>That's why Intel realized that fab technology was the true differentiator.

But now the situation is completely reversed. Intel has faced all kinds of problems, costs, and delays due ultimately to the fact that they made a bad choice on their chip architecture but were forced to make it work because they invested so much in the fab.

What TSMC is fabbing for nvidia is working out really well, and if it was not nvidia could walk away without being stuck with billions of dollars of fab facilities they have to own forever.

edit: reversed is the wrong choice of words. It IS all about the fab, but Intel could not/did not accept that maybe someone else had the key differentiator now.

I think it's the other way around. The architecture was being limited by their fabs ability to yeild large chips and in the absence of any CPU perf pressure from AMD the natural push would lean more towards increacong graphics performance in order to push more pixels. As in I think Intel probably had the same yeild issues as everyone else ~10-32 nm but only Intel had the high margins small chip volume to make it profitable to ramp until Apple and TSMC happened.

The architecture is definitely far ahead of anyone else. When you look at Intel chips still being competitive despite manufacturing being a generation behind and with 1/6th the cache per core.

I'm an AMD shareholder and my biggest fear is Intel figuring out their manufacturing.