All that worked (or seemed to work) for Intel for many years - 30+ years of profits and market dominance. I don't know the exact abuse level of Amazon, Microsoft, Apple or wherever but if they're equivalent, they'll keep going 'tell they stop.
The one thing toxic culture seems to do is prevent recovery when a company suffers a setback.
My view was Intel had a good culture until external pressures resulted in turning toxic.
If you're in doubt, I'd recommend David M. Gordon's Fat And Mean for a discussion of how toxic culture persists and intensifies in corporate America.
Edit: I think can credit the long period of success Intel had to shrewd leadership and leading in a massively expanding market. The thing about a chip company is that it is constantly gambling on extremely costly investments in machinery and people. Abusive tactics that get good people working really hard for average salaries are really useful and "only come due over time" and often when the company foundering anyway.
As far as I'm concerned there is no other way to get real progress; there are always a lot of pretenses on better ways to "manage" stuff but they never work because of group dynamics and basic human behavior...
I wonder how it became a culture so afraid of itself. How did Amazon (possibly no less "toxic", Idk) embarrassed combative disagreement and sublimated that natural emergent expression/desire during stressful situations into something that worked for the company, whereas Intel sounds like it failed to do that?
Org psychology point of view.