[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]  AlphaSense [@AlphaSenseInc](/creator/twitter/AlphaSenseInc) on x 24.7K followers Created: 2025-07-09 14:33:54 UTC Interview with a former $AMD employee on strategic differences between $AMD and $INTC ( $AMZN, $TSM, $MSFT ): - The expert explained that when evaluating CPU vendors, particularly in cloud-scale or enterprise settings, the key buying criteria for hyperscalers boil down to performance per watt per dollar, with an intense focus on TCO. $AMZN, which acts as a digital infrastructure mall, allocates about XX% of its CPU cores to third-party infrastructure hosting, and tends to favor established vendors like $INTC over $AMD due to legacy familiarity and customer recognition. $MSFT, on the other hand, uses roughly XX% of its cores for first-party applications, optimizing for hybrid cloud incentives and tight integration. $ORCL's strategy is even more vertically integrated, with around XX% of its fleet dedicated to first-party SaaS workloads like Exadata. - The expert highlighted that enterprise buyers differ significantly from hyperscalers in CPU purchasing behavior, with brand familiarity and security playing central roles. Enterprises often avoid scrutinizing hardware specs deeply and default to trusted brands like $INTC, especially since $INTC has a track record of resolving security vulnerabilities quickly. - Another key enterprise criterion is memory per core, as typical enterprise workloads are memory-intensive. $AMD's CPUs, while high in core count, often fall short here due to lower memory allocation per core, leading to underperformance in real-world enterprise applications and lost deals. While $AMD has gained server market share, much of that success has come from hyperscalers using them as a secondary vendor. Their attempts to enter the enterprise space, such as with the Siena line, have had limited success because most enterprises can’t utilize high-core-count chips like Genoa or Turin. - $AMD 's reliance on $TSM's costly leading-edge process exacerbates margin pressures, making it critical for them to grow in the enterprise segment to balance out the thin-margin hyperscaler business. In contrast, $INTC's ability to cut costs post-launch through supply chain efficiencies gives it more pricing flexibility over time. - The expert emphasized that while custom silicon is a compelling narrative, especially promoted by companies like $MRVL and $AVGO, it has yet to deliver meaningful external traction beyond $AMZN's Graviton. Most in-house chips like Cobalt and Maia are used internally and lack third-party demand, raising doubts about the scalability of custom strategies outside of $AMZN. - An expert with experience at both $AMD and $INTC highlights key cultural and strategic differences between the two. $AMD emphasizes architectural and hardware innovation, often leading with cutting-edge technologies like HBM-enabled CPUs (e.g., Genoa-X), even if market readiness lags. $INTC, by contrast, focuses on manufacturing efficiency and delivering broadly applicable, cost-effective solutions that integrate well with existing infrastructure. While less innovative architecturally, $INTC excels in deployment and ecosystem alignment.  XXXXX engagements  **Related Topics** [msft](/topic/msft) [amzn](/topic/amzn) [money](/topic/money) [$msft](/topic/$msft) [$tsm](/topic/$tsm) [$amd](/topic/$amd) [advanced micro devices](/topic/advanced-micro-devices) [stocks technology](/topic/stocks-technology) [Post Link](https://x.com/AlphaSenseInc/status/1942955375977717797)
[GUEST ACCESS MODE: Data is scrambled or limited to provide examples. Make requests using your API key to unlock full data. Check https://lunarcrush.ai/auth for authentication information.]
AlphaSense @AlphaSenseInc on x 24.7K followers
Created: 2025-07-09 14:33:54 UTC
Interview with a former $AMD employee on strategic differences between $AMD and $INTC ( $AMZN, $TSM, $MSFT ):
The expert explained that when evaluating CPU vendors, particularly in cloud-scale or enterprise settings, the key buying criteria for hyperscalers boil down to performance per watt per dollar, with an intense focus on TCO. $AMZN, which acts as a digital infrastructure mall, allocates about XX% of its CPU cores to third-party infrastructure hosting, and tends to favor established vendors like $INTC over $AMD due to legacy familiarity and customer recognition. $MSFT, on the other hand, uses roughly XX% of its cores for first-party applications, optimizing for hybrid cloud incentives and tight integration. $ORCL's strategy is even more vertically integrated, with around XX% of its fleet dedicated to first-party SaaS workloads like Exadata.
The expert highlighted that enterprise buyers differ significantly from hyperscalers in CPU purchasing behavior, with brand familiarity and security playing central roles. Enterprises often avoid scrutinizing hardware specs deeply and default to trusted brands like $INTC, especially since $INTC has a track record of resolving security vulnerabilities quickly.
Another key enterprise criterion is memory per core, as typical enterprise workloads are memory-intensive. $AMD's CPUs, while high in core count, often fall short here due to lower memory allocation per core, leading to underperformance in real-world enterprise applications and lost deals. While $AMD has gained server market share, much of that success has come from hyperscalers using them as a secondary vendor. Their attempts to enter the enterprise space, such as with the Siena line, have had limited success because most enterprises can’t utilize high-core-count chips like Genoa or Turin.
$AMD 's reliance on $TSM's costly leading-edge process exacerbates margin pressures, making it critical for them to grow in the enterprise segment to balance out the thin-margin hyperscaler business. In contrast, $INTC's ability to cut costs post-launch through supply chain efficiencies gives it more pricing flexibility over time.
The expert emphasized that while custom silicon is a compelling narrative, especially promoted by companies like $MRVL and $AVGO, it has yet to deliver meaningful external traction beyond $AMZN's Graviton. Most in-house chips like Cobalt and Maia are used internally and lack third-party demand, raising doubts about the scalability of custom strategies outside of $AMZN.
An expert with experience at both $AMD and $INTC highlights key cultural and strategic differences between the two. $AMD emphasizes architectural and hardware innovation, often leading with cutting-edge technologies like HBM-enabled CPUs (e.g., Genoa-X), even if market readiness lags. $INTC, by contrast, focuses on manufacturing efficiency and delivering broadly applicable, cost-effective solutions that integrate well with existing infrastructure. While less innovative architecturally, $INTC excels in deployment and ecosystem alignment.
XXXXX engagements
Related Topics msft amzn money $msft $tsm $amd advanced micro devices stocks technology