4 ms·
The difference is that back then Intel still had a quasi-monopoly. Even AMDs occasional successes from the late 90s on were usually temporary, and never an exis
by this_user 6y ago
The difference is that back then Intel still had a quasi-monopoly. Even AMDs occasional successes from the late 90s on were usually temporary, and never an existential threat to Intel, so they could afford a certain level of internal dysfunction.
But we are now living in a world where mobile is more important than desktop, and mobile chip designs have enough power to be a threat to the desktop market, and perhaps even the server market in the not-too-distant future. This is something that should worry Intel.