Okay but why would Intel exit in that case? Beating one of its competitors should open up enough market space for Intel to continue. If Intel is looking at the consumer dGPU market and thinking it can gain a 50%+ share overnight, beating Nvidia, then the people behind this project must be delusional, and I can't believe that. Even if first place is the end goal, forcing AMD out of the market would be an important step towards that, serving to embolden Intel. Yes, Intel has a tendency to canceling big projects but that must also be part of a learning process, it's hard to believe they would just throw massive cash at dGPUs just to see what happens, they must know that if they don't execute well, they would not be successful.
- Intel likes margins, and if its perpetually stuck competing in a low margin space, chasing NV with truckloads of R&D money for little return, I could very well see Intel exiting the space.
Anyone that has been associated with corporations or worked for one has likely experienced chasing some executive's pet project that gets approval thanks to yes men and group think. A lot of the time the only justification is "our competitors are doing it, so we have to also!!!". Neither Intel or AMD are like NV, the CEO isn't a founder and their missions and directives are relatively broad: I could see a "delusional" project getting the greenlight because responsibility is diffuse and no one wants to be the guy that says no (among other reasons).
Let's say that happens, and Nvidia stands alone. Judging by your other comments, you don't see AMD as a proper competitor to Nvidia - you said you were burned by both Polaris and Vega, and you don't seem to have much faith in AMD's future. Going by that logic Nvidia already stands alone, so how can Intel's entry into the market, or any sort of potential shake-up for that matter, be a bad thing? If AMD's jabs create sufficient competition I certainly don't see its effect now - it feels like the RTX cards as priced at the absolute maximum of consumer tolerance, forcing hands, an act of a complete monopolist.
Another thing that I noticed is that we're all discussing a scenario where Intel actually wants to compete in the general consumer and/or gaming market. Perhaps Intel wants to enter the non-general dGPU market which is a whole different story.
-AMD has struck from behind with incredible cards before, and personally I considered them competitive right through the Fury X. I only picked up my current 980Ti because people were offloading them used after the 1080 launched at absurdly low prices while the Fury line of cards were maintaining their value for a variety of reasons.
You're right in that I think AMD is not currently competitive, but they've been in this position before and I don't think currently noncompetitive means perpetually noncompetitive. They are subsisting on mining (gone for the time being), Vega's compute capabilities in the professional space, and the X60 and lower space (which looks like its going to get squeezed badly here soon).
Intel's entry can upset AMD's current revenue lines in the consumer space and assuming they go after the pro space, crimp AMD's revenue there as well. Lisa Su is no pushover and while there is certainly a scenario where AMD rises to the occasion, I think Dr. Su is just as likely to make the logical, unemotional choice (as many Intel CEOs have made for various product lines) of not chasing a bad proposition with good money and exiting the market.
Intel undoubtedly wants to enter the pro-market with their GPUs to offer the same kind of "complete package" solution AMD is able to offer. That might be a bigger problem for NV (which is piggybacking on Intel's CPUs at the moment) when Intel starts up its bundling practices there as well.