No, Intel is still operating as a company.
No, Intel is still operating as a company.
I share your view mostly, though Bulldozer nearly went under before Dr. Su joined. The main issue was they didn’t release any new CPUs for about five years, which made people hesitant to buy older chips. Still, it’s largely Bulldozer’s responsibility. The key difference between old Bulldozer AMD and today’s Intel is that Intel has the financial resources to invest heavily in research and develop high-performance chips, plus they benefit from many industry partners who help distribute their products when needed.
Many think the desktop sector drives most revenue for these firms. In reality, desktop computing accounts for only a tiny portion of their overall research and development spending.
Come back up high? Maybe, but I doubt it given the 12th-gen smoke and 10th-gen breakfast even with that odd chip. Still think Intel will hold the gaming throne soon. Fingers crossed, AMD might reclaim the 'budget king' title someday... ~your friendly userbenchmark... Spoiler: Intel is the king, techjesus would tell you otherwise!
Yeah, I get what you mean. 14nm+ definitely has its downsides, especially with a quad CPU configuration—it’s really heating up. But for my lab, it still uses Intel hardware. The Intel NIC isn’t great either, particularly with the new E810 driver on Windows; it’ll cause BSODs if you try to run SRIOV. Chelsio performs much better, though I still have the E810 along with XL710 and X550. All my NVMe drives are Intel-based—though I thought VROC was another joke, but I let it stay. Surprisingly, I also have an AMD CPU in my Arista switch. I spent a lot of time figuring that out. Why did Intel become the go-to? It was cheaper and more accessible, thanks to AMD. And Intel’s RMA support has always been reliable. So here we go...