highlandpk,
I don't know why you concentrate on these useless $ per person comparisons, when:
1. AMD's headcount just got massively reduced with the sale of Spansion, giving them a high margin CPU dense team to Intel's diverse team of chipset, flash, networking, wireless, and software teams. And the combination of these assets has allowed Intel to be vastly more profitable during most of their history vs. AMD.
2. AMD is at the top of their game with a vastly more competitive product line, and this is going to change rapidly starting in Q3.
3. AMD's headcount is misleading, since it doesn't count people working from joint ventures, such as with IBM and Chartered. AMD is putting money towards funding these activities that is not comprehended by your "chips per employee" equations.
4. AMD will be gaining headcount as they ramp their new fab, and they would have to grow their business anyway to support the new sales regions. Selling more product doesn't come for free, and Intel has a formidable sales team just waiting for an opportunity to win back business with upcoming products. AMD cannot support their gains without growing in headcount.
5. Intel's sales decline is being compounded by inventory issues which will also be resolved with more competitive products.
And there's probably more reasons I haven't thought of why having a sale per employee comparison is a bad idea. It all seems to stem from a rather obvious deficiency on your part of realizing how the tide of competitive change will affect AMD's and Intel's sales in the second half of the year.
