It Took 53 Years for AMD to Beat Intel. Here's Why. | WSJ

Intel has ruled the market for central processing units since the 1980s. But rival AMD overtook Intel in market value last year, thanks in part to an expensive bet on chip design.

WSJ’s Asa Fitch explains the companies’ battle for the brains of your computer.

News Explainers
Some days the high-speed news cycle can bring more questions than answers. WSJ’s news explainers break down the day's biggest stories into bite-size pieces to help you make sense of the news.

#AMD #Intel #WSJ

[csm]

Pretty outrageous they skipped out the 2000's when AMD had the best chips and intel paid OEMs like Dells $100Ms every year not to use AMD

[rahulagrawal]

The video missed one critical point. Intel bribed companies to not use AMD and made some modifications so that some software couldnt run better if it detected AMD chip.

[JetFission]

Things I learned from this video:
CPU pins = transistors
Power capacitors = "the core"

[richardrisner]

Plus inventing* 64-bit architecture, plus building the first multi-core CPUs... AMD hasn't simply been "copying and playing catch-up for 53 years"
*Thanks to others who pointed out that Intel 64-bit Itanium was released first. They didn't "invent" 64-bit computing, but they brought an x86 compatible 64-bit architecture to market and popularized it.

[johnsonlevitt]

Exciting times for semiconductor stocks TSMC, AMD and NVDA. which are all experiencing a surge in value. It's interesting to watch the competition develop, given these stocks are major contributors to Al chip growth. On the increase of my personal holdings, I've witnessed amazing impact on my shares.

[jtd]

Lisa Su gets a lot of glory, and while it's pretty much deserved, I think that Rory Read deserves more credit than is generally given for keeping AMD afloat until the turnaround tech was ready. I hope he got enough stock and/or options to compensate for having to take the public hits that he did.

[iulian]

A documentary about Nvidia's ultra dominant market position and anticonsumer market practices would be equally interesting.

[qwertycupcake]

AMD is the reason Intel stopped selling dual core CPUs in 2022. See, they come up with 10 core i3 cpu ;)
Also, AMD is the reason they come up with Arc GPUs.
AMD is forcing Intel to change its status quo of selling underpowered CPUs and GPUs (Intel uhd series), and charging hefty sum for any performance upgrade.

[MrYoshigu]

Because Intel played dirty like
-Paying dell and all OEM to not use AMD
-Bribing companies
-Suing AMD at every step

Pinnacle of Intel innovation

[wilberdp]

Can't forget acquisition of ATI which they have translated into console graphics as well as the Xilinx acquisition. They have taken multiple approaches to expanding business, narrowing it to just chiplets is an oversight.

[Giffandy]

I wish people would stop equating market cap as some kind of indicator of success. It's not. All it means is that some investors think the company has a chance to grow and are willing to make a gamble. e.g. TESLA with <5% US market share was valued more than every other conventional manufacturer combined. That valuation is down by 2/3 this year, because it was speculative. AMD's valuation is also a gamble, though to a lesser degree since AMD actually has about 1/3 of the market share for US CPUs (though a pitiful share for GPU).

[marcos]

AMD beat Intel like 20 years ago, then fall of from grace, now they are even, but AMD is fabless and Intel does have fabs, which is both and asset and a liability

[vedant]

>53 years
My brothers in christ
What about the 2000s?
What about x86-64?
What about the anti-competitive lawsuits?

[DejaVu]

I knew a under 7 min video covering the history between these 2 companies would miss a ton of stuff.

[wilmarkjohnatty]

This video is not true at all. They were not just Copy cats. AMD was licensed by Intel to manufacture its x86 chips to sell to vendors. Dell started off with PC's Limited by using AMD chips that were conservatively clocked at 4 MHz and overclocked them much higher gaining market share. AMD later went on to use the same licensed instruction set implementing different CPU's. AMD surpassed Intel breaking the GHz barrier around 2000 with the Athlon chip. Intel played dirty by blocking other OEM's from manufacturing products with AMD chips to the point that Asus hid its first Athlon motherboard and sold it in a plain brown box. Intel never paid a price for this. For the next few years AMD had a chance of unseating Intel as intel produced a lackluster Pentium 4 architecture that had lower performance and higher clock speed. But AMD never really gained market share more than 20%, and Intel used its clout and monopoly to block AMD from the market place. AMD's big opportunity came when Intel tried to change its architecture from x86 to Itanium, which failed, AMD improved the x86 architecture to 64 bit and called it AMD64. Bill Gates made a deal to help AMD by promising to help support AMD64 instruction set in exchange for Jerry Sanders testifying in its anti trust suit against the government that Microsoft was working outside its Wintel Completion. Microsoft developed Windows for both Itanium and AMD64, but when Intel's Itanium flopped they asked Microsoft to develop a Windows version for their own x86/64 Instruction set/architecture to which Microsoft told them no and GO COPY AMD64 ARCHITECTURE IF THEY WANTED an x86 Windows - SO WHO IS THE COPYCAT? During most of the 2005 to 2016 Intel ruled the roost with iCore CPU's and AMD had neither process right not their designs. During this time development and customer value sucked as Intel had almost all of the market, Intel went generation after generation changing Sockets and pinouts forcing users to upgrade their hardware for very little performance. Then AMD sold off its FAB's (Chip Plants) and focused on Design with Sledgehammer architecture - and no this had nothing to do with Lisa Sui - she just happened to be there - sure she is great but all of this was in the works. They regained their focus and slowly re-took the performance lead while Intel struggled with Process and Manufacturing which AMD no longer was in the business of (Handing it over the TSM who was the strongest process company). They also focused strongly on R & D and solid pipeline of products and they executed well while at the same time intel faltered with process, and basically lost its way with all kinds of woke nonsense, etc. Intel is a dead company they were supposed to be dead since the early 2000's but they managed to survive despite them being lost back then but they used their muscle to rally out from the limited time window a competing product gives them before its too late. AMD has not done very well on the Graphics front but that seems to be changing, although they dominate in the console market. Most large companies rein usually come to an end - Intel just got lucky but they have always been a poorly executed company from an engineering stand point. There are many details i left out - like the Pentium 4 Fiasco, the DIV/0 error in the first gen Pentium. Eventually many large companies may end up using their own chips as ARM becomes better and more popular - Apple is already doing it, Amazon and Google will shortly.

[KyleClements]

No mention of AMD's x64 architecture?

[jaxwins]

What about Intel bribery to BIllgates to not launch 64 bit OS until Intel have a Amd64 instruction set?

[ScientificZoom]

Energy efficiency is the AMDs greatest achievement

[arunavaghatak]

The switch to TSMC did play a role in their success. If they had stuck to Global Foundries, no way they could've beaten intel.

[cmja]

Yeah, man. Whoever thought of making those chiplets.. just pure genius. Cost-saving and fast AF.