▲ 25 ▼ Trump Administration in Talks to Take a 10% Stake in Intel (www.bloomberg.com) submitted 1 year ago by commander@lemmy.world to c/hardware@lemmy.ml 13 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] sunzu2@thebrainbin.org 2 points 1 year ago* (2 children) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Intel still operates a foundry. My understanding this is the actual national security interest along with all of that IP. The foundry in Israel? Considering the literal decades they have had server-side dominance, which is just creeping down now, Intel should have had no problem keeping up. Their approach to monolithic dies bit the dust when 2NM has basically failed. They just can't compete with AMD's architecture, because their design philosophy basically required Moore's law to hold. I mean they dropped 100 billion on that. 10 billion isn't going to change that. I'm mostly arguing that what we really could use is more competition in the GPU/ CUDA space. I think intel should just struggle through this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Intel still operates a foundry. My understanding this is the actual national security interest along with all of that IP. The foundry in Israel? Considering the literal decades they have had server-side dominance, which is just creeping down now, Intel should have had no problem keeping up. Their approach to monolithic dies bit the dust when 2NM has basically failed. They just can't compete with AMD's architecture, because their design philosophy basically required Moore's law to hold. I mean they dropped 100 billion on that. 10 billion isn't going to change that. I'm mostly arguing that what we really could use is more competition in the GPU/ CUDA space. I think intel should just struggle through this. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)