Well, I don't know the Intel or AMD story all that well, but what I do know about Intel is not appealing.
They've fallen behind in advanced fabrication tech, right? So we assume they will not "catch up". We also assume they will spend lots and lots and lots of money trying to regain leadership, but so will the current tech leader (TSMC) and the current tech leader will succeed.
That's not very appealing for Intel.
Then in competition with AMD Intel has huge share, while AMD (at least a few years ago) had puny share. Since AMD is using TSMC's advanced process to release chips which are superior to Intel's chips produced on Intel's lagging technology, well, AMD's chips are better. AMD likely has been gaining share each of the past few years, from Intel. AMD is likely to continue to gain share each year from Intel.
That's not good for Intel.
I could be wrong, but I think that's the Intel - AMD story in a nutshell, a very thin high level assessment, but (as far as I know) it's accurate (no?).
Given that situation, we want to own AMD, and not own Intel.
You only want to own Intel if you can convince yourself that it will in the future deliver faster revenue growth (ie, market share gains) than AMD and the chip sector in general. How can you convince yourself of that? |
