The final nail in Netburst's coffin arrived when Intel shipped the first desktop Core 2 Duo CPUs in the second half of 2006. At the time, raw CPU performance was still the watchword, but Core 2 heralded the beginning of the shift to power efficiency instead of pure performance. Today, Intel's various design groups put efficiency, as measured in performance per watt, ahead of more straightforward performance metrics. As Intel's Per Hammarlund noted at a session on Intel's upcoming Haswell CPU during the 2012 Intel Developer Forum, new CPU features are considered only if they don't consume more power, or at least, increase the performance per watt.
During Otellini's seven year tenure, Intel also honed its manufacturing chops, pushing its process technologies down to 22nm, and soon, 14nm. These are the highest density mainstream semiconductor processes in existence today, and Intels' manufacturing chops have as much to do with the company's success as its architectural designs. On the architectural side, Intel began building system-on-chip products suitable for tablets and high end smart phones, well aware that these mobile smart devices inevitably cannibalize PC sales.
Otellini's tenure hasn't been without its stumbles, most of them legal in nature. The company went through a messy and public legal war with AMD over Intel's hardball marketing tactics, which was finally settled in 2009 when Intel paid out $1.25 billion to its smaller competitor. Intel also paid Transmeta $150 million, plus an ongoing annual $20 million payment to settle a patent dispute. Other legal disputes outside the US, including Japan and the EU, have focused on Intel's aggressive marketing.
It's unlikely that Otellini's departure will signal any substantial changes. Legal wrangles aside, Intel under Otellini saw steady revenue and earnings growth, even as Intel aggressively implemented new, higher density manufacturing processes that cost billions to implement. The future of all tech products lie with lower power consumption and increasing mobility, and it's unlikely we'll see Intel shift away from that focus. If anything, a new CEO will likely push Intel harder towards mobile designs, with desktop processors borrowing technology from the low power side rather than vice versa.
More interesting will be how Intel's sales and marketing will change. Relatively few people care about the CPU inside their smart phone or tablet, and it's unlikely that any Intel marketing campaign will make end users care. Add in the fact that even high end smart phones tend to be built with low cost, commodity chips. That means Intel will need to compete on price, something it's never been fond of doing. On top of that, it doesn't really have the marketing leverage on the mobile side that it has in the PC business, so potential OEM customers don't care about issues like x86 compatibility or the chipset ecosystem. What phone OEMs want is price and guaranteed delivery. Intel's manufacturing muscle may play well, giving Intel marketers some leverage. But it's up in the air, and with ARM owning the lion's share of the smart device market, Intel has a long uphill battle. Will it be able to push PC technology down far enough so that it can compete on price and power, even as revenues from the PC side continue to slide? That's the conundrum the next Intel CEO will need to face, and it won't be an easy puzzle to solve.
Sign up for CIO Asia eNewsletters.