- Jun 13, 2003
We already have evidence that they'd be 20% to 30% ahead of Skylake, along with more cores at lower TDPs. We don't know if that would have been the case, of course .Even if Intel had been on track over the last 3 years, I don't think we would be seeing that massive of a difference in performance
It's going to take years to start breaking down assuming that they don't get their act together; if they do turn things around, which is vastly more likely, their marketshare and install base may eclipse their previous high. Depending on what strategy they take, of course!no one is going to argue their market dominance, and you are right on that - that will take years to break down.
I don't see either of these as that big of a deal; Apple's always done their own thing. With Intel, they've been able to provide innovative products to their customers that wouldn't have otherwise been possible. With their custom ARM cores, they're probably going to be able to provide functionality earlier since they'll be able to tailor their whole stack to their customer base beyond their phones and tablets, but they're not going to be doing anything that's fundamentally unique.Also, the mobile device market and ARM processors now starting to threaten Intel's market share, plus the upcoming loss from Apple moving to their own in-house ARM processors
People keep forgetting that the security issues are a result of Intel dominating performance and then faltering on fabrication leadership; thus, the typical two-year (or so) cycle of releases got extended and one architecture wound up everywhere. That means that it was front and center of academic and other security research.and all of the security exploits Intel has dealt with over the last two years, are all starting to show the cracks in their proverbial foundation.
The reality of computing is that there are no 'secure systems', and that the much-maligned 'security by obscurity' paradigm is always in play.
Hard to be obscure when your products run the world!
They literally just need to get their fabs on track. That's it - which is why I find the 'doom and gloom' hysteria to be a weird perspective to take. IPC, clockspeeds, core counts, TDP, security, prices... all of this depends on their one traditional strength, which is actually building chips.Unless Intel gets back on track, their market dominance, and perhaps even the company itself, won't be a shadow of what it was by 2030.
And all of this measured against AMD, who doesn't even build chips any more .