> A CPU typically has <=12 cores and each core computes very quickly. A GPU typically has <=1024 cores and each core computes quickly (but not as quick as a CPU

> A CPU typically has <=12 cores and each core computes very quickly. A GPU typically has <=1024 cores and each core computes quickly (but not as quick as a CPU core). That's not entirely accurate... Cuda "cores" are mostly analogous to a SIMD lanes, which iirc on Nvidia are about 32 registers wide, so 1024/32 = 32 actual individual compute units... Similarly, most Intel CPUs support AVX which can be 16, or even 32 lanes wide in the case of AVX-512. Which gives you 384 lanes. There are of course many other details that make the comparison difficult... Of course the essence of your thinking is in the right direction, but it's just that, in some ways, CPUs and GPUs are have converged more then may be obvious at fitst glance. I will however take issue with the point that Intel may not be well placed, due to the similarities, along with Intel's experience with GPUs, and projects like Larrabee which eventually became Xeon Phi, they certainly have the technical expertise. Now, if they are institutionally well suited for the task, we'll just have to wait and find out.