There isn't any such thing as a fundamentally new CPU architecture anymore: compare AMD, ARM, Intel, IBM, etc. designs from the past 10+ years and you find many more similarities than difference regardless of ISAs. The only major difference between architectures is how much silicon and power gets allocated to each part of the pipeline and even that tends to be similar across the board since all instruction sets are affected similarly by cache hit rate, latency, branch prediction accuracy, re-order queue depth, etc. which are themselves dictated by typical software design.Makes sense as Intel doesn't seem to know where to turn for help in designing new, ground-up CPU architectures.
I actually won't be too concerned. Not until I see the actual performance. Having Gracemont as powerful as a Skylake processor sounds fairly formidable. But that being a efficient core means that it probably can't run at very high clock speed. If you are looking at games now not being able to fully utilise more than 8 cores, then the 8 or 16 efficient cores will only be stowed away under gaming load. I also suspect an additional software layer to help the application know which cores to tap on, may result in some performance penalty.I would not stress about Intel's future... they would need to lose for years and years to actually have issues and worry about being done.
As an AMD fan, I'm more worried about this leak, if it turns true and manages to exceed expectations:
If MLiD is right as he's been many times in the past, looks like the competition will get fierce and although I want intel competitive, I prefer AMD winning, even by a bit - they still are the little dog in this fight (and vs nvidia too).
In the last 5 years intel bought habana, nervana (AI) altera, omnitek (fpga) and we have seen products based on all of them already, all the iGPUs now have AI.Open source or not, Intel is on a mission to turn RISC-V into RISC-0, as in Zero Risk & Threat to Intel like all their merg, I mean acquisitions.