To be fair the Dimensity 9400 is a marvel, the 3nm process and all the technologies in a modern SOC contain more know how and research than sending people to the moon.
So in a way it's sort of equivalent to having your own personal moon rocket.

The cumulative level of expertise required to make a modern SOC is mind blowing. Just imagine aligning multiple masks with nanometer precision! Just a "simple" thing as the light source required is so sophisticated a single "lamp" cost about $300 million USD!! The quantum theory principles used to make the motion sensors, the massive design and logistics behind the development of the billions of logic gates.

IMO this modern SOC is the "biggest" world wonder humanity has created yet. Who would have imagined it would be so small?

OK that's a good point.

Everything you write is true, but the most important thing is that it's not supposed to be like that in a democracy. It all boils down to the system in USA being flawed.

Taiwan is not a member of Interpol, widely believed to be due to opposition from Beijing, which objects to its inclusion in international organizations whose members are normally countries.

Fuck China.

Because USA is a flawed democracy. No more explanation needed.

So you just made another one...

It means pointer width.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit_computing

64-bit integers, memory addresses, or other data units[a] are those that are 64 bits wide. Also, 64-bit central processing units (CPU) and arithmetic logic units (ALU) are those that are based on processor registers, address buses, or data buses of that size.

It also states Address bus, but as I mentioned before, that doesn't exist. So it boils down to instruction set as a whole requiring 64 bit processor registers and Databus.
Obviously 64 bits means registers are 64 bit, the addresses are therefore also 64 bit, otherwise it would require type casting every time you need to make calculations on them. But it's the ability to handle 64 bit registers in general that counts, not the address registers. which is merely a byproduct.

It means pointer width.

Where did you get that from? Because that's false, please show me dokumentation for that.
64 bit always meant the ability to handle 64 bit wide instructions, and because the architecture is 64 bit, the pointers INTERNALLY are 64 bit, but effectively they are only for instance 40 bit when accessing data.
Your claim about pointer width simply doesn't make any sense.
That the CPU should be called by a single aspect they can't actually handle!!! That's moronic.

You don’t even see it listed on spec sheets.

Doesn't mean it's any less important, it's just not a good marketing measure,because average people wouldn't understand it anyway, and it wouldn't be correct to measure by the Databus alone.
As I stated it's MORE complex today, not less, as the downvoters of my posts seem to refuse to acknowledge. The first Pentium had a 64 bit Databus for a 32 bit CPU. Exactly because data transfer is extremely important. The first Arm CPU was designed around as fast RAM access/management as possible, and it beat the 386 by several factors, with a tenth the transistors.

Go look at anything post-2000: 64 bit means that pointers take up 64 bits. 32 bits means that pointers take up 32 bits.

Although true, this is a very simplistic way to view it, and not relevant to the actual overall bitwith of the CPU, as I've tried to demonstrate, but people apparently refuse to acknowledge.
But bit width of the Databus is very important, and it was debated heavily weather it was even legal to market the M68008 Sinclair QL as a 32 bit computer, because it only had an 8 bit databus.

But as I stated other factors are equally important, and the decoder is way more important than the core instruction set, and modern higher end decoders operate at 256 bit or more, allowing them to decode multiple ( 4 ) instructions per cycle, again allowing each core to execute multiple instructions per clock, in 2 threads. Without that capability, each core would only be about a third as fast.
To claim that the instruction set determines bit wdth is simplistic, and also you yourself argued against it, because that would mean an i486 would be an 80 bit CPU. And obviously todays CPU's would be 512 bit, because they have 512 bit instructions.

Calling it 64 bit is exclusively meant to distinguish newer CPU's from older 32 bit CPUS, and we've done that since the 90's, claiming that new CPU architectures haven't increased in bit width for 30 years is simply naive and false, because they have in many more significant ways than the base instruction set.

Still I acknowledge that an AARCH64 or AMD64 or i64 CPU are generally called 64 bit, it was never the point to refute that. Only that it's a gross simplification of what modern CPU's have become, and that it's not technically correct.

Let me finish with a question:
With a multi-core CPU where each core is let's just say 64 bit, how many bits is the whole CPU package? Which is what we call the "CPU" today, when saying CPU we are not generally talking about the individual cores, because then it would have to be plural.

By your account a 386DX would be an 80-bit

And how do you figure that? The Intel 80386DX did NOT have any 80 bit instructions at all, the built in math co-processor came with i486. The only instructions on a 80386DX system that would be 80 bit would be to add a 80387 math co-processor.

But you obviously don't count by a few extended instructions, but by the architecture of the CPU as a whole. And in that regard, the Databus is a very significant part, that directly influence the speed and number of clocks of almost everything the CPU does.

Yes, I absolutely thought Intel would make their own, and AMD would lose the fight.
But maybe Intel couldn't do that, because AMD had patented it already, and whatever Intel did, it could be called a copy of that.

Anyways it's great to see AMD finally is doing well and finally is profitable. I just never expected Intel to fail as badly as they are? So unless they fight their way to profitability again, we may be in the same boat again as we were when Intel was solo on X86?

But then again, maybe x86 is becoming obsolete, as Arm is getting ever more competitive.

address width.

That's just stupid, no CPU has ever been called by the width of the address bus EVER.

And there’s also instruction size

AVX on new CPU's is 512 bit.

it could even be said that if they hadn’t tried to get into digital they might’ve averted bankruptcy.

Now there's an interesting thought. ;)

There’s also horse breeders around which survived the invention of the automobile,

Exactly, and retro film photography is making a comeback. Kind of like Vinyl record albums.

By your account a 386DX would be an 80-bit CPU because it could handle 80-bit floats natively,

No that's not true, it's way way more complex than that, some consider the data bus the best measure, another could be decoder. I could also have called a normal CPU bitwidth as depending on how many cores it has, each core handling up to 4 instructions per cycle, could be 256 bit, with an average 8 core CPU that would be 2048 bit.

There are several ways to evaluate like Databus, ALU, Decoder etc, but most ways to measure it reasonably hover around the 256 bit, and none below 128 bit.
There is simply no reasonable way to argue a modern Ryzen CPU or Intel equivalent is below 128 bit.

The Ukrainian defense forces continue to conduct an operation in the Kursk direction, where the enemy launched 36 airstrikes over the past day, using 54 guided bombs; in addition, the russians carried out more than 200 attacks.

Whoa, it's pretty extreme the amount of fighting behind the numbers going on, this is just one part of the total, but at least in this part no Ukrainian civilians were hurt, no Ukrainian infrastructure destroyed, and no Ukrainian people lost their home.

That's a pretty significant argument for Ukraine going into Russia IMO.

They absolutely did, but they knew they couldn't do that forever, because Moore's law goes for CMOS too. film photography would end as a mainstream product, so they actually tried to compete both in digital photography, scanners, and photo printing.
But their background was in chemical photo technologies, and they couldn't transfer their know how in that, to be an advantage with the new technologies, even with the research they'd done and the strong brand recognition.

Lack of competition results in complacency and stagnation.

This is absolutely true, but it wasn't the case regarding 64 bit x86. It was a very bad miscalculation, where Intel wanted bigger more profitable server marketshare.
So Intel was extremely busy with profit maximization, so they wanted to sell Itanium for servers, and keep the x86 for personal computers.

The result was of course that X86 32 bit couldn't compete when AMD made it 64bit, and Itanium failed despite HP-Compaq killing the worlds fastest CPU at the time the DEC Alpha, because they wanted to jump on Itanium instead. But the Itanium frankly was an awful CPU based on an idea they couldn't get to work properly.

This was not complacency, and it was not stagnation in the way that Intel made actually real new products and tried to be innovative, but with the problem that the product sucked and was too expensive for what it offered.

Why the Alpha was never brought back, I don't understand? As mentioned it was AFAIK the worlds fastest CPU when it was discontinued?

This is not entirely fair, Kodak invested a lot in digital photography, I personally bought a $1500 Kodak digital camera around 2002.
But Kodak could not compete with Canon and other Japanese makers.

To claim Kodak could have made more successful cameras earlier, is ignoring the fact that the technology to make the sensors simply wasn't good enough early on, and would never have been an instant hit for whoever came first to market. Early cameras lacked badly in light sensitivity dynamics and sharpness/resolution. This was due to limitations in even world leading CMOS production capabilities back then, it simply wasn't good enough, and to claim Kodak should have had the capability to leapfrog everybody doesn't make it true.

To claim Kodak could have beat for instance Canon and Sony, is ignoring the fact that those were companies with way more experience in the technologies required to refine digital photography.

Even with the advantage of hindsight, I don't really see a path that would have rescued Kodak. Just like typesetting is dead, and there is no obvious path how a typesetting company could have survived.

Everybody in the know, knows that x86 64 bit was held back to push Itanium, Intel was all about market segmentation, which is also why Celeron was amputated on for instance RAM compared to Pentium.
Market segmentation has a profit maximization motive. You are not allowed to use cheap parts for things that you are supposed to buy expensive parts for. Itanium was supposed to be the only viable CPU for servers, and keeping x86 32 bit was part of that strategy.
That AMD was successful with 64 bit, and Itanium failed was Karma as deserved for Intel.

Today it's obvious how moronic Intel's policy back then was, because even phones got 64 bit CPU's too back around 2009.
32 bits is simply too much of a limitation for many even pretty trivial tasks. And modern X86 chips are in fact NOT 64 bit anymore, but hybrids that handle tasks with 256 bits routinely, and some even with 512 bits, with instruction extensions that have become standard on both Intel and AMD

When AMD came with Ryzen Threadripper and Epyc, and prices scaled very proportionally to performance, and none were artificially hampered, it was such a nice breath of fresh air.