Intel is allowing AMD to take the lead in certain areas.
Intel is allowing AMD to take the lead in certain areas.
I'm first and foremost a fan of competition. We all know who's leading in all around performance and I'm happy to see AMD make a comeback. I've been daily driving an i7-6700k for a long time now (since launch day) and its time to upgrade. If I had the budget right now, I would 100% go AMD (5900X) I really don't see any reason to go Intel or to wait for tiger lake. This is were I got curious, hearing about how tiger lake mobile CPUs "leaks" show that Intel is still behind (Not that I follow it much) got the Intel fan boy inside me thinking: "Is Intel letting AMD lead? Do they want this to happen for 'healthy competition'?" Interesting discussion topic: Is Intel purposefully not releasing consumer CPUs that are on par with AMD's (for some marketing reason) or are they ACTUALLY behind and there's nothing they can do about it? Also, if you think that Intel is falling behind because AMD is advancing faster than them, why do you think this is happening? Is it a managerial issue, or is the engineering team lacking? Do you disagree with my statement entirely? I'm interested to hear.
It wouldn't make sense to deliberately allow a competitor to succeed at your expense. This would hurt your profits and limit future competition. Of course, Intel already has significant resources, so immediate damage might not appear, but it's unlikely they're making such a move intentionally. Their struggles with the 10 nm transition show they're still catching up, yet they seem capable of recovering once they improve their node technology.
It doesn't seem logical for Intel to deliberately release inferior CPUs. A company shouldn't intentionally limit its profits. Their recent reputation issues suggest otherwise. From my perspective, lacking deep technical knowledge makes it look like they're being lazy. AMD wasn't a strong competitor, so it's likely Intel settled for small tweaks instead of striving for better performance and efficiency.
They are trailing with multiple factors behind them. One reason is that Intel has been overly confident and complacent, while another is their lack of focus on consumer CPU needs. Their true market lies in server CPUs, where they still perform well—probably because of strong management. They seem to rely too much on their position without enough competition, which suddenly leads to change.
Itnel has lost ground significantly. They remained at the top for approximately fifteen years, losing track of the competition.
The server sector evolves more slowly compared to consumer trends. Intel commands significant credibility, which is why businesses rely on them even when their performance lags. It will likely be some time before AMD builds sufficient recognition and more firms adopt them in servers—though Intel might still offer stronger support or unique advantages for enterprise needs.
Intel needs to regain some ground if Alder Lake (12th gen) lives up to expectations
That server refers to the one Linus Torvalds discussed in relation to Linux kernel development.
The core issue revolves around Intel's manufacturing roadmap, which became unstable around 2015 and hasn't fully recovered since. The strategy involved alternating between advances in manufacturing technology and architectural improvements. Broadwell, Intel's initial 14nm chip, revealed early manufacturing issues. A limited launch was chosen to demonstrate progress, with only two mainstream desktop CPUs released on that platform—mostly high-end models. Skylake followed, and interest shifted away from it. Recently, the situation worsened, leading to continued reliance on the older 14nm architecture for desktops. The 10nm process proved problematic, forcing Intel to rework its 14nm designs. While improvements have been made, the leap to smaller nodes like 7nm or 10nm remains elusive. It's inaccurate to claim Intel was arrogant or complacent; they simply lacked the capacity to deliver a superior desktop product for much of this period. Recently, with Tiger Lake, they introduced a competitive 10nm offering, though production limits still posed challenges. The delay in adopting 7nm is puzzling given the industry shift, and investing heavily in expanding capacity now seems misguided when 10nm is on the horizon. Design complexity alone makes it difficult to manufacture CPUs efficiently. Rocket Lake promises a fresh architecture after Skylake, positioning Intel to catch up. However, leadership expectations are low, and implementation remains uncertain. AMD, meanwhile, successfully partnered with TSMC, accelerating their scaling efforts. Predicting future outcomes is inherently risky, as these developments depend on many unpredictable factors.
They seem to be focusing a lot on the 7nm lithography method to return to production. It’s unclear if you can transition directly from 14nm to 7nm, but achieving that could also open the door to 5nm. That’s a significant leap, I’m not sure about CPU rumors much. I might consider it. Also, why is AMD updating their documentation online? Could it be due to being a new brand or a site redesign? Long time Intel fan here...