https://www.pcworld.com/article/3147846/computers/intel-may-…
Obviously I don’t know. But I wager that intel and Nvidia are major founders of many of these AI start ups, and they could buy them with no trouble at all prior to their going public.
But if these new AI companies were of such promise, then why is intel giving up its futuristic iGPU tech and paying AMD a fortune to share GPU tech with them, after paying Nvidia $1.5 billion for the privilege earlier?
When one actually starts to see a new disruptive technology adopted in a material fashion, then one can react to it. Until then, it takes more than just a new technology to take the market by storm. Their is an entire infrastructure of things that need to take place ot enable a new technology ot take any marketshare.
And a product that is just slightly better won’t do it. It has to be much better, and it has to meet a moving goal post as what GPUs can do, at the power they can do it as, continues to improve.
ASICS, sure. ASICS can perform specific functions at better power and speed. But they are limited to specific tasks.
When there is actually a product let me know. At that point we can discuss it and see if it is actually gaining material marketshare or not. I am never wedded to any such tech or company. I have seen many disruptions. There is no disruption presently in the marketplace, or presently in any scientific journal that is a threat to Nvidia.
Quantum computing is still years away from being a potential disruption threat. Good luck to the new start ups, who unlike many start ups, have not actually hyped and given any specifics about what they are working on, nor announced and customer wins. Start ups are usually not very shy about such things.
This is not being flippant, this is simply being, when there is evidence, not just some esoteric potential, then it is time to look closer. Otherwise, one wastes their time as every new and exciting tech has some challenger, and most never materialize.
Tinker