If you were alive during the 90s or 2000s, you surely remember that tune. It’s the anthem of Intel, the world’s most dominant chip maker, or at least, they were. Since then, Intel has had a pretty rough fall from glory. In fact, today, Intel barely ranks in the top 10 when it comes to the world’s largest chip makers. They come in behind Nvidia, TSMC, Broadcom, Samsung, ASML, AMD, Qualcomm, Applied Materials, and Texas Instruments.And when you contextualize this with Nvidia’s performance, things
Why? AMD doesn’t make phone chips, yet they’re dominating Intel. Likewise for NVIDIA, who is at the top of the chip maker list.
The problem isn’t what market segments they’re in, the problem is that they’re not dominant in any of them. AMD is better at high end gaming (X3D chips especially), workstations (Threadripper), and high performance servers (Epyc), and they’re even better in some cases with power efficiency. Intel is better at the low end generally, by that’s not a big market, and it’s shrinking (e.g. people moving to ARM). AMD has been chipping away at those, one market segment at a time.
Intel entering phones will end up the same way as them entering GPUs, they’ll have to target the low end of the market to get traction, and they’re going to have a lot of trouble challenging the big players. Also, x86 isn’t a good fit there, so they’ll also need to break into the ARM market a well.
No, what they need is to execute well in the spaces they’re already in.
When AMD introduced the first Epyc, they marketed it with the slogan: “Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel. Until now.”
And they lived up to the boast. The Zen architecture was just that good and they’ve been improving on it ever since. Meanwhile the technology everyone assumed Intel had stored up their sleeve turned out to be underwhelming. It’s almost as bad as IA-64 vs. AMD64 and at least Intel managed to recover from that one fairly quickly.
They really need to come to with another Core if they want to stay relevant.
Why? AMD doesn’t make phone chips, yet they’re dominating Intel. Likewise for NVIDIA, who is at the top of the chip maker list.
The problem isn’t what market segments they’re in, the problem is that they’re not dominant in any of them. AMD is better at high end gaming (X3D chips especially), workstations (Threadripper), and high performance servers (Epyc), and they’re even better in some cases with power efficiency. Intel is better at the low end generally, by that’s not a big market, and it’s shrinking (e.g. people moving to ARM). AMD has been chipping away at those, one market segment at a time.
Intel entering phones will end up the same way as them entering GPUs, they’ll have to target the low end of the market to get traction, and they’re going to have a lot of trouble challenging the big players. Also, x86 isn’t a good fit there, so they’ll also need to break into the ARM market a well.
No, what they need is to execute well in the spaces they’re already in.
When AMD introduced the first Epyc, they marketed it with the slogan: “Nobody ever got fired for buying Intel. Until now.”
And they lived up to the boast. The Zen architecture was just that good and they’ve been improving on it ever since. Meanwhile the technology everyone assumed Intel had stored up their sleeve turned out to be underwhelming. It’s almost as bad as IA-64 vs. AMD64 and at least Intel managed to recover from that one fairly quickly.
They really need to come to with another Core if they want to stay relevant.