Hacker Neue

Preferences
wat10000 parent
Intel was the best until fairly recently. Then they still looked like the best to a non-expert observer, and then still looked at least competitive until even more recently. The modern world changes too fast for our governments to adapt to. Especially when we're talking about state of the art semiconductors and our leader was born before the invention of the transistor.
scarface_74
Intel hasn’t been “the best” since the world cared more about mobile in 2010. There GPUs have always been also ran. It just wasn’t a big deal until crypto and later machine learning.

Even for integrated graphics, Intel has been behind Apple’s/TSMC ARM based processor before the Mx based Macs.

jrk
The OP is talking about fabrication technology, not end products. Even years into their delays getting to 10nm, Intel had more advanced fabrication technology than TSMC until N7 reached volume in 2018.
JustExAWS
What’s the use of having “better fabs” to make worse products that the market doesn’t need and not be a foundry for other companies that can use it?

The reason they are in the shape they are in right now is because they didn’t have the volume to invest in the next generation and even now the CEO said they aren’t going to invest in making a cutting edge foundry until they have customers committed to it.

bee_rider
Mobile as cellphone chips? I guess you are right, they were never really all that close to best.

Intel was very competitive in laptops until Apple started coming out with the M-chips. Now, AMD is doing pretty good. Has Microsoft released their Snapdragon surfaces? Haven’t heard much on that front.

SlowTao
Intel dropping the XScale ARM was the beginning of the end. Their iGPU's where fine so long as the peak of usage was google Earth/Maps. But it was wildly under supported and they ended up missing the boat, that could go for a lot of their products.
qwytw
Well on desktop and server they pretty much had no competition until the late 2010s or so. So they were the best by default.
Loudergood
AMD definitely gave them a scare several times before that.
slipperydippery
I had a Duron chip that, for like two full years in the early '00s, would've required an Intel chip about double the price to beat it. That was wild. I assume the Celeron line in particular only hung on through that period via contract-inertia and brand recognition, because it was a total joke next to Duron, on a bang-for-your-buck basis.

Like I did (at the time) high-end gaming on it, back when gaming used to sometimes tax your CPU and not only your GPU, and in that entire time I didn't ever feel like I would have benefitted at all from an upgrade, it was so far ahead of the curve. And that was AMD's budget chip line! They simply didn't deliberately cripple it nearly as much as Intel did their Celerons.

BlueTemplar
We've been back to gaming (even of the first/third person kind !) taxing CPUs too for several years now.

(Though I blame developers being lazy with optimisation as well as games also being released on console for this.)

wat10000 OP
And it took a long time for mobile CPUs to be considered important. Arguably mobile CPUs still aren't considered more important than desktop, even though they obviously sell more.
qwytw
Mobile CPUs are almost a commodity these days and fairly low margin especially compared to server chips. Most people really don't care what chip does their phone has and its almost always "good enough" relative to the price.

IMO that's much less of a case for laptop and desktop (let alone server). Even if people don't understand the technical details e.g. Apple's superior performance per watt (or its implications at least) is something a lot more people notice.

SlowTao
Reminds me of the desktop/server processor space in the late 90's. At least this time we have a dozen vendors that are all using ARM instead of x86/POWER/DEC Aplha/MIPS/IA-64 & ARM. More chance of surviving together rather than making multiple moats.
JustExAWS
This is demonstrably not true. TSMC is ahead because of the volume of mobile and that happened on the back of a lot of investment from Apple - who does make high end chips.

Intel focus on low volume high end chips is another reason they are behind.

5 More Comments →
dboreham
For me it's debatable that they were "behind" on GPU because I didn't need a bleeding edge gaming GPU. I only needed a GPU fast enough for spreadsheets and code editors, provided at a competitive price and power budget. Intel actually did deliver that.
rjsw
Intel also had adequate software for their GPUs. They didn't mess about using binary blobs for them.
JustExAWS
To a first approximation, no one cares about open source drivers when most PCs are running Windows and servers running Linux don’t care about Intels GPUs
SlowTao
I have said that their benchmark to power a desktop with Google Maps in 3D. Anything beyond that was a bonus.

This item has no comments currently.