But perhaps there's something I'm missing here. Is there a misconception or lack of information here on my end that needs to be clarified? I can only make my analysis largely as an outsider looking in when talking about semiconductors.
I don't think any of this represents a short-term problem for Intel, other than the general downturn in processor sales because fewer people will need to upgrade. But I think it represents a very serious long-term threat.
They have some really cool technical advances, like 3D xpoint. But I'm concerned that they do so badly on embedded and custom integration from a long-term perspective.
I don't know enough about this, but the GP's argument of "Intel hit the wall first because they were the first to reach that level of performance" makes logical sense to me.
Yes, Safari, but iPhones do compete with your average desktop processor (not the top end).
https://macdailynews.com/2018/09/23/apples-iphone-xs-is-fast...
And as you said, you're comparing the top-of-the-line iPhone to an "average" CPU.
They really don't. A12 added a couple of instructions for floating point conversions, but contrary to claims making rounds on Twitter at the time, they were not even generated by WebKit when the benchmarks were run.
Don't forget that Intel CPUs have things that A CPUs are missing like QuickSync, AVX2, massive PCIe interconnectivity.
Whether the A-series CPU could be modified into something competitive on that front is yet to be seen. Whether this actually matters considering the state of our compilers and software development is yet another question.
Also, Apple doesn't make its own A-series processors - it uses TSMC for that.
We've yet to see how competitive they'll be once Intel leapfrogs that 10nm node. That's assuming that they can, of course...
In terms of architecture and vulnerabilities, it's not prudent to bet Intel chips are more vulnerable to exploits than others - it's just that we know more about those vulnerabilities. If you want to find vulnerabilities with high impact in cloud and enterprise data centers, Intel Xeon CPUs will be your primary research target.
It's also naive to dismiss the possibility for Intel to have learnt a lot from some of the failures in 10nm that will prove useful in accelerating node development in the future.
I wouldn't expect any massive leads in any industry to last for long. This might just be regression to the mean.
They still seem to be producing the fastest processors available for desktop and server.
It doesnt matter if someone else is making even a 3nm chip if the chip still can't outperform the current offerings.
They aren't comparable between AMD and Intel. They absolutely are comparable between Intel and Intel.
The spoiler though is that different architectures have different scaling properties and limitations. IBM's Power architecture has already scaled past where Intel is, not because of the semiconductor process, but because the architecture is more streamlined. ARM is somewhere in the middle, it started off pretty streamlined but it has been adding warts (special instructions) to more directly compete with Intel and that creates impediments to scaling.
So much so that we're now we're down to two companies in the whole world who are successfully executing the smallest CPU nodes, unless Intel manages to make their "10nm" work, or pulls off their "7nm".
While we're hearing the very roughly equivalent TSMC "5nm" node is starting risk production (https://wccftech.com/tsmc-5nm-production-euv/ beta testing, you might say, someone outside of TSMC has to be the first, second, etc. to try to get real world dies that work on a new node). Intel isn't saying anything, but Semiaccurate has reported at least two fab lines that were slated to move to their 10nm are installing lots of EUV equipment consistent with using them for their 7nm node (and at least one fab moving back to 14nm).
Intel is struggling because of their struggles with 10nm. Apple and AMD are not because TSMC has pulled off 7nm. Architecture matters, but process node matters a lot too.
They compounded their problems by essentially stopping microarchitecture development on 14nm, which is why eg. their laptop processors still don't support LPDDR4, and they're still shipping basically the same CPU core they released in 2015. Coupling microarchitecture and fabrication development has at times been an advantage for Intel, but for the past few years it's been a huge mistake, and they've promised changes to their design processes so that they don't get stuck like this again in the future if fab advances aren't ready when new microarchitectures are.
TSMC naturally doesn't have this problem, because they're a pure play foundry. Their customers have to each make their own bets on when new fab processes will be truly ready, and how well they will perform in practice.
But it's a brittle model, if a company screws up a node and is too messed up to handle the failure gracefully, as Intel is doing with their "10nm", no doubt with pride as a factor. And it's not uncommon for institutions to permanently lose abilities, I'm not counting on Intel succeeding with their "7nm" node.
On the third hand, we're now down to 2-3 high end CPU fab companies, Samsung, TSMC, and maybe Intel. That also can be a brittle thing.
It's eking. Eke, eked, eking.