Walking cautiously through the automatic revolving door of a swanky, black, shiny, minimalist hotel in London, the first thing I notice about Mike Bell, Intel’s chief of mobile, is that he’s large. Sitting on a chair in the lobby, Bell’s head is framed by his knees. Standing up to shake my hand, he towers over me — and I’m 6’5″.

Mike Bell is in London to support Orange’s release of the Atom-powered (Medfield) San Diego smartphone. As soon as I sit down he thrusts one of the new phones into my hands. It’s a lot lighter and more solid-feeling than I was expecting, with the only problem being that it runs Android 2.3. “Ice Cream Sandwich is coming, though,” Bell says and hands me another San Diego phone, which just so happens to be running ICS.

We immediately start discussing smartphones: Android, iOS, and Windows Phone 8. One of the biggest surprises with x86 Android is the fact that app compatibility seems to be a non-issue. “There are two kinds of Android apps,” Bell says. “Those that use Dalvik, and ones that run natively.” Dalvik is Google’s Java-like virtual machine which many Android apps run inside. Theoretically, as long as Dalvik works on x86, then all of the apps will. “We have a large team working on making sure Dalvik apps work well.” I push the mobile chief on the topic of native apps, and he hums and haws a little. “We have developed some software that translates native apps to x86, and it seems to work well,” he says. Seizing this opening, I ask if it would be possible to build the same kind of translation layer for Windows 8 and Windows RT. In return, I get a shrug, a smile, and a non-answer.

I change tack, mentioning rumors that Windows Phone 8, which will reportedly be refactored from the Windows CE kernel to the Windows 8 kernel, will support x86. “For now, we’re focused on Android. It’s all about producing what our customers want, and right now that’s Android.” What about tablets? “Windows 8 on tablets, Android on smartphones. Right now, I have as many people working on Windows 8 tablets as I have on Android phones. If someone came to us with a compelling business case for x86 Windows Phone 8, we’d go work with Microsoft. But the way for us to succeed is to focus — through close collaboration with Google on Android, and Microsoft on Windows 8.”

“I see no data that supports the claims that ARM is more efficient.”

Sipping my coffee, I think about how to phrase my next question tactfully. Now I’m the one humming and hawing, knowing full well that he’s probably been asked the same question a thousand times by other journalists. I give up and go for the slow ball: “So, the one area that ARM still beats x86 is power consumption.” Thankfully, the Intel bigwig is a friendly giant; he laughs. “For a long time, we were trying to battle hearsay with PowerPoint presentations. The only real way to do it is to build an actual device and say “Look, go measure it yourself.'” The Medfield-powered Xolo X900, which we benchmarked earlier in the year, falls slightly behind in some tests, but pulls ahead in others. Bell continues: “It’s complicated. We’re not the lowest in power consumption, but we’re the lowest in some things. Doing 1080p video we’re a little higher than other phones doing 720p — but those phones can’t do 1080p. Standby time, we’re at the top of the pack. Power-wise, we’re good; performance-wise, we either exceed by a large amount, or we’re roughly the same — and in some of those cases, we consume less power during the benchmarks.”

I mention Qualcomm, and the fact that many of the Medfield benchmarks floating around the internet were measured before the arrival of the Snapdragon S4 (Krait) SoC, which is a newer chip built on a smaller process (28nm) than Medfield. “It does beat Medfield on a few benchmarks — which is ironic… because it’s only a few. I’m very happy about that.” His face breaks into huge, huge grin.

Next I ask him about the concept of an x86 power “tax,” a theory that x86, by virtue of being a CISC design and having to support legacy code, is inherently less efficient than ARM. Basically, everything else being equal, it is theorized that an x86 chip would consume more power than ARM. “There is nothing in the instruction set that is more or less energy efficient than any other instruction set,” Bell says, putting the decades-old theory to rest. “It’s all about the implementation and the process technology; whether you target power, or speed, or both.” Here he’s referring to the fact that semiconductor manufacturers, such as Intel or TSMC, might have multiple processes; one that produces high-speed 28nm transistors, one that produces low-power transistors, and so on. “I see no data that supports the claims that ARM is more efficient.”

“It also important to remember that Intel has the benefit of 30 years of experience. The core we have is simply smarter [than the ARM competition]. We’re taking everything we learnt building desktop and laptop cores over the years, and putting the secret sauce into Saltwell and Silvermont.” Saltwell is the 32nm CPU core in Medfield, and Silvermont is the re-architected 22nm CPU core in Medfield’s 2013 successor, Merrifield. “The nice thing about being a company that does end-to-end — everything from CPU core design to fab — means that we can do a feedback loop. I can make a change to the process technology, and know what happens from a power consumption perspective.”

Moving in for the kill, I finally ask the question I’ve been gagging to ask: Where does this leave ARM, ARM’s licensees (Qualcomm, Samsung, Texas Instruments, Nvidia), and the foundries? If Medfield is already competitive on power consumption and processing power, and Intel has such a dominating technological lead, where does ARM go from here? “I think,” Bell begins slowly, picking his words carefully, “Moving forward, it will be difficult for anyone who doesn’t have an end-to-end capability to keep up with us. I took it for granted before I joined Intel, but this really is rocket science. When you see people working on 9nm — I see the guys in their bunny suits, doing the mask generation for the chips — you realize this is probably one of the most difficult industries I’ve ever seen. There are very few companies on Earth who have the capabilities we’ve talked about, and going forward I don’t think anyone will be able to match us.”

“There are few things in life that you can’t buy into — and I honestly believe this is one of them.”

“We will not lose a design win on price.”

With power and performance finally behind us, and my cappuccino drained, we move onto another sensitive topic: price. Historically, Chipzilla has enjoyed massive profit margins (in the 30% range), while ARM chip makers have slugged it out in the 5-10% profit commodity market. For years, pundits have said that Intel can’t possibly compete in the smartphone market because ARM chips are too cheap and margins too small. “As my boss Paul [Otellini] says, we will not lose a design win on price. We’re not telling people what our pricing is, but it’s not a consideration that we think people will worry about,” Bell begins.

“When you think about it, the price of the SoC is such a small part of total price of these phones. People ask us ‘Can you be price competitive?’ and, well, it depends on what you wrap around it.” Here, Bell is talking about the fact that the Xolo X900 and Orange San Diego (which is virtually the same phone), both powered by Intel’s Medfield SoC, can be bought SIM-free for around $400 — while ARM-powered phones like the iPhone 4S, Galaxy Nexus, or Galaxy S3 usually drop into the market at the $600+ price point. In this case, even if there’s a few-dollar difference between the x86 and ARM SoC, it’s the huge touchscreen (or Apple premium) that actually defines the market price.

Bell never actually says that Intel will match ARM on price, though. Instead, he deflects my question and launches into a monologue that sounds fairly well rehearsed. “What we’re trying to do is produce something that has more value than just a large screen. By building in 1080p and HDMI [into Medfield], by building in a camera that can take five full-resolution photos in a second — we’re building in features that are going to set our chips apart, that no one else can touch. “We’re trying to make the most compelling products on the market — we think we’re going to build the most compelling products on Earth.”

I begin to wonder what this means for Apple, who has historically prided itself on having premium feature sets. Apple famously switched from the Power CPU architecture to Intel x86 when Power simply couldn’t offer the performance or features that Cupertino required. Will there come a time when Intel makes mobile chips for Apple, much like Samsung makes the ARM chips in the iPhone and iPad? Will iOS go x86? “I don’t talk about specific customers — but, as we’ve already discussed, I think our roadmap and products are compelling enough that everyone is going to have to take a look [at working with us],” Bell says. But you wouldn’t be against designing or helping Apple create an x86 SoC? “For a big enough customer, we would work together with them to make specific changes to our products — we would be crazy not to.”

“You see examples of companies recently that haven’t kept innovating, and they’ve got into trouble.”

There’s a lull in the conversation and I look down at the Orange San Diego. I realize I’ve been toying with it, without realizing, for the last 30 minutes. The phone feels good; surprisingly solid, with a lot less flex than the plastic Android phones I’m used to handling. It feels lighter than the Xolo X900, too. “We used aluminum for the frame. Orange wanted some changes made — so we went back to the drawing board to make the phone a little lighter, more balanced.” So Intel designs devices now? “Well, we’ve had a white box PC business for years, so it’s kind of along the lines of that — but frankly, these devices are more integrated, more specialized, so I’ve put together a really skilled device engineering team. We’re somewhat new, then, but the people who designed [the San Diego] have definitely done it before.” Perhaps it isn’t a coincidence that prior to joining Intel, Mike Bell worked on the iPhone at Apple — and that the San Diego, with its aluminium band and rounded corners, looks mighty familiar.

Is there a plan to continue building these reference devices? “For every chipset, we’re going to do what we call an ‘iconic’ design, to really showcase what [the new SoC] can do. These designs will be available to anyone who wants to build a device based on our chipsets — it gets them 90% of the way there. Showing them best practices has to help them get to market faster.” This is starting to sound like a very well-thought-out plan for thrusting x86 into the mobile market with as little resistance from carriers as possible. What about Clover Trail, the dual-core version of Medfield that will debut in Windows 8 tablets? “Yes. There is a reference design for a Windows 8-based Clover Trail tablet; it’s pretty nice. We’ve actually brought in some in-house ID [industrial design] talent to make our references designs look even better in the future.” And a 22nm Silvermont smartphone? “Yes.”

By this point my coffee cup has been empty for 15 minutes, and despite my repeated eyeballing of the waitress it seems I’m not going to get a refill. On cue, an Intel PR manager checks her watch, leans in, and whispers something in Bell’s ear. I take the hint and start packing away my stuff; I try to sneak the Medfield-powered Ice Cream Sandwich phone in my pocket, but the PR manager stops me. I shake the Santa Clara giant’s hand and thank him for the interview. “Just one last question,” I begin. “The last few years have been incredibly strong for Intel.” — “Yes, yes, it’s almost as if we planned it that way,” Bell interjects with a smile. “Do you ever worry that you might pull so far ahead that you’ll grow complacent and fail to capitalize on the advantage?”

“We need to keep moving — that’s what I keep telling people. What we’re showing is really, really good — in general, across the board, phones, tablets, ultrabooks — but we’re not resting on our laurels. We’re worrying about what’s next, what’s after that, and what’s after that. You see examples of companies recently that haven’t kept innovating, and they’ve got into trouble.” Bell is almost certainly talking about AMD, though he refuses to name names.

“You don’t think that will happen to Intel?” I ask.

“No, because we’re smart enough to not just sit there. We have these people that just really like what they do, and they’re really very good at it. Being able to accelerate, so we’re doing new stuff every year instead of two, is huge. The investment is really big, but the payoff will be larger.”

I nod and thank him again before turning on my heel and heading out into the London rain in search of a cup of coffee.