this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

59566 readers
3407 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)

This discussion has been going on for more than a decade.

I wouldn't bet investment money on something that Intel is "reportedly considering".

[–] golli@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

But Intel has never been in worse shape. So I think it's less about Intel considering it and more about if it gets forced on them either by activist investors (I remember seeing an article that Intel prepares to defend against that) or necessity.

[–] InvertedParallax@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago

It actually has, but this is more public while their long term forecast is really dark.

If they cut costs more they should be fine, they're basically in a similar place as amd but with no consoles but more defense and government contracts. Also they lost this round of hyperscalers which might be one of the last.

Amd is better off because they started in a bad place (piledriver) and have done an incredible job fighting their way back to the top, so their overheads are lower.

[–] Ilovethebomb@lemm.ee 0 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Did you link to the right article?

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 0 points 2 months ago

Oh, that's weird, that was definitely not the article I was looking at. Thanks for pointing that out, it's fixed now.