backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by spluurfg.. on Apr 22 at 6:52 PM

AMD announces plans to toss out its dead weight.

The news coming out of AMD hasn't been on the most positive note in the past few weeks. The company announced in early April that it will cut 1,600 jobs by the end of 2008 representing 10% of its workforce. The reason for the cuts came as a result of steep declines in every business arena that AMD competes.

Four days later, the company's Chief Technology Officer, Phil Hester, stepped down from the company with no replacement in sight.

Today, AMD released even more unsettling news in the form of its Q1 2008 earnings report. As previously forecasted by AMD, revenue fell 15% from the previous quarter to $1.505B and the company experienced a net loss of $358M. Operating losses totaled $264M and the company faced a charge of $50M due to its 2006 acquisition of ATI.

"A seasonally weak first quarter was amplified by a challenging economic environment for consumers and lower than expected revenues of previous generation products, resulting in lower than expected revenues in all business segments," said AMD CFO Robert J. Rivet. "However, we are encouraged by the market acceptance of our Quad-Core AMD Opteron server processors as well as our new chipset and graphics offerings."

After experiencing an entire year of losses, AMD is now looking to restructure its business. The company will now put all of its divisions under the microscope and make the decision to sell off some of its underperforming units in order to become profitable in the second half of 2008.

"It is clear that our business environment has changed from just the second half of last year when we saw some of our non-core businesses on a path to growth and profitability. That is now questionable," said AMD CEO Hector Ruiz.

"As a result, we are embarking on a significant restructuring of our company to address the following: We need to intensely scrutinize all of our businesses in order to ensure that our core x86 and graphics products are on a healthy path to leadership and profitability," Ruiz continued. "We also need to scrutinize our non-core business and see how they fit into our plans toward growth and profitability."

AMD's consumer electronics division could be a prime target for cuts according to Technology Business Research analyst John Spooner. "It makes sense because it's not a core part of their business, and they can’t really afford to focus on consumer electronics at this point," said Spooner. They need to focus on processors for PCs and servers as well as graphics."

AMD is indeed ramping up to unleash a new wave of processors and graphics cards for consumers. As reported yesterday DailyTech, AMD is working on its quad-core 45nm Shanghai processor architecture along with its 6-core and 12-core variants.

On the graphics front, AMD is preparing for the launch of its successor to the Radeon 3850/3870 graphics processors. Radeon graphics processors based on the new RV770 core are expected to debut under the $300 price point.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fire Hector Ruiz
By WTurner on 4/18/2008 12:18:59 PM , Rating: 2
If the company is doing that badly and [b]1,600 people[/b] are going to lose their jobs then so should Hector Ruiz.

Hector Ruiz should be fired. It's obvious no one wants to work for the man. All his execs are quitting on him and now he is going to fire 10% of the workforce. Maybe he would like to see how it is to be thrown out on the street.

Fire Hector Ruiz.




RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By rcc on 4/18/2008 12:35:38 PM , Rating: 3
lol, they probably can't afford to. The buyout on his golden parachute would make the cash situation even worse


RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By Oregonian2 on 4/18/2008 3:31:11 PM , Rating: 3
It's more than that. He can't be fired until after the next set of huge employee cuts. Who'd want to come in knowing they'd have to lay off half of the employees right off? Need to have Hector be the hatchet man and let the replacement bask in the glory of an AMD that's not losing money.

Of course, looking at the by-division loss numbers (elsewhere), I expect they'll be dropping CPU's and just making graphics chips.... perhaps changing their name to ... uh... ATI?


RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By cochy on 4/18/2008 12:48:46 PM , Rating: 4
It's true. The reason AMD is in the situation they are in today is as simple as it can get:

Bad management

It lead all the way to the top.


RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By Sylar on 4/18/2008 2:04:53 PM , Rating: 3
They won't fire Ruiz, they'll "restructure" themselves by continually laying off employees until he's the last man standing. Yup


RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By Elementalism on 4/18/2008 4:28:36 PM , Rating: 2
Like the Big Brother of microprocessor manufacturers.


RE: Fire Hector Ruiz
By spluurfg on 4/19/2008 3:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hector Ruiz should be fired. It's obvious no one wants to work for the man. All his execs are quitting on him and now he is going to fire 10% of the workforce. Maybe he would like to see how it is to be thrown out on the street.


I think part of the reason why its hard to find top talent in this case is because the industry is such a tough one -- tech is a harsh sector; you have to spend massive amounts on R&D and fabs frequently just to stay afloat, and products are constantly becoming commoditized, reducing margins. And unfortunately for AMD, their competition is just extremely strong. It'd take an extremely good manager to be able to turn any technology company into an industry leader, and if you're such a good manager, you can probably work for a company which is easier to make successful and possibly get paid more doing it.


yeah, sure...
By Phynaz on 4/18/2008 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 1
Blame the economy.

Intel operates in the same economy as AMD, yet posted a record quarter.

How Does Hector get away with this?




RE: yeah, sure...
By Ringold on 4/18/2008 11:16:48 AM , Rating: 1
I'm glad that I wasn't the only one to notice that bull.

Nothing thus far changes a view I'd held for a while; in fact, this seems to make it more urgent. Ruiz either has to go, or Ruiz needs to be finding someone willing and able to buy them out -- and then he has to go.


RE: yeah, sure...
By geddarkstorm on 4/18/2008 12:58:08 PM , Rating: 4
<WARNING TANGET> Because it's been bugging me so much and I see/hear it wherever I turn...

I don't know why the media and everyone is harping about the economy being bad--it isn't, not at all. Sure, unemployment rates went up from 4.8 to 5.1, but if you look historically, from 1974 to now, unemployment rates didn't get as low as 5.1 till 1997 ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt . Moreover, hourly and weekly wage earnings are the highest they've ever been. And the dollar has not weakened all that much http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/g5/current/ . Moreover, we are still importing more than we are exporting (a weak dollar promotes exports) and our trade deficit has gone up not down. But, our debts over seas has decreased and our GDP has continued to increase http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm . And though 0.6 seems low, it's the same as back in 2006. Finally, personal consumer income has gone up, not down http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/pi/pinews... along with gross national, gross domestic, and net domestic income http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?... .

Banks are said to be struggling? http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/Current/ In reality, for US banks as a whole, bank Residual (that is assets minus liabilities) has increased much higher than last year. In short, they are still getting richer.

The only place where the economy is angry is where everyone suddenly realized that ARM mortgages were really, really stupid ideas. Which should have been outright obvious.

It seems any "trouble" in the economy that's going on is mostly all hype aside from the small increase in unemployment, but that happens and has to happen every now and then as we can never get to 0, and it's still very low compared to historically. I live in the slums of Kansas City and everyone at the bottom of the ladder seems to be doing just fine.


RE: yeah, sure...
By masher2 (blog) on 4/18/2008 7:56:55 PM , Rating: 2
> "I don't know why the media and everyone is harping about the economy being bad"

The media always plays up a "bad economy" in election years with a Republican incumbent. With a Democrat in office, the same figues are magically much rosier.


RE: yeah, sure...
By spluurfg on 4/19/2008 4:03:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Moreover, we are still importing more than we are exporting (a weak dollar promotes exports) and our trade deficit has gone up not down. But, our debts over seas has decreased and our GDP has continued to increase http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/glance.htm .


The GDP may have increased in monetary terms, but the per capita product in real terms (adjusted for inflation, weakening dollar, population growth, etc) has fallen for the last two quarters.

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?...

quote:
Banks are said to be struggling? http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/Current/ In reality, for US banks as a whole, bank Residual (that is assets minus liabilities) has increased much higher than last year. In short, they are still getting richer.


The practical value that banks offer society is providing liquidity and financial services, which has slowed significantly. The unfortunate truth is that banks are still counterparty to a staggering amount of complex securities whose value still cannot accurately be priced. The fact that the fifth-largest investment bank in the US collapsed should also tell you that investors are jumpy -- the mere rumor that Bear was in trouble caused investors to withdraw a significant amount of capital, causing a liquidity crisis. Banks simply aren't providing as much lending as they had before, and lending is an important part of the economy. The huge boom in the 80's was fueled significantly by the securitization of mortgages (lead largely by Salomon Brothers), which is about $6.5 trillion. Thus uncertainty in mortgage-derived securities has a huge effect on lending.

quote:
The only place where the economy is angry is where everyone suddenly realized that ARM mortgages were really, really stupid ideas. Which should have been outright obvious.


What was stupid and obvious was the fact that the people selling mortgages would feel no financial impact from mortgages that defaulted. Thus there was no incentive for risk control. The mortgages would be securitized, packed up, and sold on. The mortgage problem is big -- traditionally people build up equity in their home, giving a nice financial cushion to fall back on. However, house values have fallen, leaving many homeowners with homes less valuable than their mortgage, eliminating this cushion. Furthermore, the falling dollar and rising commodities prices have a negative impact on their real income. Add to this the reluctance of the banks to lend, and you have a pretty negative economy.

Now I'm with you on the fact that the media is overblowing it. It sounds like they want the banks to all explode in a big ball of flame. However, I think it's fair to say the economy is in a recession, but we'll steadily recover. The one promising thing is that the larger US companies have learned from the 2000-2001 event and have built large cash stockpiles.


RE: yeah, sure...
By geddarkstorm on 4/21/2008 3:38:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
he GDP may have increased in monetary terms, but the per capita product in real terms (adjusted for inflation, weakening dollar, population growth, etc) has fallen for the last two quarters.


Correct me if I'm wrong. The link you posted shows that the GDP per head has increase in the US by at least 1.5% from 2001 to 2007. This trend is also matched by the world apparently, and of course follows GDP trends since it's a GDP divided by working population equation.

They say under the second header that a GDP increase by 0.6% corresponded to a GDP per head decrease by 0.4%? But this would mean that the working population of the US would had to have grown by 1% over that same period of time (two quarters). Counting babies hardly makes economic sense as they aren't making income and thus aren't party to a GDP. So, you can't simply count birthrate, but have to count the number of people coming into employment. Notice in my first link ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt that from 2006 to 2007, the number of eligible workers increased from 151,428K to 153,124K. That increase, over four quarters is only 1%. However, they said in their article that over two quarters this drop happened, that means between 2007 to 2008 there had to be a workforce increase of 2%. Not impossible, but unlikely.

Also, http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TableView.asp?... clearly shows that net domestic product, net domestic income, and net national factor income has increased. Along with the fact that wages are at their highest ever... I'm not exactly sure how they calculated the net, but net is more realistic a factor than gross, as consumption (consumer price index) is factored out of the net (thus also inflation, or this is what I'm assuming they mean by net).

The issue is very complex. The Economist link you posted didn't even go into how they derived their -0.4% GDP per head figure, not even implied. So I really can't say it's right or wrong. However, things are far from dismal and it doesn't seem we are in a recession (or not much of one at all, certainly nothing to write home about), but a moment of slightly slower growth, which is to be expected (so are minor recessions). This shouldn't be a surprise, but as Masher said, it is an election year.

Finally, inflation rates are no higher now than 2006 (actually lower) http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpid0803.pdf , where the GDP also grew by 0.6% in 2006. Yet there wasn't talk of a bad economy then like now. Politics seems to be the major factor in all this.

quote:
Banks simply aren't providing as much lending as they had before, and lending is an important part of the economy.


Look at this again http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h8/Current/ especially "Loans and leases in bank credit" and "Securities in bank credit". There was a fall in these categories compared to February and January of 2008, but if you compare the March figures of 2008 to that of 2007, there was a net increase. Unless I'm reading this wrong or totally don't understand, it seems that banks are lending out much more this year than last year--that is, that growth is steady. Yes, there was a slight fall from the start of this year, but that trend is reversing according to this data. We need more to see where it'll go however.

So, it seems banks are doing just fine. Banks as a whole in the US. There are a few that aren't, but CPU makers as a whole are doing just fine in the US, it's only AMD that's struggling. One example does not make a market in either direction. At least if I'm interpreting the data right.

quote:
The mortgage problem is big -- traditionally people build up equity in their home, giving a nice financial cushion to fall back on. However, house values have fallen, leaving many homeowners with homes less valuable than their mortgage, eliminating this cushion.


Here is really where the only true trouble that I can see is occurring. This started with ARMs and a slew of foreclosures caused by them. Apparently, this sort of thing goes in cycles and has occurred in the past several times. The problem with ARMs is once they are unlocked from their usually 5 year lower than prime introductory interest rate, they go shooting up through the roof, far above prime. This shock to the budget of people leads some to lose their homes. Hence why you hear "sub-prime" lenders whenever the news talks about who are struggling in the housing market: that's the ARM guys.

The problem with all these foreclosures, mixed with a fall in the buying of new homes, has resulted in home values falling as you said. This of course kills equity which is important for home sellers. So those who got an ARM and planned to sell off the house in five years before the interest rate was unlocked, and thus make a marginal profit off the equity, got kinda skewered. Normal 30 year mortgages aren't having this trouble, and people who live in their houses instead of using real estate to get rich aren't the ones hurt too much by lowered housing values.

It's kinda like the stock market, it'll go down for a quarter or two, but over a period of several years, it's always going up. You can trade fast and quick, which makes you sensitive to minor fluctuations, but you get money fast and sometimes can make a lot--or go totally bust. Or you can hold on to stocks for years and be almost guaranteed to make a net profit--maybe not as much as fast trading and certainly slower, but you are relative immune to the normal day to day, quarter to quarter, market fluctuations.

This seems to be the root of the "economic problem" coupled with soaring fuel prices. Since the dollar isn't weakening that much (and it isn't something that's suddenly happened), and inflation isn't any higher than previous years (yet, and I hope it stays that way), it all points to the economy just going through its normal fluxes with only two real negative events occurring.

So, if we are in a recession it's very minor and we are already recovering nicely. But it is totally bogus for people like the media and AMD to go crying "woe woe, look at the economy!". It isn't their complaining that's bothersome, it's when everyone else starts to complain too because those sources did, and start a whole "doom gloom!" rhetoric without actually looking at any facts. "Oh, the US is doing so bad!" ... no. Politics as usual, sure, but still darnably annoying.


RE: yeah, sure...
By spluurfg on 4/22/2008 6:52:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe the print version of that economist article had some footnotes -- I will try to dig it up to check. However, I just wanted to point out that when considering the simple definition of a recession in terms of growth per head, we have been in a recession for the last two quarters, if their calculations are correct.

quote:
So, it seems banks are doing just fine. Banks as a whole in the US. There are a few that aren't, but CPU makers as a whole are doing just fine in the US, it's only AMD that's struggling. One example does not make a market in either direction. At least if I'm interpreting the data right.


But while the financial institutions themselves might pull through fine, the financial services sector itself has slowed meaningfully, which has a negative impact on commercial activity. With regard to the availability of debt, while the size of their books may have increased overall, syndicated loans have fallen significantly over 2007.

http://www.thomsonfinancial.co.jp/pdf/loan1Q08%20E...

While this is not an absolute measure of loan activity, it does give an indication of the availability of debt for US corporations, and to some degree, of the availability of debt to wider commercial entities in general, which is an important factor in economic growth.

Further, earnings of large US corporates has fallen significantly from 1H07 to 2H07.

(TTM EPS on S&P 500 http://www2.standardandpoors.com/portal/site/sp/en... )

While banks' balance sheets are looking healthier, this may be partly due to uncertainty on their part -- again, using the example of Bear Stearns, a liquidity event is an all too real possibility. Consider the additions of billions of capital by Citi, UBS, and now RBS to shore up their capital ratios. This is prudent in such uncertain times, but again reduces the amount of financing available to commercial enterprises, entrepreneurs, etc. Debt has also gotten much more expensive, with sub-investment grade senior loans pricing at CP+500 instead of CP+300 a year ago. The debt from the big LBO-megadeals like Harrahs Entertainment is still on the banks' books, which will make them reluctant to syndicate more debt if they can't sell it.

quote:
Normal 30 year mortgages aren't having this trouble, and people who live in their houses instead of using real estate to get rich aren't the ones hurt too much by lowered housing values. It's kinda like the stock market, it'll go down for a quarter or two, but over a period of several years, it's always going up.


I'm not sure if I'm willing to write off the at-risk borrowers in the real estate loan market as consisting largely of speculators. One fifth of the US mortgage market ($1.3tn) was composed of sub-prime borrowers. It was simply a systemic problem of brokers giving mortgages to people who simply couldn't afford it, then selling complicated securities derived from those mortgages to those who were not fully capable of assessing the risk.

quote:
This seems to be the root of the "economic problem" coupled with soaring fuel prices. Since the dollar isn't weakening that much (and it isn't something that's suddenly happened), and inflation isn't any higher than previous years (yet, and I hope it stays that way), it all points to the economy just going through its normal fluxes with only two real negative events occurring.


The dollar has weakened significantly against the Canadian Dollar, the Euro, and the Yaun, which significantly increases the cost of imports from some of America's largest
trading partners, which is a strong inflationary pressure. Additionally, increased fuel and food prices have a particularly strong economic impact.

Again, I agree that it's not all doom and gloom like the media makes it out to be. The US will not sink into the ocean and you don't need to start storing bottled water in your basement, but the issues in the economy and particularly the financial services sector are real, and probably will not go away in a matter of a quarter or two.

At any rate, I really appreciate being able to have such an intelligent discussion here. It's very true that the leading economic indicators and bank balance sheets paint a fairly solid foundation.


RE: yeah, sure...
By 3kliksphilip on 4/18/2008 3:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps Intel is included in the 'economy' :P


Good
By ap90033 on 4/18/2008 11:00:42 AM , Rating: 1
Heck Im glad, they are getting what they deserve. I use to be a huge AMD fan until they started blowing off us small time system builders. I sold many systems and touted AMD was great bang for the buck. Then they started revamping their site, and then they wouldnt allow us system builders ( who didnt move hundreds of pc's that is) to get any simple marketing things like tshirts, then they pretty much ignored us since they were so obsessed with "Enterprise" rather than consumers. So how's that plan workin' for Ya AMD??? LOL
Oh and yes their product pretty much suck.
I hate to say it but I wish they would get their act together and compete agains Intel, competition is healthy for pricing....




RE: Good
By BSMonitor on 4/18/2008 11:15:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I hate to say it but I wish they would get their act together and compete agains Intel, competition is healthy for pricing....


But that same competition in such high-tech, new tech businesses leads to faulty products, bad designs, thin profit margins, job cuts, when things are rough. Competition is good until one of the competitors fraks up(due to rushing a product in order to compete), then they get trampled.

Ask GM, Ford, Chrysler employees how they feel about competition with Toyota, etc... Its great until you get laid off.


RE: Good
By amanojaku on 4/18/2008 11:28:43 AM , Rating: 2
Tsk tsk tsk... Someone hasn't read his economics books. Without competition there are no legal means (outside of slow-moving lawsuits) of limiting prices on goods or services in a capitalist democracy. The result is that prices rise to a point most consumers would struggle to afford and they will eventually decide not to. Think cable companies, which are an inexplicable monopoly. Prices have been rising to TV and Internet services simply because there is no competition to undercut and outperform. I know plenty of people dropping cable services because they cannot afford them and cannot justify the cost for their limited use ("I have to pay $50 a month to watch three shows?") The loss of business due to inflated pricing yields the same result as the loss of business due to competition: loss of revenue.


Typo's
By Pod2 on 4/18/2008 11:03:44 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
revenue fell 15% from the previous quarter to $1.505B and the company experienced a net loss of $358B


Presumably that should read "a net loss of $358 M "?
Also, the title that says "$1.5B loss" is therefore wrong, or at least misleading.




RE: Typo's
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/18/2008 11:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks, the error(s) have been corrected.


Well I did my part to help AMD...
By Locutus465 on 4/18/2008 2:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
My "new PC" after my motherboard shows up will be an all AMD solution. Phenom quad core, Radeon 3870, AMD chipset...




RE: Well I did my part to help AMD...
By cochy on 4/18/2008 3:03:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to put together a similar system with 4x 3870s for Folding@Home duties.


By clnee55 on 4/18/2008 5:10:57 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm going to put together a similar system with 4x 3870s for Folding@Home duties.


Just curious, how much AMD stock do you own?


Scare Tactics
By CheechedMonkey on 4/18/2008 11:31:40 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
revenue fell 15% from the previous quarter to $1.505B and the company experienced a net loss of $358M.


Comparing revenue quarter to quarter doesn't always depict an accurate financial outlook. AMD sales were up 22% compared to last year Q1.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080418/ap_on_hi_te/ea...




By SilthDraeth on 4/18/2008 8:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
A ton of crap cars would not be out on the road.




By SilthDraeth on 4/18/2008 8:53:10 PM , Rating: 2
Can all of the losses AMD has taken over the course of years be laid at Intel's feet if they happen to win the anti-trust settlement against Intel?




Intel q1 figures
By 2ManyOptions on 4/19/2008 12:47:35 AM , Rating: 2
Somehow, I am not able to find Intel's q1 earnings on DailyTech. Missed it eh?
AMD doesn't look too cozy at the moment.




Aww man....
By cyyc009 on 4/19/2008 8:00:32 AM , Rating: 2
Sad news for AMD. It's thanks to them that Intel doesn't exist as some totalitarian power over the processor industry (who else is there to compete... VIA?) Hopefully, things will look up for them in the future, now that they've fixed up their Spider platform.




And to think....
By Ryanz on 4/18/2008 11:36:26 AM , Rating: 1
just a few years back AMD was THE chipset to get if you wanted best bang for the buck (overclockers dream). I'd say this competition for best chip is fierce...but AMD sure has fallen behind and stayed there.




No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By z3R0C00L on 4/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By 67STANG on 4/18/2008 11:06:18 AM , Rating: 2
I agree. I would also state though, that when AMD was on their K6 line of processors, they were inferior as well-- but they were the "budget processor" back then. It's when they startled Intel by besting their P4 that they awoke "a sleeping giant". IMHO, they could only hold the performance crown for so long.

I believe it will be years before they "pwn" Intel, they way Intel is besting them right now. But just like a lot of tech competitors, it's a back and forth dominance race.. Same goes for ATI vs. NVIDIA. ATI held the crown for a while, now NVIDIA does. That's the way of things.

Unfortunately for AMD, their purchase of ATI couldn't have been at a worse time and is one of the largest reasons for their struggling at the moment. They simply don't have enough capital to take on ATI's debt and spend the assloads of money it takes to make the most advanced processors.

It will indeed be a while before they do well in anything except the server market.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By amanojaku on 4/18/2008 11:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
They simply don't have enough capital to take on ATI's debt and spend the assloads of money it takes to make the most advanced processors.


If I was a retailer and my client offered me payment in assloads... I dunno, I'd ask for a check or credit card.

Great post, btw!


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By KernD on 4/19/2008 11:16:16 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
ATI held the crown for a while

That should read as, "for a very short while", what was it, one year? When Ati had it's 9700/9800 against the lowly 5800FX.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By Spoelie on 4/21/2008 5:27:09 AM , Rating: 3
9700pro (12/2002) up till the release of the 6800 (04/2004) was more than a year.

R420 series held up pretty well to NV40, it all depended on the game you were running.

7800 took the crown for the smaller part of a year, but x1900 series took it back for 11 months (january till november, release of 8800)

I would say it has been going back and forth quite regularly


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By blaster5k on 4/18/2008 11:25:23 AM , Rating: 2
AMD has some great chipsets, making their platforms pretty appealing for some of us. They also still have a lower idle power draw, as shown in the Anandtech article that came out today. This makes them great for home servers and media PCs.

Of course, their graphics offerings have been a bit lackluster and performance per watt of their processors can't compete with Intel. Their mobile platforms are still inferior. And Phenom isn't a very appealing product at all.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By Pirks on 4/18/2008 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking of chipsets - AMD offers the best integrated 3D video on the market (780G) and very low priced 45W single and dual cores, so any budget conscious PC builder can get helluva bang for a buck, and AMD, fortunately, realizes this is their strongest argument, and they are going to hammer it into nVidia and Intel, by keeping ahead of them on their 3D manufacturing process front (where's your 55nm chips, greeny boys, doh doh? missed it again, jen sun, 'cause you like it from Intel, huh?)

It points at fairly strong possibility of AMD being first to market with integrated CPU/GPU chip, and IF they can catch up with Intel in manufacturing process with the help from IBM (say hello to 32nm blue otellini ass :P) then maybe they will be okay.

Sooo... by looking at how 780G poops on every competitor including nVidia and how Phenom B3 is rolling out while keeping it price competitive with Intel quads, I say it's too early to bury or hate AMD. They still have some aces up their sleeve, they still have technological leadership with 3D manufacturing process and tight-integrated quads and multicore scalability for enterprise and memory controllers etc - they may survive, who knows. Why hate them? I've built myself a new intel gaming PC, but these days I'm eyeing some 780G sweetness with cheapo dualcore 45W AMD silicon to build an mATX box for my parents - just some internet video stuff, ya know - quiet, CHEAP, no video card ever needed with 780G - look ma, Intel is beaten again! Although for gaming AMD kinda sucks if you want ultimate performance, I agree with that.

I'm just saying that while Intel and nVidia are both pooping on AMD when the best performance is needed - AMD remains very attractive for the VAST majority of PC builders, those who value bang for the buck first and the most! So why hate AMD anyway?


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By V3ctorPT on 4/18/2008 4:54:09 PM , Rating: 2
I have a 780G mobo... just bought it a week ago for my second pc... bought a X2 2350BE, 2gb of mems and there it goes... cool, quiet and it doesn't break my wallet in electricty bills... Sure intel have excelent processors, but what made me buy this AMD platform was the price and the watts :P. AMD maybe down but i congratulate them for this price/performance/watt chip7 :P


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By crystal clear on 4/20/2008 9:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Both you guys should read this-

AMD 780G: Preview of the Best Current IGP Solution

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=3258&p=1


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By Operandi on 4/18/2008 11:42:01 AM , Rating: 2
I would a agree that its largely their own fault for the situation they are in.

I do disagree though about their products being completely inferior however. When overclocked Phenom has been shown to scale better clock for clock than Core2 in certain situations. Of course it needs more voltage and more cooling but thats still underlying potential there.

To turn things around AMD needs to get 45nm out and clock speeds up and stop missing projected launch dates.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By defter on 4/18/2008 1:07:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
When overclocked Phenom has been shown to scale better clock for clock than Core2 in certain situations.


Thank you for most creative metric for a long time. AMD fans must be desperate, they can't use:
- performance
- performance/watt
- performance/clock
- clock/watt
- overclocking capability
or any other similar metrics, since Intel has a clear lead in those.

Luckily there is "better scalibity clock for clock when overclocked" metric left :)


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By eye smite on 4/18/2008 1:30:40 PM , Rating: 5
Umm, I'll give you a different metric to look at. Under intense load such as MySQL or grid computing even the older K8 architecture holds it own right there with intel and in some cases surpasses it. You can quivel over benchmarks all you want, but a few seconds difference in benchmarks with the C2 beating the athlonX2 or the phenomX4 is not impressive to me, and certainly doesn't warrant all the bragging that intel fanboys throw out there. In reality, it doesn't matter whether you have AMD or Intel, if the cpu does what you want it to in a time manner condusive to your projects or work, what does it matter? So really what we're talking about is preference more than anything, and if AMD sells their chips at a lower price point than intel, Joe Average walking into circuit city will buy one cause it's the right price. This whole Ford vs Chevy argument is completely a moot point on which one is better.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/18/2008 1:43:25 PM , Rating: 1
MySQL servers generally don't scale well enough to warrant the type of hardware typically found in the server arena. In either case, processing power is the least of your problems. Usually RAM, and Disk Access time are on the top of the bottleneck list.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By defter on 4/18/2008 2:28:19 PM , Rating: 2
Previous poster was talking about Phenom, so we need to look at desktop, not server performance.

quote:
So really what we're talking about is preference more than anything, and if AMD sells their chips at a lower price point than intel, Joe Average walking into circuit city will buy one cause it's the right price.


And you can see the consequence of selling slow chips at low prices in the title of Dailytech's news post...

A company cannot survice by contentrating on low-end products alone, just look at VIA.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By fxyefx on 4/18/2008 1:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
I think of AMD as having more of a niche role in the semiconductor industry. They're kind of like the x86 flavor of the market that IBM's POWER chips occupy. All these losses they've been racking up I attribute to their mistake of aspiring to be a significant competitor against Intel on desktops and laptops. Their chips are very well designed – for certain server applications and high-performance computing. They aren't well designed for what desktop and laptop users need compared to what Intel has been able to achieve with Core 2. AMD needs to throw away its delusions that it can fight Intel fairly in its own territory. Their chips can and do command much better margins in their Opteron flavors. Instead, they're wasting tons of their production capacity on desktop and laptop chips that end up being relegated to the budget price range, and AMD's financials have been atrocious as a result.


RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By TETRONG on 4/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: No Sympathy Whatsoever..
By wordsworm on 4/19/2008 6:40:14 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Whether against nVIDIA or Intel AMD lags considerably.


nVidia in SLI can't even power dual displays. In some ways, nVidia can't even make it to the races. But in every way AMD competes with nVidia. As I recall, it was nVidia on the hook for crashing Vista, not AMD.

You might think I'm an AMD fan. I run an Intel/nVidia machine. My only regret is going nVidia because of the SLI handicap I hadn't been aware of until it was too late.


"Spreading the rumors, it's very easy because the people who write about Apple want that story, and you can claim its credible because you spoke to someone at Apple." -- Investment guru Jim Cramer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki