3 ms·
Honestly I think the real deathwatch started during spectre/meltdown. Intel had a real choice. They could own the issue, patch and use it as a chance to retoo
by nimbius 3y ago
Honestly I think the real deathwatch started during spectre/meltdown. Intel had a real choice. They could own the issue, patch and use it as a chance to retool a largely broken architecture when corporate money was still 0% interest or negative interest.
They didnt. Every press conference downplayed deflected and denied the performance issues, every patch to the Linux kernel was "disabled by default." They lied through their teeth and real players like amazon vultr and other hosting providers in turn left for AMD.
- orev 3y agoI think you’re vastly overestimating how much Wall Street cares about technical issues like this. Spectre/meltdown barely registers on the radar of issues that Intel has. People are still mostly buying Intel CPUs in laptops, desktops, and servers, and the N100 seems to be gaining ground in the Raspberry Pi space. Maybe it gave an opening for AMD in some markets, but Intel really hasn’t seen some huge tarnished reputation because of it. The far greater threats are that they missed the phone market, and are missing the GPU/AI market. Those are entirely new markets where growth would happen, instead of the mostly fixed size of the current CPU market where the same players are just trading small percentage points.
- someguydave 3y agoIt matters alot in places where customers get a vote, like net revenue.