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
but the market capitalisation ie the total value of all publicly traded shares, but even then AMD beats Intel at £268.77 B [companiesmarketcap.com] vs £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.
> Maybe it's because AMD stock sits around $196 while Intel hovers near $41,
What? This is what passes for financial literacy these days? Do they think that the stock price of two equal companies is equal?
Maybe Berkshire Hathaway Inc, stock price $716,299.99 at the time of writing, can buy both of them, and use the money in the couch to buy Apple? I mean, if that's how the stock market works...
For those who really do think this is a thing, look up "Market Capitalization". That, divided by the number of sh
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
It's a mixture. Intel licensed their designs to AMD for a while so IBM could use AMD as a second source. Later they became competitors. There's no evidence of "reverse engineering", which isn't even a bad thing (reverse engineering is what you do if you want to create a 1:1 compatible version of a product without copying it - you basically create as best you can documentation of how something should work, and then use the documentation to create a design) or of stealing it. And why would they steal it and
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 maj
but the market capitalisation ie the total value of all publicly traded shares, but even then AMD beats Intel at £268.77 B [companiesmarketcap.com] vs £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.
> Maybe it's because AMD stock sits around $196 while Intel hovers near $41,
What? This is what passes for financial literacy these days? Do they think that the stock price of two equal companies is equal?
Maybe Berkshire Hathaway Inc, stock price $716,299.99 at the time of writing, can buy both of them, and use the money in the couch to buy Apple? I mean, if that's how the stock market works...
For those who really do think this is a thing, look up "Market Capitalization". That, divided by the number of sh
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
It's a mixture. Intel licensed their designs to AMD for a while so IBM could use AMD as a second source. Later they became competitors. There's no evidence of "reverse engineering", which isn't even a bad thing (reverse engineering is what you do if you want to create a 1:1 compatible version of a product without copying it - you basically create as best you can documentation of how something should work, and then use the documentation to create a design) or of stealing it. And why would they steal it and