2 ms·

AMD and Intel just switched places, before Ryzen AMD was a failing company, threatening to not one give Intel a near monopoly, but also handing Nvidia a true mo

AMD and Intel just switched places, before Ryzen AMD was a failing company, threatening to not one give Intel a near monopoly, but also handing Nvidia a true monopoly. If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel, a much larger company with more diverse product lines (not as many as previous, but still). It's not even that Intel aren't selling chips, I'd guess that they are still massively outselling AMD. The fact that Intel can't make money is a failure of management and I feel like the media needs to attack that much harder than they have been. The type of management which have been prevailing for the past 20 - 25 years aren't going to save companies like Intel and Boing, both companies that should have be thriving, but they've become complacent and forgot about the products, focusing on short term stock value. Also Intel doesn't appear to make an actual lose and can still pay dividends in some quarters, so they aren't failing that hard. A turn around in sales is needed, but I don't feel it's as bad as it's made out to be. The media makes it sound like bankruptcy is right around the corner.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
The problem is not that Intel sales are down. It's that it's spending a massive amount ($160B) on fabs. Fabs are expensive, and much more so if in the US than in Taiwan. It's costing TSMC $65B to build one on Arizona. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-spent-over-160-000-114742092.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-spent-over-160-000-1147...
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  Yes, every company should ditch their fabs it's not profitable. Oh wait...
  - scoofy 2y ago
    The point is that foreign fabs are a very real multi-national security risk. Even if we decide that friend-shoring is acceptable, the best 'we' (folks in the US or the 'west') can do outside of Intel is Samsung. Depending on TSMC in Taiwan is a disaster waiting to happen, and it also makes a great power conflict there more likely as the asymmetric advantages increase for non-western powers if they were to capture the island. Game-theory would probably suggest that the west should do whatever they can to bring fabrication home, because subsidizing fabs is less expensive than war.
    - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
      > The point is that foreign fabs are a very real multi-national security risk. Yes, I agree. I was joking that nobody wants the hard work of actually fabricating the chips though.
piva00 2y ago
> The type of management which have been prevailing for the past 20 - 25 years aren't going to save companies like Intel and Boing, both companies that should have be thriving, but they've become complacent and forgot about the products, focusing on short term stock value. Hyperfinancial capitalism is doing much better at destroying capitalism than any communist has ever achieved. I have no idea what kind of black swan will finally catalise some change, it's getting pretty clear the flavour of capitalism applied from the late-80s/early-90s is cracking...
ip26 2y ago
If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel I’m sure they “can” be. That doesn’t mean it’s a simple matter to ensure it will happen. Misdiagnose the problem, trust the wrong leadership, or fail to secure sufficient financial backing and the venture may become unsalvagable. AMD’s return is really exceptional. It was by no means sure to work, and I don’t know if anyone knows exactly what went right that made the difference compared to countless other failed turnarounds. Ironically, I do think widespread confidence that the situation can definitely be salvaged is a detriment. It prevents taking desperate measures, which may actually be the necessary steps.
BeetleB 2y ago
> If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel, a much larger company with more diverse product lines (not as many as previous, but still). Because AMD is fabless and Intel isn't. The latter is spending huge amounts of money to increase their fab capacity, and have positioned themselves to succeed only if they can get external Foundry customers. If Intel split into two companies, then yes, your point is valid for the fabless portion. But it would also mean the fab portion would die almost immediately (they currently are operating on a loss) - they need both the US bailout and the fabless revenue to survive.
matwood 2y ago
> before Ryzen AMD was a failing company AMD was nearly dead a long time before the Ryzen. I did a comparison between them and Intel when I was in undergrad in the 90s. My conclusion was long Intel and AMD would be lucky to survive. At that time, Intels innovation on top of their yields was simply unmatched. What saved AMD then was the Athlon, and their bet on 64bit extensions to x86 (instead of banking on the compiler to do all the work a la Itanic). The point is that fortunes can change quickly, and not all because a team or company is good or bad. Everyone makes bets with the information they have and hopes the market and technology move in their favor.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

The problem is not that Intel sales are down. It's that it's spending a massive amount ($160B) on fabs. Fabs are expensive, and much more so if in the US than in Taiwan. It's costing TSMC $65B to build one on Arizona. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-spent-over-160-000-114742092.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-spent-over-160-000-1147...

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Yes, every company should ditch their fabs it's not profitable. Oh wait...
- scoofy 2y ago
  The point is that foreign fabs are a very real multi-national security risk. Even if we decide that friend-shoring is acceptable, the best 'we' (folks in the US or the 'west') can do outside of Intel is Samsung. Depending on TSMC in Taiwan is a disaster waiting to happen, and it also makes a great power conflict there more likely as the asymmetric advantages increase for non-western powers if they were to capture the island. Game-theory would probably suggest that the west should do whatever they can to bring fabrication home, because subsidizing fabs is less expensive than war.
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    > The point is that foreign fabs are a very real multi-national security risk. Yes, I agree. I was joking that nobody wants the hard work of actually fabricating the chips though.

piva00 2y ago

> The type of management which have been prevailing for the past 20 - 25 years aren't going to save companies like Intel and Boing, both companies that should have be thriving, but they've become complacent and forgot about the products, focusing on short term stock value. Hyperfinancial capitalism is doing much better at destroying capitalism than any communist has ever achieved. I have no idea what kind of black swan will finally catalise some change, it's getting pretty clear the flavour of capitalism applied from the late-80s/early-90s is cracking...

ip26 2y ago

If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel I’m sure they “can” be. That doesn’t mean it’s a simple matter to ensure it will happen. Misdiagnose the problem, trust the wrong leadership, or fail to secure sufficient financial backing and the venture may become unsalvagable. AMD’s return is really exceptional. It was by no means sure to work, and I don’t know if anyone knows exactly what went right that made the difference compared to countless other failed turnarounds. Ironically, I do think widespread confidence that the situation can definitely be salvaged is a detriment. It prevents taking desperate measures, which may actually be the necessary steps.

BeetleB 2y ago

> If AMD can be turned around, why can't Intel, a much larger company with more diverse product lines (not as many as previous, but still). Because AMD is fabless and Intel isn't. The latter is spending huge amounts of money to increase their fab capacity, and have positioned themselves to succeed only if they can get external Foundry customers. If Intel split into two companies, then yes, your point is valid for the fabless portion. But it would also mean the fab portion would die almost immediately (they currently are operating on a loss) - they need both the US bailout and the fabless revenue to survive.

matwood 2y ago

> before Ryzen AMD was a failing company AMD was nearly dead a long time before the Ryzen. I did a comparison between them and Intel when I was in undergrad in the 90s. My conclusion was long Intel and AMD would be lucky to survive. At that time, Intels innovation on top of their yields was simply unmatched. What saved AMD then was the Athlon, and their bet on 64bit extensions to x86 (instead of banking on the compiler to do all the work a la Itanic). The point is that fortunes can change quickly, and not all because a team or company is good or bad. Everyone makes bets with the information they have and hopes the market and technology move in their favor.