> ...he'd be much more worried about whether AMD management have any interest in companies like his succeeding.

This reads as incredibly entitled. AMD owes him nothing, especially if he's opposed to the leadership's vision[1] and being belligerent about it.

There is maybe 1 or 2 companies with enough cachet to demand management changes at a supplier like AMD - and they have market caps in the trillions.

1. Lisa Su hasn't been shy about AMD being all about partnering with large partners who can move volume. My interpretation of this is AMD prefers dealing with Sony, Microsoft, hyperscalers, and HPC builders, then possibly tier II OEMs. Small startups are probably much further down the line, close to consumers at the tail end of AMD's attention queue. I don't like it as a consumer, but it seems like a sound strategy since the partners will shoulder most of the software effort, which is a weakness AMD has against Nvidia. They can focus on cranking out ok-to-great hardware at more-than-ok prices and build up a warchest for future investments, and who knows when this hype bubble will burst and take VC dollars with it, or someone invents an architecture that's less demanding on compute (if you're more optimistic)