Sure, but those are CPU libraries, but what has grown NVIDIA into a $2T company wasn't building CPUs - it was building processors specific to this new and exploding field of ML/AI, which grew out of them building processors (GPUs) specific to the growing field of realtime PC-based gaming...

Is the problem that Intel saw themselves too narrowly as in the CPU business rather than as in the compute business? I've no idea - it'd be interesting to hear the inside story of how all these missed opportunities went down.

I mean, if your benchmark is "not being as successful as NVIDIA", then yes, a lot of companies are failures.

You're missing the point - it's not about comparing Intel to anyone else, but rather about Intel's missed market opportunities. They make processors but missed all the new market opportunities for processors.

> Pretty sure they've captured as much of the AI/ML business as CPUs possibly can.

Which is exactly how they missed out on AI/ML. CPU is irrelevant in that market.

> Because Intel is popular in gaming PCs

All gaming consoles use AMD or Nvidia hardware.

Gaming PCs use AMD or Nvidia GPUs.

>Gaming PCs use AMD or Nvidia GPUs.

Any Steam hardware survey (the most relevant for gaming PC contexts) will show Intel handily beating AMD at around 66% to 33% for CPU[1], so your claim that Intel is somehow not popular is bunk.

[1]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/processormfg/

GPU

Note the "G" followed by PU

Graphics Processing Unit

None of those are GPUs

Steam survey PC video card stats show 76.92% Nvidia, 15.09% AMD, and 7.59% Intel (graphics unit integrated with CPU)

I never said that Intel CPUs are not popular on gaming PCs. But Intel used to have 99% of that Market.

Intel doesn't have and has never had a GPU line worth writing home about, so I don't know why you would bring up something Intel never had to say Intel is unpopular in gaming PCs.

> Intel doesn't have and has never had a GPU line worth writing home about

That is my point. Emphasizing the earlier statement: "They missed the gaming market".

Your point is bad. Ignoring the fact that Intel's bread and butter is the CPU, of which they have a dominant gaming marketshare, is obtuse.

They missed the GPU market (AI/ML/Gaming) and the console market. Hence they lost all of that to Nvidia and AMD. Both of those companies now have a bigger market cap than Intel.

How is this so difficult to understand? It is very simple, not obtuse, unless you are autistic.

Nvidia market cap is $2.26 Trillion.

AMD market cap is $290 Billion.

Intel market cap is $178 Billion.

AMD and Nvidia used to be a tiny fraction of Intel.

You guys are getting autistically stuck on this irrelevant detail about CPU popularity in gaming PCs and missing the bigger topic of the discussion. But even in that niche, Intel has lost significant market share to AMD.

"Autistic". You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

Are we back in kindergarten, with name calling?