Xi Jinping's recent disappearance sparks speculation of CCP shifts. Sources reveal Xi's power waning, with General Zhang Youxia gaining influence.

Xi Jinping's Absence Signals Power Shift? Intel Sources Warn China's Internal Turmoil May Spill Over To LAC | Exclusive

Potential Intel Nova Lake CPU performance figures are now roaming the internet, stating over 10% ST and 60% MT performance increase.

Intel Nova Lake Desktop CPUs Could Feature Over 10% Single-Thread & 60% Multi-Threaded Increase, Leadership Gaming Performance

Donald Trump's press secretary has hailed the US strikes on Iran for making the world a "much safer place". She spoke after the defence secretary furiously defended the mission in the wake of an intel report that questioned its success. Follow live and listen to Trump 100 below.

Trump-Iran live: 'Decisive' Iran strikes leave world 'much safer' - but ex-CIA director warns 'don't jump to conclusions' over damage

Trump-Iran live: 'Decisive' Iran strikes leave world 'much safer place' - but ex-CIA director warns 'don't jump to conclusions'

Trump-Iran live: World is 'much safer place' after Iran strikes, says White House press secretary

Trump-Iran live: World is 'much safer place' after Iran strikes, says White House secretary

Intel tells staff their jobs are being handed to Accenture

Intel hands marketing duties to Accenture as AI takes bigger internal role

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said leaker of initial intel assessment wanted to "make it look like this historic strike wasn't successful."

Pentagon officials defend success of U.S. strikes on Iran amid intel leak, rebuking press' coverage of attack

Trump’s defense chief says US bombings degraded Iran’s nuclear sites, citing AI models over leaked intel doubts

Hegseth defends Iran strike amid doubts over Trump’s ‘obliteration’ claims

Intel is closing down and laying off workers at its automotive business as it works to shift focus to its “core client and data center portfolio,” according to a memo seen by The Oregonian.

Intel is closing its automotive chipmaking business

Intel

intel

Intel Corporation, a technological stalwart in the semiconductor industry, has recently undergone a significant leadership change with the departure of CEO Pat Gelsinger (Reuters). This move comes amid a period of declining stock performance, with shares dropping approximately 60% over the past three years, and missed opportunities in the rapidly evolving AI sector. While leadership transitions can introduce uncertainty, historical precedents suggest that such changes can rejuvenate a company's strategic direction and enhance shareholder value (HackerNoon). Intel's Historical Context and Recent Challenges Founded in 1968, Intel has been a pioneer in developing microprocessors, playing a pivotal role in the personal computer revolution. However, in recent years, the company has faced intensified competition from rivals like NVIDIA and AMD, particularly in the AI and data center markets. Under Gelsinger's tenure, which began in February 2021, when the stock price was approximately $55, Intel aimed to regain its technological edge. Despite initiatives such as the introduction of AI chips like Gaudi3 and plans to expand manufacturing capabilities, the company struggled to keep pace with competitors. Notably, Intel's stock price declined by approximately 60% during Gelsinger's leadership, reflecting investor concerns over the company's strategic direction and execution (Tom's Hardware, CNBC). Missed Opportunities in the AI Boom The AI industry has experienced exponential growth, with companies like NVIDIA leading the charge through advanced GPU technologies essential for AI computations. Intel's delay in capitalizing on this trend, coupled with its decision to forgo early investments in AI innovators like OpenAI, positioned the company at a disadvantage. In contrast, Microsoft's strategic investment in OpenAI has yielded significant returns, underscoring the importance of timely engagement in emerging technologies (The Verge). Parallels with Other Technology Companies After a  Notable CEO Departs Several notable examples illustrate how leadership changes have revitalized companies: Apple Inc.: Steve Jobs' return to Apple in 1997 marked a turning point for the company. At the time of his departure in 1985, shares were approximately $0.07 (adjusted for stock splits). By late 1998, a year after his return, shares had risen to $0.31, signaling renewed investor confidence (Investopedia).
Starbucks: In 2024, Starbucks experienced a challenging year with declining sales and stock value. The appointment of former Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol brought a strategic shift aimed at simplifying operations and revitalizing the brand. This leadership change boosted investor confidence, resulting in a 24% stock surge (Barron's).
Under Armour: The return of founder Kevin Plank as CEO led to a significant stock surge of 20% following stronger-than-expected earnings, indicating early success from leadership changes (Barron's).
Google (Alphabet): When Sundar Pichai took over as CEO from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 2019, Alphabet underwent a major transformation. Under his leadership, the company expanded into AI and cloud computing, driving stock performance to new highs (CNBC).
IBM: When Ginni Rometty stepped down as CEO and was replaced by Arvind Krishna in 2020, IBM refocused on cloud computing and AI, leading to a significant stock resurgence (Forbes).
Microsoft: The transition from Steve Ballmer to Satya Nadella in 2014 transformed Microsoft into a cloud-first company, significantly boosting its market value and stock performance (The Verge).
Tesla: When Elon Musk assumed full control of Tesla as CEO, his leadership propelled the company into new markets, securing dominance in electric vehicles and renewable energy solutions, driving stock gains (Bloomberg).
Yahoo: The appointment of Marissa Mayer as CEO in 2012 led to a brief resurgence in Yahoo's stock price, though long-term struggles persisted. Her leadership underscored the impact a high-profile CEO change can have on investor confidence (The Guardian).
Adobe: The transition from Bruce Chizen to Shantanu Narayen in 2007 set the stage for Adobe's successful pivot to a subscription-based business model, fueling long-term stock growth (Business Insider).
Netflix: Reed Hastings' transition to an executive chairman role in 2023 allowed Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters to take over as co-CEOs, maintaining Netflix's industry dominance and stabilizing stock performance (Hollywood Reporter). Intel's recent leadership change, prompted by a period of underperformance and missed opportunities in the AI sector, marks a decisive inflection point for the company. Historical precedents from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe demonstrate that such transitions can drive revitalization and substantial stock appreciation when paired with aggressive strategic realignment. Intel's deep-rooted expertise in semiconductor innovation, coupled with its formidable manufacturing infrastructure, provides a strong foundation for resurgence. If the company can successfully leverage AI advancements, expand foundry operations, and capitalize on emerging market demands, it stands to reclaim dominance in a rapidly evolving industry. The leadership shift signals a commitment to transformation, with the potential to position Intel as a frontrunner in next-generation computing and long-term value creation for investors. Additional Resource About the Intel CEO Reboot: Intel CEO Gelsinger's removal raises doubts over turnaround plan
HackerNoon Analysis: Why Intel’s CEO Change Matters
CNBC: Intel Stock Reaction to CEO Departure
The Verge: Microsoft and OpenAI Investment
Bloomberg: Intel CEO Exit and Market Impact
Level Fields AI: Stock Trends Post CEO Departures
Financial Times: Intel’s Future After Leadership Shakeup
Forbes: CEO Turnover and Market Performance
MarketWatch: How New Leadership Could Boost Intel’s AI Game
WSJ: The Broader Implications of Intel’s CEO Transition Intel Corporation, a technological stalwart in the semiconductor industry, has recently undergone a significant leadership change with the departure of CEO Pat Gelsinger ( Reuters ). This move comes amid a period of declining stock performance, with shares dropping approximately 60% over the past three years, and missed opportunities in the rapidly evolving AI sector. While leadership transitions can introduce uncertainty, historical precedents suggest that such changes can rejuvenate a company's strategic direction and enhance shareholder value ( HackerNoon ). Reuters Reuters HackerNoon HackerNoon Intel's Historical Context and Recent Challenges Founded in 1968, Intel has been a pioneer in developing microprocessors, playing a pivotal role in the personal computer revolution. However, in recent years, the company has faced intensified competition from rivals like NVIDIA and AMD, particularly in the AI and data center markets. Under Gelsinger's tenure, which began in February 2021, when the stock price was approximately $55, Intel aimed to regain its technological edge. Despite initiatives such as the introduction of AI chips like Gaudi3 and plans to expand manufacturing capabilities, the company struggled to keep pace with competitors. Notably, Intel's stock price declined by approximately 60% during Gelsinger's leadership, reflecting investor concerns over the company's strategic direction and execution ( Tom's Hardware , CNBC ). Tom's Hardware Tom's Hardware CNBC CNBC Missed Opportunities in the AI Boom The AI industry has experienced exponential growth, with companies like NVIDIA leading the charge through advanced GPU technologies essential for AI computations. Intel's delay in capitalizing on this trend, coupled with its decision to forgo early investments in AI innovators like OpenAI, positioned the company at a disadvantage. In contrast, Microsoft's strategic investment in OpenAI has yielded significant returns, underscoring the importance of timely engagement in emerging technologies ( The Verge ). The Verge The Verge Parallels with Other Technology Companies After a  Notable CEO Departs Parallels with Other Technology Companies After a  Notable CEO Departs Several notable examples illustrate how leadership changes have revitalized companies: Apple Inc.: Steve Jobs' return to Apple in 1997 marked a turning point for the company. At the time of his departure in 1985, shares were approximately $0.07 (adjusted for stock splits). By late 1998, a year after his return, shares had risen to $0.31, signaling renewed investor confidence (Investopedia). Starbucks: In 2024, Starbucks experienced a challenging year with declining sales and stock value. The appointment of former Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol brought a strategic shift aimed at simplifying operations and revitalizing the brand. This leadership change boosted investor confidence, resulting in a 24% stock surge (Barron's). Under Armour: The return of founder Kevin Plank as CEO led to a significant stock surge of 20% following stronger-than-expected earnings, indicating early success from leadership changes (Barron's). Google (Alphabet): When Sundar Pichai took over as CEO from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 2019, Alphabet underwent a major transformation. Under his leadership, the company expanded into AI and cloud computing, driving stock performance to new highs (CNBC). IBM: When Ginni Rometty stepped down as CEO and was replaced by Arvind Krishna in 2020, IBM refocused on cloud computing and AI, leading to a significant stock resurgence (Forbes). Microsoft: The transition from Steve Ballmer to Satya Nadella in 2014 transformed Microsoft into a cloud-first company, significantly boosting its market value and stock performance (The Verge). Tesla: When Elon Musk assumed full control of Tesla as CEO, his leadership propelled the company into new markets, securing dominance in electric vehicles and renewable energy solutions, driving stock gains (Bloomberg). Yahoo: The appointment of Marissa Mayer as CEO in 2012 led to a brief resurgence in Yahoo's stock price, though long-term struggles persisted. Her leadership underscored the impact a high-profile CEO change can have on investor confidence (The Guardian). Adobe: The transition from Bruce Chizen to Shantanu Narayen in 2007 set the stage for Adobe's successful pivot to a subscription-based business model, fueling long-term stock growth (Business Insider). Netflix: Reed Hastings' transition to an executive chairman role in 2023 allowed Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters to take over as co-CEOs, maintaining Netflix's industry dominance and stabilizing stock performance (Hollywood Reporter). Apple Inc.: Steve Jobs' return to Apple in 1997 marked a turning point for the company. At the time of his departure in 1985, shares were approximately $0.07 (adjusted for stock splits). By late 1998, a year after his return, shares had risen to $0.31, signaling renewed investor confidence ( Investopedia ). Investopedia Investopedia Starbucks: In 2024, Starbucks experienced a challenging year with declining sales and stock value. The appointment of former Chipotle CEO Brian Niccol brought a strategic shift aimed at simplifying operations and revitalizing the brand. This leadership change boosted investor confidence, resulting in a 24% stock surge ( Barron's ). Barron's Barron's Under Armour: The return of founder Kevin Plank as CEO led to a significant stock surge of 20% following stronger-than-expected earnings, indicating early success from leadership changes ( Barron's ). Barron's Barron's Google (Alphabet): When Sundar Pichai took over as CEO from co-founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin in 2019, Alphabet underwent a major transformation. Under his leadership, the company expanded into AI and cloud computing, driving stock performance to new highs ( CNBC ). CNBC CNBC IBM: When Ginni Rometty stepped down as CEO and was replaced by Arvind Krishna in 2020, IBM refocused on cloud computing and AI, leading to a significant stock resurgence ( Forbes ). Forbes Forbes Microsoft: The transition from Steve Ballmer to Satya Nadella in 2014 transformed Microsoft into a cloud-first company, significantly boosting its market value and stock performance ( The Verge ). The Verge The Verge Tesla: When Elon Musk assumed full control of Tesla as CEO, his leadership propelled the company into new markets, securing dominance in electric vehicles and renewable energy solutions, driving stock gains ( Bloomberg ). Bloomberg Bloomberg Yahoo: The appointment of Marissa Mayer as CEO in 2012 led to a brief resurgence in Yahoo's stock price, though long-term struggles persisted. Her leadership underscored the impact a high-profile CEO change can have on investor confidence ( The Guardian ). The Guardian The Guardian Adobe: The transition from Bruce Chizen to Shantanu Narayen in 2007 set the stage for Adobe's successful pivot to a subscription-based business model, fueling long-term stock growth ( Business Insider ). Business Insider Business Insider Netflix: Reed Hastings' transition to an executive chairman role in 2023 allowed Ted Sarandos and Greg Peters to take over as co-CEOs, maintaining Netflix's industry dominance and stabilizing stock performance ( Hollywood Reporter ). Hollywood Reporter Hollywood Reporter Intel's recent leadership change, prompted by a period of underperformance and missed opportunities in the AI sector, marks a decisive inflection point for the company. Historical precedents from companies like Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe demonstrate that such transitions can drive revitalization and substantial stock appreciation when paired with aggressive strategic realignment. Intel's deep-rooted expertise in semiconductor innovation, coupled with its formidable manufacturing infrastructure, provides a strong foundation for resurgence. If the company can successfully leverage AI advancements, expand foundry operations, and capitalize on emerging market demands, it stands to reclaim dominance in a rapidly evolving industry. The leadership shift signals a commitment to transformation, with the potential to position Intel as a frontrunner in next-generation computing and long-term value creation for investors. Additional Resource About the Intel CEO Reboot: Intel CEO Gelsinger's removal raises doubts over turnaround plan HackerNoon Analysis: Why Intel’s CEO Change Matters CNBC: Intel Stock Reaction to CEO Departure The Verge: Microsoft and OpenAI Investment Bloomberg: Intel CEO Exit and Market Impact Level Fields AI: Stock Trends Post CEO Departures Financial Times: Intel’s Future After Leadership Shakeup Forbes: CEO Turnover and Market Performance MarketWatch: How New Leadership Could Boost Intel’s AI Game WSJ: The Broader Implications of Intel’s CEO Transition Intel CEO Gelsinger's removal raises doubts over turnaround plan Intel CEO Gelsinger's removal raises doubts over turnaround plan Intel CEO Gelsinger's removal raises doubts over turnaround plan HackerNoon Analysis: Why Intel’s CEO Change Matters HackerNoon Analysis: Why Intel’s CEO Change Matters HackerNoon Analysis: Why Intel’s CEO Change Matters CNBC: Intel Stock Reaction to CEO Departure CNBC: Intel Stock Reaction to CEO Departure CNBC: Intel Stock Reaction to CEO Departure The Verge: Microsoft and OpenAI Investment The Verge: Microsoft and OpenAI Investment The Verge: Microsoft and OpenAI Investment Bloomberg: Intel CEO Exit and Market Impact Bloomberg: Intel CEO Exit and Market Impact Bloomberg: Intel CEO Exit and Market Impact Level Fields AI: Stock Trends Post CEO Departures Level Fields AI: Stock Trends Post CEO Departures Level Fields AI: Stock Trends Post CEO Departures Financial Times: Intel’s Future After Leadership Shakeup Financial Times: Intel’s Future After Leadership Shakeup Financial Times: Intel’s Future After Leadership Shakeup Forbes: CEO Turnover and Market Performance Forbes: CEO Turnover and Market Performance Forbes: CEO Turnover and Market Performance MarketWatch: How New Leadership Could Boost Intel’s AI Game MarketWatch: How New Leadership Could Boost Intel’s AI Game MarketWatch: How New Leadership Could Boost Intel’s AI Game WSJ: The Broader Implications of Intel’s CEO Transition WSJ: The Broader Implications of Intel’s CEO Transition WSJ: The Broader Implications of Intel’s CEO Transition

With Gelsinger's Departure, Could Intel Be Headed Towards a Stock Surge?

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999 is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 11 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here III. MICROSOFT’S POWER IN THE RELEVANT MARKET 33. Microsoft enjoys so much power in the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems that if it wished to exercise this power solely in terms of price, it could charge a price for Windows substantially above that which could be charged in a competitive market. Moreover, it could do so for a significant period of time without losing an unacceptable amount of business to competitors. In other words, Microsoft enjoys monopoly power in the relevant market. 34. Viewed together, three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power. First, Microsoft’s share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems is extremely large and stable. Second, Microsoft’s dominant market share is protected by a high barrier to entry. Third, and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft’s customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 1-19-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Microsoft's Monopoly in the Operating Systems Market for Intel-Compatible PCs

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 5 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 2. Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems 20. Since only Intel-compatible PC operating systems will work with Intel-compatible PCs, a consumer cannot opt for a non-Intel-compatible PC operating system without obtaining a non-Intel-compatible PC. Thus, for consumers who already own an Intel-compatible PC system, the cost of switching to a non-Intel compatible PC operating system includes the price of not only a new operating system, but also a new PC and new peripheral devices. It also includes the effort of learning to use the new system, the cost of acquiring a new set of compatible applications, and the work of replacing files and documents that were associated with the old applications. Very few consumers would incur these costs in response to the trivial increase in the price of an Intelcompatible PC system that would result from even a substantial increase in the price of an Intelcompatible PC operating system. For example, users of Intel-compatible PC operating systems would not switch in large numbers to the Mac OS in response to even a substantial, sustained increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system. 21. The response to a price increase would be somewhat greater among consumers buying their first PC system, because they would not have already invested time and money in an Intel-compatible PC system and a set of compatible applications. Apple does not license the Mac OS separately from its PC hardware, however, and the package of hardware and software comprising an Apple PC system is priced substantially higher than the average price of an Intelcompatible PC system. Furthermore, consumer demand for Apple PC systems suffers on account of the relative dearth of applications written to run on the Mac OS. It is unlikely, then, that a firm controlling the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems would lose so many new PC users to Apple as the result of a substantial, enduring price increase as to make the action unprofitable. It is therefore proper to define a relevant market that excludes the Mac OS. In any event, as Section III of these findings demonstrates, including the Mac OS in the relevant market would not alter the Court’s conclusion as to the level of Microsoft’s market power. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 1-19-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Non-Intel-Compatible PC Operating Systems: What This Means for Microsoft's Market Power

The first part of the title of this story probably had you thinking this was a Pringles vs Doritos vs Lays brawl. Maybe one day, we shall see that clash. If you’re a bit familiar with the phone and laptop tech scene, then you know that for years Apple always has one battle or the other with some big tech brands. These battles are either held in a courtroom, subtly in ads or on social media. From when they battled with Samsung for years to their most recent battle with Facebook just last year. They even battled with the at some point. Does everybody actually hate Chris or do they just hate Apple? FBI Unsurprisingly, I bring you yet another battle. The M1 and Intel After 15 years, Apple decided to bring the bromance, between intel and its Macs, to an end. In 2020, Apple announced their yearly laptop releases: a MacBook Air, a MacBook Pro and a Mac Mini. As expected, they looked exactly like their predecessors. The only new thing was that they all had new chips. Apple created their own chips and decided to start using them in newer installments of their laptops and desktops. They had already been making their own phone chips for years and decided to do the same for their laptops. If you know Apple, you know that they have one of the best ecosystems of technology products in the world. They make life very easy for their users with seamless integrations that target overall convenience. Of course, this comes at a cost but nothing good comes cheap. Apple’s software is optimized to work with their hardware and this ensures efficiency. A trend that continued with their game-changing M1. Its efficiency boasted numbers never seen before. The M1 Macs have longer battery lives and better performances than their equivalent Intel predecessors. As a response, Intel launched its 12th-gen mobile processors earlier in 2022. This launch resulted in very powerful chips that aim to compete with Apple’s best. Even though Intel has been King of the hill for many years, the chip market is buzzing with competition. Without further ado, let’s jump into the numbers. Tests Tests were carried out by PCWorld, and Anandtech and generated results from the benchmark companies. These were the major laptop units used: MSI GE76 Raider (14-core Core i9-12900HK / RTX 3080 Ti Laptop @175TGP/ 32GB DDR5/4800) Apple Macbook Pro 16 (10-core M1 Max / 64GB LPDDR5/6400) Two other laptop units were used for better reference of performance results. Note that for test charts, longer bars mean better performance. all The first comparison is Cinebench R23. Results sourced from Anandtech and PCWorld were used. The benchmark is used to measure a CPU’s rendering performance. This is a stress test for 10 minutes. CPUs with more cores win. Spoiler Alert: Intel’s chip wins the first round by around 25% better performance. Since the Intel chip has more cores, it was bound to win this round. Cinebench R23 was also run using a single thread to compare CPU’s best cores. In this test, the new 12th-gen Core i9-12900HK also outperforms the M1 Max. A slightly older 11th-gen Core i9-11980HK also outperforms the M1 Max in this test, by a relatively small margin, The next test was Primate Lab’s Geekbench 5 benchmark. First up is the multi-core performance of all the laptops. For the MacBook Pro, the result was gotten from Geekbench’s database. This isn’t as reliable as one from a known outlet. Since results are self-reported, the circumstances under which they were run are unknown. Therefore, higher scores reported for the M1 Max were picked. Yet again, the 12th-gen Core i9-12900HK wins this round by a very little percentage. But no matter how small the margin is, there can only be one winner. There was also a report on the single-core performance from Geekbench. The core count doesn’t really matter because the result you see is the best performance of each CPU’s best cores. The M1 Max loses in this round again in what was a really close call. The other lower units tested didn’t also do too bad when matched against these super chips. Now onto GPU tests. The next test is called the Geekbench’s Compute performance benchmark. It evaluates GPU performance, simulating workloads like image processing, computer vision, and machine learning. A purple bar represents the integrated graphics and a green bar for the discrete graphics chips of the Core i9 and Ryzen laptops. The M1 Max is strictly an integrated design. Therefore, both bars are identical. The last test is focused on content creators that use the Adobe Premiere software. Results were compared and combined from PCWorld and PugetBench. Results were picked on the higher end of the scale for the MacBook Pro since it was from publicly sourced data. Conclusion Intel is a clear winner in this battle. While , they also never tell the full story. These numbers give a very good idea of how powerful the new Intel chip is, but not all metrics are measured. Real usage by real users gives the most accurate performance benchmarks. chips don’t lie In the end, people should pick computer hardware based on preference and functionality. If you are a software developer that loves gaming, picking a Windows laptop is a no-brainer since Macs aren’t for gaming. If you are a content creator that loves having a central ecosystem, you can go for the MacBooks with the M1 chips. Pick the hardware and OS that you need, rather than what the internet tells you. Cheers!

Clash of Chips: Apple's M1 Max vs. Intel's 12th Gen Core i9

Choque de chips: M1 Max de Apple vs. Core i9 de 12.ª generación de Intel

Clash of Chips : M1 Max d'Apple contre le Core i9 de 12e génération d'Intel

क्लैश ऑफ चिप्स: एप्पल का एम1 मैक्स बनाम इंटेल का 12वां जेनरेशन कोर आई9

Clash of Chips: Apple の M1 Max と Intel の第 12 世代 Core i9 の比較

Clash of Chips: M1 Max da Apple vs. Core i9 de 12ª geração da Intel

Clash of Chips: Apple M1 Max so với Core i9 thế hệ thứ 12 của Intel

芯片冲突：苹果的 M1 Max 与英特尔的第 12 代酷睿 i9

Photo credit, .  This story was sent as the free . HackerNoon.com/Companies Tech Company Brief This week, sending on behalf of the new . Our unique insights indicates that the public consciousness (or at least the data from our corners of the internet) is aggregately and respectively eyeing #5 , #4 , #3 , #2 , and #1 . HackerNoon Tech Company Brief Intel Apple Coinbase Amazon Microsoft The company blog led with - we’re always on the lookout for another way to - meanwhile in regards to the Activision deal, the “FTC is looking into the potential impact on a .” Microsoft Garage project Journal becomes Microsoft Journal write productively $68ish billion competitive metaverse following the acquisition re: , on one hand there was the , “We want to thank Jeff Bezos for going to space because while he was up there we were organizing a union” and on the other hand and . Amazon first Amazon worker’s union saying AWS got new Boeing $$$ new GCP team mates is and will produce , which will require a Coinbase wallet to authenticate, i.e. watch. Coinbase thinking about India the Bored Ape Yacht Club TRILOGY Apple or Apple paparazzi leaked some and is rumored to be this week, so more of the same, same there… “massive upgrades for iPads, iPhones”  to Forbes considering a $90B stock buyback plan recently bought the AI-based workload optimization and their CEO declared, "We are predicting that we will maintain or even go faster than Moore's Law for the next decade" "a profound and bold statement." Intel startup Granulate for $650M before adding that he made Ce la vie! Machines write like me! This has been your tech company data report, and rest of our free data is available via ! the Tech Company Rankings

4/12/22: Top 5 Trending Tech Companies: #5 Intel, #4 Apple, #3 Coinbase, #2 Amazon, and #1 Microsoft

In the holy war between various neural network design frameworks one important step is usually missing — making production-ready and optimized deliverables. I’ve tested Intel’s OpenVINO optimizer system and it looks really promising. Intro I work at — the company making leading AI-enabled photo editing software , and . Currently, our systems use Tensorflow as a neural computation engine. Delivering optimized and small neural networks for our customers is not an easy process. There are a few things you have to keep in mind — the size of the tensorflow build itself, size of neural models and their computation speed. TF isn’t perfect for that. The size of the native TensorFlow inference engine after all optimizations is at least 60 megabytes and optimizing models of edge CPU computations isn’t perfect as well. TFLite is a depreciated solution and TF Mobile is good at what it’s doing — optimizing for mobile CPU’s. The area of pure desktop optimization isn’t covered by any major library, so it’s a part of my interest. Skylum Luminar Aurora HDR Photolemur As a part of an ongoing collaborative effort with , I am actively looking to switching our inference to something that is native for CPUs and readily adopted for Intel’s build-it GPUs, that majority of Intel chipsets currently has. Here I am reporting my test results of their . Intel OpenVINO optimization package Technical details I chose the task of semantic segmentation as a very representative problem for our software. For example, it powers our filter, as well as a range of upcoming effects. Obviously, I can’t report results of our actual neural network architecture, so I’ve chosen the one that resembles is close enough — DeepLab V3+ with MobileNetV2 head with enabled ASPP layers. For a bit broader scope I chose two versions of this network — with output stride 8 and 16, delivering different output resolutions. AI Sky Enhancer To generate those I’ve used , trained the models and exported the frozen computation graphs using officially offered export script, naming input and output layers as “input” and “segmap” respectfully. The resulting files were tested for TF performance using a simple python script that loaded and evaluated frozen .pb graph. Resolution was 513x513px and CPU used is Intel(R) Core(TM) i7–8700K CPU operating at 3.70GHz official Google’s repository Testing the performance of the same model using OpenVINO wasn’t straightforward and I am really grateful for help coming from Intel here. First of all, I installed OpenVino at my test system, running Ubuntu 16.04 following the official instruction. Initial attempt of running optimization script was a failure. Here’s what I got. python mo.py — input_model /data/1.pb — input_shape “(1,513,513,3)” — log_level=DEBUG — data_type FP32 — output segmap — input input — scale 1 — model_name test — framework tf — output_dir ./ [ ERROR ]  Stopped shape/value propagation at "GreaterEqual" node.tensorflow.python.framework.errors_impl.InvalidArgumentError: Input 0 of node GreaterEqual was passed int64 from add_1_port_0_ie_placeholder:0 incompatible with expected int32. The problem here was a range of layers that OpenVINO supports. When DeepLab exports the model it actually includes a range of pre- and postprocessing operations (resizing, normalization, etc) to make use of the model as easy as possible. It is done using built-in TensorFlow operations, that are sometimes under optimal and poorly written. For example, . So, I asked for help at and one of their employees made a + explanation. their resize function and buggy and gave me a lot of headaches recently Intel’s forum GitHub repo Long story short — you have to cut of preprocessing and post-processing operations from TensorFlow graph and optimize only actual neural network operations. That actually makes a lot of sense as those operations are much faster to implement using C++ for example. Inference speed comparison So, after doing that I’ve made a head-to-head comparison of a few version of TF graph inferenced using TF engine and OpenVINO engine. What’s actually proposed in Fiona’s GitHub repo is to actually cut TF graph into 3 pieces — preprocessing, inference and postprocessing. Pre- and post-processing is to be done with TF and inference is outsourced to OpenVINO. When I went straight ahead for direct comparison using the script provided I found no difference in execution time. A gut feeling suggested that it can’t be true, so I measured all three stages separately. The idea was that starting TF engine twice is a time-hungry operation and taking into account fact of non-ideal optimization of various TF operators there could be an overhead. That happened to be true. time cost preprocess: 0.0021 sectime cost to inference : 0.1979 sectime cost postprocess: 0.2642sec The postprocessing with Tensorflow actually took more time than inference itself! To handle this situation I made a fair use comparison. I’ve cut off the pre- and post-processing stages implemented them in OpenCV and Numpy and run a comparison of the same stack of operations with TF and OpenVINO. Important notice is the level of optimizations. My Tensorflow build on this machine is an official TF 1.11 from Google’s repo, build without AVX2 and FMA optimizations. OpenVINO currently offers two levels of optimization built into their distribution — AVX level and SSE level. For our production, we are mostly interested in SSE in terms of backward compatibility, but I am reporting here both versions. Inference speed comparison between TensorFlow and OpenVINO on a DeepLabV3+ / MobileNetV2 / ASPP head network. As you can see of speed in this fair head-to-head comparison in range of 30–50%, presumably exploiting their knowledge of Intel architectures. OpenVINO offers a very significant boost Further research I was still interested to see the performance in other use cases and maybe try something more “pure” like a PB model with no pre- and post-processing and maybe more conventional architecture, like ResNet/DenseNet or even VGG. Hopefully, this gives some insights into the capabilities of OpenVINO. I would be very interested in testing inference using Intel’s built-in GPUs, but OpenCL availability for a different platform is an issue here, so I’ll postpone this until there’s a better perspective for consistent Multiplatform production-ready solutions. Also, the very important topic of FT16 and INT8 inference is not covered here. I wasn’t able to run the same experiment in half precision and found no mentions of INT8 quantization optimizations in OpenVINO. And, it would be cool to compare OpenVINO to TensorRT. Your claps and follows will motivate me for further research, stay tuned!

Optimizing neural networks for production with Intel’s OpenVINO

THE RECESSION IS COMING AHHHHHH! WHAT ABOUT MY ASSETS!? MY HOUSE!? MY CAR!? MY MORTGAGE!? MY CAREER!? Hold on. Hold on. There has been a lot of talk about a global recession lately. This was started when Warren Buffet had sold around $300 Billion USD worth of stock by the end of June. This led July to be filled with “Doomsday” and “Recession” talks. Since then, he has sold more than $350 billion USD in stocks (in total) in August. That bummed me out about the global economy. I know it did for you, too. What made it worse? In late July, upon seeing the global stock market's biggest companies stocks crash, we saw CEOs show fear. No response was worse than Patrick Gelsinger, CEO of Intel; his reaction was the worst. What did he do? Swear? Lie? Shame the investors? No, it was much worse. He publicly prayed on social media. The tweet above is just one example of the prayers he put out. He put out many. This was as Intel stock was suddenly and deeply crashing. This understandably got many worried about the global tech sector and the global economy in general. Through this all, the only community excited by the seemingly looming recession is who? CRYPTO-BROS. Very specifically, Bitcoin bros, Bitcoin-bros were practically ecstatic at the news….why? Bitcoin, albeit affected by the stock crashes, maybe the most valuable asset for retaining and growing wealth even during a recession. Side note: Pat Gelsinger once doubted Bitcoin’s efficacy as a reliable financial asset. This might change his mind. Bitcoin, A Financial Asset? As we talk about Bitcoin, let’s list what makes Bitcoin unique. Not only that but let’s also analyze how this goes hand in hand with recession resistability and economic viability. So, what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin? Decentralization: No central authority over the network.
Peer-to-Peer Network: Transactions occur directly between users, with no space for intermediaries.
Digital Scarcity: A finite supply of Bitcoins. 21 million Bitcoins to be exact.
Public Ledger: All transactions are recorded on Bitcoins public blockchain.
Cryptography: Cryptography security is enhanced through its decentralization.
Proof-of-Work: Miners verify transactions. Let’s briefly go one by one and evaluate whether these features add to an item to make it a financial asset. Decentralization: De-regulation from companies means societal valuations maintain value. No image scarring can occur on Bitcoin.
Peer-to-Peer Network: You get to keep as much of your money as possible. Arguably, even more than Banks let you.
Digital Scarcity: Value increases even during the recession as finite supply continues to get smaller.
Public Ledger: Chances of Fraud occurring are greatly reduced to nullified.
Cryptography: Bitcoin is more secure than any traditional or other traditional assets.
Proof-of-Work: Proof of the Bitcoin asset's viability as it was physical computational processing that made the digital token. I would say the features above do make Bitcoin valuable as an asset. The key value givers are Decentralization, Digital Scarcity, Public Ledger, and the PoW concept. Is this really true? Do people see Bitcoin the same way? Seemingly they do: The graph above is from statista.com. In it, we see that during this year, Bitcoin reached its peak price of $72,000 USD in March of 2024. Now as of August 5th, 2024, Bitcoin is now at $53,000 USD.  Some may see this and exclaim, “What a drop!” is it really? Look at the chart above. Even if Bitcoin is $53,000 USD per Bitcoin, it is still higher than it was in the past by a wide margin in the last 4-5 years. Before these 5 years? Bitcoin was still dropping, rising and dropping, then rising. However, it always rose more than it dropped by a disproportionate level. This directly implies that even during hard recessions or financial blowback, Bitcoin somehow, over time, is still an economic asset rather than a liability. With that being said, what assets generally do well to storm a recession? The answer is none, really……except maybe….Banking based assets. When a recession comes, banks are the first to collapse and fail, with tremendous consequences to be seen cough cough Great Depression of 1930 cough cough. However, banks are also the first sign that a recession is receding and good times are ahead. Banks generally have the highest “bounce-back” after financial crashes and even during financial stagnation periods. THIS MATTERS A LOT. Why? Banks are constantly warning users about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Why? BITCOIN AND CRYPTO CHALLENGE TRADITIONAL BANKS. Cryptos are literally decentralized banking systems with high volatility (albeit generally positive). As they are direct competitors to banks, they are bank equivalents. Thus, Bitcoin counts as a banking type of asset. Thus, it is also as effective as banking assets. Bitcoins are a type of banking asset. This definitely convinces people to get on the Bitcoin hype train. However, you don’t need to be a full Bitcoin lover to get the benefits. What if this isn’t enough? Maybe Bitcoin needs more functional attributes to show its usefulness more and make it a more viable investment……SIDE CHAINS! To be brief, Side Chains are essentially separate blockchains (by companies or organizations) that attach themselves to that cryptocurrency blockchain.  Side chains exist to add even more security to transactions, lessen congestion on the chain, and even add the preferred functionality of a company or organization to that cryptosystem. Examples of side chains are Rootstock, Liquid Network, and Polygon. (Worth noting, Rootstock is Bitcoins oldest sidechain and has Ethereum-esque utilities). What does all that mean? This means that through side chains like Polygon and Rootstock, you can add extra usage to Bitcoin as a functional asset. So, similar to gold coins, Bitcoins can be used to gain more value. Sidechains add more to that value, giving a higher incentive to treat them as a banking asset. Overall, Bitcoin is firmly NOT RECESSION PROOF. However, Bitcoin is certainly more recession-resistant than other assets. Tied only with traditional bank stocks in terms of financial growth through a recession. So if you’re wondering how to reduce your losses during this economic downturn and uplift yourself in the next few years through stocks, well then, an investment in Bitcoin isn’t just an interesting idea; it could be a good one. THE RECESSION IS COMING AHHHHHH! WHAT ABOUT MY ASSETS!? MY HOUSE!? MY CAR!? MY MORTGAGE!? MY CAREER!? Hold on. Hold on. There has been a lot of talk about a global recession lately. This was started when Warren Buffet had sold around $300 Billion USD worth of stock by the end of June. This led July to be filled with “Doomsday” and “Recession” talks. Since then, he has sold more than $350 billion USD in stocks (in total) in August. That bummed me out about the global economy. I know it did for you, too. $300 Billion USD $350 billion USD What made it worse? In late July, upon seeing the global stock market's biggest companies stocks crash, we saw CEOs show fear. No response was worse than Patrick Gelsinger , CEO of Intel ; his reaction was the worst. What did he do? Swear? Lie? Shame the investors? No, it was much worse. He publicly prayed on social media . CEOs Patrick Gelsinger CEO of Intel He publicly prayed on social media The tweet above is just one example of the prayers he put out. He put out many . This was as Intel stock was suddenly and deeply crashing. This understandably got many worried about the global tech sector and the global economy in general. Through this all, the only community excited by the seemingly looming recession is who? CRYPTO-BROS. Very specifically, Bitcoin bros, Bitcoin-bros were practically ecstatic at the news….why? Bitcoin, albeit affected by the stock crashes, maybe the most valuable asset for retaining and growing wealth even during a recession. many CRYPTO-BROS. Very specifically, Bitcoin bros, Bitcoin-bros were practically ecstatic at the news….why? Side note: Pat Gelsinger once doubted Bitcoin’s efficacy as a reliable financial asset. This might change his mind. once doubted Bitcoin’s efficacy as a reliable financial asset . This might change his mind. once doubted Bitcoin’s efficacy as a reliable financial asset Bitcoin, A Financial Asset? As we talk about Bitcoin, let’s list what makes Bitcoin unique. Not only that but let’s also analyze how this goes hand in hand with recession resistability and economic viability. So, what makes Bitcoin, Bitcoin? Decentralization: No central authority over the network. Peer-to-Peer Network: Transactions occur directly between users, with no space for intermediaries. Digital Scarcity: A finite supply of Bitcoins. 21 million Bitcoins to be exact. Public Ledger: All transactions are recorded on Bitcoins public blockchain. Cryptography: Cryptography security is enhanced through its decentralization. Proof-of-Work: Miners verify transactions. Decentralization: No central authority over the network. Decentralization: Peer-to-Peer Network: Transactions occur directly between users, with no space for intermediaries. Peer-to-Peer Network: Digital Scarcity: A finite supply of Bitcoins. 21 million Bitcoins to be exact. Digital Scarcity: 21 million Public Ledger: All transactions are recorded on Bitcoins public blockchain. Public Ledger: Cryptography: Cryptography security is enhanced through its decentralization. Cryptography: Proof-of-Work: Miners verify transactions. Proof-of-Work: Let’s briefly go one by one and evaluate whether these features add to an item to make it a financial asset. Decentralization: De-regulation from companies means societal valuations maintain value. No image scarring can occur on Bitcoin. Peer-to-Peer Network: You get to keep as much of your money as possible. Arguably, even more than Banks let you. Digital Scarcity: Value increases even during the recession as finite supply continues to get smaller. Public Ledger: Chances of Fraud occurring are greatly reduced to nullified. Cryptography: Bitcoin is more secure than any traditional or other traditional assets. Proof-of-Work: Proof of the Bitcoin asset's viability as it was physical computational processing that made the digital token. Decentralization: De-regulation from companies means societal valuations maintain value. No image scarring can occur on Bitcoin. Decentralization: Peer-to-Peer Network: You get to keep as much of your money as possible. Arguably, even more than Banks let you. Peer-to-Peer Network: Digital Scarcity: Value increases even during the recession as finite supply continues to get smaller. Digital Scarcity: Public Ledger: Chances of Fraud occurring are greatly reduced to nullified. Public Ledger: Cryptography: Bitcoin is more secure than any traditional or other traditional assets. Cryptography: Proof-of-Work: Proof of the Bitcoin asset's viability as it was physical computational processing that made the digital token. Proof-of-Work: I would say the features above do make Bitcoin valuable as an asset. The key value givers are Decentralization, Digital Scarcity, Public Ledger, and the PoW concept. Is this really true? Do people see Bitcoin the same way? Seemingly they do: Decentralization, Digital Scarcity, Public Ledger, and the PoW concept. The graph above is from statista.com . In it, we see that during this year, Bitcoin reached its peak price of $72,000 USD in March of 2024. Now as of August 5th, 2024, Bitcoin is now at $53,000 USD .  Some may see this and exclaim, “What a drop!” is it really? Look at the chart above. Even if Bitcoin is $53,000 USD per Bitcoin, it is still higher than it was in the past by a wide margin in the last 4-5 years. Before these 5 years? Bitcoin was still dropping, rising and dropping, then rising. However, it always rose more than it dropped by a disproportionate level. This directly implies that even during hard recessions or financial blowback, Bitcoin somehow, over time, is still an economic asset rather than a liability. graph above is from statista.com $72,000 USD $53,000 USD $53,000 USD With that being said, what assets generally do well to storm a recession? The answer is none, really……except maybe….Banking based assets. When a recession comes, banks are the first to collapse and fail, with tremendous consequences to be seen cough cough Great Depression of 1930 cough cough . However, banks are also the first sign that a recession is receding and good times are ahead. Banks generally have the highest “bounce-back” after financial crashes and even during financial stagnation periods. cough cough cough cough cough cough cough cough THIS MATTERS A LOT . Why? Banks are constantly warning users about Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Why? BITCOIN AND CRYPTO CHALLENGE TRADITIONAL BANKS . Cryptos are literally decentralized banking systems with high volatility (albeit generally positive). As they are direct competitors to banks, they are bank equivalents. Thus, Bitcoin counts as a banking type of asset . Thus, it is also as effective as banking assets. THIS MATTERS A LOT BITCOIN AND CRYPTO CHALLENGE TRADITIONAL BANKS Bitcoin counts as a banking type of asset Bitcoins are a type of banking asset. This definitely convinces people to get on the Bitcoin hype train. However, you don’t need to be a full Bitcoin lover to get the benefits. What if this isn’t enough? Maybe Bitcoin needs more functional attributes to show its usefulness more and make it a more viable investment…… SIDE CHAINS! SIDE CHAINS! To be brief, Side Chains are essentially separate blockchains (by companies or organizations) that attach themselves to that cryptocurrency blockchain.  Side chains exist to add even more security to transactions, lessen congestion on the chain, and even add the preferred functionality of a company or organization to that cryptosystem. Examples of side chains are Rootstock, Liquid Network, and Polygon. ( Worth noting, Rootstock is Bitcoins oldest sidechain and has Ethereum-esque utilities ). Worth noting, Rootstock is Bitcoins oldest sidechain and has Ethereum-esque utilities What does all that mean? This means that through side chains like Polygon and Rootstock, you can add extra usage to Bitcoin as a functional asset. So, similar to gold coins, Bitcoins can be used to gain more value. Sidechains add more to that value, giving a higher incentive to treat them as a banking asset. Overall, Bitcoin is firmly NOT RECESSION PROOF . However, Bitcoin is certainly more recession-resistant than other assets. Tied only with traditional bank stocks in terms of financial growth through a recession. So if you’re wondering how to reduce your losses during this economic downturn and uplift yourself in the next few years through stocks, well then, an investment in Bitcoin isn’t just an interesting idea; it could be a good one. NOT RECESSION PROOF

Bitcoin, Recession-Proof?

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 6 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here 3. Information Appliances 22. No operating system designed for a hand-held computer, a “smart” wireless telephone, a television set-top box, or a game console is capable of performing as an adequate operating system for an Intel-compatible PC. Therefore, in order to adopt a substitute for the Intel-compatible PC operating system from the realm of “information appliances,” a consumer must acquire one or more of these devices in lieu of an Intel-compatible PC system. 23. It is possible that, within the next few years, those consumers who otherwise would use an Intel-compatible PC system solely for storing addresses and schedules, for sending and receiving E-mail, for browsing the Web, and for playing video games might be able to choose a complementary set of information appliances over an Intel-compatible PC system without incurring substantial costs. To the extent this substitution occurs, though, it will be the result of innovation by the producers of information appliances, and it will occur even if Intel-compatible PC operating systems are priced at the same level that they would be in a competitive market. More importantly, while some consumers may decide to make do with one or more information appliances in place of an Intel-compatible PC system, the number of these consumers will, for the foreseeable future, remain small in comparison to the number of consumers deciding that they still need an Intel-compatible PC system. One reason for this is the fact that no single type of information appliance, nor even all types in the aggregate, provides all of the features that most consumers have come to rely on in their PC systems and in the applications that run on them. Thus, most of those who buy information appliances will do so in addition to, rather than instead of, buying an Intel-compatible PC system. Not surprisingly, then, sales of PC systems are not expected to suffer on account of the growing consumer interest in information appliances. It follows that, for the foreseeable future, a firm controlling the licensing of all Intel-compatible PC operating systems could set prices substantially above competitive levels without losing an unacceptable amount of business to information appliances. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 1-19-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

Information Appliances: Why They Can't Harm PC Operating Systems Just Yet

United States Of America. v. Microsoft Corporation Court Filing by Thomas Penfield Jackson, November 5, 1999, is part of . You can jump to any part in this filing . This is part 4 of 58. HackerNoon’s Legal PDF Series here A. Demand Substitutability 1. Server Operating Systems 19. Consumers could not turn from Intel-compatible PC operating systems to Intel-compatible server operating systems without incurring substantial costs, since the latter type of system is sold at a significantly higher price than the former. A consumer intent on acquiring a server operating system would also have to buy a computer of substantially greater power and price than an Intel-compatible PC, because server operating systems generally cannot function properly on PC hardware. The price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system accounts for only a very small percentage of the price of an Intel-compatible PC system. Thus, even a substantial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC operating system above the competitive level would result in only a trivial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC system. Very few consumers would purchase expensive servers in response to a trivial increase in the price of an Intel-compatible PC system. Furthermore, a consumer would not obtain a satisfactory substitute for an Intel-compatible PC operating system even if he purchased a server, since server operating systems lack the features — and support for the breadth of applications — that induce users to purchase Intel-compatible PC operating systems. Continue reading . here About We bring you the most important technical and insightful public domain court case filings. HackerNoon Legal PDF Series: This court case Civil Action No. 98-1232 (TPJ) retrieved on 1-19-2023, from is part of the public domain. The court-created documents are works of the federal government, and under copyright law, are automatically placed in the public domain and may be shared without legal restriction. justice.gov

The United States of America v. Microsoft: Taking a Closer Look at Server Operating Systems

has shot itself in the foot. After spending years exclusively dominating the graphic card market, the Santa Clara, Calif.-based chipmaker has fallen prey to predatory pricing, stagnation, and, quite frankly, the same shenanigans that 's dominance in the CPU market. Nvidia hurt Intel There's a new competitor in town, and while it has yet to completely usurp Nvidia's lead in the GPU market, it has already started chipping away at its market share. Yes, we're talking about (who else!?), which is likely going to be the next GPU of choice for nearly a quarter of HackerNoon readers that participated in a poll asking which graphic card they were going to buy in the future. AMD To be sure, Nvidia still commands respect, with nearly a third of users choosing to go team green when they buy their next GPU. However, opting for team red was virtually unheard of half a decade ago, even when AMD the long-awaited RX Vega GPUs to compete with Nvidia's wildly popular 10-series cards. announced For the most part, and had dominated the and markets from the early 2000s up until the late 2010s, relegating AMD to a niche given how poorly its chips performed. It didn't really help that AMD was slow to launch new products, and when it did, they would suffer from and , leaving it curiously absent from both the CPU and GPU markets for years on end. Intel Nvidia CPU GPU high power consumption bad thermals Perhaps the only thing that kept AMD afloat during those years were the custom-made chipsets it manufactured for consoles, in particular the Playstation and Xbox, which ultimately ended up becoming a for the Nasdaq-listed firm. But other than that, AMD really hadn't launched any products that had consumers' heads turning. significant source of revenue All of this changed with the 2017 launch of the Ryzen series processors that were based on a new architecture called Zen. Though as its Intel counterpart in gaming, the flagship product from that launch — the Ryzen 7 1800X — came at a spitting distance of Intel's then leader, the i7-8700k, in productivity tasks at a much, much lower price. not necessarily as powerful Meanwhile, less powerful variants of the Ryzen 7 had a similar story to tell: they were cheaper, performed nearly as well as their Intel counterparts in productivity, and notably, came with so budget-conscious consumers didn't have to spend extra. Consumers entering the Ryzen ecosystem also knew that every subsequent processor launch would continue to be based on the , meaning they could simply swap out their older processors for newer ones without . good heatsinks AM4 chipset necessarily changing motherboards Tech enthusiasts hailed the launch of the Ryzen 7 processors due to their potential for in the CPU market, which they did. Every subsequent processor launched since the original Ryzen 7 series has shown , while Intel's processors continue to provide . In fact, a HackerNoon editor was so impressed with the latest AMD processor launch (The Ryzen 9 7900X) that they decided to do the unthinkable: migrate to team red, citing not only the better performance, but, the better economics of being a part of the AMD ecosystem. breaking Intel's monopoly improvements in leaps and bounds incremental benefits over their predecessors AMD has also made gains in the GPU market, starting from the launch of Vega 64, which, while against Nvidia's 10 series products, couldn't necessarily compete with it because of how great the 10 series cards were in terms of both price performance. Vega 64 was also plagued by at launch, though AMD was quick to address those issues as they came along. reviewing modestly and driver issues But Nvidia got smug with the launch of the successor to the 10 series, perhaps hoping that consumers and tech enthusiasts would fall for its marketing and a promise for better-looking games with the ray-tracing feature. Sadly for Nvidia, , noting at the time that the 20 series cards were only incrementally better than their predecessors and the ray-tracing feature that Nvidia was charging a premium for was yet to be available across major video game titles. We personally termed the release as a 'meme launch,' signifying that anyone with a bit of time and research could figure out that the card was simply meant to make money and didn't really offer anything beyond a promise of a technology that had yet to reach fruition. Not to mention, it wasn't even at said technology (ray tracing). reviewers panned the release that great Meanwhile, AMD still hadn't hit the mark, with the RX 5000 series cards that were supposed to compete with Nvidia's 20-series products in power consumption, thermals, and drivers. As the 30-series launch came along and Nvidia seemed to have course corrected, AMD too did not disappoint, with the RX 6000 series from reviewers for its performance, price, and . facing issues getting praise availability Which brings us to the present: the Nvidia 4-series. And oh my god, it looks like history is repeating itself. This is yet another 'meme release' panned by reviewers for price, performance, and (not to mention ). Meanwhile, AMD's upcoming RX 7000 series cards are already touted to be than what Nvidia has put out. power consumption the issue that shall not be named cheaper and better https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2_xTUshy94?embedable=true All of this to say: we get it. Nvidia, just like Intel, has become a fat, lazy dragon content with its dominance from the glory days. In contrast, AMD has consistently targeted consumers that were long forgotten by the titans: the budget gamers, who, by all accounts, make up an . By positioning itself as the to market behemoths, AMD has been able to claw away at its competition, all the while investing money in R&D so it too could produce products that could compete with some of the best tech out there for cheaper. overwhelming majority of PC users less expensive alternative Surprisingly, a very small portion of HackerNoon readers might also opt for an Intel graphic card. While not exactly known for their graphical prowess, Intel's integrated GPUs have long been a mainstay of laptops, particularly at the lower price point. Reviewers have hailed the launch of Intel's Arc series desktop GPUs for the same reasons as they did for AMD's processors: , even if team blue's new product is . With Intel's entry into the desktop GPU market, we can now only hope for a gold trifecta in which no single company calls the shots, and all three competitors keep their peers in check with performance and pricing. Only time will tell. competition subpar at best To wrap things up, while we know what team HackerNoon readers are leaning toward if they want to purchase a graphic card, we also know (based on the poll results) that a good chunk of readers are unlikely to buy a new graphic card anytime soon. It could be the price, the availability, or the fact that they probably don't care about a graphic card and are likely not consumers who have a need for a dedicated GPU. , they follow a simple principle: they don't upgrade unless what they currently have is no longer giving them the performance they seek. Or To participate in Hackernoon’s current poll, head down to the following . link

Stories, News & Mentions about INTEL

Trending Topics

Classic

Neon Noir

Minty

Newspaper

HN StartUps