When it comes to fab, AMD didn't beat intel, they gave up and went with TSMC. Now they have to compete with TSMC's other customers, including Intel, for access to the kingmaking process. That's not foul play, it's the bed they made, and now they get/have to lie in it.

I thought AMD spun off their own fabs into Global Foundries.

...which they dropped like a used tissue, yes. That was the entire point of the exercise.

The current high end AMD parts are multi chip modules. The CPU dies are made at TSMC in 7nm but the IO dies that glue multiple CPU dies together is made in the Global Foundries 14nm process.

GF has basically given up on 10nm and smaller nodes.

Didn't AMD have contractual obligations to use Global Foundries for their high end chips from when they split, or something along those lines? I guess that turned out really well for them, though, since that might have led to the necessity of chiplet designs.

GF has given up on research and pioneering smaller nodes. Their current process is based on tech they licensed from Samsung. I would not be surprised if they licensed another process from TSMC or Samsung in the future.

> That's not foul play

Maybe not legally, but if their (partial) intention is to retard AMD's design success, it's at least what is considered "a dick move".

Intel is strong-arming AMD on many fronts AFAIK, I sincerely hope they vanish into insignificance for their dick-locomotion nature. And I also hope the EU succeeds at spinning up their own fabs. And that ancaps one day see the light of regulation.

I want fancy tech and scifi and wealth for everyone, and the free-market doesn't deliver. It's all monopolies and patent wars...

Intel (and NVidia for that matter) don't owe AMD uncontested access to TSMC's kingmaking process, no matter how much AMD fanboys wish it were so.

> AMD's design success

The market is showing us that the value center isn't design, it's fab. Which AMD gave up on. The lack of competition that's squeezing them is the very pile of dung they created by dropping their foundries.

Yes, I am not arguing the market logic. I am arguing against the market logic.

Sounds like you have all this backwards. If the rumours are true, it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder because they have the best tech is the free market at work. It's the opposite of anti-competitive. Intel is the one going to pay up (to TSMC) for their mistakes. Incidentally, AMD outsourcing its fab came with inherent risks, one of which is this.

> it's TSMC with all the power in this situation, not Intel. TSMC selling their services to the highest bidder

That's Intel's legacy at work. They got the cash (but nothing else) to do this. So Intel _is playing its market position.

Of course TSMC is the real winner, but in AMD vs Intel, they are just another resource.

> This sort of anti-competitive behavior should be illegal.

You're assuming the legal system is intended to foster competition and prevent the formation of monopolies. That is not the case. The examples of this occurring are exceptions to the rule. And as evidence, you can examine the concentration of wealth, and investment capital in the USA (or other developed capitalist countries).