Post of the Day
June 8, 2000

Board Name:
Intel

Posts selected for this feature rarely stand alone. They are usually a part of an ongoing thread, and are out of context when presented here. The material should be read in that light. How are these posts selected? Click here to find out and nominate a post yourself!

Subject:  Intel Must Die!
Author:  RenderFool

I don't know about you, but I feel that some AMDers have a hostile view on Intel. It is like they consider Intel and AMD on a see-saw. Intel MUST go down for AMD to go up. Bad things MUST happen to Intel for AMD's stock to rise. The big gorilla must fall for the little chimp to take on the skyscraper. Intel's maxed out in fab capacity... bad. AMD sold out for this quarter... good. Do you see a pattern here?

I think the reason why the Intel board is quieter than AMD's is because Intel shareholders are secure with the performance of Intel's stock. Intel is a blue chip and has risen over the decade. Its stock performance is relatively stable and there isn't really much to talk about it. AMD's stock has just begun to jump start into action (relatively speaking), and there is more to talk about.

Intel's shareholders trust the management to make good judgement. For example, they don't really care what new processors will be name because they know that Intel will hire a professional name agency to name them. On the other hand, AMD shareholders question if the marketing department is making wise moves with names like Duron and Athlon.

Intel's shareholders don't worry about getting into new growth areas as management has clearly stated the goal of making Internet data go through Intel products (network, wireless, processors). AMD on the other hand wants to capture 30% market share of the PCs. As you can see, both companies have different visions. Which one makes you sleep better at night?

When there is indeed a problem (e.g. the MTH fiasco), Intel knows that the world will know about it and does damage control on it. Having experienced the Pentium fiasco in the early days where it could have done more damage, they learn to be able to manage new changes effectively. If you read "Only The Paranoid Survive" (Intel's bible), you will know that Andy Grove talked about what it is like going through large changes and what framework is needed to deal with them. This being said, I find it funny on how some AMDers said Intel will die and go bankrupt because of a mistake. Intel has "proven" that they can survive. Intel is a very flexible gorilla.

Don't get me wrong, AMD is doing well. Most Intel employees I spoke to like AMD to keep them on their toes. I don't understand why some AMDers consider that its a conspiracy that Intel respects AMD as a competitor.

On the other side, the AMDers think that AMD is on the brink of wiping out Intel off the face of the processor world. Here's one quote from a AMD fan:

"...INTC has spent too much its resources on upgrading its fabs and spreading its business into the Internet. It's no longer as mighty as before. We might see the most spectacular downturn in industry history!

In the mean time, it's OPEN SEASON for AMD hehe."

Does bad news for Intel really mean good news for AMD? Can't we both get along?

RenderFool


Read More Posts by This Author
Go To This Post
More Recommended Posts
Get past Posts of the Day in the Archives