Editing Intel (section)

==Product and market history==
{{More citations needed|section|date=January 2018}}

===SRAMs, DRAMs, and the microprocessor===
Intel's first products were [[shift register]] memory and random-access [[Primary storage|memory]] integrated circuits, and Intel grew to be a leader in the fiercely competitive [[dynamic random-access memory|DRAM]], [[static random-access memory|SRAM]], and [[read-only memory|ROM]] markets throughout the 1970s. Concurrently, Intel engineers [[Marcian Hoff]], [[Federico Faggin]], [[Stanley Mazor]], and [[Masatoshi Shima]] invented Intel's first [[microprocessor]]. Originally developed for the Japanese company [[Busicom]] to replace a number of [[Application-specific integrated circuit|ASICs]] in a calculator already produced by Busicom, the [[Intel 4004]] was introduced to the mass market on November 15, 1971, though the microprocessor did not become the core of Intel's business until the mid-1980s. (Note: Intel is usually given credit with [[Texas Instruments]] for the almost-simultaneous invention of the microprocessor.)

In 1983, at the dawn of the personal computer era, Intel's profits came under increased pressure from Japanese memory-chip manufacturers, and then-president Andy Grove focused the company on microprocessors. Grove described this transition in the book ''[[Only the Paranoid Survive]]''. A key element of his plan was the notion, then considered radical, of becoming the single source for successors to the popular [[Intel 8086|8086]] microprocessor.

Until then, the manufacture of complex integrated circuits was not reliable enough for customers to depend on a single supplier, but Grove began producing processors in three geographically distinct factories,{{which|date=October 2013}} and ceased licensing the chip designs to competitors such as [[Advanced Micro Devices|AMD]].<ref>{{cite news |title=Intel and the x86 Architecture: A Legal Perspective |url=https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective |access-date=October 17, 2021 |date=January 4, 2011 |archive-date=October 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211017024727/https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/digest/intel-and-the-x86-architecture-a-legal-perspective |url-status=live }}</ref> When the PC industry boomed in the late 1980s and 1990s, Intel was one of the primary beneficiaries.

===Early x86 processors and the IBM PC===
[[File:Intel 8742 153056995.jpg|thumb|The [[die (integrated circuit)|die]] from an Intel 8742, an [[8-bit computing|8-bit]] microcontroller that includes a [[CPU]] running at 12&nbsp;MHz, 128 bytes of [[RAM]], 2048 bytes of [[EPROM]], and [[Input/output|I/O]] in the same chip]]

Despite the ultimate importance of the microprocessor, the [[Intel 4004|4004]] and its successors the [[Intel 8008|8008]] and the [[Intel 8080|8080]] were never major revenue contributors at Intel.

In 1975, the company had started a project to develop a highly advanced 32-bit microprocessor, finally released in 1981 as the [[Intel iAPX 432]]. The project was too ambitious and the processor was never able to meet its performance objectives, and it failed in the marketplace. (Intel eventually extended the [[x86|x86 architecture]] to 32 bits instead.)<ref>{{cite web
  |last=Maliniak
  |first=Lisa
  |title=Ten Notable Flops: Learning From Mistakes
  |work=Electronic Design Online
  |date=October 21, 2002
|url=http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839
  |access-date=November 27, 2007
|url-status=dead
  |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081216121817/http://electronicdesign.com/Articles/Index.cfm?AD=1&ArticleID=2839
  |archive-date=December 16, 2008

  }}</ref><ref>{{cite web
  |last=Dvorak
  |first=John C.
  |author-link=John C. Dvorak
  |title=What Ever Happened to... Intel's Dream Chip?
  |date=February 1997
  |url=http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/dreamchip.html
  |access-date=November 27, 2007
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071018060554/http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/retrocomputing/intel/iapx432/dreamchip.html
  |archive-date=October 18, 2007
|url-status=dead
  }}</ref>

As the next processor, the [[Intel 8086|8086]] (and its variant the 8088) was completed in 1978, Intel embarked on a major marketing and sales campaign for that chip nicknamed "Operation Crush", and intended to win as many customers for the processor as possible. One design win was the newly created [[IBM PC]] division, though the importance of this was not fully realized at the time.

[[IBM]] introduced its personal computer in 1981, and it was rapidly successful. In 1982, Intel created the [[Intel 80286|80286]] microprocessor, which, two years later, was used in the [[IBM Personal Computer/AT|IBM PC/AT]]. [[Compaq]], the first IBM PC "clone" manufacturer, produced a desktop system based on the faster 80286 processor in 1985 and in 1986 quickly followed with the first [[Intel 80386|80386]]-based system, beating IBM and establishing a competitive market for PC-compatible systems and setting up Intel as a key [[component supplier]].

====386 microprocessor====
During this period [[Andrew Grove]] dramatically redirected the company, closing much of its [[DRAM]] business and directing resources to the [[microprocessor]] business. Of perhaps greater importance was his decision to "single-source" the 386 microprocessor. Prior to this, microprocessor manufacturing was in its infancy, and manufacturing problems frequently reduced or stopped production, interrupting supplies to customers. To mitigate this risk, these customers typically insisted that multiple manufacturers produce chips they could use to ensure a consistent supply. The 8080 and 8086-series microprocessors were produced by several companies, notably AMD, with which Intel had a technology-sharing contract.
[[File:Intel chips 386 387.jpg|thumb|The 386 with the optional 387 co-processor]]
Grove made the decision not to license the 386 design to other manufacturers, instead, producing it in three geographically distinct factories: [[Santa Clara, California]]; [[Hillsboro, Oregon]]; and [[Chandler, Arizona|Chandler]], a suburb of [[Phoenix, Arizona]]. He convinced customers that this would ensure consistent delivery. In doing this, Intel breached its contract with AMD, which sued and was paid millions of dollars in damages but could not manufacture new Intel CPU designs any longer. (Instead, AMD started to develop and manufacture its own competing x86 designs.)

As the success of [[Compaq]]'s [[Compaq Deskpro 386|Deskpro 386]] established the 386 as the dominant CPU choice, Intel achieved a position of near-exclusive dominance as its supplier. Profits from this funded rapid development of both higher-performance chip designs and higher-performance manufacturing capabilities, propelling Intel to a position of unquestioned leadership by the early 1990s.

====486, Pentium, and Itanium====
Intel introduced the [[Intel 80486|486]] microprocessor in 1989, and in 1990 established a second design team, designing the processors code-named "[[P5 (microarchitecture)|P5]]" and "[[P6 (microarchitecture)|P6]]" in parallel and committing to a major new processor every two years, versus the four or more years such designs had previously taken. The P5 project was earlier known as "Operation Bicycle", referring to the cycles of the processor through two parallel execution pipelines. The P5 was introduced in 1993 as the Intel [[Pentium]], substituting a registered trademark name for the former part number. (Numbers, such as 486, cannot be legally registered as trademarks in the United States.) The P6 followed in 1995 as the [[Pentium Pro]] and improved into the [[Pentium II]] in 1997. New architectures were developed alternately in [[Santa Clara, California]] and [[Hillsboro, Oregon]].

The Santa Clara design team embarked in 1993 on a successor to the [[x86|x86 architecture]], codenamed "P7". The first attempt was dropped a year later but quickly revived in a cooperative program with [[Hewlett-Packard]] engineers, though Intel soon took over primary design responsibility. The resulting implementation of the [[Itanium|IA-64]] 64-bit architecture was the [[Itanium]], finally introduced in June 2001. The Itanium's performance running legacy x86 code did not meet expectations, and it failed to compete effectively with [[x86-64]], which was AMD's 64-bit extension of the 32-bit x86 architecture (Intel uses the name '''Intel 64''', previously '''EM64T'''). In 2017, Intel announced that the [[Kittson (processor)|Itanium 9700 series]] (Kittson) would be the last Itanium chips produced.<ref name="Davis 2017">{{cite web
  |url = https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/evolution-mission-critical-computing/
  |title = The Evolution of Mission Critical Computing
  |access-date = May 11, 2017
  |df = mdy-all
  |last = Davis
  |first = Lisa M.
  |date = May 11, 2017
  |work = Intel
  |quote = ...the 9700 series will be the last Intel Itanium processor.
  |archive-date = May 17, 2017
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170517090556/https://itpeernetwork.intel.com/evolution-mission-critical-computing/
  |url-status = live
  }}</ref><ref name="IA-PCWorld">{{cite web|title=Intel's Itanium, once destined to replace x86 processors in PCs, hits end of line|url=http://www.pcworld.com/article/3196080/data-center/intels-itanium-once-destined-to-replace-x86-in-pcs-hits-end-of-line.html|website=PCWorld|access-date=May 15, 2017|language=en|date=May 11, 2017|archive-date=May 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170515051735/http://www.pcworld.com/article/3196080/data-center/intels-itanium-once-destined-to-replace-x86-in-pcs-hits-end-of-line.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

The Hillsboro team designed the [[Pentium 4#Willamette|Willamette]] processors (initially code-named P68), which were marketed as the Pentium 4.

During this period, Intel undertook two major supporting advertising campaigns. The first campaign, the 1991 "Intel Inside" marketing and branding campaign, is widely known and has become synonymous with Intel itself. The idea of "[[ingredient branding]]" was new at the time, with only [[NutraSweet]] and a few others making attempts to do so.<ref>{{Cite book|author=Richard S. Tedlow|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zQamXENAalkC&pg=RA1-PA256|title=Andy Grove: The Life and Times of an American Business Icon|year=2007|isbn=978-1-59184-182-1|page=256| publisher=Penguin }}</ref> One of the key architects of the marketing team was the head of the microprocessor division, [[David House (computer designer)|David House]].<ref>{{Cite journal |date=January 22, 2001 |title=Former Bay CEO to head startup |journal=Network World |volume=18 |issue=4 |pages=8}}</ref> He coined the slogan "Intel Inside".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Marshall |first=Jonathan |date=December 5, 1997 |title=An Organized House / Ex-Intel exec rebuilds Bay Networks with focus |url=https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/An-Organized-House-Ex-Intel-exec-rebuilds-Bay-2791338.php |access-date=July 7, 2023 |website=SFGATE |language=en-US |archive-date=June 26, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230626225021/https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/An-Organized-House-Ex-Intel-exec-rebuilds-Bay-2791338.php |url-status=live }}</ref> This campaign established Intel, which had been a component supplier little-known outside the PC industry, as a household name.

The second campaign, Intel's Systems Group, which began in the early 1990s, showcased manufacturing of PC [[motherboard]]s, the main board component of a personal computer, and the one into which the processor (CPU) and memory (RAM) chips are plugged.<ref>{{cite web|last=Wilson|first=Tracy V.|date=July 20, 2005|title=HowStuffWorks "How Motherboards Work"|url=http://computer.howstuffworks.com/motherboard.htm|access-date=July 29, 2010|publisher=Computer.howstuffworks.com|archive-date=August 13, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100813135305/http://computer.howstuffworks.com/motherboard.htm|url-status=live}}</ref> The Systems Group campaign was lesser known than the Intel Inside campaign.

Shortly after, Intel began manufacturing fully configured "[[white box (computer hardware)|white box]]" systems for the dozens of PC clone companies that rapidly sprang up.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Intel Corporation The Architecture That Would Not Die |url=https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/intel-corporation-the-architecture-that-would-not-die/ |access-date=December 13, 2023 |website=The Lawyers & Jurists |archive-date=December 13, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213044237/https://www.lawyersnjurists.com/article/intel-corporation-the-architecture-that-would-not-die/ |url-status=live }}</ref> At its peak in the mid-1990s, Intel manufactured over 15% of all PCs, making it the third-largest supplier at the time.{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}}

During the 1990s, [[Intel Architecture Labs]] (IAL) was responsible for many of the hardware innovations for the PC, including the [[Conventional PCI|PCI]] Bus, the [[PCI Express]] (PCIe) bus, and [[Universal Serial Bus]] (USB). IAL's software efforts met with a more mixed fate; its video and graphics software was important in the development of software digital video,{{Citation needed|date=February 2011}} but later its efforts were largely overshadowed by competition from [[Microsoft]]. The competition between Intel and Microsoft was revealed in testimony by then IAL Vice-president [[Steven McGeady]] at the [[United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001)|Microsoft antitrust trial]] (''United States v. Microsoft Corp.'').

====Pentium flaw====
{{Main|Pentium FDIV bug}}
In June 1994, Intel engineers discovered a flaw in the [[floating-point]] math subsection of the [[P5 (microarchitecture)|P5]] [[Pentium|Pentium microprocessor]]. Under certain data-dependent conditions, the low-order bits of the result of a floating-point division would be incorrect. The error could compound in subsequent calculations. Intel corrected the error in a future chip revision, and under public pressure it issued a total recall and replaced the defective Pentium CPUs (which were limited to some 60, 66, 75, 90, and 100&nbsp;MHz [[Pentium FDIV bug#Affected models|models]]) on customer request.

The [[software bug|bug]] was discovered independently in October 1994 by Thomas Nicely, Professor of Mathematics at [[Lynchburg College]]. He contacted Intel but received no response. On October 30, he posted a message about his finding on the Internet.<ref name="Nicely-email">{{cite web |url=http://www.emery.com/nicely.htm |title=Thomas Nicely's Pentium email |access-date=July 12, 2007 |last=Nicely |first=Thomas |date=October 30, 1994 |publisher=Vince Emery Productions |archive-date=January 16, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116171317/http://www.emery.com/nicely.htm |url-status=dead}}</ref> Word of the bug spread quickly and reached the industry press. The bug was easy to replicate; a user could enter specific numbers into the calculator on the operating system. Consequently, many users did not accept Intel's statements that the error was minor and "not even an erratum". During Thanksgiving, in 1994, ''[[The New York Times]]'' ran a piece by journalist [[John Markoff]] spotlighting the error. Intel changed its position and offered to replace every chip, quickly putting in place a large end-user [[Technical support|support]] organization. This resulted in a $475 million charge against Intel's 1994 [[revenue]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trnicely.net/#PENT|title=Personal website of Dr. Nicely, who discovered the bug|last=Nicely|first=Thomas|access-date=April 6, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160712050001/http://www.trnicely.net/#PENT|archive-date=July 12, 2016|url-status=dead}}</ref> Nicely later learned that Intel had discovered the FDIV bug in its own testing a few months before him (but had decided not to inform customers).<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.trnicely.net/pentbug/pentbug.html|title="Pentium FDIV flaw" FAQ email from Dr. Nicely|last=Nicely|first=Thomas|access-date=May 4, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120313230545/http://www.trnicely.net/pentbug/pentbug.html|archive-date=March 13, 2012|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The "Pentium flaw" incident, Intel's response to it, and the surrounding media coverage propelled Intel from being a technology supplier generally unknown to most computer users to a household name. Dovetailing with an uptick in the "Intel Inside" campaign, the episode is considered to have been a positive event for Intel, changing some of its business practices to be more end-user focused and generating substantial public awareness, while avoiding a lasting negative impression.<ref>Grove, Andrew and Burgleman, Robert; ''Strategy Is Destiny: How Strategy-Making Shapes a Company's Future'', 2001, Free Press<!--needs page number--></ref>

=== Intel Core ===
{{Main|Intel Core}}
The Intel Core line originated from the original Core brand, with the release of the [[32-bit computing|32-bit]] ''[[Yonah (microprocessor)|Yonah]]'' [[CPU]], Intel's first [[dual-core]] mobile (low-power) processor. Derived from the [[Pentium M]], the processor family used an enhanced version of the P6 microarchitecture. Its successor, the [[Intel Core 2|Core 2]] family, was released on July 27, 2006. This was based on the Intel [[Intel Core (microarchitecture)|Core microarchitecture]], and was a 64-bit design.<ref>{{cite web|title=Intel Microarchitecture|url=http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/core/|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090612020454/http://www.intel.com/technology/architecture-silicon/core/|archive-date=June 12, 2009|access-date=December 13, 2010|publisher=Intel}}</ref> Instead of focusing on higher clock rates, the Core microarchitecture emphasized power efficiency and a return to lower clock speeds.<ref>{{cite web|title=Penryn Arrives: Core 2 Extreme QX9650 Review|url=http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1697,2208241,00.asp|url-status=dead|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071031004242/http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0%2C1697%2C2208241%2C00.asp|archive-date=October 31, 2007|access-date=October 30, 2006|publisher=ExtremeTech}}</ref> It also provided more efficient decoding stages, execution units, [[CPU cache|caches]], and [[Bus (computing)|buses]], reducing the [[Electric energy consumption|power consumption]] of Core 2-branded CPUs while increasing their processing capacity.

In November 2008, Intel released the 1st-generation Core processors based on the [[Nehalem (microarchitecture)|Nehalem microarchitecture]]. Intel also introduced a new naming scheme, with the three variants now named Core i3, i5, and i7 (as well as i9 from 7th-generation onwards). Unlike the previous naming scheme, these names no longer correspond to specific technical features. It was succeeded by the [[Westmere (microarchitecture)|Westmere microarchitecture]] in 2010, with a die shrink to 32&nbsp;nm and included Intel HD Graphics.

In 2011, Intel released the [[Sandy Bridge]]-based 2nd-generation Core processor family. This generation featured an 11% performance increase over Nehalem.<ref>{{cite web|author=Anand Lal Shimpi|title=The Sandy Bridge Review: Intel Core i7-2600K, i5-2500K and Core i3-2100 Tested|url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1|access-date=May 27, 2015|work=anandtech.com|archive-date=May 14, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120514034456/http://www.anandtech.com/show/4083/the-sandy-bridge-review-intel-core-i7-2600k-i5-2500k-core-i3-2100-tested/1|url-status=live}}</ref> It was succeeded by [[Ivy Bridge (microarchitecture)|Ivy Bridge]]-based 3rd-generation Core, introduced at the 2012 Intel Developer Forum.<ref>Rick Merritt, ''[[EE Times]]''. [http://eetimes.com/electronics-news/4227214/Intel-describes-22nm-Ivy-Bridge-CPUs "Intel describes 22nm Ivy Bridge CPUs"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110930003303/http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4227214/Intel-describes-22nm-Ivy-Bridge-CPUs |date=September 30, 2011 }}. September 13, 2011. Retrieved September 14, 2011.</ref> Ivy Bridge featured a die shrink to [[22 nm process|22 nm]], and supported both DDR3 memory and DDR3L chips.

Intel continued its [[Tick–tock model|tick-tock]] model of a microarchitecture change followed by a die shrink until the 6th-generation Core family based on the [[Skylake (microarchitecture)|Skylake]] microarchitecture. This model was deprecated in 2016, with the release of the 7th-generation Core family based on [[Kaby Lake]], ushering in the [[process–architecture–optimization model]].<ref name="anandtech-pao">{{cite web|title=Intel's 'Tick–Tock' Seemingly Dead, Becomes 'Process–Architecture–Optimization'|url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/10183/intels-tick-tock-seemingly-dead-becomes-process-architecture-optimization|access-date=March 23, 2016|website=Anandtech.com|archive-date=March 23, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160323075035/http://www.anandtech.com/show/10183/intels-tick-tock-seemingly-dead-becomes-process-architecture-optimization|url-status=live}}</ref> From 2016 until 2021, Intel later released more optimizations on the Skylake microarchitecture with [[Kaby Lake|Kaby Lake R]], [[Amber Lake (microarchitecture)|Amber Lake]], [[Whiskey Lake (microprocessor)|Whiskey Lake]], [[Coffee Lake]], [[Coffee Lake Refresh|Coffee Lake R]], and [[Comet Lake (microprocessor)|Comet Lake]].<ref>{{cite news|title=New 8th Gen Intel Core Processors Optimize Connectivity, Great Performance, Battery Life for Laptops {{!}} Intel Newsroom|language=en-US|work=Intel Newsroom|url=https://newsroom.intel.com/news/new-8th-gen-intel-core-processors-optimized-connectivity-great-performance-long-battery-life-laptops/|access-date=August 28, 2018|archive-date=November 9, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191109114349/https://newsroom.intel.com/news/new-8th-gen-intel-core-processors-optimized-connectivity-great-performance-long-battery-life-laptops/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|last1=Cutress|first1=Ian|date=September 25, 2017|title=Intel Announces 8th Generation Core "Coffee Lake" Desktop Processors: Six-core i7, Four-core i3, and Z370 Motherboards|publisher=Anandtech|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/11869/intel-announces-8th-generation-coffee-lake-hex-core-desktop-processors|access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-date=January 22, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210122073932/https://www.anandtech.com/show/11869/intel-announces-8th-generation-coffee-lake-hex-core-desktop-processors|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Intel Announces World's Best Gaming Processor: New 9th Gen Intel Core i9-9900K|url=https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-announces-worlds-best-gaming-processor-new-9th-gen-intel-core-i9-9900k/|website=Intel Newsroom|access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-date=March 4, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210304133209/https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-announces-worlds-best-gaming-processor-new-9th-gen-intel-core-i9-9900k/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Intel Expands 10th Gen Intel Core Mobile Processor Family, Offering Double Digit Performance Gains|url=https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-expands-10th-gen-intel-core-mobile-processor-family-offering-double-digit-performance-gains/|access-date=August 24, 2019|website=Intel Newsroom|language=en-US|archive-date=August 21, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190821132851/https://newsroom.intel.com/news/intel-expands-10th-gen-intel-core-mobile-processor-family-offering-double-digit-performance-gains/|url-status=live}}</ref> Intel struggled to shrink their process node from [[14 nm process|14 nm]] to [[10 nm process|10 nm]], with the first microarchitecture under that node, [[Cannon Lake (microarchitecture)|Cannon Lake]] (marketed as 8th-generation Core), only being released in small quantities in 2018.<ref name="Cutress"/><ref name="Intel discontinues Cannon Lake NUC"/>

In 2019, Intel released the 10th-generation of Core processors, codenamed "Amber Lake", "Comet Lake", and "[[Ice Lake (microprocessor)|Ice Lake]]". Ice Lake, based on the [[Sunny Cove]] microarchitecture, was produced on the 10&nbsp;nm process and was limited to low-power mobile processors. Both Amber Lake and Comet Lake were based on a refined 14&nbsp;nm node, with the latter being used for desktop and high-performance mobile products and the former used for low-power mobile products.

In September 2020, 11th-generation Core mobile processors, codenamed [[Tiger Lake (microprocessor)|Tiger Lake]], were launched.<ref name=":13">{{cite web|last=Cutress|first=Dr Ian|title=Intel's 11th Gen Core Tiger Lake SoC Detailed: SuperFin, Willow Cove and Xe-LP|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/15971/intels-11th-gen-core-tiger-lake-soc-detailed-superfin-willow-cove-and-xelp|access-date=April 6, 2021|website=www.anandtech.com|archive-date=May 18, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210518152431/https://www.anandtech.com/show/15971/intels-11th-gen-core-tiger-lake-soc-detailed-superfin-willow-cove-and-xelp|url-status=live}}</ref> Tiger Lake is based on the Willow Cove microarchitecture and a refined 10&nbsp;nm node.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 20, 2016|title=Intel teases its Ice Lake & Tiger Lake family, 10nm for 2018 and 2019|url=https://www.tweaktown.com/news/49816/intel-teases-ice-lake-tiger-family-10nm-2018-2019/index.html|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=TweakTown|language=en-US|archive-date=August 1, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200801203326/https://www.tweaktown.com/news/49816/intel-teases-ice-lake-tiger-family-10nm-2018-2019/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Intel later released 11th-generation Core desktop processors (codenamed "[[Rocket Lake]]"), fabricated using Intel's 14&nbsp;nm process and based on the [[Cypress Cove (microarchitecture)|Cypress Cove]] microarchitecture,<ref name="anandtech">{{cite web|date=October 29, 2020|title=Intel's 11th Gen Core Rocket Lake Detailed: Ice Lake Core with Xe Graphics|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/16205/intels-11th-gen-core-rocket-lake-detailed-ice-lake-core-with-xe-graphics|publisher=AnandTech|access-date=February 15, 2021|archive-date=November 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211119072253/https://www.anandtech.com/show/16205/intels-11th-gen-core-rocket-lake-detailed-ice-lake-core-with-xe-graphics|url-status=live}}</ref> on March 30, 2021.<ref>{{cite web|last=Alcorn|first=Paul|date=March 23, 2021|title=Intel Rocket Lake Price, Benchmarks, Specs and Release Date, All We Know|url=https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-release-date-specifications-performance-all-we-know|access-date=April 6, 2021|website=Tom's Hardware|language=en|archive-date=March 24, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210324150510/https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-rocket-lake-release-date-specifications-performance-all-we-know|url-status=live}}</ref> It replaced Comet Lake desktop processors. All 11th-generation Core processors feature new integrated graphics based on the [[Intel Xe]] microarchitecture.<ref>{{cite web|last=Smith|first=Ryan|title=The Intel Xe-LP GPU Architecture Deep Dive: Building Up The Next Generation|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/15973/the-intel-xelp-gpu-architecture-deep-dive-building-up-from-the-bottom|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=www.anandtech.com|archive-date=August 16, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200816002207/https://www.anandtech.com/show/15973/the-intel-xelp-gpu-architecture-deep-dive-building-up-from-the-bottom|url-status=live}}</ref>

Both desktop and mobile products were unified under a single process node with the release of 12th-generation Intel Core processors (codenamed "[[Alder Lake (microprocessor)|Alder Lake]]") in late 2021.<ref name=":02">{{cite web|last=Cutress|first=Dr Ian|title=Intel Alder Lake: Confirmed x86 Hybrid with Golden Cove and Gracemont for 2021|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/15979/intel-alder-lake-confirmed-x86-hybrid-with-golden-cove-and-gracemont-for-2021|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=www.anandtech.com|archive-date=August 14, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200814201629/https://www.anandtech.com/show/15979/intel-alder-lake-confirmed-x86-hybrid-with-golden-cove-and-gracemont-for-2021|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite magazine|last=Dexter|first=Alan|date=April 6, 2021|title=Intel Alder Lake CPUs: What are they, when will they launch, and how fast will they be?|url=https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-alder-lake-release-date-specs-performance-price/|access-date=April 7, 2021|magazine=[[PC Gamer]]|language=en-US|archive-date=April 6, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210406112644/https://www.pcgamer.com/intel-alder-lake-release-date-specs-performance-price/|url-status=live}}</ref> This generation will be fabricated using Intel's 10&nbsp;nm process, called Intel 7, for both desktop and mobile processors, and is based on a [[Heterogeneous computing|hybrid architecture]] utilizing high-performance [[Golden Cove (microarchitecture)|Golden Cove]] cores and high-efficiency [[Gracemont (microarchitecture)|Gracemont]] (Atom) cores.<ref name=":02"/>

==== Transient execution CPU vulnerability ====
{{Excerpt|Transient execution CPU vulnerability}}

===Use of Intel products by Apple Inc. (2005–2019)===
{{further|Mac transition to Intel processors}}

On June 6, 2005, [[Steve Jobs]], then CEO of [[Apple Inc.|Apple]], announced that Apple would be transitioning the [[Macintosh]] from its long favored [[PowerPC]] architecture to the Intel x86 architecture because the future PowerPC road map was unable to satisfy Apple's needs.<ref name="auto2"/><ref>{{cite web|date=June 6, 2005|title=Apple to Transition to Intel Processors|url=https://tidbits.com/2005/06/06/apple-to-transition-to-intel-processors/|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=TidBITS|language=en|archive-date=January 19, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210119022131/https://tidbits.com/2005/06/06/apple-to-transition-to-intel-processors/|url-status=live}}</ref> This was seen as a win for Intel,<ref name="auto1"/> although an analyst called the move "risky" and "foolish", as Intel's current offerings at the time were considered to be behind those of AMD and IBM.<ref name="Computerworld1" /> The first Mac computers containing Intel CPUs were announced on January 10, 2006, and Apple had its entire line of consumer Macs running on Intel processors by early August 2006. The Apple Xserve server was updated to Intel [[Xeon]] processors from November 2006 and was offered in a configuration similar to Apple's Mac Pro.<ref name="newmacs">{{cite news|last=Fried|first=Ina|date=January 12, 2006|title=Jobs: New Intel Macs are 'screamers'|publisher=[[CNet]]|url=https://www.cnet.com/news/jobs-new-intel-macs-are-screamers-1/|access-date=February 21, 2020|archive-date=July 29, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200729120618/https://www.cnet.com/news/jobs-new-intel-macs-are-screamers-1/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Despite Apple's use of Intel products, relations between the two companies were strained at times.<ref name="SanJoseMercuryNews1">{{cite news|last1=Chmielewski|first1=Dawn|date=June 7, 2005|title=2005: Changing Apple"s core — Jobs says Intel chips will replace IBM in Macintosh beginning next summer|work=[[The Mercury News|San Jose Mercury News]] (via [[The Monterey County Herald|Monterey Herald]])|url=https://www.montereyherald.com/2015/03/04/2005-changing-apples-core-jobs-says-intel-chips-will-replace-ibm-in-macintosh-beginning-next-summer/|access-date=June 24, 2020|archive-date=November 10, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201110001518/https://www.montereyherald.com/2015/03/04/2005-changing-apples-core-jobs-says-intel-chips-will-replace-ibm-in-macintosh-beginning-next-summer/|url-status=live}}</ref> Rumors of Apple switching from Intel processors to their own designs began circulating as early as 2011.<ref name="SemiAccurate">{{cite web|last1=Demerjian|first1=Charlie|date=May 5, 2011|title=Apple dumps Intel from laptop lines|url=https://www.semiaccurate.com/2011/05/05/apple-dumps-intel-from-laptop-lines/|access-date=September 6, 2024|website=SemiAccurate|publisher=Stone Arch Networking Services, Inc.}}</ref> On June 22, 2020, during Apple's annual [[WWDC]], [[Tim Cook]], Apple's CEO, announced that it would be [[Mac transition to Apple silicon|transitioning the company's entire Mac line]] from Intel CPUs to [[Apple silicon|custom Apple-designed processors]] based on the Arm architecture over the course of the next two years. In the short term, this transition was estimated to have minimal effects on Intel, as Apple only accounted for 2% to 4% of its revenue. However, at the time it was believed that Apple's shift to its own chips might prompt other PC manufacturers to reassess their reliance on Intel and the x86 architecture.<ref name="Bloomberg1"/><ref name="Jean-Louis Gassée, 2020.06.21"/> By November 2020, Apple unveiled the [[Apple M1|M1]], its processor custom-designed for the Mac.<ref name=":12">{{cite web|last=Warren|first=Tom|date=June 22, 2020|title=Apple is switching Macs to its own processors starting later this year|url=https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21295475/apple-mac-processors-arm-silicon-chips-wwdc-2020|url-status=live|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200622192505/https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/22/21295475/apple-mac-processors-arm-silicon-chips-wwdc-2020|archive-date=June 22, 2020 |access-date=June 22, 2020|website=The Verge}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=December 18, 2020|title=How Apple's M1 performs against Intel 11th-gen and AMD Ryzen 4000|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/3600897/tested-how-apples-m1-chip-performs-against-intel-11th-gen-and-amd-ryzen-4000.html|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=PCWorld|language=en|archive-date=February 8, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210208182009/https://www.pcworld.com/article/3600897/tested-how-apples-m1-chip-performs-against-intel-11th-gen-and-amd-ryzen-4000.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|date=February 6, 2021|title=Intel benchmarks say Apple's M1 isn't faster. Let's reality-check the claims|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/3606592/intel-benchmarks-say-apples-m1-isnt-faster.html|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=PCWorld|language=en|archive-date=February 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210213132050/https://www.pcworld.com/article/3606592/intel-benchmarks-say-apples-m1-isnt-faster.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Comparing the Apple M1 MacBook vs the Intel MacBook|url=https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/comparing-the-apple-m1-macbook-vs-the-intel-macbook/articleshow/79733783.cms|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=Business Insider|archive-date=January 27, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210127033738/https://www.businessinsider.in/tech/news/comparing-the-apple-m1-macbook-vs-the-intel-macbook/articleshow/79733783.cms|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Solid-state drives (SSDs)===
{{See also|List of Intel SSDs}}
[[File:Intel 525 mSATA SSD.jpg|thumb|An Intel mSATA SSD]]
In 2008, Intel began shipping mainstream [[solid-state drive]]s (SSDs) with up to 160&nbsp;GB storage capacities.<ref name="X25-M1">[http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2008/20080908comp.htm Intel Introduces Solid-State Drives for Notebook and Desktop Computers] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100802024028/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2008/20080908comp.htm |date=August 2, 2010 }}. Intel (September 8, 2008). Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref> As with their CPUs, Intel develops SSD chips using ever-smaller nanometer processes. These SSDs make use of industry standards such as [[NAND flash]],<ref>[http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2010/20100201comp.htm Intel, Micron Introduce 25-Nanometer NAND&nbsp;– The Smallest, Most Advanced Process Technology in the Semiconductor Industry] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110415182012/http://www.intel.com/pressroom/archive/releases/2010/20100201comp.htm |date=April 15, 2011 }}. Intel (February 1, 2010). Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref> [[SATA#mSATA|mSATA]],<ref name="SSD310">[http://www.anandtech.com/show/4078/intels-ssd-310-g2-performance-in-an-msata-form-factor Intel's SSD 310: G2 Performance in an mSATA Form Factor] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110505061850/http://www.anandtech.com/show/4078/intels-ssd-310-g2-performance-in-an-msata-form-factor |date=May 5, 2011 }}. AnandTech. Retrieved July 8, 2011.</ref> [[PCIe]], and [[NVM Express|NVMe]]. In 2017, Intel introduced SSDs based on [[3D XPoint]] technology under the Optane brand name.<ref>{{cite web|last1=Tallis|first1=Billy|title=The Intel Optane SSD 900P 280GB Review|url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/11953/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-review|access-date=January 4, 2018|publisher=Anandtech|archive-date=October 27, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171027140155/https://www.anandtech.com/show/11953/the-intel-optane-ssd-900p-review|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2021, [[SK Hynix]] acquired most of Intel's NAND memory business<ref>{{cite web|title=SK hynix to Acquire Intel NAND Memory Business|url=https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/nand-memory-news/|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=Intel Newsroom|language=en-US|archive-date=March 6, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210306164624/https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/nand-memory-news/|url-status=live}}</ref> for $7 billion, with a remaining transaction worth $2 billion expected in 2025.<ref>{{cite web|title=Intel Sells SSD Business and Dalian Facility to SK hynix|url=https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-sells-ssd-business-dalian-facility-sk-hynix.html|date=December 29, 2021|website=Intel|language=en|access-date=January 2, 2022|archive-date=January 2, 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220102015548/https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/newsroom/news/intel-sells-ssd-business-dalian-facility-sk-hynix.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Intel also discontinued its consumer Optane products in 2021.<ref>{{cite web|date=January 19, 2021|title=Intel quietly kills its face-melting Optane desktop SSDs|first1=Brad|last1=Chacos|url=https://www.pcworld.com/article/3604093/intel-quietly-kills-its-face-melting-optane-desktop-ssds.html|access-date=February 15, 2021|website=PCWorld|language=en|archive-date=March 1, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210301173901/https://www.pcworld.com/article/3604093/intel-quietly-kills-its-face-melting-optane-desktop-ssds.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In July 2022, Intel disclosed in its Q2 earnings report that it would cease future product development within its Optane business, which in turn effectively discontinued the development of 3D XPoint as a whole.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.anandtech.com/show/17515/intel-to-wind-down-optane-memory-business |title=Intel To Wind Down Optane Memory Business – 3D XPoint Storage Tech Reaches Its End |date=July 28, 2022 |work=[[AnandTech]] |first=Ryan |last=Smith |access-date=July 28, 2022 |archive-date=July 28, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220728233019/https://www.anandtech.com/show/17515/intel-to-wind-down-optane-memory-business |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Supercomputers===
The Intel Scientific Computers division was founded in 1984 by [[Justin Rattner]], to design and produce [[parallel computing|parallel computers]] based on Intel microprocessors connected in [[hypercube internetwork topology]].<ref name="wilson-1994">{{cite web|last=Wilson|first=Gregory|year=1994|title=The History of the Development of Parallel Computing|url=http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Parallel.html|access-date=November 11, 2010|archive-date=December 5, 1996|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19961205015555/http://ei.cs.vt.edu/~history/Parallel.html|url-status=live}}</ref> In 1992, the name was changed to the Intel Supercomputing Systems Division, and development of the [[iWarp]] architecture was also subsumed.<ref name="cmu-iwarp">{{cite web|title=iWarp Project|url=http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/iwarp/archive/WWW-pages/iwarp.html|access-date=November 11, 2010|publisher=[[Carnegie Mellon University]]|archive-date=June 10, 2010|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100610044317/http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/iwarp/archive/WWW-pages/iwarp.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The division designed several [[supercomputer]] systems, including the [[Intel iPSC/1]], [[Intel iPSC/2|iPSC/2]], [[Intel iPSC/860|iPSC/860]], [[Intel Paragon|Paragon]] and [[ASCI Red]]. In November 2014, Intel stated that it was planning to use [[optical fiber]]s to improve networking within supercomputers.<ref>{{citation|last=Shah|first=Agam|title=Intel turns to light beams to speed up supercomputers|date=November 17, 2014|url=http://www.computerworld.com/article/2848400/components-processors/intel-turns-to-light-beams-to-speed-up-supercomputers.html|publisher=[[Computerworld]]|access-date=November 18, 2014|archive-date=November 18, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141118012819/http://www.computerworld.com/article/2848400/components-processors/intel-turns-to-light-beams-to-speed-up-supercomputers.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

===Fog computing===
On November 19, 2015, Intel, alongside [[Arm Holdings|Arm]], [[Dell]], [[Cisco Systems]], [[Microsoft]], and [[Princeton University]], founded the [[OpenFog Consortium]], to promote interests and development in [[fog computing]].<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2016/04/18/is-fog-computing-the-next-big-thing-in-internet-of-things/2/#1971ac3a34c9|title=Is Fog Computing the Next Big Thing in the Internet of Things|last=Janakiram|first=MSV|date=April 18, 2016|work=Forbes Magazine|access-date=April 18, 2016|archive-date=February 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190223022449/https://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2016/04/18/is-fog-computing-the-next-big-thing-in-internet-of-things/2/#1971ac3a34c9|url-status=live}}</ref> Intel's Chief Strategist for the IoT Strategy and Technology Office, Jeff Fedders, became the consortium's first president.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.openfogconsortium.org/about-us/#governance|title=About Us – OpenFog Consortium|website=www.openfogconsortium.org|access-date=October 19, 2016|archive-date=December 1, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201043330/https://www.openfogconsortium.org/about-us/#governance|url-status=dead}}</ref>

===Self-driving cars===
Intel is one of the biggest stakeholders in the [[self-driving car]] industry, having joined the race in mid 2017<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/intel-has-joined-the-self-driving-car-race.html|title=Intel has joined the self-driving car race|last=Balakrishnan|first=Anita|date=August 9, 2017|website=CNBC|access-date=October 2, 2017|archive-date=October 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171002220533/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/09/intel-has-joined-the-self-driving-car-race.html|url-status=live}}</ref> after joining forces with [[Mobileye]].<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/automotive/autonomous-vehicles.html|title=The Next Era of Driving is Here|website=Intel|access-date=October 2, 2017|archive-date=October 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171002220637/https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/automotive/autonomous-vehicles.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The company is also one of the first in the sector to research consumer acceptance, after an AAA report quoted a 78% nonacceptance rate of the technology in the U.S.<ref name=":11">{{cite web|url=https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/24/intel-studies-how-to-make-people-accept-self-driving-cars/|title=Intel studies how to make people accept self-driving cars|last=Baldwin|first=Roberto|date=August 24, 2017|access-date=October 2, 2017|archive-date=October 2, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171002215406/https://www.engadget.com/2017/08/24/intel-studies-how-to-make-people-accept-self-driving-cars/|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Self-driving car#Levels of driving automation|Safety levels]] of autonomous driving technology, the thought of abandoning control to a machine, and psychological comfort of passengers in such situations were the major discussion topics initially. The commuters also stated that they did not want to see everything the car was doing. This was primarily a referral to the auto-steering wheel with no one sitting in the driving seat. Intel also learned that voice control regulator is vital, and the interface between the humans and machine eases the discomfort condition, and brings some sense of control back.<ref name=":10">{{cite web|url=https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intel-studies-self-driving-car-tackling-question-consumer-ahmad/|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308202559/https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/intel-studies-self-driving-car-tackling-question-consumer-ahmad/|url-status=dead|archive-date=March 8, 2021|title=Intel Studies the Self-Driving Car: Tackling the Question of Consumer Acceptance|last=Ahmad|first=Taseer|date=August 29, 2017|website=LinkedIn Pulse|access-date=October 2, 2017}}</ref> It is important to mention that Intel included only 10 people in this study, which makes the study less credible.<ref name=":11" /> In a video posted on YouTube,<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdEjbHzMAiM| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211211/YdEjbHzMAiM| archive-date=December 11, 2021 | url-status=live|title=Trust and Autonomous Driving|website=Youtube| date=August 24, 2017}}{{cbignore}}</ref> Intel accepted this fact and called for further testing.

=== Programmable devices ===

Intel formed a new business unit called the Programmable Solutions Group (PSG) on completion of its [[Altera]] acquisition.<ref name="acq-altera">{{Cite web |last=Darrow |first=Barb |date=December 28, 2015 |title=Altera Gives Intel a Hot Hand in Programmable Chips |url=https://fortune.com/2015/12/28/intel-completes-altera-acquisition/ |access-date=August 24, 2023 |website=[[Fortune (magazine)|Fortune]] |language=en |archive-date=August 24, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230824191258/https://fortune.com/2015/12/28/intel-completes-altera-acquisition/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Intel has since sold [[Stratix]], Arria, and Cyclone [[FPGA]]s. In 2019, Intel released [[Agilex]] FPGAs: chips aimed at data centers, [[5G]] applications, and other uses.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2182/intel-introduces-10nm-agilex-fpgas-customized-connectivity-with-hbm-ddr5-pcie-gen-5-and-112g-transceivers/|title=Intel Introduces 10nm Agilex FPGAs; Customized Connectivity with HBM, DDR5, PCIe Gen 5, and 112G Transceivers|first=David|last=Schor|date=April 2, 2019|access-date=September 16, 2021|archive-date=October 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211015170916/https://fuse.wikichip.org/news/2182/intel-introduces-10nm-agilex-fpgas-customized-connectivity-with-hbm-ddr5-pcie-gen-5-and-112g-transceivers/|url-status=live}}</ref>

In October 2023, Intel announced it would be spinning off PSG into a separate company at the start of 2024, while maintaining majority ownership.<ref name="psg-spinoff1">{{Cite news |last=King |first=Ian |date=October 3, 2023 |title=Intel to Make Former Altera Into Standalone Business, Seek IPO |url=https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/intel-to-make-former-altera-into-standalone-business-seek-ipo |publisher=[[Bloomberg News]] |access-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-date=October 3, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231003223522/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-03/intel-to-make-former-altera-into-standalone-business-seek-ipo |url-status=live }}</ref>

===Competition, antitrust, and espionage===
{{See also|AMD v. Intel}}
By the end of the 1990s, [[microprocessor]] performance had outstripped software demand for that CPU power.{{Citation needed|date=July 2023}} Aside from high-end server systems and software, whose demand dropped with the end of the "[[dot-com bubble]]",<ref>{{Cite book |last=Tedlow |first=Richard S. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=zQamXENAalkC&dq=microprocessor+demand+dropped+with+the+end+of+the+%22dot-com+bubble%22&pg=PR15 |title=Andy Grove: The Life and Times of an American Business Icon |date=2007 |publisher=Penguin |isbn=978-1-59184-182-1 |language=en |access-date=July 6, 2023 |archive-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231005044322/https://books.google.com/books?id=zQamXENAalkC&dq=microprocessor+demand+dropped+with+the+end+of+the+%22dot-com+bubble%22&pg=PR15 |url-status=live }}</ref> consumer systems ran effectively on increasingly low-cost systems after 2000.

Intel's strategy was to develop processors with better performance in a short time, from the appearance of one to the other, as seen with the appearance of the Pentium II in May 1997, the Pentium III in February 1999, and the Pentium 4 in the fall of 2000, making the strategy ineffective since the consumer did not see the innovation as essential,<ref>{{Cite book |last1=McDonough |first1=John |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=HZLtCQAAQBAJ&dq=new+intel+processors+made+older+ones+obsolete&pg=PA1239 |title=The Advertising Age Encyclopedia of Advertising |last2=Egolf |first2=Karen |date=June 18, 2015 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-135-94906-8 |language=en |access-date=July 6, 2023 |archive-date=October 5, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231005044322/https://books.google.com/books?id=HZLtCQAAQBAJ&dq=new+intel+processors+made+older+ones+obsolete&pg=PA1239 |url-status=live }}</ref> and leaving an opportunity for rapid gains by competitors, notably [[AMD]]. This, in turn, lowered the profitability{{Citation needed|date=May 2009}} of the processor line and ended an era of unprecedented dominance of the PC hardware by Intel.{{Citation needed|date=July 2007}}

Intel's dominance in the [[x86]] microprocessor market led to numerous charges of [[antitrust]] violations over the years, including [[Federal Trade Commission|FTC]] investigations in both the late 1980s and in 1999, and civil actions such as the 1997 suit by [[Digital Equipment Corporation]] (DEC) and a patent suit by [[Intergraph]]. Intel's market dominance (at one time{{When|date=May 2009}} it controlled over 85% of the market for 32-bit x86 microprocessors) combined with Intel's own hardball legal tactics (such as its infamous 338 patent suit versus PC manufacturers)<ref>{{Cite news|last=McCausland|first=Richard|date=May 24, 1993|title=Counterpunch: Amx86 buyers get 'legal aid.' – Advanced Micro Devices offers legal aid to manufactures of Amx86-based machines warned by Intel Corp. to take out patent licenses|work=FindArticles|publisher=LookSmart Ltd.|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771|url-status=dead|access-date=July 12, 2007|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091001091856/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n1964_v39/ai_13901771|archive-date=October 1, 2009}}</ref> made it an attractive target for litigation, culminating in Intel agreeing to pay AMD $1.25 billion and grant them a perpetual patent cross-license in 2009 as well as several anti-trust judgements in Europe, Korea, and Japan.<ref>{{Cite news |title=Intel criticizes, AMD applauds Japan anti-monopoly ruling |url=https://www.edn.com/intel-criticizes-amd-applauds-japan-anti-monopoly-ruling/ |last=Clarke |first=Peter |date=March 8, 2005 |access-date=October 15, 2022 |work=EDN |archive-date=October 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015214224/https://www.edn.com/intel-criticizes-amd-applauds-japan-anti-monopoly-ruling/ |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |title=Korea fines Intel $25 million for antitrust violations |url=https://www.computerworld.com/article/2786059/korea-fines-intel--25-million-for-antitrust-violations.html |last=Schwankert |first=Steven |date=June 5, 2008 |access-date=October 15, 2022 |work=Computerworld |archive-date=October 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015215730/https://www.computerworld.com/article/2786059/korea-fines-intel--25-million-for-antitrust-violations.html |url-status=live }}{{Cite news |title=Intel to pay AMD $1.25 billion, settle disputes |url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-amd/intel-to-pay-amd-1-25-billion-settle-disputes-idUSTRE5AB2LL20091112 |last=Lawsky |first=David |date=November 12, 2009 |access-date=October 15, 2022 |work=Reuters |archive-date=October 15, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221015214223/https://www.reuters.com/article/us-intel-amd/intel-to-pay-amd-1-25-billion-settle-disputes-idUSTRE5AB2LL20091112 |url-status=live }}</ref>

A case of [[industrial espionage]] arose in 1995 that involved both Intel and AMD. [[Bill Gaede]], an [[Argentina|Argentine]] formerly employed both at AMD and at Intel's [[Chandler, Arizona|Arizona]] plant, was arrested for attempting in 1993 to sell the [[i486]] and [[P5 (microarchitecture)|P5]] Pentium designs to AMD and to certain foreign powers.<ref name="intel-spy">{{Cite news|date=October 20, 1995|title=Worker Pleads Not Guilty in Intel Spy Case|work=The New York Times|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81239F933A15753C1A963958260|access-date=July 12, 2007|archive-date=December 17, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217020559/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE7D81239F933A15753C1A963958260|url-status=live}}</ref> Gaede videotaped data from his computer screen at Intel and mailed it to AMD, which immediately alerted Intel and authorities, resulting in Gaede's arrest. Gaede was convicted and sentenced to 33 months in prison in June 1996.<ref name="Guillermo Gaede">{{Cite news|date=June 25, 1996|title=Ex-Intel Engineer Sentenced to Prison Term|work=The New York Times|url=https://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E0DE1239F936A15755C0A960958260|access-date=July 12, 2007|archive-date=December 17, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20081217020859/http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E0DE1239F936A15755C0A960958260|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="Guilty">{{Cite news|date=March 25, 1996|title=Ex-Intel employee pleads guilty – Guillermo Gaede pleads guilty to stealing Intel trade secrets – Industry Legal Issue|work=findarticles.com|publisher=LookSmart, Ltd.|url=http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525|url-status=dead|access-date=July 12, 2007|archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20091001091817/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EKF/is_n2109_v42/ai_18135525|archive-date=October 1, 2009}}</ref>