| Your comments that nobody knows anything for sure are generically applicable to any discussion of anything. But since they obviously apply just as well to Intel itself, it is a poor reason to dismiss other’s ideas. — > What made Nvidia dominant was not weak GPUs with a lot of RAM. Intel doesn’t have the luxury of repeating NVidia’s path in GPUs. NVidia didn’t have to compete with an already existing NVidia-like incumbent. That requires no speculation. — Competing with an incumbent via an underserved low end, then moving up market, is called disruption. It is a very effective strategy since (1) underserved markets may be small but are are immediately profitable, and (2) subsequent upward growth is very hard for the incumbent to defend against. The incumbent would have to lower their margins, and hammer their own market value. And it would fit with Intel’s need to grow their foundry business from the low end up too. They should take every low-end underserved market they can find. Those are good cards to play for ambitious startups and comebacks. And the insane demand for both GPUs and chip making is increasing the number of such markets. |