They don't and they frankly shouldn't. AMD is competing VERY favorably against Intel and has had good success against Nvidia and entering into a market with juggernauts like Qualcomm and Huawei where they have zero experience is an extremely bad idea.
AMD is in a comfortable position of being smaller than Intel and Nvidia in markets they compete. So yes, they can focus on niches and gain market share.
This will not last forever. The reason why Intel and Nvidia invest so much time in new activities (interconnects, AI, autonomous driving etc) is that every company tries to grow and they couldn't do that in their core business.
We'll see how it goes for AMD, but - obviously - they'll have to change strategy at some point - becoming more like Intel and less like a sexy, agile, pro-enthusiast competitor.
Finding these people, the tools and the IP will not be cheap, easy, or fast coming. This is why I brought up the company size issue because a company like Intel either has the people, tools and IP's on hand, or can throw money at this problem much more effectively than AMD and steal established talent away from companies, buy IPs and buy tools.
You say this like if Intel was a giant company in Silicon Valley and AMD was a tiny family business in wasteland.
They're both big. They're placed in the same place. They offer similar jobs and pay similar money. And workforce moves between them. Always has.
For someone who wants to design chips or write low-lever libraries, it's still a dream job. Maybe Intel is more prestigious, but that doesn't mean they hire all talented candidates available. They're not THAT big.
I would say that AMD's team's are bigger than Intel's since from all reports, Intel only has a team for 1 cpu design, whereas AMD has multiple teams leap frogging eachother in development
I'd lover to see some of these reports.
that giant pool of people around the team is very important, and AMD would need to hire people to fill these spots, which takes money, and time.
Once again: where does this opinion about AMD come from? They're not a small startup. They're not a newcomer. They've been in this business for decades. They have the people they need.
Which means in the case of Intel, they are able to do everything in house is faster, cheaper and more reliable, unlike AMD who has to rely on TSMC or other foundries.
So first of all: a larger company is not doing things faster. It's the opposite most of the time.
And no, AMD has the advantage here. Outsourcing means they can deliver some things faster and cheaper. And with much lower risk.
Because if you're developing both the CPU and the production node, you have the risk that they won't sync well. You could have a good CPU design, but no way to make it. Or a plant that does nothing because the CPU isn't ready or the orders are low right now.
The reason why Intel didn't decide to sell the fabrication part is simple: they're big. They must have a guarantee that a plant will be available.
Once again: it's a disadvantage of being a large company and a clear leader.
I chose that source because it was one of the few sources I found that actually had something beyond "Intel lost billions", and I agree with the additional loss of reputation factor.
I understand it fits right into your opinion, but it's just a random site. You can't believe in something written online just because it's original or you like it.
