You see a headline like AMD or INTC: Top Analyst Kevin Cassidy Chooses One AI Chip Stock to Buy (and One to Dump) and you think, just for a second, that maybe today’s the day. Maybe today, someone in the financial media will actually provide a straight answer. "Analyst Picks Between AMD and Intel AI Chip Stocks." Simple. Direct. It promises a conclusion, a verdict in the silicon cage match of the century.
I clicked. Of course, I clicked. I’m a sucker, just like you.
And what did I find? Nothing. A whole lot of digital ink spilled to tell us that an analyst, a guy named Kevin Cassidy, has indeed made a choice. He’s looked at the data, run the numbers, and picked a winner in the great AI chip war. He’s decided which one to "buy" and which one to "dump."
The only problem? They don't tell us which is which.
This is not journalism. This is a magic trick where the magician promises to reveal the secret to levitation and then just… walks off the stage. We’re left standing in the audience, staring at an empty box, feeling like complete idiots. And we are. We're idiots for ever expecting anything more.
The Illusion of Choice
Let's be perfectly clear about the stakes here. This isn't some penny stock squabble. The AI processor market is already a behemoth, valued at around $123 billion last year. Projections have it ballooning to over $325 billion by 2032. This is the new gold rush, the digital wild west, and companies like AMD and Intel are the ones selling the shovels—or in this case, the massively complex slabs of silicon that power everything from your dumb chatbot to world-changing scientific models.
So when an analyst supposedly makes a definitive call on the two most iconic American chipmakers, that’s supposed to mean something. But what does it mean when the call is locked in a vault?
It’s like a doctor telling you, "I've reviewed your test results, and it's either fantastic news or a terminal diagnosis. I've written the answer on this piece of paper, folded it, and set it on fire." What possible use is that to anyone? Who benefits from this information vacuum? It’s a content strategy built on withholding the actual content. This is a bad idea. No, 'bad' doesn't cover it—this is a fundamentally broken and disrespectful way to treat your audience.
I can just picture the editorial meeting. Some guy in a wrinkled shirt, reeking of stale coffee, probably says, "The engagement on this will be huge! People will argue in the comments trying to guess Cassidy's pick!" And we, the schmucks, are supposed to play along. We’re supposed to debate the phantom conclusion of an analysis we haven't even been allowed to see. Give me a break.
Two Old Dogs, One Very Expensive New Trick
The rivalry between Intel and AMD is the stuff of legend. It's the Coke vs. Pepsi of the processor world, a decades-long slugfest for dominance over the personal computer. For years, Intel was the undisputed champ, the big, blue behemoth that felt untouchable. AMD was the scrappy, perpetual underdog, always nipping at their heels.
Then, things shifted. AMD, under Lisa Su, got its act together in a spectacular way. Intel, meanwhile, seemed to stumble, plagued by manufacturing delays and a sense of corporate inertia. Now, AI has thrown a massive wrench into the whole dynamic. It’s a new battlefield, and both of these old dogs are desperately trying to learn the same, very expensive new trick.
Intel has the raw, brute-force power of its own foundries. They can, in theory, design and build their destiny in-house. AMD has proven to be more agile, more nimble in its designs, outsourcing the actual grunt work of manufacturing. There are compelling arguments for both. You could make a case that Intel's vertical integration is a massive long-term advantage, or you could argue that AMD's focus and flexibility will let it run circles around the giant.
This is why an analyst’s take is, supposedly, valuable. They’re paid to cut through the noise. But when the noise is all you get…
Honestly, this whole thing just reminds me of when I was trying to build a new PC last year. I spent weeks bouncing between an Intel Core i9 and an AMD Ryzen 9. Forum threads, YouTube videos, benchmarks—it's a rabbit hole that can consume you. Eventually you just have to pick one and hope for the best. Is that what we're supposed to do here? Just guess which multi-billion-dollar semiconductor giant is the better investment because some analyst report played peek-a-boo with its own conclusion? It's absurd.
It's a game, and offcourse the house always wins. They get the click, they get the ad revenue, and we get absolutely nothing. Maybe I'm the crazy one. Maybe the point was never to inform, but just to create a void that we would then try to fill with our own speculation. If so, mission accomplished.
So, We're Just Supposed to Flip a Coin?
Let's call this what it is: an insult. It’s a hollowed-out piece of content designed to exploit curiosity without satisfying it. The real story here isn't about AMD or Intel. It's about a media ecosystem so desperate for engagement that it's willing to publish a headline with no story, a question with no answer. This ain't about helping you make a smarter investment. It’s about tricking you into staring at their ads for a few more seconds. The only "buy" signal I'm seeing here is for a better ad blocker.