When Intel appointed Lip-Bu Tan as CEO in March 2025, the business press celebrated his "proven turnaround expertise" from Cadence Design Systems. The narrative sounds compelling: crisis-ridden company rescued, revenue tripled, market position strengthened. But when you strip away the mystique and control for overall market growth, what did Tan actually accomplish?
Methodology: Market Share Tells the Real Story
Raw revenue growth includes the tailwind of overall market expansion. To assess genuine competitive performance, we measured each company's share of combined revenue within industry duopolies. This methodology eliminates market growth effects and reveals pure competitive execution.
The Revenue Growth Illusion: During Tan's tenure at Cadence (2009-2021), the company's revenue grew approximately 3x - from $853 million to over $3 billion. This sounds impressive and forms the basis for claims about his "turnaround expertise." However, when you control for overall market growth by measuring competitive market share, a different story emerges: Tan gained just 3.7 percentage points over 12 years over its rival Synopsys.
The revenue growth gives Tan credit for something he had nothing to do with - the expansion of the entire EDA market. The market share analysis reveals what he actually accomplished through competitive execution versus what the rising tide delivered automatically.
We analyzed two industry duopolies:
AMD vs Intel (processors): Lisa Su's tenure as AMD CEO (2014-2025)
Cadence vs Synopsys (EDA tools/IP): Tan's tenure as Cadence CEO (2009-2021) and post-departure performance
The Cadence Reality: Restoration, Not Transformation
The Crisis Context (2009)
Tan inherited a company in genuine trouble. CEO Michael Fister and four executives had resigned, revenue had collapsed from $1.6 billion in 2007 to $853 million in 2009, and the company faced potential deeper crisis.
Critically, Cadence wasn't always the underdog. The company had been the EDA market leader in the early 1990s with over 40% market share before declining under multiple CEOs through the 2000s. Tan's challenge was restoration, not breakthrough.
Tan's Competitive Performance (2009-2021)
Starting share: 37.9% of Cadence/Synopsys combined revenue
Ending share: 41.6% of Cadence/Synopsys combined revenue
Net competitive gain: 3.7 percentage points over 12 years
Annual rate: +0.31 percentage points per year
The Strategic Moves
Tan's approach was classic turnaround management:
Crisis stabilization and cultural transformation
Strategic acquisitions: Tensilica ($380M), Cosmic Circuits, Forte Design Systems
Geographic expansion in Asia
Operational improvements: margins expanded to 35%+
Talent development: hired Anirudh Devgan (2012), promoted him to President (2017)
Post-Tan Acceleration (2021-2024)
Under successor Anirudh Devgan:
Starting share: 41.6% of Cadence/Synopsys combined revenue
Current share: 43.1% of Cadence/Synopsys combined revenue
Net competitive gain: 1.5 percentage points in 3 years
Annual rate: +0.50 percentage points per year
Performance improvement: 62% faster competitive gains than under Tan
Devgan's acceleration came through strategic shifts Tan hadn't pursued: aggressive AI/ML tool development, deeper cloud partnerships, and more targeted acquisitions in emerging areas like automotive chip design. The faster competitive gains suggest Tan may have plateaued in his strategic approach rather than building sustainable competitive advantages.
What Transformational Performance Actually Looks Like
For comparison, consider Lisa Su's competitive record at AMD using the same market share methodology:
AMD vs Intel Under Su (2014-2025)
Starting share: 9.0% of AMD/Intel combined revenue (2014)
Current share: ~36% of AMD/Intel combined revenue (2025)
Net competitive gain: 27 percentage points over 11 years
Annual rate: +2.45 percentage points per year
The Contrast: Su gained market share at 7.9x the rate of Tan's performance. More importantly, AMD had never been the processor market leader and was deeply disadvantaged when Su took over - she achieved something unprecedented, while Tan delivered partial restoration of a company that had previously held market leadership.
Su continues as AMD's CEO, sustaining transformational competitive performance for over 11 years while actively challenging Intel across multiple product lines. Recognizing the future is AI, Su has positioned AMD to directly challenge Nvidia's market dominance. While that chapter is still being written, the move itself defines transformational leadership - opening new fronts, not just fighting old ones.
The Sober Assessment
What Tan Delivered:
Successful crisis management and financial stabilization
Consistent but modest competitive progress against market leader Synopsys
Solid operational execution over 12 years
Good talent identification and development
What the Numbers Show:
Steady but unremarkable market share gains
Never challenged Synopsys' market leadership
Company competitive performance accelerated after his departure
Achievement looks much less impressive when market growth is factored out
The Strategic Difference:
Tan: Restored fallen leader to stable challenger position
Su: Transformed perpetual underdog into genuine threat to industry leader
The Intel Board's Analytical Miss
Intel's board appears to have been impressed by Cadence's headline growth numbers without recognizing that overall market expansion did most of the heavy lifting. When you control for industry growth, Tan's competitive record shows steady but unremarkable progress that his successor significantly exceeded. The choice suggests a preference for operational stability over transformational leadership - prioritizing the safe résumé over the disruptive track record.
The Experience Gap
Intel faces fundamentally different challenges than Cadence did:
Scale and Industry Mismatch
Company size: Cadence ($3B revenue) vs Intel ($80B revenue) - 27x difference
Business type: Cadence makes software tools for chip companies; Intel actually makes processors
Core experience: In Intel's two main business areas - processors and foundry - Tan has zero experience, yet he will be competing with powerhouse executives with decades of experience like Lisa Su and TSMC leadership
AI processor gap: Tan has no experience with AI accelerators - a fundamentally different class of silicon where Intel is already desperately playing catch-up
Operational recency: Tan has not been in active, day-to-day operational management for several years
The Wrong Choice for This Moment
It seems once again that Intel's board is the gang that couldn't shoot straight.
The author holds no position in Intel, AMD, Cadence, or Synopsys securities.