[SmirkingRevenge]

Take it for what you will, but an Intel engineer relayed to me (many years ago, in the aftermath of the Microsoft antitrust trial), that they attempt to ensure that AMD maintains a certain level of competitiveness as a hedge against antitrust. Sometimes that involves actually helping AMD via partnerships or technology sharing, if they are struggling too much - other times it means giving them a swift kick to the crotch if they are gaining to much ground. It may have been BS, it may not have - and much has certainly changed over the years... but...

AMD has always been nipping at Intel's heels, for 20+ years now, never really losing or gaining too much to pose a real threat. Yet we've seen how ruthlessly Intel will snuff out potential contenders (such as Transmeta, RIP), it does kind of make you think there's something to it.

[Slartie]

This was the reason for me to still buy AMD shares when they were deep underwater. I considered them basically immortal, because if the company ever was in existential danger, Intel would have a huge incentive to stage some kind of indirect rescue operation (not outright buying, that would kill the goose, but something else that surely would prop up AMD share value), because the monetary value of AMD as an antitrust insurance was easily much higher than AMDs market cap.

Sold those shares way too early in hindsight, but still got a good return out of that thinking, and if AMD ever gets into trouble again, I won't hesitate to apply the same logic.

[georgeburdell]

This actually would mesh pretty well with that one Kaby Lake G NUC, released in 2017 and probably had roots in 2016 when AMD's stock was at $3, that had Radeon graphics inside https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-discontinue-kaby-lak...

[wtallis]

There's a simpler explanation for why Intel used AMD GPUs for a while: Intel's new integrated GPU design couldn't ship until they sorted out their 10nm issues, and their older design wasn't competitive. When Intel went shopping for GPUs on the open market, they could get them cheaper from AMD than Nvidia (though the HBM2 requirement was a clear downside). They actually paired AMD GPUs with both 14nm Kaby Lake and their failed 10nm Cannon Lake processors that had broken integrated GPUs. The short-lived Intel/AMD GPU partnership came to an end because Nvidia's lead over AMD got too big, but it was doomed to be cancelled as soon as Intel gets 10nm working.

[lonelappde]

What is Nvidia's lead over AMD? Intel's non-AMD gpus are Intel gpus

Do Nvidia integrated gpu (mpgu) exist?

Nnvidia claims they exist but all their weblinks to details are dead. https://www.nvidia.com/object/main_mobo_gpus.html

[wtallis]

Nvidia and AMD both make discrete mobile GPUs, and those are the only two options for offering better GPU performance on an Intel laptop when Intel's own GPU is inadequate. Nvidia's GPUs have for years generally had a substantial power efficiency over AMD's.

[nickflood]

That's what everyone does now. Microsoft Teams versus Slack, Facebook versus Snap. Nobody wants to be hit as hard as Microsoft was

[agumonkey]

it's been said enough for me to remember yeah, not killing AMD was a benefit, but keeping their head under the water too

[SmirkingRevenge]

If it turned out to be actually true... I wonder sometimes if it makes a better example of antitrust policy actually working to some degree... or failing.

[agumonkey]

yeah, it's working but within its limits ..