Intel CEO Bracing For EPYC Impact, Aims to Keep AMD Under 20% of Server Market Share

The pitched battle between Intel and AMD has spread to the data center, and while Intel has been forthcoming that it expects to lose some market share in the coming months to AMD, Brian Krzanich's recent comments to Instinet analyst Roman Shah give us some insight into the surprising scope of AMD's threat. Shah recently sat down with Intel CEO Brian Krzanich and Barron's reported on his findings:

Latest Videos FromTom's Hardware
Paul Alcorn
Editor-in-Chief

Paul Alcorn is the Editor-in-Chief for Tom's Hardware US. He also writes news and reviews on CPUs, storage, and enterprise hardware.

  • fball922
    These are horrible optics for Intel. That the company that did some shady things to stop AMD's encroachment into the market in the Athlon64 days is saying it is "their job to stop AMD" when they won't have a response in the short term should raise some eyebrows.
    Reply
  • hellwig
    Yeah, it's not Intel's job to stop AMD from getting more than 20% market share. It's Intel's job to release a competitive product at a competitive price, and let the market decide.

    The last time Intel saw AMD as a threat, did they increase the value of their offerings? Nope, they paid major OEMs to simply NOT sell AMD. AMD made $1.8billion when they agreed to drop the lawsuits last time. I imagine Intel won't get off so "easy" if they start doing that again.
    Reply
  • bennie101
    You know I am niether Intel or Amd but I do hope that AMD knocks the crap out of intel... Why all the shady stuff they have done to amd over the years and when amd wasnt a threat they charged what ever price they demanded for there cpus.. I paid twice the price for a I5 4690K then I did for a AMD 8320 AND you know there was a difference but not enough to charge twice the price... Even back in the old pentium days I paid 429 bucks for a pentium 166mhz with mmx ... Thank goodness AMD was around a bit later as I bought a k-6 and I dont think I ever spent over 100 bucks for it. Needless to say intel needs this they have bullied everyone for far too long so have MS and alot of other companys ..
    Reply
  • rantoc
    Competition is good for us, lower prices for better products. Not the old broken down where Intel was alone on the top - that resulted in higher prices for worse products (ipc since SB anyone?).

    I hope AMD takes half the market-share so the two competes on product merits and price while the desktop/gpu reaps the benefits from the money earned.

    Simply put we need AMD to compete with intel/nvidia to get better stuff for fair prices.
    Reply
  • george.fontano
    This is getting very exciting.
    Reply
  • jimmysmitty
    21048024 said:
    These are horrible optics for Intel. That the company that did some shady things to stop AMD's encroachment into the market in the Athlon64 days is saying it is "their job to stop AMD" when they won't have a response in the short term should raise some eyebrows.

    It is their job though. Intels job is to sell the most they can and gain the most market share they can. It is also AMDs job to do the same. Of course with competitive products/platforms. The thing is that in servers there is more to it than just the CPU.

    21048328 said:
    Yeah, it's not Intel's job to stop AMD from getting more than 20% market share. It's Intel's job to release a competitive product at a competitive price, and let the market decide.

    The last time Intel saw AMD as a threat, did they increase the value of their offerings? Nope, they paid major OEMs to simply NOT sell AMD. AMD made $1.8billion when they agreed to drop the lawsuits last time. I imagine Intel won't get off so "easy" if they start doing that again.

    They didn't "pay" OEMs. They offered discounted prices for Intel products with an exclusivity contract. Not actually illegal since plenty of companies partake in these practices (hence why McDonalds only sells Coke products and no Pepsi products).

    The price paid was $1.25 Billion to settle the suits which is what any company would do instead of dragging them out for years costing more in legal fees and possibly higher settlement/fines.

    I don't see Intel doing anything like before since they have been fined for it. To be fair AMD has not had a competitive server CPU for some time.

    21048465 said:
    You know I am niether Intel or Amd but I do hope that AMD knocks the crap out of intel... Why all the shady stuff they have done to amd over the years and when amd wasnt a threat they charged what ever price they demanded for there cpus.. I paid twice the price for a I5 4690K then I did for a AMD 8320 AND you know there was a difference but not enough to charge twice the price... Even back in the old pentium days I paid 429 bucks for a pentium 166mhz with mmx ... Thank goodness AMD was around a bit later as I bought a k-6 and I dont think I ever spent over 100 bucks for it. Needless to say intel needs this they have bullied everyone for far too long so have MS and alot of other companys ..

    Pricing is based on competition and demand. The i5s were around $280-$300 always and AMD had no stiff competition to cause Intel to back down. That's how it works with every product. Apple constantly charges more for inferior products because people blindly buy them. People pay $160 for Apples AirPods even though there are superior wireless (and vastly superior wired) headphones for that price range. People pay it because that's the demand.

    That said, AMD is just as guilty of taking advantage of pricing when they can. When they had the better CPU in Athlon 64 they priced accordingly. They were not a budget chip and they shouldn't be if they can demand the price.
    Reply
  • bigpinkdragon286
    21048637 said:
    They didn't "pay" OEMs. They offered discounted prices for Intel products with an exclusivity contract. Not actually illegal since plenty of companies partake in these practices (hence why McDonalds only sells Coke products and no Pepsi products).
    Intel did pay OEMs for the exclusivity, unlike what happens at a soda fountain.

    Article A
    from at least 2003 to 2006 Dell received massive, undisclosed, end-of-quarter rebate payments from Intel in exchange for Dell's agreement not to ship any computers using microprocessors made by Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). The payments were allegedly never less than $100 million per quarter and, in at least one year, totaled about $1 billion.
    Article B
    In its original antitrust filing, AMD noted that it tried to give HP a million free processors at one point, only to be told that HP was so dependent on Intel rebates, it couldn’t afford to take them.
    Article C
    Intel also made direct payments to three manufacturers (HP, Acer, and Lenovo) to stop or delay the launch of specific products of its competitor, AMD, and to limit the sales channels available to AMD.
    Reply
  • deesider
    21048637 said:
    They didn't "pay" OEMs. They offered discounted prices for Intel products with an exclusivity contract. Not actually illegal since plenty of companies partake in these practices (hence why McDonalds only sells Coke products and no Pepsi products).

    The price paid was $1.25 Billion to settle the suits which is what any company would do instead of dragging them out for years costing more in legal fees and possibly higher settlement/fines.

    I don't see Intel doing anything like before since they have been fined for it. To be fair AMD has not had a competitive server CPU for some time.
    Anti-competitive behaviour is illegal when one company has a dominant share of the market - since the power to control pricing can lead to eliminating all competition and establishing a monopoly. This is the main point of antitrust law.

    - As you have already noted, they paid in case a trial resulted in a higher award, which would only occur if they were breaching the law. (Nobody pays over a billion dollars for lawyers)

    They are also still appealing the $1.25 billion dollar antitrust fine that was issued by the EU eight years ago.
    Reply
  • akamateau
    AMD's recent runup and test of $16 is due to Intel's capitulation of server market share and the great unknown that the THATIC Joint Venture will have on AMD's bottom line.

    Dhyana is coming and Chinese made servers will not just be sold in China!
    Reply
  • JamesSneed
    If AMD pulls of 7nm Zen 2 on the timelines they have publically shown Intel should be scared, very scared. This possibly will be the first time AMD is on a process advantage to Intel. I for one am pulling for AMD, not as some weird fan just so we can have another legitimate CPU player and to even out the landscape for better competition.
    Reply