Actually both Xbox and Playstation use AMD GPUs; and so does the Steam Deck. So there's that. For the narrow niche of gaming PCs, I think there are a lot of kids buying what they can afford and getting creative about what works. AMD isn't doing horrible in that market either.

And for AI, CUDA is already becoming less relevant. Most of the big players use chips by their own designs: Google has its TPUs, Amazon has some in house designs, Apple has it's own CPU/GPU line and doesn't even support anything nvidia at this point, MS do their own thing for Azure, etc.

You are basically making the Intel will stay big because Intel is big for Nvidia. Except of course that stopped being true for Intel. They are still largish. But a lot of data centers are transitioning to ARM CPUs. They lost Apple as a customer. And there are now some decent windows laptops using ARM CPUs as well.

> On the consumer side, almost certainly not. Nvidia is a HUGE brand name, it doesn't matter how good and cheap AMD makes their consumer GPUs, people will buy Nvidia GPUs for the brand and prebuilts will stick with Nvidia for the name.

I think that AMD could do it, but they choose not to. If you look at their most recent lineup of cards (various SKUs of 9070 and 9060), they are not so much better than Nvidia at each price point that they are a must buy. They even released an outright bad card a few weeks ago (9060 8 GB). I assume that the rationale is that even if they could somehow dominate the gamer market, that is peanuts compared to the potential in AI.

Yeah, sorry, I'm in the same boat.

I'm team AMD for CPU (currently waiting for consumer X3D laptops to become reasonably priced).

But for GPU, if only for the "It Just Works" factor, I'm wedded to NVIDIA for the foreseeable future.

Beating intel is not just existing for cya against antitrust lawsuits.