will serve a range of high-performance mobile applications, such as high-end smartphones and mobile internet devices. Still, there was little information about the Scorpion core itself.

In conference presentations this year, however, Qualcomm popped the hood on the Scorpion core and presented a detailed description of the core’s microarchitecture and implementation. The Scorpion core (shown in Figure 1) is similar to ARM’s Cortex-A8, which also implements the ARMv7 architecture. Like the Cortex-A8, Scorpion is a superscalar, dual-issue machine, and supports the powerful, signal-processing-oriented NEON instruction set extensions and VFPv3 floating-point extensions (referred to collectively on Scorpion as the “VeNum” media processing engine). Scorpion will be supported by ARM’s standard software development tools, and Qualcomm expects to offer off-the-shelf multimedia codec software that uses VeNum.



Figure 1. Scorpion core block diagram.


Although Scorpion and Cortex-A8 have many similarities, based on the information released by Qualcomm, the two cores differ in a number of interesting ways. For example, while the Scorpion and Cortex-A8 NEON implementations execute the same SIMD-style instructions, Scorpion’s implementation can process128 bits of data in parallel, compared to 64 bits on Cortex-A8. Half of Scorpion’s SIMD data path can be shut down to conserve power. Scorpion’s pipeline is deeper: It has a 13-stage load/store pipeline and two integer pipelines—one of which is 10 stages and can perform simple arithmetic operations (such as adds and subtracts) while the other is 12 stages and can perform both simple and more complex arithmetic, like MACs. Scorpion also has a 23-stage floating-point/SIMD pipeline, and unlike on Cortex-A8, VFPv3 operations are pipelined. Scorpion uses a number of other microarchitectural tweaks that are intended to either boost speed or reduce power consumption. (Scorpion’s architects previously designed low-power, high-performance processors for IBM.) The core supports multiple clock and voltage domains to enable additional power savings.

In addition to developing a custom microarchitecture, Qualcomm also customized the core’s circuit design and layout in an effort to improve energy efficiency.

Overall, Qualcomm has made a huge investment in creating a custom implementation of the ARMv7 architecture. By way of comparison, Texas Instruments customized just the layout for the Cortex-A8 for its OMAP3 chips, and it has been reported that the process took 45 engineers working for a period of years. If so, Scorpion’s development probably represents an investment on the order of tens of millions of dollars. And what’s the payoff?

At first glance, it doesn’t look like much—as noted earlier, Scorpion is expected to run at 1 GHz in a 65 nm process, which is slightly lower than the 1.1 GHz top speed that ARM currently quotes for the Cortex-A8 in 65 nm. Scorpion is quoted as providing 2100 DMIPS at 1 GHz; Cortex-A8 is quoted at 2000 DMIPS at the same speed. However, a notable difference is that the Cortex-A8 top speed is for a TSMC GP (general-purpose) process, while the Scorpion speed is for the LP (low-power) process. ARM quotes the speed of Cortex-A8 in an LP process as roughly 650 MHz, and although TI does not publicize the exact speed of the hand-crafted, low-power Cortex-A8 core used in its OMAP3 chips, BDTI has estimated that it runs at roughly 450 MHz. (BDTI’s benchmark results for the Cortex-A8 are available at BDTI’s website, www.BDTI.com.) Thus, Qualcomm expects Scorpion to run significantly faster than Cortex-A8 when both are implemented in the low-power processes commonly used for mobile applications.

What about power consumption? Qualcomm claims that Scorpion will have power consumption of roughly 200 mW at 600 MHz (this figure includes leakage current, though its contribution is typically minimal in low-power processes). In comparison, ARM reports on its website that a Cortex-A8 in a 65 nm LP process consumes .59 mW/MHz (excluding leakage), which translates into about 350 mW at 600 MHz.

BDTI has not independently verified the above clock speeds or power figures, but if they are accurate, it appears that Qualcomm’s efforts have yielded significant benefits in terms of both speed and energy efficiency. Clearly, Qualcomm is betting that its investment will pay off in chip sales, and that these improvements will give Snapdragon an edge over key competitors like TI’s OMAP3430 and Freescale’s i.MX31.



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)

To: slacker711 who wrote (72994)1/2/2008 5:37:04 PM
From: slacker7111 Recommendation   of 117520
 
I am really hoping that we get our first previews of Snapdragon versus Intel's Menlow enabled devices at CES. The two dont overlap precisely, but they are likely to compete for slots in "Mobile Internet Devices" (MID's).




Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: carranza2 who wrote (72990)1/2/2008 5:54:49 PM
From: slacker711   of 117520
 
There are tons of actions in Europe involving NOK, but I think the BRCM Western Front is all quiet.

If I recall correctly, no more ongoing cases with BRCM which involve a trial or ITC proceeding. I may be wrong, but don't think so.


I am just trying to get a handle on the possible legal announcements in '08. Q has a variety of GSM lawsuits against Nokia in Europe but after the ITC decision, that is 100% upside....nobody expects a win there. OTOH, I am sure that Broadcom is appealing the stay of the ITC injunction, but I dont have a clue how long that will take. The antitrust case is also moving along, but the decisive initial judgement gives me some confidence in that case.

Hmm, there is also a suit against Nokia in SD that is progressing where Nokia has a number of counterclaims against Q's products. Hopefully, the counterclaims will be dismissed just as the ITC action was. We also have the possible ruling in the Nokia arbitration though I think that could stretch into '09.

I know I am still missing some cases. What ever happened to the Nokia suit in Delaware? No wonder Q is spending millions on legal bills....it would take a half dozen people just to keep track of the schedules.

Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: slacker711 who wrote (72996)1/2/2008 6:06:47 PM
From: carranza2   of 117520
 
OTOH, I am sure that Broadcom is appealing the stay of the ITC injunction

Since one three-judge appellate panel normally cannot reverse another, a reversal of the stay would require en banc [full court] consideration to get the point to even be considered; such consideration is exceedingly difficult to obtain. I've never been able to get it despite having asked for it dozens of times.

Bottom line, I think the stay of the ITC injunction is very safe. The injunction will live and die with the appeal on the merits; it will not be enforced until such time as BRCM wins of the merits of the appeal. It might even be in place while Q seeks Supreme Court review should Q lose.

I have no idea what the status of Q's appeal might be. I am relatively sure the record has been compiled by now and a briefing schedule probably issued. Look for that case to be argued pehaps in the Fall and a decision around this time next year.

Don't know about the suit in Delaware but something tells me it was stayed pending arbitration.

Sorry for the vague info. I don't pay as close attention as I used to.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (2)

To: JGoren who wrote (72983)1/2/2008 6:07:54 PM
From: Neeka   of 117520
 
BRCM seems to be going for the brass ring before their merry go round is retired. If the news is real, and Q...........and maybe Q allies .........develop work arounds to the patents in question, BRCM will be left holding a lead ring worth much less than they might have been if they'd negotiated in good faith.

edit: Opppppppss.........I see Raglanroadie and I are thinking alike today.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: carranza2 who wrote (72997)1/2/2008 6:11:12 PM
From: slacker711   of 117520
 
Since one three-judge appellate panel normally cannot reverse another, a reversal of the stay would require en banc [full court] consideration to get the point to even be considered; such consideration is exceedingly difficult to obtain. I've never been able to get it despite having asked for it dozens of times.

Thanks for the info. That makes me feel substantially safer about the possibility of getting some sort of surprise announcement out of the appeals process.

One thing is for sure, there is definitely less on the legal plate in '08 than in '07. That is both good and bad as Q has obviously had a series of legal setbacks.....OTOH, as PJ stated, the Nokia negotiations might need some sort of external impetus to have any chance of getting settled. Broadcom might be a slightly different story. Now that we have the Santa Ana decision, perhaps some progress can get made between the two companies.

Slacker

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: slacker711 who wrote (72994)1/2/2008 6:12:56 PM
From: slacker7111 Recommendation   of 117520
 

More on Snapdragon including a video with Jha talking about carrying your "computing state" around with you. I'm not sure I have ever heard Q explain their vision for Snapdragon in quite this way (or at least as clearly). This definitely sounds like a challenge to Intel.

embeddedblog.blogspot.com 

While Steve Jobs and the iPod is about carrying your 'entertainment state' around with you, Sanjay Jha of Qualcomm (above) has the vision of carrying your 'computing state' around with you. This is the idea behind Snapdragon, a chip that will combine computing, networking and possibly communications, and allow you to carry around your computing state - you plug the unit into a screen and keyboard and hey presto! It's a bigger version of the Yoggie PC-on-a- USB stick idea or LSI's pocket Bluetooth server, but it changes the way we think about consumer products.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: slacker711 who wrote (72996)1/2/2008 6:13:37 PM
From: ohohyodafarted1 Recommendation   of 117520
 
"We also have the possible ruling in the Nokia arbitration though I think that could stretch into '09."


I respectfully disagree. Arbitration is not like a court action. It is not inefficient like a court action. There will be a decision by the arbitrators in 08

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Neeka who wrote (72998)1/2/2008 6:35:08 PM
From: JeffreyHF20 Recommendations   of 117520
 
I hope by now Qualcomm's previous, incredibly generous licensing offers to Broadcom have been withdrawn. Given all the cost and turmoil Broadcom has caused, the ability to circumvent their IPR, and the extortionate royalty rates they've piggishly achieved, Qualcomm should make them pay for a license, or let them litigate for one until they rot. Broadcom doesn't have a "no downside" contractual option, like Nokia. There must be consequences for their nuclear strategy.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (3)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.