You need more comprehensive reading. Intel had a pipeline of CPU design which contemplates minimal increase in performance from one gen to another and unless Intel have some...Intel on what AMD was doing that pipeline didn't take into account that AMD suddenly came out with a BW-E level of performance so the CPUs that Intel was developing were not design to a significance boost in performance. Yes with time Intel can make that happen but my whole point was that with intel philosophy of launching CPU: process - arq- opt. Intel would force themselves to wait 5 years to make that happen and they they will have to take a step back to the tick-tock or even and AMD like tock-tock in order to remain on the top.
In AMD case from the beginning they commit to a new arq every year and that is while Zen2 and 3 are in different stages of developments while on Intel they were working on adapting CL to new process and optimizing it instead of working in a new arq with a significant jump in performance.
The next gen won't really be the problem, with the advantage that Intel have and if we take into account historical jumps we may see 5 to 7% difference, maybe more with the 10~% difference that SL already have we are talking about around 20% from Z1 and if we imagine Z2 to have 15% increase that would place AMD still slightly behind(taking into account that games wont fully use 8C or 16Ts) But if Intel keeps with its current launching and use that Arq and just "optimize" it gaining a 5% increase then AMD will catch up or even surpass their CPU. So Intel will have to change the way the develop CPUs to once again start the performance race with AMD because AMD won't stop running and trying to catch and win that race, whether or not they will win we can't know but they won't surrender this time.
And yes I do think intel felt asleep in their bed of dollars and forgot about AMD the proof is in the all the innovation that Intel has being bringing to the market(exactly, what innovation?) they were just making ridiculous jumps and increasing the pricess of their products so the new ones weren't replacing the old ones.
Well, my english sucks as it's not my first language, so it's hard for me to discuss eloquently in english and sometimes I can be a bit blunt. For that I apologize, but my reading comprehension is perfect. Now back on topic.
Considering that the Bulldozer architecture sucked so hard, having worse single-thread performance at launch than its predecessor while using more power, it was obvious to Intel and everybody else that AMD would start designing and eventually release a truly new and better architecture than Bulldozer (aka Ryzen). But why did AMD keep optimizing the Bulldozer architecture (Piledriver and Excavator) instead of quickly releasing the truly new and better architecture in the next one or two years?
Because it's impossible to do otherwise, and that's why "Zen2" and "Zen3" are going to be optimizations of their current Ryzen architecture, as their names imply. And their performance improvements are unknown at this time, just like Intel's.
Right now Intel don't need a brand new architecture in order to counter Ryzen, they just need to reduce prices.
IMO, Intel's real problems are things like Dennard scaling (RIP), Moore's law (soon to RIP), the speed of light, cost vs benefit of new process, etc. Those are the things that will allow AMD and ARM designs to come closer and closer to Intel's, not some "launch philosophy" that is mostly marketing bullshit anyway.
But it's obviously better (for us) to have some market competition than to have none, as Intel is too accustomed to big fat margins at our expense.
