←back to thread

AMD outsells Intel in the datacenter space

(www.tomshardware.com)
499 points baal80spam | 2 comments | 05 Nov 24 19:27 UTC | HN request time: 0.412s | source
Show context
gautamcgoel ◴[05 Nov 24 20:46 UTC] No.42055008[source]▶
Damn, first Intel missed out on Mobile, then it fumbled AI, and now it's being seriously challenged on its home turf. Pat has his work cut out for him.
replies(6): >>42055079 #>>42055125 #>>42055190 #>>42055260 #>>42055329 #>>42057153 #
kevin_thibedeau ◴[05 Nov 24 21:29 UTC] No.42055329[source]▶
They didn't miss out. They owned the most desirable mobile platform in StrongARM and cast it aside. They are the footgun masters.
replies(4): >>42055469 #>>42055486 #>>42056360 #>>42057167 #
hajile ◴[05 Nov 24 21:50 UTC] No.42055486[source]▶
They killed StrongARM because they believed the x86 Atom design could compete. Turns out that it couldn't and most of the phones with it weren't that great.

Intel should be focused on an x86+RISC-V hybrid chip design where they can control an upcoming ecosystem while also offering a migration path for businesses that will pay the bills for decades to come.

replies(5): >>42055656 #>>42055769 #>>42057190 #>>42057359 #>>42057715 #
deelowe ◴[06 Nov 24 07:05 UTC] No.42057715[source]▶
They killed strongarm because of nepotism. That's been the issue at Intel for decades. They are the epitome of ego over merit and x86 was king.
replies(1): >>42059895 #
DanielHB ◴[06 Nov 24 10:57 UTC] No.42059895[source]▶
Nepotism? Like execs from different divisions fighting each other?

To me it seems they just want to keep their lock-in monopoly because they own x86. Very rational albeit stupid, but of course the people who took those decisions are long gone from the company, many are probably retired with their short-term focused bonuses.

replies(1): >>42079924 #
1. deelowe ◴[07 Nov 24 19:22 UTC] No.42079924[source]▶
The opinion that x86 would always be king is nepotism/ego. It was obvious nearly 2 decades ago where compute was headed with cloud and mobile becoming the dominant areas. Neither of which x86 was well positioned for.
replies(1): >>42080926 #
2. tremon ◴[07 Nov 24 20:58 UTC] No.42080926[source]▶
There was a story here a few days ago about the exact opposite: that Intel lost out to AMD on x86-64 because they were betting on Itanic to take over the 64-bit market.

edit: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41890779

> Intel could have beaten AMD to the x86-64 punch if the former wasn't dead-set on the x64-only Itanium line of CPUs