News Intel Engaging in 'Semi-Destructive' Actions Against AMD, Says Firm

Intel also offers HP, Dell and other OEMs to design full systems around their hardware, so they don't have to incur in R&D costs for it. So Intel is not just "selling cheap" (bulk, priority and premier partner), but also amortizing their OEM's R&D costs, which is bananas. This is definitely running Intel dry and fast, so the question here is: how long does Intel have before getting too close to the point of no return? These are clearly short term strats which should be punishing their share price, but they're so big and widespread that they're betting on drying AMD first.

Regards.
 

bluvg

Prominent
Jan 15, 2022
9
13
515
0
"Breaking news! Company reduces prices to be more competitive!" First people complain that Intel's prices are too high. Now they're complaining they're too low? If Intel becomes unprofitable, perhaps then there's something to talk about beyond just the short-sighted impact on stock price.
 

bit_user

Judicious
Ambassador
This Tom's article is poorly written and a nothing sandwich. If there Intel is attempting to do some more shady stuff to stop AMD this article did not convey that to the readers.
I would also liked to have seen more detail, but you're missing a key point. The first sentence of the article reads:
"A leading Wall Street firm has downgraded AMD, saying that Intel had engaged destructive actions against its smaller rival in the desktop PC space to slowdown its market share expansion."​

And the article ends with:
"... Bernstein Research cut its per share target for AMD from $95 to $80."​

So, it's not Toms who's saying this - they're just reporting that a Wall St. firm saying it.
 

bit_user

Judicious
Ambassador
"Breaking news! Company reduces prices to be more competitive!" First people complain that Intel's prices are too high. Now they're complaining they're too low?
First, you're confusing two different points of view. Consumers want low prices, while investors want high margins (which go along with higher pricing).

Normally, you expect a company to lower prices only if they believe the increased sales volume will make up for reduced profit from each unit sold. This is standard profit-maximizing behavior.

However, when demand is so weak, it's unclear that you can makeup the lost margin from cutting your prices, so we have to look to other explanations. Apparently, the research firm is tapping into various non-public information to ascertain that Intel is doing something else, here. And they believe it's on a magnitude that going to do real damage to AMD's marketshare in client CPUs.
 

JayNor

Reputable
May 31, 2019
372
62
4,760
0
Intel reported 37% growth in their EVO product line during the recent TAM presentation. They have a similarly strong vPRO market.

Their Intel-7 process is apparently doing well, but they also are expanding capacity by use of TSM N5 for the tGPUs.

AMD has the good game console business, so no weeping for them.
 
Reactions: KyaraM and rtoaht

suryasans

Distinguished
Jul 19, 2008
30
6
18,535
0
AMD should release a new processor with igpu for AM4 socket and it should have a PCI Express 4.0 x16 for graphics to counter Intel in the value DIY PC Market. The current Ryzen 5700G with PCI Express 3.0 is getting outdated.
 
Reactions: bit_user and hasten

pug_s

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2003
387
22
18,815
21
Intel wants to gain market share by lowering its product price, that is nothing wrong with it. It is likely to gain shares in Graphics, and server ( data center) too as it is lowering price with better performance in these graphic and server markets.
Recently I brought a Ryzen 3600 with Mobo for $100 plus tax at microcenter. If Intel would lower their product price like what AMD does, I would gladly buy intel.
 
Jan 24, 2023
1
3
10
0
Very sensationalist clickbait title from research firm and Tom’s. If Intel is using their manufacturing prowess to stifle AMD, I suppose it is Intel’s fault for AMD selling off their own manufacturing arm? Please, utter BS. And having their own manufacturing (Which cost them a absolute fortune and the research they provide benefiting the industry at large, including AMD) giving Intel the advantage that they can play around with pricing to be more competitive than AMD, also Intel’s fault? BS. This speaks soo much as to why the West is self-destructing at the moment, we just don’t award winners
 

watzupken

Respectable
Mar 16, 2020
898
425
2,270
1
I believe this is not unusual. Even though Intel lost market share over the years, they are still pretty much a monopoly in the CPU space. It looks like a duopoly, but I don't really think that is the case given that Intel likely still hold north of 70% market share easily.
 
Reactions: bit_user

motocros1

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2011
32
2
18,535
0
toms is only reporting. don't shoot the messenger. intel is practicing destructive pricing, aka they spent 750 million in research and development and the current pricing of the product doesn't bring the reward close to the cost. its not destructive because i get to buy it cheap but now that company is going out of business, is not a legitimate consumer policy.
 
Reactions: bit_user

twotwotwo

Reputable
Aug 10, 2019
41
11
4,535
0
It's controversy-bait, but I've been successfully baited.

If Intel's choosing pricing and quantity that make them less profitable now so their competition doesn't have the funds to compete next gen, yes, it's anti-competitive even it saves consumers money short-term. But if they were reducing price because otherwise they figure they'd sell less and make less, that's different. (Either way, if you're not the FTC and have your regular computer-user hat on, you might as well enjoy the show.)

Maybe Intel's run into the same thing as Flash makers: the market shrank faster than production did. I also suspect a focus on reclaiming the high end "dragged" Intel's midrange to a more competitive place, since the midrange is a lower-binned version of the top CPU in a monolithic world. Meanwhile, AMD had their platform get expensive at the same time the PC market shrank and people got more cost-sensitive.

I'd be a bit more suspicious if Intel stole AMD's oxygen in hyperscale servers anytime soon. There there's less margin to play with because you're negotiating with Amazon, electricity is a real chunk of TCO so AMD's efficiency advantage should matter a lot, and AMD has other product advantages (in core count, etc.) that Intel still seems a ways away from catching up to.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: KyaraM and bit_user

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS