Dr. Dro"We are a data center company"

She said: "We are a data centre first company".
This is nothing new. Their quarterly revenues were already proportionally higher in data centre several quarters ago.

Vya Domuswww.tomshardware.com/tech-i...y-quoted-at-usd1-000-for-crowdfunding-project

TBF those chips are worth 300-500 being sold for severely inflated price of 36000 to the US army just like everything else.

Tek-CheckShe said: "We are a data centre first company".
This is nothing new. Their quarterly revenues were already proportionally higher in data centre several quarters ago.

it's just business, that first thing doesn't really matter, early wolf gets the meat and all that. fiscally, they're obliged to place maximum priority in the most profitable businesses, which is one of the reasons that the situation at nvidia is defcon 1 as far as gaming hardware market goes. if they do away with geforce, then it's one less front for AMD to compete in - they'll just refocus on DC and make "gaming" semicustom for consoles, that's gonna be it.

AMD simply has to tell shareholders what they're already seeing in earnings numbers that datacenter sales are their first priority while it's most profitable. The gaming sector had been in decline for awhile as people aren't buying overpriced consoles or GPU's being 30-40% higher than normal. AMD also expects consumer and gaming to decline further in 2027 which correlates with what the memory cartel is saying, memory will only get more expensive.
Nvidia on the other hand could completely drop the gaming GPU line, they're part of the way there by ending the 5090,5080, and purposely diverting chips away from the gaming side to sell more pro cards, causing prices to increase by 2-3X. Also possibly causing a false scarcity of silicon by overselling GPU's to AI companies.
Nvidia would barely notice the gaming market gone on their bottom line which was thrown in with edge computing, and the rest of the market would fill in the gap, or someone new could step in.

tsurugi
I don't see how you came to that conclusion.
Intel has put a lot of effort into laptops, and strong support for OEMs is only part of it, as an upstream vendor, it knows more than OEMs and uses this knowledge to help clients solve problems, so major clients will naturally buy into it. If you ignore clients, the result is obvious.

The article you quoted but didn't link also says this:

Partners cited miscommunication, unfulfilled promises, and generally poor treatment, reminiscent of Intel’s behavior during its dominant years.

www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/amds-laptop-oems-decry-poor-support-chip-supply-and-communication-the-company-has-left-billions-of-us-dollars-lying-around-due-to-poor-execution-claims-multiple-reports

So your argument that Intel won the market because it was better is disproved by the same article you quoted but didn't link. I'm going to assume you simply forgot for now and that you didn't intentionally leave that out.

This article was from 2 years ago, AMD's case was less that they didn't care and more that they have to prioritize (more explained below) due to limited resources.

I do agree that Intel has put a lot of effort into laptops but that's part of the problem as well. CPU manufacturers being increasingly integrated into the laptop design process also makes it harder for competitors to get into the market. If the market shifts to increasing codesigns by OEM and chip manufacturer (and it has), that puts competitors and new entrants at a severe disadvantage. Not only does it take time to build these products and relationships, it takes a lot of money to provide engineering resources. It creates a moat. Heck even back when laptops weren't codesigned, the partner ship and resource advantage Intel used to hold was huge.

tsurugiIntel's products are also much better, as the latest lp-e core design can improve battery life, which is very critical for laptops

Intel has merely caught up. You are skipping over the fast that they were lagging behind for several years.

tsurugiamd's latest Strix Point is split into two CCXs, and zen5c takes up much more area than e core darkmont while having lower performance. The efficiency of Strix Point p core is also far inferior to p core Cougar cove. Intel's support for iGPUs is also good, often featuring the latest decode, providing features like xess and mfg.

You are comparing an older architecture vs Intel's brand new one. You didn't compare against AMD's recent refresh, let alone the new architecture in early 2027.

This is the third time you've left out context in one comment that would have disproved the points you are making. It's becoming increasingly likely that you are doing this intentionally.

tsurugiStrix Point laptops are priced expensively, and are by no means cheaper products than Panther lake.

False: www.noobfeed.com/hardware/panther-lake-amd-gorgon-point-laptop-efficiency

"New information from OEM and store sources backs up the fact that Panther Lake is pricey, sometimes very pricey. Panther Lake laptops with the more powerful 12XE Core iGPU are priced behind the scenes at around $1400 to $2400, with at least one store saying the usual price is around $2100."

Other reports backup this claim.

I can't help but notice you also jumped from using cougar cove performance numbers and panther lake pricing.

You have absolutely proven my point that Intel is more expensive on average for the same spec.