If we're going to be that pedantic, we might as well just say that because Intel and AMD aren't living entities so they can't be "dead". Or we could just accept that the original meaning of the phrase has evolved and is flexible enough to be used in situations where it's not absolutely literal.

Weird. The topic was the phrase.

Mercari replaced Intel with AMD. One x86 out, another in. Usage is correct if figurative.

Article does not claim Intel is dead. States that they are "catching up". But for their nodes, Intel out ("dead"), AMD in.

It's reasonable.

Your point is about the factual statement (whether Intel x86 is actually dead).

But this subthread (as started by amusingimpala75), and your direct parent's question was about whether the idiomatic usage of "(old) X is dead, long live (new) X" was correct (given that the author believes AMD taking over Intel is the factual case). That is, not about whether the factual statement is correct or not, just whether it's expressed well idiomatically.

Perhaps it would be better phrased as "'intel x86'" vs "'AMD x86-64'". Specific sets of mandatory instructions and extension parameters - But AMD's set "won" at some point in the past, roughly corresponding to the launch of Intel's "Core" microarchitecture in 2006 when they started competing in the x86 space again