to be clear though, intel desktops are faster than amd, until you have an application using more than 8-10 cores (which not many really take advantage of yet). I have only been buying amd lately (2 x 3900x and a 3700x) but Intel makes “the best” desktop chips if you measure on most relevant performance. in addition software has been optimized generally for Intel even before raw power is taken into account.
I’m excited to see if Apple beats intel in absolute performance (though sadly it won’t be relevant for me since I only use windows software in my work)
Intel will also be bringing big and little cores to Windows.
How much of their power and heat inefficiency will offset this, and when and if they stay relevant is an unknown that clearly is worrying investors (raw processing power has largely had diminishing returns over the past 5+ years which is part of what allowed intel to be lazy?).
for myself, virtually all computing latency is network related and then benefit of cpu/gpu progress is portability and battery life.
You are absolutely right, Intel has the fastest cores. But AMD is closing the gap, as Intel fails to meet its own (aggressive) deadlines.
And I suspect that the high-end desktop processors, although carrying a higher margin, account for a small percentage of the profits. It may not matter to most consumers whether Intel offers a Core i9 processor for $499. Users who need more cores will probably buy AMD, which offers more cores for a lower price. Faster cores will benefit gamers, who are most likely to allocate any additional budget in buying more expensive GPUs, which are the ones which will make most of the difference in displaying cutting-edge graphics. A high-end Intel processor is probably more a showcase than everything else, as it will appeal mostly to enthusiasts who have the cash to buy it.
And, of course, NVIDIA is making sure that it sucks every penny from enthusiast gamers, by shortening the release schedule of more expensive, higher-end video cards.
But the real money is on the mobile business, not desktops. And Arm processors are more of a real threat, as they seem to be more energy-effficient than Intel's. Intel may now be changing to adopt high-powered and energy-effficient cores, which makes it a follower rather than a leader.
The way I see it, Intel's dominance today is based on reliance of legacy software. Windows software runs on Intel's architecture, and are mostly optimized for single core processors. That guarantees Intel surviving for a long time, but it is not forever. In time, software will be optimized for running on multiples cores using Arm architecture. Intel must improve its pace to avoid being left behind, and this is not what is happening with these frequent delays.
