No, AMD Is Not Buying Intel (gadgetreview.com)
- Reference: 0181219336
- News link: https://slashdot.org/story/26/04/04/0535221/no-amd-is-not-buying-intel
- Source link: https://www.gadgetreview.com/no-amd-is-not-buying-intel-despite-the-internets-freakout
> Maybe it's because AMD stock sits around $196 while Intel hovers near $41, or perhaps it's the poetic justice of the underdog finally eating the giant. The semiconductor world has witnessed stranger reversals, but none quite this dramatic. Your gaming rig's CPU battle represents decades of corporate warfare, legal grudges, and technological leapfrogging that makes Game of Thrones look like a friendly board game.
>
> Picture this: In 1975, AMD reverse-engineered Intel's 8080 processor, creating the Am9080 clone. The audacity was breathtaking — AMD spent 50 cents per chip to [3]manufacture something they sold for $700 . That's a 1,400% markup on borrowed technology, making today's GPU prices look reasonable. This relationship evolved from copying to partnership to bitter rivalry. The companies signed second-sourcing deals in the late 1970s, with AMD becoming Intel's official backup supplier. Then came the lawsuits. AMD sued Intel for antitrust violations in 2005, eventually settling for $1.25 billion in 2009. That settlement money helped fund the Ryzen revolution that's currently eating Intel's lunch. The historical irony runs deeper than your typical tech rivalry. AMD literally started as Intel's shadow, creating chips by studying Intel's designs under microscopes. Today, Intel engineers probably study AMD's Zen architecture the same way...
>
> This April Fool's joke works because it captures something true about power shifts in technology.
The site TipRanks notes that both companies [4]saw their stock price rise Wednesday , though that might not be related to the false article. "Positive [5]analyst coverage from Wells Fargo could be acting as a catalyst for AMD stock today. Intel also announced [6]plans to buy back its 49% equity interest in a joint venture with Apollo Global Management APO."
[1] https://www.gadgetreview.com/no-amd-is-not-buying-intel-despite-the-internets-freakout
[2] https://www.techspot.com/news/111906-amd-buy-intel-completing-strangest-reversal-chip-history.html
[3] https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amd-first-entered-the-cpu-market-with-reverse-engineered-intel-8080-clone-50-years-ago-the-am9080-cost-50-cents-apiece-to-make-but-sold-for-usd700
[4] https://www.tipranks.com/news/dont-freak-out-amd-is-not-buying-intel
[5] https://www.tipranks.com/news/amd-stock-rallies-as-wells-fargo-heaps-praise-on-the-chipmaker
[6] https://www.tipranks.com/news/the-fly/intel-to-repurchase-49-equity-interest-in-ireland-fab-joint-venture-thefly-news
Re: (Score:2)
UserBenchmark, is that you?
Re: (Score:3)
> If you read this post it shows that AMD stole Intel's design and reverse engineered it.
If you dig deeper, you'll find that AMD originally reverse engineered the *8080*, not the 8086. The two companies had entered into a cross-licensing agreement by 1976. Intel agreed to let AMD second-source the 8086 in order to secure the PC deal with IBM, who insisted on having a second source vendor.
There would have been no Intel success story without AMD to back them up.
(That actually would have been for the best. IBM would probably have selected an non-segmented CPU from somebody else instead of Intel's
Antitrust (Score:3)
I'd imagine that the last thing that AMD wants to do would be to attract the attention of the FTC. I'm not sure that they could claim that Apple, Qualcomm and Nvidia are their other alternatives
Besides, a part of the reason that AMD became successful was becoming a fabless company, and spinning off their semiconductor manufacturing to Global Foundries. It would defeat the purpose for them to acquire Intel's fabs now, which probably have far greater overhead than Global Foundries did
The last time a major acquisition was attempted - Nvidia buying Arm Holdings from SoftBank, the FTC intervened and prevented it. That was the FTC preventing a US company from acquiring an asset of a foreign - Japanese/British company (depending on how one looks at Arm Holdings). The chances of the FTC allowing a US company from acquiring another US company is even more remote
I think the best thing that Intel can do for itself would be to become a pure player fab - like a TSMC, and sell off its CPU business to Nvidia, and GPU to someone else - Apple maybe? Then as a fab, they can be an alternate source to TSMC, Samsung, Hynix and others
It is not the price per share that matters (Score:2)
but the market capitalisation ie the total value of all publicly traded shares, but even then AMD beats Intel at [1]£268.77 B [companiesmarketcap.com] vs [2]£191.72 B [companiesmarketcap.com] but by not so great a margin.
Beware it shows me the market cap in British pounds, but that is where I live.
[1] https://companiesmarketcap.com/gbp/amd/marketcap/
[2] https://companiesmarketcap.com/gbp/intel/marketcap/
Re: (Score:2)
I'm so glad someone else noticed this. The comment about the comparative stock prices was so extraordinarily stupid I could hardly believe it.
Share price is not market cap (Score:1)
"Maybe it's because AMD stock sits around $196 while Intel hovers near $41"
*sigh*
Markup (Score:2)
> AMD spent 50 cents per chip to manufacture something they sold for $700. That's a 1,400% markup
Was an Intel CPU used to compute this?
Re: (Score:2)
> Was an Intel CPU used to compute this?
The article says this: "Various sources indicate that a single Am9080 processor cost AMD only 50 cents to make (100 per wafer), yet it could sell them to military customers for $700 each." It however does not name "various sources". My best guess is the $0.50 does not include any capital costs and only certain operational costs.
Re: Markup (Score:3)
I think you missed the point, it's the markup maths that's wrong, not a query about the source figures.
Re: Markup (Score:1)
Theyâ(TM)re pointing out itâ(TM)s not a 1400% markup, itâ(TM)s 1400x, or 140,000%
Re: (Score:2)
It should be noted that the $700 price was for selling into the military market, which has various accounting artifacts that can result in interesting numbers (like the $600 hammer)
Re: (Score:2)
Might cost 50 cents to make the chip, but then you have to cover for all the development costs and packaging into a useful package that fits into a socket.
Add some profit on that in order to make the shareholders happy and to cover costs for the next generation and the $700 price tag might be a bit on the high side, but not horrible.
Add to it that not all the chips made are fully functional so there are some losses there too.