I think Graviton would still be much more energy efficient though? (I'm not sure)

I believe the main motivator for AWS is efficiency, not performance. $ of income per watt spend is much better for them on Graviton.

This sort of makes sense. If there is no competitive advantage in buying the latest AMD or Intel CPUs, why buy them when you can just deploy a generic (ARM licensed) CPU at cheaper prices.

The competitive advantage right now is in NVIDIA chips and I guess AWS needs all their free cash to buy those instead of non-competitive advantage CPUs.

At what point was that true? For example right now ec2 has granite rapids cpus available which are very much the latest and greatest from intel.

I imagine it can take time to actually validate and build out that new infrastructure at scale after AMD/Intel announces these products to the market. It wouldn't surprise me if hyperscalers like AWS, Google, Microsoft, et. al. get a little bit of early previews of this hardware, but it still takes time to negotiate sales, buy the chips, and then actually receive the new chips and make actually useful systems.

Meanwhile, when AWS announces a new chip its probably something they have already been building out in their datacenters.

>Which are far superior to Graviton 4.

Not if you are looking at price/performance. AWS could be taking a loss to elevate the product though, no way to know for sure.

If they were taking a loss, they wouldn't run a crapton of internal workloads on Graviton.