"Nvidia is so far ahead that all the 4090s are nerfed to half speed"

What made Intel seem unbeatable was its process node advantage. Nvidia does not have fabrication plants, so it is able to get the best process node from whoever has it. Nvidia is therefore not vulnerable to what befell Intel.

What makes Nvidia seem unbeatable is that Nvidia does the best job on hardware design, does a good job on the software for the hardware and gets its designs out quickly such that they can charge a premium. By the time the competition makes a competitive design, Nvidia has the next generation ready to go. They seem to be trying to accelerate their pace to kill attempts to compete with them and so far, it is working.

Nvidia just does not do the same thing better in a new generation, but tries to fundamentally change the paradigm to obtain better than generational improvements across generations. That is how they introduced SIMT, tensor cores, FP8 and more recently FP4, just to name a few. While their competitors are still implementing the last round of improvements Nvidia made to the state of the art, Nvidia launches yet another round of improvements.

For example, Nvidia has had GPUs on the market with FP8 for two years. Intel just launched their B580 discrete GPUs and Lunar Lake CPUs with Xe2 cores. There is no FP8 support to be seen as far as I have been able to gather. Meanwhile, Nvidia will soon be launching its 50 series GPUs with FP4 support. AMD’s RDNA GPUs are not poised to gain FP8 until the yet to be released RDNA 4 and I have no idea when Intel’s ARC graphics will gain FP8. Apple’s recent M4 series does have FP8, but no FP4 support.

Things look look less bad for Nvidia’s competitors in the enterprise market, CDNA 3 launched with FP8 support last year. Intel had Gaudi 2 with FP8 support around the same time as Nvidia, and even launched Gaudi 3. Then there is tenstorrent with FP8 on the wormhole processors that they released 6 months ago. However, FP4 support is no where to be seen with any of them and they will likely not release it until well after Nvidia, just like nearly all of them did with FP8. This is only naming a few companies too. There are many others in this sector that have not even touched FP8 yet.

In any case, I am sure that in a generation or two after Blackwell, Nvidia will have some other bright idea for changing the paradigm and its competition will lag behind in adopting it.

So far, I have only discussed compute. I have not even touched on graphics, where Nvidia has had many more innovations, on top of some of the compute oriented changes being beneficial to graphics too. Off the top of my head, Nvidia has had variable rate shading to improve rendering performance, ray tracing cores to reinvent rendering, tensor cores to enable upscaling (I did mention overlap between compute and graphics), optical flow accelerators to enable frame generation and likely others that I do not recall offhand. These are some of the improvements of the past 10 years and I am sure that the next 10 years will have more.

We do not see Nvidia’s competition put forward nearly as many paradigm changing ideas. For example, AMD did “smart access memory” more than a decade after it had been standardized as resizeable bar, which was definitely a contribution, but not one they invented. For something that they actually did invent, we need to look at HBM. I am not sure if they or anyone else I mentioned has done much else. Beyond the companies I mentioned, there are Groq and Cerebras (maybe Google too, but I am not sure) with their SRAM architectures, but that is about it as far as I know of companies implementing paradigm changing ideas in the same space.

I do not expect Nvidia to stop being a juggernaut until they run out of fresh ideas. They have produced so many ideas that I would not bet on them running out of new ideas any time soon. If I were to bet against them, I would have expected them to run out of ideas years ago, yet here we are.

Going back to the discussion of Intel seeming to be unbeatable in the past, they largely did the same thing better in each generation (with occasional ISA extensions), which was enough when they had a process advantage, but it was not enough when they lost their process advantage. The last time Intel tried to do something innovative in its core market, they gave us Itanium, and it was such a flop that they kept doing the same thing incrementally better ever since then. Losing their process advantage took away what put them on top.

I didn’t say they don’t do artificial segmentation. I just noted that, in this case, it might have an upside for the user. There might also be some binning involved- maybe the parts failed as A300 parts.

Nvidia has been very smart to be well prepared, but the emergency of Bitcoin and AI were two huge bits of good luck for them. It's very unlikely that there is another once-in-a-lifetime event that will also benefit Nvidia in that way. Nvidia will be successful in the future, but it will be through more normal, smart business, means.

Then there were software libraries and the Intel C/C++ Compiler that favored Intel. They would place optimized code paths that only ran on Intel hardware in third party software. Intel has stopped doing that in recent years as far as I know (the MKL has Zen specific code paths), but that is a fairly recent change (maybe the past 5 years).

There were also ISA extensions. Even if Intel had trouble competing on existing code, they would often extend the ISA to gain a temporary advantage over their competitors by enabling developers to write more optimal code paths that would run only on Intel’s most recent CPUs. They have done less of that ever since the AVX-512 disaster, but Intel still is the one defining ISA extensions and it historically gained a short term advantage whenever it did.

Interestingly, the situation is somewhat inverted as of late given Intel’s failure to implement the AVX-512 family of extensions in consumer CPUs in a sane way, when AMD succeeded. Intel now is at a disadvantage to AMD because od its own ISA extension. They recently made AVX-10 to try to fix that, but it adds nothing that was not already in AVX-512, so AMD CPUs after Zen 3 would have equivalent code paths from AVX-512, even without implementing AVX-10.

stock must go up