Pretty outrageous they skipped out the 2000's when AMD had the best chips and intel paid OEMs like Dells $100Ms every year not to use AMD

The video missed one critical point. Intel bribed companies to not use AMD and made some modifications so that some software couldnt run better if it detected AMD chip.

Things I learned from this video: CPU pins = transistors Power capacitors = "the core"

Plus inventing* 64-bit architecture, plus building the first multi-core CPUs... AMD hasn't simply been "copying and playing catch-up for 53 years" *Thanks to others who pointed out that Intel 64-bit Itanium was released first. They didn't "invent" 64-bit computing, but they brought an x86 compatible 64-bit architecture to market and popularized it.

Lisa Su gets a lot of glory, and while it's pretty much deserved, I think that Rory Read deserves more credit than is generally given for keeping AMD afloat until the turnaround tech was ready. I hope he got enough stock and/or options to compensate for having to take the public hits that he did.

A documentary about Nvidia's ultra dominant market position and anticonsumer market practices would be equally interesting.

>53 years My brothers in christ What about the 2000s? What about x86-64? What about the anti-competitive lawsuits?

AMD is the reason Intel stopped selling dual core CPUs in 2022. See, they come up with 10 core i3 cpu ;) Also, AMD is the reason they come up with Arc GPUs. AMD is forcing Intel to change its status quo of selling underpowered CPUs and GPUs (Intel uhd series), and charging hefty sum for any performance upgrade.

Because Intel played dirty like -Paying dell and all OEM to not use AMD -Bribing companies -Suing AMD at every step Pinnacle of Intel innovation

Can't forget acquisition of ATI which they have translated into console graphics as well as the Xilinx acquisition. They have taken multiple approaches to expanding business, narrowing it to just chiplets is an oversight.

I wish people would stop equating market cap as some kind of indicator of success. It's not. All it means is that some investors think the company has a chance to grow and are willing to make a gamble. e.g. TESLA with

The switch to TSMC did play a role in their success. If they had stuck to Global Foundries, no way they could've beaten intel.

AMD beat Intel like 20 years ago, then fall of from grace, now they are even, but AMD is fabless and Intel does have fabs, which is both and asset and a liability

I knew a under 7 min video covering the history between these 2 companies would miss a ton of stuff.

What about Intel bribery to BIllgates to not launch 64 bit OS until Intel have a Amd64 instruction set?

I'm a simple man. I look at benchmark tests, price, and then choose AMD.

A really short sighted view of the Intel/AMD competition. AMD traditionally lagged Intel in process, but at the end of the last century, AMD design lapped Intel and Intel was forced to drop their attempts to lead in processor design, Itanium, and follow AMD's design instead. At the same time, AMD lapped Intel in terms of multicore design. AMD managed to blow their lead of intel yet again, but made the essential move to farm out their fab operations -- just as most of the industry did. The result was they caught up to and passed Intel in process thanks to the Asian fabs. Intel hasn't regained their lead in process, and may never. What occurred was the evening of the desktop CPU market between Intel and AMD, but that market is (and has been) slowly declining vs. non-desktop environment dominated by ARM architectures, which neither Intel nor AMD make.

No mention of AMD's x64 architecture?

I was sure last year would end badly for me but I think BNB44X is spot on with what they do and how they do it. Can't say for how long it's going to work and for sure it is overyhped right now but even for half a year or something it would be smart to ride the wave and then jump away eventually but the thing is why this is smart right now is because it's so cheap, won't ever find a better entry than now

A bit shallow reporting. There were other key moments that tarnished Intel reputation. The failure of the 4g/5g wireless chip for Apple, for example, which ended the whole Intel wireless division, not to mention the fact that Apple built their own ARM-base chip, which lost Intel a big customer. AMD fame of late is well deserved in my opinion. I have a surface laptop that runs on AMD. It is quiet, never gets hot, even on heavy tasks, has a brilliant integrated graphics card, I love it.

Yeah, man. Whoever thought of making those chiplets.. just pure genius. Cost-saving and fast AF.

LISA SU is a top tier CEO, steered AMD all the way to the TOP, CPUs are now much much better because of RYZEN

AMD forced intel to try again with the 12th gen chips. Even now, a year later they are still incredible value for the money.

The current CPU market looks great, competitive and full of amazing bang for bucks! Even though I'm an intel user, i thank AMD for bringing competition into the market and making these processors so budget friendly! Thank you!

This video is just factually incorrect on so many levels it's insane.

It isn't cores but the smart phone driving ex-intel foundries to overtake and hold process node leadership. Lisa su wouldn't have succeeded without amd having access to cutting edge tsmc manufacturing. Intel was stuck at 10-14nm for too long. Amd has always had competitive cpu designs.

They missed a lot of info, probably to try and keep it short. AMD purchase of ATI and then the spinoff of GlobalFoundries, all the cut costs and try to keep pace with Intel's dirty tactics. I have always been a fan of AMD and I new that their roadmap would pay off, I purchased AMD stock a long time ago when it was worth just a few dollars, and look at it now, only wish I would have bought more, I could be retired.

Lisa Su was the best thing ever happened to AMD.

I feel old hearing the intel inside tune. I would assume a lot of people wouldn’t know what that signifies anymore 😢

>AMD during the early-2000's: Completely roflstomp Intel left right and center >Intel: *violates anti-trust laws multiple times over to gain an unfair advantage* >WSJ: "It took 53 years for AMD to beat Intel"

Piece failed to mention that AMD is also a maker of GPU's comparable to Nvidia, that Intel is just now getting into with it's ARC series. Also mentioned AMD's innovation, but the key in competitiveness was smaller nanometer design, developed and manufactured by Taiwan Semi

Intel’s new CEO is making an aggressive and risky path to turn Intel around, and in 10 years Intel will probably be making AMD’s and NVIDIA’s chips as part of its foundry business

This is one of the most inaccurate depictions of how CPUs are structured I've heard listened to.

Dell, one of Intel's largest customers, just dropped their server processors for AMD's equivalent. AMD will go past Intel soon, if they're not already ahead.

Lisa Su saying "I hope you guys have your money ready" was hilarious 😂

AMD dominated Intel in the early 2000's. The Athlon XP 2500+ and Athlon 64 bit 3200+ come to mind

WSJ missed more than it go right. It does not mention that AMD is 3-5 years ahead of Intel technologically. Or that ALL supercomputers today are built on AMD processors. Or that AMD rules the data/cloud centers with CPUs up to 96 cores/192 threads while Intel lags far behind in processing power, performance, efficiency, and at triple the cost because AMD has the most advanced chiplet design with Infinity fabric, far superior to Intel's massive security flaw laden chips (google IME and side channel attacks). It also does not mention Intels illegal and ruthless tactics. The only way Intel can compete against AMD state of the art chips is to add more and more power lines to the chip to overclock and push the cpus beyond all reason and make the Intel infernos the least efficient chips. This is one main reason why all supercomputers are built on AMD and why the trend in datacenters is moving constantly towards AMD. In has lawsuits files against them on 4 continents for paying companies under the table not to buy AMD products (google contrarevenue). Intel also paid a compiler company to sabotage AMD generated code to skew benchmarks against AMD. Intel never honored the conditions of information sharing set down by IBM at the outset of this war between Intel and AMD. And let's not forget all the companies that Intel ruthlessly put out of business with some of their illegal tactics. The war between Intel and AMD is very much parallel to the war between Russia and Ukraine.

Energy efficiency is the AMDs greatest achievement

AMD did what a company should do. Intel became lenient and managers became greedy

ahh what about the itanium misstep where amd released the first consumer 64 bit processor and even created the 64 bit instruction set that intel had too and still too this day licensed from amd

I don't know if this video was poorly researched or just heavily oversimplified, but half of the information in this video is incomplete or bordering on incorrect.

The Athlon, Athlon XP, Athlon 64, and Athlon 64 X2 all beat Intel in raw performance per clock. I'm not buying this 53 year thing.

Lisa Su's appointment as a new CEO was definitely a watershed moment for AMD. Before her, AMD processors were notorious for overheating and instability issues. These problems are still experienced in today's processors. But not so frequently witness this situation nowadays compared to pre-Lisa Su's period. Her ideas and leadership absolutely carried out AMD's prestige to a new level.

They took 53 years? When they invented the 64-bit architecture and multi-core computing?

Intel had the first 64-but processor, however the instruction architecture wasn't compatible with x86, so AMD created one which was.

Intel has been greedy, that's their main drawback. However they did do one thing right, they have their own factories. And they're right, that will be the key factor, because no matter how good AMD does, at the end of the day their costs come down to production, and if they don't have their own factories, production will always cost more for them. Side note, this video missed that both intel's engineers and AMD's engineers came from the same company before they even started their own companies.

TSMC is one of the key reasons why everybody, but Intel, is winning. One of the best decisions AMD made was to branch out Global Foundries and move away from the Fabs.

AMD's stock is way overvalued, and Intel's is way undervalued, Wall Street is overlooking the effect retail investors have on hype stocks like AMD, Nvidia, and Tesla. Don't get me wrong they are all good companies. However you can still overpay for them, and anyone buying AMD, Nvidia, or Tesla right now is overpaying. As soon as everyone starts talking like they are going out of business, that's when you buy. Intel did more revenue last year than AMD and Nvidia combined just so everyone keeps things in perspective.

What this video doesn't mention is that the x86 instruction set is dying... and BOTH AMD and Intel will be declining because of that. The ARM instruction will be the future and other companies are making their chips faster and more power efficient (e.g. Apple, Google, Amazon) leaving Intel and AMD behind.

I think the competition is great since it furthers innovation and affordability.

2:07 you make this sound soooooo much easier than it is. New foundries in Europe and the US will offer so many new opportunities for designers like apple tesla etc. ( let's see if india makes it)

Well put together video story. I'm a computer geek and I appreciate how you explained the CPU and what it does in layman terms that anyone can get. Kudos to you.

Wait, you didn't mention Jim Keller? "AMD release a new architecture" and you attribute this to "Lisa Su's tenure". While it did happen under Lisa, the head Engineer involved was none other than Jim Keller. The King of CPUs.

To just ignore the many attempts at innovation and successes AMD had in the 70s and 80s is just wrong. AMD developed some very advanced chips that even Intel produced in license for a while (early on). The problem was that AMD often miscalculated the market and their own developments only got into niche markets while intel defined the industry for decades. AMD was on the brink of bankruptcy many times because it took huge risks with innovative developments that rarely payed out. Its nice to see that AMD has finally broken the mold it was stuck in for so long.

I owned FX 8320E , then i5-7600K, then Ryzen 1600 , then Ryzen 2700 , and now im on m1 MacBook Air :)))

This video is not true at all. They were not just Copy cats. AMD was licensed by Intel to manufacture its x86 chips to sell to vendors. Dell started off with PC's Limited by using AMD chips that were conservatively clocked at 4 MHz and overclocked them much higher gaining market share. AMD later went on to use the same licensed instruction set implementing different CPU's. AMD surpassed Intel breaking the GHz barrier around 2000 with the Athlon chip. Intel played dirty by blocking other OEM's from manufacturing products with AMD chips to the point that Asus hid its first Athlon motherboard and sold it in a plain brown box. Intel never paid a price for this. For the next few years AMD had a chance of unseating Intel as intel produced a lackluster Pentium 4 architecture that had lower performance and higher clock speed. But AMD never really gained market share more than 20%, and Intel used its clout and monopoly to block AMD from the market place. AMD's big opportunity came when Intel tried to change its architecture from x86 to Itanium, which failed, AMD improved the x86 architecture to 64 bit and called it AMD64. Bill Gates made a deal to help AMD by promising to help support AMD64 instruction set in exchange for Jerry Sanders testifying in its anti trust suit against the government that Microsoft was working outside its Wintel Completion. Microsoft developed Windows for both Itanium and AMD64, but when Intel's Itanium flopped they asked Microsoft to develop a Windows version for their own x86/64 Instruction set/architecture to which Microsoft told them no and GO COPY AMD64 ARCHITECTURE IF THEY WANTED an x86 Windows - SO WHO IS THE COPYCAT? During most of the 2005 to 2016 Intel ruled the roost with iCore CPU's and AMD had neither process right not their designs. During this time development and customer value sucked as Intel had almost all of the market, Intel went generation after generation changing Sockets and pinouts forcing users to upgrade their hardware for very little performance. Then AMD sold off its FAB's (Chip Plants) and focused on Design with Sledgehammer architecture - and no this had nothing to do with Lisa Sui - she just happened to be there - sure she is great but all of this was in the works. They regained their focus and slowly re-took the performance lead while Intel struggled with Process and Manufacturing which AMD no longer was in the business of (Handing it over the TSM who was the strongest process company). They also focused strongly on R & D and solid pipeline of products and they executed well while at the same time intel faltered with process, and basically lost its way with all kinds of woke nonsense, etc. Intel is a dead company they were supposed to be dead since the early 2000's but they managed to survive despite them being lost back then but they used their muscle to rally out from the limited time window a competing product gives them before its too late. AMD has not done very well on the Graphics front but that seems to be changing, although they dominate in the console market. Most large companies rein usually come to an end - Intel just got lucky but they have always been a poorly executed company from an engineering stand point. There are many details i left out - like the Pentium 4 Fiasco, the DIV/0 error in the first gen Pentium. Eventually many large companies may end up using their own chips as ARM becomes better and more popular - Apple is already doing it, Amazon and Google will shortly.

The short answer is: they hired a technical a CEO and she was competent. Different from the blue collar marketing dude Intel had as CEO. AMDs CEO knew what was behind the curtains and prioritized investments. It’s like Elon understanding what happens what R&D reports to him.

AMD got advantage over Intel for Live Applications and it's preferred in Data Servers and Data Centers.

Dear WSJ You're forgetting x64 and AMD K7 (O.G. Athlon)

this bring back memories. my first gaming pc was with ryzen 1st gen

Missed the early 2000's WSJ?? Some great Journalism right there :P

Intel dominated the CPU market from the late 2000's to mid 2010's. They got arrogant and gave users little performance increases and changed expensive prices. Consumers were fed up, and even big partners like Apple abandoned Intel. Intel's fall is their fault.

this is one of those videos where the info you need to know is in the comments, not the video.

Does AMD work well with drawing software/3D things? Never tried their CPUs or GPUs but seems compelling

Both companies have done very well from the ongoing North American stock bubble though.

The boomer WSJ made a video about processors that’s exactly how a boomer would make it. I’m so surprised.

This ASA guy either doesnt know what hes talking about, or his statements were taken out of context. AMD was NOT an intel copycat. The only reason they manufactured Intel chips is because this is a requirement by the us mil/gov. they HAVE to have multiple sources to ensure a stable supply and have price and quality competition. AMD started selling fairchild and national semi clones for the same reason as soon as they started their biz, but quickly had their own unique products which were very successful.

Not even any mention of how TSMC is the one beating Intel on newest node. And TSMC makes chip for Nvidia for AMD for Apple. Without TSMC, none of the above three would be able to compete with Intel.😂

AMD actually beat intel when they were in netburst aka P4 but intel strong armed Pc manufacturers into only stocking intel chips. AMD also ran into supply issues so their R&D suffered for quite some time.

Intel MBA background execs got greedy at a point in time and innovation was not encouraged. That is why Intel is where it is today.

Also the fact that AMD is fabless and uses TSMC for manufacturing is a big advantage.

I would say the biggest change that allowed AMD to catch up to Intel is focusing on chip design and cutting their foundry business. By having TSMC make their chips for them it offload AMD's responsibilities especially when TSMC industry leading.

2:00 semi conductor is either insulator or conductor, not more conductive...

Thats such a shallow wikipedia analysis of the market and its players.

Great to see more competition in this space. Monopolies are never good for the end user.

Intel can't make chip comparable to tsmc

It has nothing to do with Tech. It has all to do with management. AMD before Lisa Su became CEO, they were on the brink of brankruptcy while Intel's management did absolutely nothing besides buying back shares.

Its not about lisa su, inovation is from jim keller, he work on foundation on zen architecture, and how its make scalable cheaply, amd way more efficient, jim keller is brain behind apple A cpu and tesla in house cpu

Thanks to tsmc’s leading edge process technology and capacity support

I prefer Frito-lay chips. They are cheaper and also good.

WSJ fails to speculate on the correlation, and possibly the causation, that Su is Taiwanese-born, thus AMD was an earlier adopter of tsmc's design IP and manufacturing might than Apple

TSMC fab-ed chip is faster than Intel fab-ed chip.

I prefer AMD chipsets because they are powerful and are very efficient compared to it's rival and most of all cheaper as well. I like the competition between both teams in the end the consumers are the winners because both will push each other to be better .

Might as well say sponsored by Intel.

Ehhh I've definitely heard better explanations of how a processor works...

5:57 AMD does not have any manufacturing. facilities. No wonder the comparison presented here is of market cap and not chips sold or book to bill ratios.

The Wall Street journal needs to talk about Ecosia they are a search engine that plants trees

"AMD came up with chiplets" mmm, I love deceptive at best stuff like this. AMD was the first to use chiplets for CPUs and brought focus back to them but they not only existed in the past for other things, people had proposed it in the past but it never came to be due to the challenges it posed and even plagued some of the early ryzen cpus.

For all this, they missed the digest reason(move to TSMC) which helped AMD got ahead in the game. AMD had better architecture for lot of times. But as one legend said once, best transistor will win.

Back in 1999, not only AMD is cheaper than Intel, it has better performance too. I had an Athlon that ran for 10+ years until I retired it. Not saying who is better, after that I got an Intel and it run until now.

never underestimate a underdog in the game

The "detail" in this article is appallingly bad and really should have been omitted. The larger picture stuff is interesting though.

its because of INTEL the world didnt progress much in General PC computing.. 1) intel was holding onto their 14nm and 14+++nm process for like 6-7 years..despite having lots of money for R & D and market dominance for over 2 decades..it was only till TSMC entered, that intel realized to mov to much efficient smaller node(10nm). (current Apple.AMD,Nvidia is using TSMC 5 & 4nm nodes while intel is still in ~10nm knoan as intel 7 for BS marketing). 2) if it wasnt' for AMD, Intel would still be releasing highend i7 and i9 processors as "QUAD CORE". thereby setting back the advancement of entire field of Gaming,VR, powerful multitask computers and many more.

I liked ATI graphics a lot back in the day. When AMD purchased ATI, I became a user of a lot of AMD processors and graphics cards over the years. Competition is good. Don't just buy Intel because they blast their marketing onto everything. Intel Arc GPU seemed interesting but I see all the driver issues they are having with games and with Linux too, and I couldn't recommend that to anyone.

This is an interesting story worth reporting on, but please invest in better technical advisors for your script next time.

What's crazy is they only looked at CPUs and not GPUs. Their flagship GPUs and worse than NVDIAs for sure but dollar for dollar their GPUs shine. They are in the same position they were 10 years ago when competing against Intel on the CPU side

A lot of Nvidia's and Intel's top brass got their start @ AMD.

I'm really looking forward to whatever AMD does They make decent GPUs as well

Sinking ships, both of them. Worldwide PC sales topped in 2012.

i love how you cite a news story from WSJ from 1997, that calls AMD an upstart (AMD was founded in 1969...) So WSJ appears to have been consistently out of touch with the PC industry since at least back then, not much has changed apparently...