As for AI, that needs to run upon hardware and whilst Intel is known for hardware they equaly do software and like most large companies. Often easier to let the little chaps do all the work, pick the best before it becomes big and buy them. Which can be cheaper than starting from scratch yourself and reduce the financial risks, whilst still getting in on the returns using smaller companies as research for a much more diverse skills and talents along with increased financial budget combined than any large company could dream of expending. So in some area's it is easier to have in house skills that can keep track of what everybody else is doing in that area and how it is progressing so that you are ready to swoop in and borg that lego block for your collection and reduce your financial risk greatly. More so in area's that are still very much maturing.
Okay, let's say that Intel hasn't been under investing in improving the performance of their cpus. They still have 63% margins across their entire product line, they still don't have 8 core cpu options below $1000. They still don't have consumer cpu options that ditch the integrated graphics.
All of which is only possible because they have had a monopoly.
You got it backwards: them having a monopoly is only possible because it hasn't been possible for anyone else to produce more efficient desktop/laptop CPUs. On the mobile, where there are competent competitors, it's a different story.
It's not as if if they sacrificed their margins they'd magically be able to produce faster processors. Just cheaper ones.
And why would they have "consumer cpu options that ditch the integrated graphics"? What that would accomplish, when there's a ton of cpu being wasted otherwise?
Intel has patents over the x86 instruction set.
>> It's not as if if they sacrificed their margins they'd magically be able to produce faster processors. Just cheaper ones.
They have produced slower processor on purpose. Instead of soldering the chip to the heat spreader, they started using a very inefficient thermal paste. Replacing it leads to 20K better temps. It hurts both the speed and the expected life time of the processor. But what's wrong if the customer needs a new CPU in 3 years ...
>> And why would they have "consumer cpu options that ditch the integrated graphics"? What that would accomplish, when there's a ton of cpu being wasted otherwise?
The graphics units occupy more than 50% of the die on recent Intel mainstream CPUs. Instead of GPU they could put 8 cores in chips like 7700K and save money.
Not the x86 instruction sets - that's out of patent protection a while ago (patents are max 20 years).
Maybe amd64 (which is more AMDs parents).
PS: GPU's might seem like something you want on the CPU, but bandwidth is a killer worse they add heat which directly lowers CPU performance.
I've been waiting for a few generations now to get an Intel CPU with decent iGPU but it's really been stagnant. I gave up the wait and pre-ordered a Ryzen last week.
I do still think it makes sense for Intel to ship CPUs with those integrated CPUs, although maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to offer a chip with more cores and no GPU for the enthusiasts.
Why? iGPU's increase production costs AND reduce both CPU and GPU performance. If Intel wants to produce a separate GPU then more power to them, but that's not what they are doing they are a monopoly extending their dominance to another market at the cost of consumers aka us.
Remember, resistance increases with heat, so even it there where zero manufacturing or performance costs it still increases power consumption.
Furthermore, these iGPUs are incredibly energy efficient, and obviously small. That's great for battery life and PC size.
And why is that because of "abusing their market position", as opposed to plainly and clearly being more difficult to get faster processors at 14 nm and lower resolutions (and with the low power requirements of today)?
Besides, the trend the article points to is a BS fad as I see it (and I've seen 5-6 of those play out in the last 30 years). ASICS and FPGAs wont even come close to bringing in as much cash as general purpose CPUs do for Intel.