Microsoft’s Big Bets on ARM are Really About Intel (Premium)

In recent months, Microsoft has embraced the energy-efficient ARM microprocessor platform on the desktop and in the datacenter. But ARM offers no notable advantages over Intel on these platforms when it comes to real world use.

Which leads me to an obvious conclusion: These moves are really about Microsoft pressuring Intel to be better in ways that matter to Microsoft, and, collectively, the industry.

And on that note, Microsoft is almost certainly doing the right thing for all of us here. After all, what company knows better than Microsoft about the negative impact that a monopoly can have on that business? Losing your competitive edge is only the tip of that particular metaphorical iceberg. Less choice, higher prices, and slowing development are natural byproducts as well. And that is all absolutely happening to Intel right now.

The timing of these moves is interesting, however.

For decades, AMD served as a competitive counter to Intel, and while they've had some ups and some (big) downs, that smaller company is now delivering well-regarded competition on the desktop and in servers/datacenter. But AMD is arguably bouncing off the bottom as I write this, and Microsoft's ARM initiatives were likely in the works for quite some time. Meaning that they began when AMD was in a particularly bad spot.

But here's the most important thing to remember about Microsoft/ARM, the one constant that is true for both PCs and servers: ARM only offers advantages over Intel in narrow use cases that do not benefit the vast majority. And Intel has major benefits over ARM that, frankly, benefit virtually all use cases. This is, in fact, a one-sided fight, and Intel is on top.

So let's examine why Microsoft chose ARM in both scenarios, using their own public explanations. And then see whether this answers any real needs.

Microsoft in December announced that it was bringing full Windows 10 to "truly mobile, power efficient, always-connected cellular [ARM-based] PCs" in partnership with Qualcomm, starting with that firm's Snapdragon 835 SoC.

But how does this processor compare to Intel's mobile offerings on the PC?

Poorly.

From a performance perspective, the 835 will almost certainly be Atom-like, falling below even the performance of Intel Core m/Y-series processors. Which I think we all realize is not in any way enticing.

But that "truly mobile [and] power efficient" bit is interesting, too. Few would argue that Qualcomm-based phones deliver great mobility, in the sense that these devices can provide great battery life and are small and easy to carry. But PCs are more complex and have different computational needs, and they are of course much bigger and heavier than phones. They can also deliver great battery life: A comparatively big and heavy Surface Book with Performance Base provides over 11 hours of life on a charge in real world use in my own tests, for example.

Of course, those PCs have humongous batteries too. But eve...