I think you're making the mistake of assuming a static market. Pricing is often assumed to be based on cost, it's not, at least not only. Intel's prices are high because they can be, not because their costs are inherently higher. In fact they should be lower given they operate their own fabs and thus don't require a built in margin for the outsourced fab. If perf/$ is deemed by the market to be important, Intel will just cut their prices. Also keep in mind no one that matters at a market scale, e.g. Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc are paying these list prices. It's entirely possible Intel is still winning the perf/$ fight in these contracts.
I disagree. If you do some research, you'll learn that the chiplet architecture employed by EPYC Rome is inherently and substantially cheaper to manufacture than the monolithic design employed for Xeon.
AMD priced these chips so low because they know Intel is going to fight back with deep discounts. AMD also knows they can manufacture more cheaply for any given level of performance.
It shouldn't surprise anyone if AMD is offering prices that Intel would have to counter by selling Xeon's at a loss.
Furthermore, some orgs do not put a price on security. With Intel's poor security track record in the recent past, it's no surprise that Google hopped on the EPYC train.
So at least one of the following two are going to play out over the next year: 1) AMD takes massive server market share. 2) INTC bleeds red to slow the loss of market share.
