The profit motive works in mysterious ways, in practice.
Sometimes it will act as intended and push companies to innovate and undercut to secure marketshare against a larger competitor. Alternatively if you're already the big boy, what we've seen over the last 100 or so years is that more often than not it's much cheaper and more profitable to simply try to buy out or crush your competitors rather than compete with them.
If the laws don't let you crush people, it's usually far cheaper* for a large company to lobby politicians and governments to change the laws so that they do and give them more power over consumers and small competitors, hence why 100+ years of capitalism has created overwhelming corporate power where big business can do as they please, it's far easier and more profitable to be corrupt than it is to be good at something this complex with this system.
AMD or Intel? Doesn't matter, the issue is with how you win the game, not who's playing it. The large detached business, accounting, ect departments of these companies would all behave mostly the same way in the same position.
*(Often it's the choice between spending tens to hundreds of millions on R&D, teams of engineers salaries, production costs, ect, to push the envelope in the hope you get a competitive advantage for a short period until your competitors catch up, or just hundreds of thousands to millions to set up a lobbying group or pad a bunch of pockets, often through quite legal formal systems now in the US, UK, ect, due to prior influence of the wealthy of course, and influence laws in such a way that give you the ability to cut corners or monopolise or consolidate portions of your existing marketshare, and/or ensure you face fairly minor cash penalties in the case you "slip up", often also while ensuring these companies get large subsidies and much lower rates of tax, with assurances of large govt. bailouts due to their "Too big to fail" status)