The quad core limit upset enthusiasts like us who frequent these kinds of forums, but I'm comvinced their overall market stagnation came from a neglect of efficiency. Servers that were sucking down more watts, requiring more cooling and higher energy bills than necessary, in addition to their inflated HEDT/Xeon prices. Mobile chips (in a laptop/device market that dwarfs gaming PCs/workstations) have been overheating, wearing down batteries, and possibly causing higher failure rates than previous generations. This lack of efficiency prompted Apple to go from customer to competitor in a short time, and led to AMD's domination particularly in mobile. While I might entertain the idea of an Alder lake desktop, I will accept nothing else but an AMD CPU in my next laptop I purchase. They will not catch up to TSMC, and all of the companies TSMC is producing chips for, until their node (regardless of nm measurement of name) is atleast as efficient.
I agree. I was certainly very annoyed at Intel for stagnating the CPU market for more than a decade of dual and quad core CPUs, and their extensive toll gates to get a more feature rich CPU. For example, if you want hyper threading, then you pay more. More cache, sure, pay more. Overclocking, pay more get a K series processor + a Z series motherboard. Comparatively, the product stack is a lot more simplified with AMD's Ryzen. You generally buy a chip, and it is unlocked for CPU and memory overclocking, and without a need for a top end chipset. Plus you generally get Hyper threading out of the gate and cache sizes that differs due to number of cores, and not artificially limited.
I also agree that Intel is losing market share mostly due to poor power efficiency with their chips. Which I believe is the reason why big companies are moving to create their own custom SOC with ARM cores. If anything, Apple's M1 chips showed comparable performance with substantial power savings over any X86 processors. I've decided to try out the M1 chip at the start of the year, and seriously, I've never looked back after that. It may not have amazing single core performance for example, but at no point do I feel that it is slow. The battery life and the lack of any active cooling is a win for me. Also at this point, I think AMD offers more bang for buck when compared to Intel's Tiger Lake when you consider that AMD offers more cores and better multithreaded performance for their U series processor, and their H series are cheaper than an Intel equivalent by quite a fair bit. Alder Lake may change this, but I feel Intel's priority to squeeze out more performance is not going to change the fact that the chips will still be more power hungry and run hotter when the system is under load.
Intel has lost their competitive advantage in their fab, and I feel they are unlikely to win it back anytime soon. Their competitors were chugging along aggressively, while Intel was sleeping then. And even now, their competitors are still aggressively pushing forward.