imho the entire point of this for nvidia is to kill arc

They will not, because need to save at least weak competition, or anti-trust regulators will use very high taxes against Nvidia.

This is reason, why Intel all previous decades saved tiny stripe for competitors (sure, AMD , but also like Cyrix or Sys), but immediately hit brakes, when some competitor becomes too competitive - to show regulators, that market is still competitive, is not just monopoly.

The size of stripe for outsiders is not right parameter here, but more important outsiders will not show bright products in most important niches.

So idea, Arc will not die fast, but it will constantly lag, to be only second or third.

How one could cut wings to GPU? Well first, delay top products, for example installing slow RAM and use too high temperature margins, so chip will run on slower frequency than could.

Second, as I hear, Arc drivers still not ideal and some games don't run smooth.

Third, cut all long term perspective initiatives, like WebGPU.

ps Other examples, you may seen strange behavior of IBM, Commodore/Atari, when they avoid to implement some very obvious things, and that is - they visited by regulators, and warned about approaching of formal margin, and after that visit, hit brakes, to limit their products, to avoid become next ATT.

Which is arguably kind of weird because where is it actually competing with NVIDIA? A hypothetical future, I guess?

But also, does this amount of ownership even give them the ability to kill anything on Intel's roadmap without broad shareholder consensus (not that that's even how roadmaps are handled anyway)?