News & Analysis
AMD: Fighting the unbeatable foe
Bolaji Ojo
12/1/2008 12:01 AM EST
Advanced Micro Devices' place in the annals of the semiconductor industry is now more or less fixed. The battle for dominance in the microprocessor market has been won and lost. The crown belongs to Intel—if this were medieval times, heads would already be rolling at 1 AMD Place in Sunnyvale, Calif.
AMD's future isn't clouded in any great mystery. The company is burdened with debt, is losing market share and appears destined to become an even smaller player in its core MPU market. Recent strategic moves at AMD are not making a dent in Intel's leadership: The acquisition of graphics IC vendor ATI Technologies hasn't lived up to expectations and becoming a fabless IC vendor isn't a game changer either.
But executives at AMD haven't yet come to terms with their second-place status. On the contrary, they continue to pursue actions they believe would level the playing field and make it possible for them to beat Intel.
![]() Click on image to enlarge. |
The bottom line is that AMD cannot beat Intel, not now and perhaps not ever. The company's top executives, including outgoing executive chairman Hector Ruiz, may believe they can continue to trade punches with Intel in this unequal slugfest but that strategy is, to put it bluntly, delusional. It has only brought misery to AMD and pushed the company into a spending contest it has no hope of winning.
While AMD continues its grandstanding, the rest of the industry can glean significant lessons from its experience. As observers ponder AMD's future, they must focus not merely on how the company arrived at its current disadvantageous position or even what it could do to reverse Intel's overwhelming edge, but on what they can learn from one of the most fascinating developments to emerge from the sector.
The AMD-Intel multidecade saga offers a great opportunity to examine the dynamics of competition in the industry; in particular, what roles marketing, R&D, product development, manufacturing efficiencies, financial resources and managerial expertise play into how effectively companies differentiate themselves in the marketplace. What makes one company a winner and another a distant second in a market clearly large enough to sustain at least two major competitors? Are process technologies and manufacturing efficiencies huge differentiators? Do varying administrative strategies have a significant impact? Finally, what role, if any, do marketing, public relations and mindset manipulation play?



deyyoung
12/2/2008 8:43 AM EST
Intel has been wanting us to believe this tripe for 10+ years now. I'll wager Mr. Ojo has some financial incentives from Intel ...
Sign in to Reply
octop
12/9/2008 5:59 AM EST
I agree that AMD is no match for Intel's resources, at least for now. However, I do not agree AMD is chasing "Blind Ambition" that needs negative "Reality Check". In fact, if we gauge the growth of this company from being 1 of the clone x86 microprocessor companies to later become the only survivor in x86 CPU market and the strongest competitor for Intel, should we call these achievements a product of "Blind ambition"?
In fact, the author of this article should discuss how AMD can sell survive market competition by using process technology an generation older than Intel (65nm vs 45nm) yet still staying relevant. To be fair, AMD might go default without financial injection from ATIC but that doesn't justify by viewing an catching-up company as desperate. The fact is, the latest flagship Intel CPU codename Nahalem, pocesses architecture similarity (i.e embedded memory controller, point-to-point communication bus like HT3 etc.) that AMD've been using a years ago.
It'd be a blind review if the author compare the resources of Intel to AMD and come to conclusion that AMD is not wise to continue competition & chase her dream. If it happen, Mr. Bolaji may need to pay uncompetitive price for a computer to write his articles in future if Intel remain a sole microprocessor producer.
Sign in to Reply