This is a death blow to the Intel GPU+AI efforts and should not be allowed by the regulators. It is clear that Intel needs the downstream, low-cost GPU market segment to have a portfolio of AI chips based on chiplets, where most defective ones end up in the consumer grade GPUs based on manufacturing yield. NVidias interest is now for Intel not to enter either the GPU market, nor the AI market - which Intel was preparing for with its GPU efforts in recent years.
The US government is itself a major shareholder in Intel, and has every incentive to push Intel stock over its competitors. It's almost a certainty that Nvidia was forced into this deal by the government as well. We are way beyond regulation here.
They want a source of chips for the wars they want to conduct that is not either controlled by the party they want to go war with, or way way closer to the party they want to go to war with than they are. Buying a chunk of Intel is a way of making sure they do the things the government wants that will lead to that outcome. Or at least so the theory goes; I've got my own cynicism on this matter and wouldn't dream of tamping down on anyone else's.
Right now if the US wants to go to war with China, or anyone China really really likes, they can expect with high probability to very quickly encounter major problems getting the best chips. AIUI the world has other fab capacity that isn't in Taiwan, and some of it is even in the US, but they're all on much older processes. Some things it's not a problem that maybe you end up with an older 500MHz processor, but some things it's just a non-starter, like high-end AI.
Sibling commenters discussing profits are on the wrong track. Intel's 2024 revenue, not profits, was $53.1 billion. The Federal Government in 2024 spent $6,800 billion. No entity doing $1.8 trillion in 2024 in deficit spending gives a rat's ass about "profits". The US Federal government just spends what it wants to spend, it doesn't have any need to generate any sort of "profits" first. Thinking the Federal government cares about profits is being nowhere near cynical enough.
This is generally true even setting side the "war with China" angle. Intel is a large domestic company employing hundreds of thousands in a very critical sector, and the government has every incentive to prevent it from failing. In the last two decades we've bailed out auto companies and banks and US Steel (kinda) for the same reason.
Concisely put. This is exactly the reasoning. The US is preparing for a potential war with China in 2026 or 2027, and this is how it is beginning preparations.
> Right now if the US wants to go to war with China
The US is desperate to not have that war, because they spent so long in denial about how sophisticated China has become that it would be a total humiliation. What you see as the US wanting war is them simply playing catch up.
I find it funny that people talk about a US/China war as a real possibility. You are aware that that would be the end of life on earth as we know it, right?
Unfortunately, "it would end life on Earth as we know it" is not, on its own terms, a thing that will stop it from happening. All it takes is the people who can make the decision deciding to do it because they think they will come out ahead, and not caring about what it may do to anyone else. And they don't even have to be right. They just have to think they will come out ahead.
Don't mistake talking about a thing as advocating for that thing. It leaves you completely unable to process international politics, and frankly, a lot of other news and discussion as well. If you can only think about things you approve of, your model of the world is worse than useless.
We haven’t really tested the idea of a geographically restricted war. During the Cold War there were some pretty transparent proxy wars, but the proxy still allowed for backing out and saving face.
I don’t think geographically restricting a war is even possible, really. The US’s typical game plan involves hitting the enemy’s decision-making capabilities faster than they can react. That goes out the window if we can’t hit each other’s mainlands. A war where we don’t get to use our strongest trick and China keeps their massive industrial base is an absurd losing one that the US would be totally nuts to sign up for.
Anyway, we and China can be perfectly good peaceful competitors.
Sure, but this is an interesting independent of the government holding Intel stock.
The US government always ought to have the interest of US companies in mind, their job is to work in the interest of the voters and a lot of us work for US companies.
They can buy enough stock to shift the price, then use that as a lever to control their own investments prices (and thence profits). Like they've done with tariffs.
That sounds more like an abuse of government powers for individual gain than any legitimate government interest. If that was the plan it would make just as much sense to short a company and then announce a plan to put them under greater regulatory scrutiny.
Well, I wouldn’t be able to prove it if challenged. And anyway, it seems better overall to not start building the case that that’s just something we expect politicians to do.
A shocking surprise needs to be a surprise for it to work. Call it strategic naivety if you want.
Donald Trump's erratic tariff policies are surprising.
Donald anounces tariffs and the markets react. He postpones tariffs and the markets react again. Only Donald and his friends know what he will announce next.
> Donald Trump's erratic tariff policies are surprising.
This feels like a misreading of what I wrote. The discovery that he is using tariffs to make a personal profit should be surprising.
> Donald anounces tariffs and the markets react. He postpones tariffs and the markets react again. Only Donald and his friends know what he will announce next.
That wouldn’t surprise me at all, I just don’t think a hypothesis about how he could abuse his power will be very compelling to anybody who doesn’t already think he’s prone to corruption. If anything, I think it starts inoculating people to the idea.
Shouldn't be, yes. Isn't? Have you seen the rhetoric around tariffs? A lot of people thought they wanted the government run like a business, so welcome to the for-profit government society.
well the question i answered was "Why would anything that isn't Intel implode" and an AI winter and another dotcom boom would do that to everyone not named Intel.
Well, the AI bubble will eventually pop since none of the major AI chatbots are remotely profitable, even on OpenAI's eyewatering $200/month pay plan which very few have been willing to pay, and even on that OpenAI is still loosing money on it. And when it pops, so will Nvidia's stock, it's only a matter of time.
The AI hype train was built on the premise that AI will progress linearly and eventually end up replacing a lot of well paid white collar work, but it failed to deliver on that promise by now, and progress has flatlined or sometimes even gone backwards (see GPT-5 vs 4o).
FAANG companies can only absorb these losses for so long before shareholders pull out.
The AI bubble pop is probably not something NVIDIA is super looking forward to, but of anybody near the bubble they are the least likely to really get hurt by it.
They don’t make AI chips really, they make the best high-throughput, high-latency chips. When the AI bubble pops, there’ll be a next thing (unless we’re really screwed). They’ve got as good chance of owning that next thing as anybody else does. Even better odds if there are a bunch of unemployed CUDA programmers to work on it.
There will be a dramatic reduction in “demand” and Nvidia will be stuck with a massive “surplus”
There will undoubtedly still be a market for Nvidia chips but it won’t be enough to keep things going as they are.
A new market opening up with the same demand as AI just at the point that AI pops would be a miracle. Something like being an unsecured bond holder in 2010.
When you follow the progress in the last 12 months, it really isn't. Big AI companies spent "hella' stacks" of cash, but delivered next to no progress.
Progress has flatlined. The "rocket to the moon" phase has already passed us by now.
The white collar worker doesn't need to be replaced for the bots to be profitable. They just need to become dependent on the bots to increase their productivity to the point where they feel they cannot do their job without the chatbot's help. Then the white collar worker will be happy to fork over cash. We may already be there.
Also never forget that in technology moreso than any other industry showing a loss while actually secretly making a profit is a high art form. There is a lot of land grabbing happening right now, but even so it would be a bit silly to take the profit/loss public figures at face value.
Numbers prove we aren't. Sales figures show very few customers are willing to pay $200 per month for the top AI chatbots, and even at $200/month, OpenAI is still taking a loss on that plan so they're still loosing money even with top dollar customers.
I think you're unaware just how unprofitable the big AI products are. This can only go on for so long. We're not in the ZIRP era anymore where SV VC funded unicorns can be unprofitable indefinitely and endlessly burn cash on the idea that when they'll eventually beat all competitors in the race to the bottom and become monopolies they can finally turn a profit by squeezing users with higher real-world price. That ship has sailed.
I don't think you can confidently say how it will pan out. Maybe OpenAI is only unprofitable at the 200/month tier because those users are using 20x more compute than the 20/month users. OpenAI claims that they would be profitable if they weren't spending on R&D [1], so they clearly can't be hemorrhaging money that badly on the service side if you take that statement as truthful.
"OpenAI claims that they would be profitable if they weren't spending on R&D "
Ermmm dude they are competing with Google. They have to keep reinvesting otherwise Google captures the users OAI currently has.
Free cash flows matter. Not accounting earnings. On a FCFF basis they largely in the red. Which means they have to keep raising money, at some point somebody will turn around and ask the difficult questions. This cannot go on forever.
And before someone mentions Amazon... Amazon raised enough money to sustain their reinvestment before they eventually got to the place where their EBIT(1-t) was greater than reinvestment.
> They just need to become dependent on the bots to increase their productivity to the point where they feel they cannot do their job without the chatbot's help
Correct, but said technology needs to be self sustaining commercially. The cost the white collar worker pays needs to be enough to cover the cost of running the AI + profit
It seems like we are a long way off that yet but maybe we expect an AI to solve that problem ala Kurzweil
Why are this and the first reply being downvoted? Perfectly legitimate thoughts.
Anyway, I'd just point out that users don't even need to depend on the bots for increase productivity, they just need to BELIEVE it increases their productivity. Exhibit A being the recent study which found that experienced programmers were actually less productive when they used an LLM, even though they self-reported productivity gains.
This may not be the first time the tech industry has tricked us into thinking it makes us more productive, when in reality it's just figuring out ways to consume more of our attention. In Deep Work, Cal Newport made the argument that interruptive "network tools" in general decrease focus and therefore productivity, while making you think that you're doing something valuable by staying constantly connected. There was a study on this one too. They looked at consultants who felt that replying as quickly as possible to their clients, even outside of work hours, was important to their job performance. But then when they took the interruptive technologies away, spent more time focusing on their real jobs, and replied to the clients less often, they started producing better work and client feedback scores actually went up.
Now personally I haven't stopped using an LLM when I code but I'm certainly thinking twice about how I use it these days. I actually have cut out most interruptive technology when I work, i.e. email notifications disabled, not keeping Slack open, phone on silent in a drawer, etc. and it has improved my focus and probably my work quality.
He didn’t say anything violent. Have you watched the monologue?
Even if he did (which he didn’t), I don’t see Fox shutting down anything when one of their presenters recently stated, on air, that we should euthanize our homeless population.
To be clear (not that I agree with this situation):
Fox News (where that presenter works) is a cable network, beholden to the cable providers but not a broadcaster. The FCC has relatively little leverage to regulate it, because it does not rely on broadcast licenses.
ABC is a broadcast network. It relies on a network of affiliates (largely owned by a few big companies) who selectively broadcast its programming both over the airwaves and to cable providers. Those affiliates have individual licenses for their radio broadcasting bandwidth which the FCC does have leverage over (and whose content the FCC has a long history of regulating, but not usually directly over politics, e.g. public interest requirements, profanity, and obscenity laws).
Let’s not pretend that the Trump admin would’ve done anything about it even if they did have leverage. They actively encourage and participate in violent rhetoric when it’s directed towards their perceived enemies. Which includes the homeless.
Of course I watched it, many times. I didn't say he said anything directly violent, but he spread hateful disinformation about someone's death, entirely against FBI's findings and common sense, during a time of the highest temperatures in a while. Just to try to win the attention of people that'd rather not look in the mirror.
This is exactly the kind of disingenuous, dehumanizing behavior that radicalizes people like Tyler. And saying that right now would be like if Reagan got in to a spat about something personal during the cold war.
Firstly, being human about the death, then being transparent about the investigation are the most important things they could be doing, and they are doing that.
Idk how the antifa terror thing is going to go, but that really sounds like a loong time coming. Best by far would now be for the left to take some responsibility, not sink deeper in to their "good, x right-winger next" kind of hate spiraling.
That is literally exactly what he did say. Absolutely disgraceful. Glad he got fired.
Quoting:
> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it
The fact you’re taking this opportunity to state this clip was hard for you to watch says a lot about your ability to consider another’s perspective in this conversation. I’m out.
> We hit some new lows over the weekend with the MAGA gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them, and doing everything they can to score political points from it
Having seen the murder pretty much live. A father with "prove me wrong" written on the tent he was sitting in, taking non-prescreened questions and debating with everyone that dared to come up to the mic. Shot with kids next to him. The most direct attack on debate itself we've seen during our lifetimes; it wouldn't matter if it was Sanders or any other left-wing, centrist, or right-wing figure doing very reasonable debate there. And after the murder so many heartless people came out to MOCK the death, and celebrate it.
Kimmel is lying against not just common sense but what authorities and people around Tyler have said. Absolutely nothing points at the murderer being maga, but pretty much every detail points towards him having been radicalized by the left. Unless you're just going to ignore people that knew him saying he was a leftie, Bella Ciao carved in to the bullets, and the very obvious of him having shot a right winger who was managing to change people's minds, etc.
And after that, you expect me to take Kimmels comment as level headed? You are hate trolling. You were succesful, I am actually angry. Regardless, I did watch everything and gave a fair response to it. The only people that would not be angered by Kimmel's comments knowing all this have no heart.
My comment wasn't removed, and don't try to put words in my mouth. I said he fanned the flames of violence; raising temperatures with easily disproven misinformation during an extraordinary time just a week from the murder.
I've seen the clip, now you go see what the authorities have figured of the killer; Absolutely nothing points at the murderer being maga, but pretty much every detail points towards him having been radicalized by the left. Unless you're just going to ignore people that knew him saying he was a leftie, Bella Ciao carved in to the bullets, and the very obvious of him having shot a right winger who was managing to change people's minds, etc.
You might feel smug and superior posting this, but it's quite ironic to post on one specific comment in an otherwise guidelines-breaking, off-topic, political circlejerk subthread like the one we're responding to.
This subthread is indeed reddit-esque: Started by a pithy, barely-constructive comment; and followed by pithy witticisms that add nothing to the conversation about Intel and Nvidia, but instead echo popular sentiments about the current administration without saying anything substantive. Meanwhile, the one contrarian opinion was instantly flagged and hidden, despite being level-headed and non-combative.
Trump doesn't seem to hear alot of questions - and has been reported to ramble on about all sorts of nonsense, during state visits and high-level meetings.
Almost like a dementia patient.
...but that is just my opinion - even so... not clarifying an asked question is not, well uh a sign of overall "great leadership"...
Intel had an opportunity to differentiate themselves by offering more VRAM than Nvidia is willing to put in their consumer cards. It seemed like that was where Battlemage was going.
But now, are they really going to undermine this partnership for that? Their GPUs probably aren't going to become a cash cow anytime soon, but this thing probably will. The mindset among American business leaders of the past two decades has been to prioritize short-term profits above all else.
It may be that Nvidia doesn’t really see Intel as a competitor. Intel serve a part of the GPU market that Nvidia has no interest in. This reminds me a bit of Microsoft’s investment into Apple. Microsoft avoided the scorn of regulators by keeping Apple around as a competitor and if they succeed, great, they make money off of the deal.
I remember when I was studying for an MBA.. a professor was talking about the intangible value of a brand .. and finance.. and how they would reflect on each other ..
At some point we were decomposing the parts of a balance sheet and they asked if one could sell the goodwill to invest in something else .. and the answer was of course .. no… well.. America has proven us wrong .. the way you sell the goodwill is to basically enshittification.. you quickly burn all your brand reputation by lowering your costs with shittier products .. your goodwill goes to 0 but your income increases so stock go up .. the CEO gets a fat bonus for it .. even tho the company itself is destroyed .. then the CEO quickly abandons ship and does the same on their next company .. rinse and repeat… infinite money!
We always called this “monetizing the brand” and it’s been annoying me since at least when Sperry when private equity and the shoes stopped being multi-year daily drivers
I don’t follow how it’s a death knell to intel AI chips. Nvidia bought shares, not a board seat. May be that’s the plan, but if you take the example of Microsoft buying apple shares that only gave apple a lifeline to build better. I do understand nvidia wants to have the whole gpu market to themselves but how will they do it?
I think the assumption there is that the strategic partnership that is part of the deal would in effect preclude Intel from aggressively competing with NVIDIA in that market, perhaps with the belief that the US governments financial stake in Intel would also lead to reduced anti-trust scrutiny of such an agreement not to compete.
They literally bought board seats - not today, but shares entitle you to vote on the board members on the next shareholder meeting. And 5$bn of shares buy you a lot of votes.
5$bn may not buy a huge amount of voting power, but if there are close votes on important things then it could be enough to affect the company. Keeping ones enemies closer, regardless of voting, can also help overall.
The likelihood intel AI was going to catch up with efforts like AWS Trainium, let alone Nvidia was already vanishingly small. This gives intel a chance at maintaining leading edge fab technologies.
I feel bad for gamers - I’ve been considering buying a B580 - but honestly the consumer welfare of that market is a complete sidenote.
I don’t agree. OneAPI gets a lot of things right that ROCM doesn’t, simply because ROCM is a 1:1 rip of what nvidia provides (warts and historical baggage included) whereas OneAPI was thoughtfully designed and did away with all of that. Intel has a strong history in networking, much stronger than Xilinx/AMD, and really was the best hope we had for an open standard to replace nvidia’s hellscape.
> This gives intel a chance at maintaining leading edge fab technologies.
I don't think so:
> The chip giant hasn’t disclosed whether it will use Intel Foundry to produce any of these products yet.
It seems pretty likely this is an x86 licensing strategy for nvidia. I doubt they're going to be manufacturing anything on intel fabs. I even wonder if this is a play to get an in with Trump by "supporting" his nationalizing intel strategy.
nvidia doesn’t need x86, they’re moving forward on aarch64 and won’t look back. For example, one of the headlines from CUDA 13 is that sbsa can be targeted from all toolkits, not as a separate download, which is important for making it easy to target grace. They have c2c silicon on grace for native host side nvlink. They’re not looking back.
They're clearly looking back though, investing in Intel and announcing quite substantial partnerships. Maybe they're not looking back for technical reasons, but they are looking back.
I think literally just the cash is a big deal at this point. Additionally, this deal probably increases the chances that Nvidia at least uses some Intel Foundry technology (like packing) and maybe very down the road, fabrication.
> The likelihood intel AI was going to catch up with efforts like AWS Trainium, let alone Nvidia
...and yet Nvidia is not gambling with the odds. Intel could have challenged Nvidia on performance-per-dollar or per watt, even if they failed to match performance in absolute terms (see AMD's Zen 1 vs Intel)
That was quite a long time ago! Intel going down the chutes now isn’t an effective punishment for how it behaved under Andy Grove and won’t deter others from Grove-like behaviour. Instead it’ll just mean even less restraint on any of the big players with market power now, like nVidia, AMD and TSMC.
This isn't about GPU competition, it's about fab competition (which is in far more dire of a situation).
Intel can no longer fund new process nodes by itself, and no customers want to take the business risk to build their product on a (very difficult) new node when tsmc exists. They're in a chicken and egg situation. (see also https://stratechery.com/2025/u-s-intel/ )
Consumer gpus are totally different products from the high end gpus now. Intel has failed on the gpu market and has effectively zero market share, so it is not actually clear there is an antitrust issue in that market. It would be nice if there was more competition but there are other players like AMD and a long tail of smaller ones
>Consumer gpus are totally different products from the high end gpus now. Intel has failed on the gpu market and has effectively zero market share, so it is not actually clear there is an antitrust issue in that market. It would be nice if there was more competition but there are other players like AMD and a long tail of smaller ones
I'm sorry that's just not correct. Intel is literally just getting started in the GPU market, and their last several releases have been nearly exactly what people are asking for. Saying "they've lost" when the newest cards have been on the market for less than a month is ridiculous.
If they are even mediocre at marketing, the Arc Pro B50 has a chance to be an absolute game changer for devs who don't have a large budget:
The lastest Arc GPUs were doing good, and were absolutely an option for entry/mid level gamers. I think lack of maturity was one of the main things keeping sales down.
Intel has been making GPUs for over 25 years. Claiming they are just getting started is absurd.
To that point, they've been "just getting started" in practically every chip market other than x86/x64 CPUs for over 20 years now, and have failed miserably every time.
If you think Nvidia is doing this because they're afraid of losing market share, you're way off base.
Sure, but claiming they have literally just started is completely inaccurate.
They've been making discrete GPUs on and off since the 80s, and this is at least their 3rd major attempt at it as a company, depending on how you define "major".
They haven't even just started on this iteration, as the Arc line has been out since 2022.
The main thing I learned from this submission is how much people hate Nvidia.
> The main thing I learned from this submission is how much people hate Nvidia.
I think there's a lot of frustration with Nvidia as of late. Their monopoly was mostly won on the merits of their technology but now that they are a monopoly they have shifted focus from building the best technology to building the most lucrative technology.
They've demonstrated that they no longer have interested in producing the best gaming GPUs because those might cannibalize their server technology. Instead they seem to focus on crypto and AI while shipping over priced knee capped cards at outrageous prices.
People are upset because they fear this deal will somehow influence Intel's GPU ambitions. Unfortunately I'm not sure these folks want to buy Intel GPUs, they just want Nvidia to be scared into competing again so they can buy a good Nvidia card.
People just need to draw a line in the sand and stop supporting Nvidia.
I love GPU differentiation, but this is one of those areas where Nvidia is justified shipping less VRAM. With less VRAM, you can use fewer memory controllers to push higher speeds on the same memory!
For instance, both the B50 and the RTX 2060 use GDDR6 memory. But the 2060 has a 192-bit memory bus, and enjoys ~336 GB/s bandwidth because of it.
I don't know what anybody would do with such a weak card.
My RTX 5090 is about 10x faster (measured by FP32 TFLOPS) and I still don't find it to be fast enough. I can't imagine using something so slow for AI/ML. Only 2.2 tokens/sec on an 8B parameter Llama model? That's slower than someone typing.
I get that it's a budget card, but budget cards are supposed to at least win on a pure price/performance ratio, even with a lower baseline performance. The 5090 is 10x faster but only 6-8x the price, depending on where in the $2-3,000 price range you can find one at.
> My RTX 5090 is about 10x faster (measured by FP32 TFLOPS) and I still don't find it to be fast enough. I can't imagine using something so slow for AI/ML. Only 2.2 tokens/sec on an 8B parameter Llama model? That's slower than someone typing.
Its also orders of magnitudr slower than what I normally see cited by people using 5090s; heck, its even much slower than I see on my own 3080Ti laptop card for 8B models, though usually won’t use more than an 8bpw quant for that size model.
I feel as though you are measuring tokens/s wrong, or have a serious bottleneck somewhere. On my i5-10210u (no dedicated graphics, at standard clock speeds), I get ~6 tokens/s on phi4-mini, a 4b model. That means my laptop CPU with a power draw of 15 watts, that was released 6 years ago, is performing better than a 5090.
> The 5090 is 10x faster but only 6-8x the price
I don't buy into this argument. A B580 can be bought at MSRP for 250$. A RTX 5090 from my local Microcenter is around 3250$. That puts it at around 1/13th the price.
Power costs can also be a significant factor if you choose to self-host, and I wouldn't want to risk system integrity for 3x the power draw, 13x the price, a melting connector, and Nvidia's terrible driver support.
EDIT: You can get an RTX 5090 for around 2500$. I doubt it will ever reach MSRP though.
I've been using Mistral 7B, and I can get 45 tokens/sec, which is PLENTY fast, but to save VRAM so I can game while doing inference (I run an IRC bot that allows people to talk to Mistral), I quantize to 8 bits, which then brings my inference speed down to ~8 tokens/sec.
For gaming, I absolutely love this card. I can play Cyberpunk 2077 with all the graphics settings set to the maximum and get 120+ fps. Though when playing a much more graphically intense game like that, I certainly need to kill the bot to free up the VRAM. But I can play something simpler like League of Legends and have inference happening while I play with zero impact on game performance.
I also have 128 GB of system RAM. I've thought about loading the model in both 8-bit and 16-bit into system RAM and just swap which one is in VRAM based on if I'm playing a game so that if I'm not playing something, the bot runs significantly faster.
Hold on, you're only getting 45 tokens/sec with Mistral 7B on a 5090 of all things? That gets ~240 tokens/sec with Llama 7B quantized to 4 bits on llama.cpp [1] and those models should be pretty similar architecturally.
I don't know exactly how the scaling works here but considering how LLM inference is memory bandwidth limited you should go beyond 100 tokens/sec with the same model and a 8 bit quantization.
My understanding is that quantizing lowers memory usage but increases compute usage because it still needs to convert the weights to fp16 on the fly at inference time.
Clearly I'm doing something wrong if it's a net loss in performance for me. I might have to look more into this.
Yes it increases compute usage but your 5090 has a hell of a lot of compute and the decompression algorithms are pretty simple. Memory is the bottleneck here and unless you have a strange GPU which has lots of fast memory but very weak compute a quantized model should always run faster.
If you're using llama.cpp run the benchmark in the link I posted earlier and see what you get; I think there's something like it for vllm as well.
Other than the market segmentation over RAM amounts, I don't see very much difference. There's some but there's been some for a long time. Isn't AMD re-unifying their architectures?
> There's some but there's been some for a long time. Isn't AMD re-unifying their architectures?
Yes.
> Other than the market segmentation over RAM amounts, I don't see very much difference.
The difference between CDNA and RDNA is pretty much how fast it can crunch FP64 and SR-IOV. Prior to RDNA, AMD GPUs were jacks of all trades with compute bias. Which made them bad for gaming unless the game is specifically written around async compute. Vega64 has more FP64 compute than the 4080 for context.
I think if AMD was able to get a solid market share of datacenter GPUs, they wouldn't have unified. This feels like CDNA team couldn't justify its existence.
The alternative is currently looking like cutting up of intel into piecemeal to make a quick buck just to stay afloat. The GPU division is not profitable and may be destroyed if overall financials don't improve.
Right now, for the US national interests, our biggest concern is that Intel continues to exist. Intel has been making crappy GPUs for 25 years. They weren’t going to start making great GPUs now.
Besides, who would actually use them if they don’t support CUDA?
Everyone designs better GPUs than Intel - even Apple’s ARM GPUs have been outpacing Intel for a decade even before the M series.
Why does it matter if Intel exists if they can't compete? AMD exists. The only point of hoping they remain is to create an environment of competition as that drives development and progress.
Though fair and free markets is not at all what the current regime in the US believes in, instead it will be consolidation, leading waste, and little innovation and progress.
So you don’t see the difference in the threat level of China bombing and invading Taiwan - which they already claim they own - and China attacking the US directly?
So its just an imagined subtext that China that has been rabble rousing about taking over Taiwan is more likely to attack a tiny island nation right next to than attack the US?
As Taiwan should, it's their prerogative. People often think when global policy changes abruptly everything stops; in reality, the contrary is true: supply chains and demands shift.
For what it's worth, its TSMC's expertise in semiconductor manufacturing that has been loaned to the US, not bought, settled, and forgotten.
Wait what. Intel GPU+AI efforts. People had to come together to fund the abandoned Intel SW development team. Intel GPUs are great at what they do but they are no nvidia. I don't even think that was on the roamdap. Also you don't know what nvidia wants. Maybe they want to flood the low end to destroy AMD benefiting consumers. We just don't know
