you:
Speaking of cost advantages again; one thing that doesn't get talked about much is revenue per employee. From the respective company employee counts it looks like it must take 4x to 5x the number of INTC employees to create a processor as AMD needs. Of course all this is relatively unimportant since INTC ends up selling 5x as many processors as AMD making the labor costs much less significant for INTC. Yet INTC still needs to sell those processors for far more than AMD charges, on average, and still makes less per share than AMD does. I don't know but working for INTC must be like working in a rendering factory with fat hanging everywhere. Less costs yet INTC has to charge more and makes less? Something doesn't compute.
me:
This is a pretty weak argument, Intel is a far more complex company than AMD. For one, their marketing and advertising is a major part of why they sell processors at a higher price at the corporate level. AMD could also, but would have to add people to do it. If things were as simple as simply producing fabs and running them and then customers would beat a path to your doorway, I might agree. I remember a vmail that Andy sent to the sales people saying we didn't need all those sales people as the product "sells" itself. He later retracted that via vmail when someone explained the facts of life to him...
Also, Intel has other product lines, so you can't simply "divide".
That said, I'm always concerned about the staff level. It does seem like a lot. I would rather them run lean and mean in case they need to hunker down. I think VIIV has something to do with it.
Smooth
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
