Jim Keller deserves a frigging statue in front of the AMD HQ, if he doesn't have one there already. I'm not even kidding. His efforts shouldn't be easily forgot

Jim Keller deserves a frigging statue in front of the AMD HQ, if he doesn't have one there already. I'm not even kidding. His efforts shouldn't be easily forgotten, and it could serve to inspire new generations of AMD engineers. Beyond the product quality itself, I think AMD has had a pretty smart launch strategy by releasing the CPU chips first to show that it can beat "Intel's best". But they really need to start focusing on notebooks ASAP. That's where they can steal most of the market from Intel, especially now that Intel is showing signs of (slowly) abandoning the notebook market, by prioritizing Xeons over notebook checks for its new node generations. AMD should prioritize notebook chips either next year or the one after that, at the latest. They should be making the notebook chips first, before the PC ones. They need that market share and awareness in the consumer market. In terms of how they should compete against Intel in the notebook market, I would do it like this (at the very least - AMD could do it even better, if it can): vs Celeron: 2 Ryzen cores with SMT disabled vs Pentium: 2 Ryzen cores with SMT enabled vs Core i3: 4 Ryzen cores with SMT disabled. Or keep SMT and lower clock speeds, as Intel did it. This may help further push consumers as well as developers towards using "more cores/threads". vs Core i5 (dual core): 4 cores with SMT enabled vs Core i5 (quad core/no HT): 4 cores with SMT enabled + higher clocks and better pricing. Maybe even 6-core with HT, if AMD goes the 6-core route. I honestly don't even know why Intel decided to make "Core i5" a quad-core chip as well, and its Core i7 a dual-core chip as well. It's so damn confusing - but maybe that was the goal. For differentiation's sake, it may be better for AMD to have a 6-core at this level or maybe even an 8 core with SMT disabled - so same thing as Intel, but with twice the physical cores. I don't know why but for some reason 6-cores don't attract me much. It feels like an "incomplete" chip. vs Core i7 (quad core/HT): 8 cores with SMT enabled The guiding principle for this strategy should be "twice the cores or threads with competitive/better single-thread performance, and competitive/better pricing). In a way it would be the inverse of the PC strategy where they maintain the number of cores but cut the price in half. This would mainly focus on doubling the number of cores (because notebooks come with so few in the first place), while maintaining similar or better pricing. The only ones that don't really fit well in this strategy are the Celeron and Pentium competitors and that's because a dual-core Ryzen, even at low clock speeds should destroy Intel's Atom-based Celeron and Pentium. We could be looking at a least +50% performance difference, and that's what AMD should strive for there as well. AMD should show Intel what a mistake it made when it tried to sell overpriced smartphone chips for laptop chip prices.