Is Intel dying?

Is Intel dying?

Attached: Screenshot.png (1920x1080, 1.64M)

No, but they might have to change how they do business
Either that or find something to be best at other than single core performance in a world where single core is loosing its dominant place

When was the last time single core performance was relevant? Nowadays most software can use more than one core if necessary.

They've had a couple bad years but unless they keep shitting their bed for another 10 years I don't think it will die.

Nah they'll just go through what AMD went through during Bulldozer and to some extent in Phenom days. It will probably hurt them less though.

>When was the last time single core performance was relevant? Nowadays most software can use more than one core if necessary.
Most mid tier games and some AAA games still rely heavily on single cores
Some of the load is spread out, but a large portion is reliant on a single core
This is mainly due to legacy rather than what is possible
Many older yet not amazing game devs still use the old ways of relying on single core because that's what they have always done

Nah, they're just going the IBM way.

Ha, hahahaha... I can't see banks etc. using Intel over IBM.

Then they'll become the Nokia of CPUs

>newfag does not remember the time before Core2Duo
(lol

Eventually they will get their shit together and proceed to annihilate AMD

In 10 years we'll have shitposters here reminisce about the "good old" Ryzen days

Also Intel has stopped competing in the desktop segment, one quick google and they flat out tell investors and industry partners that their focus has shifted to laptops, servers and their new GPU division

All the incoming 14nm+++++++++++++ CPUs are no different to AMD's garbage GPU division, a mere stopgap to appease investors and shareholders

They won't have 10nm at 2022...or ever. They effectively ceded the desktop market to AMD and are throwing a hail mary that their 7nm division doesn't suffer the fate of their 10nm division

yes. in fact, they've been dead for a while now

yes

They planned to be on 5nm this year

data caca

Attached: 8-Extraños-comportamientos-de-tu-perro-cuando-hace-caca-1-770x460.jpg (770x460, 64K)

>they will get their shit together and proceed to annihilate AMD
>Also Intel has stopped competing in the desktop segment
LOL

They planned to be on 10nm 5 years ago
You see how that shit went

Attached: INTELAVIVDED.png (1700x650, 152K)

It's like asking an old many clutching his chest in pain falling to the floor if he's, "ok?"

Attached: blackhole_brain.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Bros...

Attached: 1501491714987.jpg (638x599, 123K)

Intel is doing fine. AMD shills can't handle the fact that Ryzen isn't that great while Intel is still faster. Don't even get me started on Nvidia shitting all over Radeon.

t. uninformed

Attached: 1506427275579.jpg (2048x1362, 1.52M)

>This is mainly due to legacy rather than what is possible
No, it's because it's tremendously much more convenient to write single-threaded code. OS-level threads is a very coarse tool for parallelization, and many, many algorithms fall into either the class that can't really be meaningfully parallelized (Amdahl's law &c&c&c), or the class where it's literally orders of magnitude more work to write them in a more parallel manner.

Single-threaded performance will matter until the day when we have dataflow architectures. And even then, "single-threaded" (rather, sequential) performance will still matter for algorithms with data dependencies.

>A lot of useful software uses more than 1 core nowadays
>Muuuuh gayming oNly usehs One CoRE!!!
You are the reason why Intel still sells

>doing fine
* Itanium reaching end of life (no more income from that ancient tech)
* Xeon Phi reaching end of life
* custom foundry segment meltdown
* losing Apple and stopping developement of 5g modems for smartphones
* selling its share of the optane fab to micron
* 10nm processors only in limited (homeopathic) quantities
* glueing together server dies to compete with AMD on core count
>doing fine

user, this actually isn't true. Intel is selling pretty much all of their stock.

That's the real issue. Their CPUs have such low yields that they cannot meet market demand. If you are a company like Dell then you have to use AMD chips despite what anyone says simply because that's the only chip you have left to put in at least some of your computers.

>user, this actually isn't true. Intel is selling pretty much all of their stock.
Nowhere in user's graphic did it say that Intel wasn't selling all their stock.

owwww the COPE

The text at top of user's graphic explicitly precludes the possibility of sales issues due to limited stock. It blames the marketshare change entirely on price.

>Itanium
>Income
Nice one