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

[JayNor]

It's a bit ironic that the SPR delay likely also delayed the volume and competition that could have reduced ddr5 costs ahead of the zen4 launch. The alder lake processors didn't force the issue, since they supported both ddr4 and ddr5.

 

[TerryLaze]

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

"To damage AMD, "

"Intel is shipping more CPUs than the market can consume these days. "

Tom's is still clickbaiting more than enough, both parts of this statement are false.


The article links to intels TAM event, so I can only imagine that they did propper market research, if they produce as many units as they think they can sell then that's what every company does and they don't do it to hurt anybody else, they do it because that's their business.
https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.ne...inar_Consolidated_1-6-23_Equisolve_upload.pdf

 

[russell_john]

So shrinking margins to improve competitiveness is considered "semi-destructive actions" now?

It is to Investors who want corporations to milk every last cent they can from Consumers ..... This is great for Consumers and a lot of people are hoping it will happen in the ridiculously overpriced GPU market where Investors are more or less forcing Nvidia and AMD to jack up their prices because they saw what happened with scalpers and they want a part of that action too ....... Scalpers made a ton of money in 2021 and most of 2022 and Wall Street didn't get any of it and that pisses them off to no end

Greed and Fear are both base emotions and the Markets run on Fear and Greed and thus the Market is run on base emotions .... not logic, emotions .... Proof of that is lately whenever we have a strong jobs report meaning more people are working and also getting paid more then the Market drops .... The only thing that explains a Market dropping on a GOOD jobs report is Fear and Greed .... It's NOT a logical response to good news, it's an emotional response

 

[bit_user]

"To damage AMD, "

"Intel is shipping more CPUs than the market can consume these days. "

Tom's is still clickbaiting more than enough, both parts of this statement are false.

Reading-comprehension fail.

Those claims are quoted from Bernstein Research, in the Seeking Alpha article linked from this one. These claims are theirs - not anyone at Toms. Its fair game for Toms to report when someone makes these claims. Too bad, if you or your employer doesn't like it. Maybe they should sue Bernstein Research.

 

[russell_john]

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.

To be fair Tom's Hardware are not the one's making this claim, some investment group is making that claim, Tom's is only reporting what they said ......

Why do so many people these days blame a news reporter for simply reporting what someone else said instead of blaming the people who actually made the claim? Your beef isn't with Tom's Hardware or Anton, it's with Stacy Rasgon, and Bernstein Research who made this dumb claim.

 

[bit_user]

Scalpers made a ton of money in 2021 and most of 2022 and Wall Street didn't get any of it

LOL, wut? Tech companies made plenty of money in that timeframe.

And yeah, scalpers are bad, but their business model only works when supply is constrained.

Greed and Fear are both base emotions

Greed isn't an emotion.

The only thing that explains a Market dropping on a GOOD jobs report is Fear and Greed .... It's NOT a logical response to good news,

There are good reasons behind this, which I won't go into here. Plenty has been written about why prices tend to fall on good news. With something like a jobs report, it has the added dimension of predicting interest rate changes, and interest rates have their own varied impacts on prices, which also depends on the nature of the asset.

I'm not going to say markets are never irrational, but they're not as fundamental irrational as you say. I think you need to learn more about markets, if you want to make more credible and convincing indictments. Furthermore, such pronouncements don't really help anything and if you really want to fix them, you have a lot to learn.

 

[thestryker]

From what I've gathered AMD has issues getting enough capacity in any of the markets they play in. This is one place Intel will always win because they don't have to run new contracts to shift manufacturing. In STH's first SPR release article they mentioned Genoa availability being an issue and Intel not having that problem, and this is with Genoa releasing a couple of months earlier. AMD has fantastic products, but if a company says hey we need 10,000 systems and they can't deliver for months but Intel can have them shipped immediately it doesn't matter that AMD may be better.

The biggest difference of what's going on now is that due to AMD being competitive or better Intel can't jack up prices to go with that availability.

 

[bit_user]

Why do so many people these days blame a news reporter for simply reporting what someone else said

Because they don't read and don't think, before reacting.

Worse, social media ranking algorithms are conditioning people to react in more extreme ways. It's making the internet an even more toxic and polarized place than it needs to be.

 

[bit_user]

It's a bit ironic that the SPR delay likely also delayed the volume and competition that could have reduced ddr5 costs ahead of the zen4 launch.

Huh? You're saying DRAM producers delayed manufacturing ramp up of DDR5, due to the SPR delay? That's pretty hard for me to believe. Got any supporting evidence to share?

You highlight probably one good thing about SPR's delay, which is that if it had launched on time, DDR5 probably would've been impossible for consumers to source, at any cost.

 

[edzieba]

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.

Not particularly 'fast', as Intel have been providing reference designs for literally decades. Earliest I found on a quick google was a Pentium III reference design, but that's likely because industry publications much earlier would still be predominantly print rather than digital.

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

"Financial analyst firm predicts" is about the same prognostication accuracy as tea-leaves or goat entrails. Probably slightly lower, as at least the traditional methods are rarely worse than random chance.

 

[bit_user]

"Financial analyst firm predicts" is about the same prognostication accuracy as tea-leaves or goat entrails. Probably slightly lower, as at least the traditional methods are rarely worse than random chance.

You can certainly question the motives and accuracy of financial analysts, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that people were acting as if Toms themself are making these assertions. As long as they're not picking & choosing which analysts' predictions and pronouncements to report on, the attack on Toms is unwarranted.

 

[-Fran-]

Not particularly 'fast', as Intel have been providing reference designs for literally decades. Earliest I found on a quick google was a Pentium III reference design, but that's likely because industry publications much earlier would still be predominantly print rather than digital.

Not to this degree and widespread. Costs of R&D have gone up and the amount of different OEMs they "help" has increased a lot.

Basically, if you think notebooks, the only Companies that don't offer Intel laptops are the ones not getting "help" from Intel. Do you know of any Companies that make laptops not offering any Intel-based ones?

Also, you could argue Intel is doing some exclusive projects here and there with select OEMs. Look at the new Surface design win. I now know it was because Intel just told Microsoft they'd build it for them, LOL.

There's a fine line here between "all goes" and "unfair market positioning pressure". I personally don't know where it is, but I can say Intel is walking very close to the line.

EDIT: Wording.

Regards.

 

[TerryLaze]

Reading-comprehension fail.

Those claims are quoted from Bernstein Research, in the Seeking Alpha article linked from this one. These claims are theirs - not anyone at Toms. Its fair game for Toms to report when someone makes these claims. Too bad, if you or your employer doesn't like it. Maybe they should sue Bernstein Research.

Re stating is very very different from quoting, Tom's didn't quote, they made the same statements themselves.

In the OP it doesn't say researchers/firm/whoever claims that...XYZ.
So they aren't quoting, their are stating.

 

[TerryLaze]

There's a fine line here between "all goes" and "unfair market positioning pressure". I personally don't know where it is, but I can say Intel is walking very close to the line.

That's what every company does, and not just in technology but everywhere, that's why there are any lines in the first place.
That's why apple sues grocery stores calling themselves anything close to apple, like a.pl.

Apple vs. A.pl - Tech Giant Sues Small Online Grocery Store

Apple is suing the online Polish grocery store over the name A.pl.

geekbeat.tv

 

[-Fran-]

That's what every company does, and not just in technology but everywhere, that's why there are any lines in the first place.
That's why apple sues grocery stores calling themselves anything close to apple, like a.pl.

Apple vs. A.pl - Tech Giant Sues Small Online Grocery Store

Apple is suing the online Polish grocery store over the name A.pl.

geekbeat.tv

No, not every Company does it. I won't deny they'd love to be in a position where they could. Well, their shareholders would. It sure helps the stock and Company valuation being so big and powerful you can bully your competitors out of the market.

So no. I'd love to join the bandwagon of "all Companies do it; it's normal!", but no. On one hand, as consumer, this behaviour hurts us by having less choice and options and on the other it's just watching big bullies be bullies and almost celebrate their behaviour.

Do you like sayings like these?
"The big and strong have the right to mistreat the small and weak".
"Law of the jungle: the strong eat the weak".
Etc.

Just like you use Apple as a bad example, whatever Intel is doing, in the long run, does not help consumers and only their own share value. And the "why does no one think of the poor engineers!" line doesn't apply. If there was more competition in the space, there would be way more positions to fill. Margins would probably be lower, but that's how competition works.

Regards.

 

[GustavoVanni]

Intel has its own foundries so there's that.

Take amd share on tsmc and it's broke 3nm new shine Cpu

I think I've read something last year about Intel getting a large portion of TSMC 3nm wafers.
If they have their own fabs, one reason to do this is to limit the amount of 3nm wafers AMD can buy, making it even harder to competition to gain market share.
Intel has enough money to really do this if they want, and AMD would have to pay TSMC more to get all the capacity they need, which would reduce their margins, or be forced to use a older node that might not be competitive against the new Intel chips.

I found this articles:
Apple and Intel First to Adopt TSMC's 3nm Technology: Report | Tom's Hardware (tomshardware.com)
TSMC will manufacture 3nm chips for Intel in the second half of 2022 - (gizchina.com)
Report: Intel Signs Contract To Outsource CPUs To TSMC's 3nm Process (wccftech.com)

I'm not an especialist, nor anything close to that, but I guess AMD is in a real though spot, trying to beat two behemoths, Intel and Nvidia, not to mention Apple and the "ARM army".
And i think they are doing OK, until now, at least.
Zen architecture really put AMD back on track, but they will always be relegate to be the second option on the market if they can't supply enough chips to meet the demand (mostly on server and laptop side of business).

 

[bit_user]

Re stating is very very different from quoting, Tom's didn't quote, they made the same statements themselves.

I don't know if the article has been edited, but I can't even find the phrases you quoted.

To me, it's very obvious they're reporting on what a research firm claimed. You're just attacking the messenger. Please don't.

In the OP it doesn't say researchers/firm/whoever claims that...XYZ.

The article's title is:

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

 

[bit_user]

one reason to do this is to limit the amount of 3nm wafers AMD can buy, making it even harder to competition to gain market share.

Then how do you explain this?

https://www.tomshardware.com/news/tsmc-might-cut-3nm-prices-to-lure-amd-nvidia

Sounds like TSMC is expecting to have more supply than demand for it, at the moment.

Intel has enough money to really do this if they want, and AMD would have to pay TSMC more to get all the capacity they need,

That might cost them a lot of money. If I were TSMC, I wouldn't sell Intel so much capacity that it jeopardizes AMD, since Intel is a direct competitor of both TSMC and AMD. It's not in TSMC's long-term interest to let Intel destroy them, because Intel eventually plans to switch back to using its own fabs (once they catch up), and that would leave TSMC without either as a customer.

 

[deksman]

Intel has its own foundries so there's that.

Indeed.
AMD recently bought XilinX, but they also didn't have their own foundries and have instead rely on TSMC.
This could be a good thing as it can provide a larger boost to AMD in general and possibly greater priority with TSMC (and there are other benefits from XilinX acquisition that we probably will have to wait at least a year or so before we see results of).

That said, what Intel is doing here effectively is borderline 'illegal competitive practice'.
However, because they have their own foundries, and are using an older manuf. process (which they finally were able to 'perfect'), they are able to charge lower prices.

In reality, because they use an older manuf. process (unlike AMD), they have better yields which results in cheaper options I suppose... however, efficiency wise, they are behind AMD by quite a bit and easily suck a lot more power.
When comparing price and efficiency (aka same TDP levels), AMD was ahead of Intel by a nice margin... not a huge one, but relevant enough.

Intel however is losing ground heavily in the data center though.

I'd like to see that and consumer segment to be at 50/50 between Intel and AMD in market share.... or 60/40 in AMD favour (at least for a bit to put Intel into place).

 

[3ogdy]

Intel engaging in destructive actions in the I.T. industry. Sounds rather familiar.
When did I hear this before? Oh! Right...it was Intel with anti-competitive behavior offering unsustainably low pricing just to keep AMD CPUs out of PCs. It was OK for it to hurt itself if it meant hurting AMD even more.

Same old story. I hope that this time around we see Intel pay for this rather sooner than later, when the damage is already done to AMD.

 

[Loner_STALKER]

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.

I don't think this move is jist about lowering prices(unless I misread this which I could have considering I'm still half asleep). I think thwy are just trying to push better deals to OEMs. You are right it is a thing companies do and I am sure part of the way they will try to appeal to OEMs will include better deals for them. I doubt consumers will see much of a drop in prices though since the only way most OEMs would probably take that deal would be if their margins would grow because of it, they don't really care about charging less to gain volume I'd imagine. However I also agree with the writer regarding how it can backfire. This behavior is why they even have to worry in the first place imo. While AMD has been innovating and trying new things over the years in order to keep up with/over take Intel. Intel just threw more money, and power at things while swinging their market influences around to help fend them off during that time. Seemingly expecting that to keep them down, but it didn't work. Now, I stead of doing the same thing and innovating, they are just going to go for more of the pre-built market. Which may be welcomed by OEMs since they can put new Intels in new PCs with DDR4 instead of needing to cough up the money for DDR5 and a Mobo for it. I bet Dell is happy they can keep using their BS proprietary boards for another year or so with only a few minor changes. Or none if they use the lower end "13th gen" chips(aka rebranded 12th Gen). I don't see them holding onto any extra market share they may obtain during this time though, although thwy have to do something in their eyes since they bet too much on their GPUs and new chips being in as much demand as a few years ago. Just like all PC hardware companies unfortunately, but their investors demand a bit more from them, so they will prob push harder than AMD. When AMDs new APUs are out with RDNA3 these OEMs will be all over it and most likely drop any extra Intel market share they may have taken on. The next gen(and prob the last gen) of MS and Sony consoles will prob use their APUs again and if they prefect them and their chiplet usage , I think the need for lower end dedicated GPUs will be gone. Especially once we get true DDR5 speeds and move onto DDR6+. We may even start seeing APU Mobos with slots for VRAM!(Been a prediction of mine for YEARS, lately things have been pointing tonit coming true). Anyway, that's my 67 cents. Have a good one!

 

[Chung Leong]

I think some of the issue here is that people are using "destructive" in layman's terms rather than in Wall Street-talk, which tends to have a different connotation for a lot of words (disruptor is a common example).

Another example is "optimization". For a programmer, it means making changes that improve the end-user experience. For someone on Wall Street, it means laying off programmers making such changes.

 

[TerryLaze]

I don't know if the article has been edited, but I can't even find the phrases you quoted.

To me, it's very obvious they're reporting on what a research firm claimed. You're just attacking the messenger. Please don't.


The article's title is:

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

Now who is having an Reading-comprehension fail....
Tom is presenting this article by making statements themselves.
They don't just have the link there with the article title, they also have words there that are not part of the article or of its title, those words are statements.

There is no proof in the article about how many CPUs intel is manufacturing only that they did market research to see how many CPUs the market could absorb, and even less than no proof that they do any of this to damage AMD.

 

[Soaptrail]

To be fair Tom's Hardware are not the one's making this claim, some investment group is making that claim, Tom's is only reporting what they said ......

Why do so many people these days blame a news reporter for simply reporting what someone else said instead of blaming the people who actually made the claim? Your beef isn't with Tom's Hardware or Anton, it's with Stacy Rasgon, and Bernstein Research who made this dumb claim.

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.

I did not miss the fact that this is a summary of another article or release from an analyst. But Tom's has no issue with adding commentary to their articles and this one would have benefited from that to point out how there is no proof being provided to backup the claim against Intel. We know Intel has done shady things in the past but that does not mean because someone says Intel hurting AMD we believe them until they justify why they believe that is true.

A little commentary from Tom's on this article would have dramatically changed the perspective from looking like click bait to a Hey we are hearing this but so far not much evidence has been provided.

 

[Coffee Fueled Curmudgeon]

Seems fine when Sony, Google, Apple and umpteen other business being business doing businessy things do it, no?

Imagine, competing through volume and value and having it be called self-destructive in a paid narrative.