backtop

Hardware ATI's Dave Orton Resigns
Anh Tuan Huynh (Blog) - July 10, 2007 2:31 PM
Print E-mail del.icio.us 78 comment(s) - last by mars777.. on Jul 15 at 7:12 AM
Former ATI president and CEO resigns from AMD

AMD today announced Dave Orton, executive vice president of AMD, has resigned. The resignation is effective in the end of July 2007. Orton was the former president and chief executive officer of ATI before the merger with AMD. A new executive vice president has not been appointed yet.

“It is with mixed feelings that I am leaving AMD,” Orton said. “I am very optimistic about AMD’s future. I believe strongly in the strategies that brought AMD and ATI together and the talented employees of the ‘new AMD’ who are committed to winning in the market by delivering the best possible solutions for customers.”

Orton was one of the “key drivers in the successful integration of AMD and ATI,” according to AMD President and Chief Operating Officer Dirk Meyer. “With his integration work complete and the successful launch of key graphics and chipset products earlier this year, the time was right for Dave to take his personal and professional life in a different direction,” he added.

Despite the “successful integration” of AMD and ATI, the company continues to hemorrhage cash, with debts mounting up fast and an estimated $1.1 billion in the bank. The company also posted a first quarter loss of $611 million USD.  

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
wa
By ixelion on 7/10/2007 2:45:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
and only $1.1 billion in the bank


that sounds wrong to me




RE: wa
By kamel5547 on 7/10/2007 3:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
March 31st 2007 balance shows the following:

Current Assets
Cash And Cash Equivalents 991,000
Short Term Investments 176,000
Net Receivables 751,000
Inventory 938,000
Other Current Assets 331,000

Their cash in the bank is probably at most 1.1 billion unless they've borrowed money since then. (there is a 2 billion bond offering that was in the works but I'm not sure if it was placed or how much of that was eaten up on cap-ex)


RE: wa
By Spivonious on 7/10/07, Rating: 0
RE: wa
By Spivonious on 7/10/2007 3:09:54 PM , Rating: 2
Oops I meant another two quarters like they already had. Let's hope Barcelona doesn't tank like R600 did.


RE: wa
By smitty3268 on 7/10/2007 3:46:22 PM , Rating: 1
Most of that 600 million dollar loss was buying ATI, and they clearly aren't going to do such a massive deal again anytime soon. So even if Barcelona tanks worse than R600 they'll be around a lot longer than 2 quarters.


RE: wa
By MartinT on 7/10/2007 4:16:32 PM , Rating: 3
The first quarter loss had only a little to do with ATi's acquisition or performance, but was largely due to a huge shortfall in AMD's processor volumes, combined with shrinking ASPs. (AMD stuffed the channel in Q4, and had to sell through that volume first, before being able to move more product in Q1.)


RE: wa
By Chernobyl68 on 7/10/2007 5:10:54 PM , Rating: 2
I just hope AMD can return to profitability before they run out of cash


RE: wa
By TomZ on 7/10/2007 5:17:23 PM , Rating: 4
Here, I corrected that for you:

I just hope AMD can return to profitability before they run out of credit


RE: wa
By smitty3268 on 7/10/2007 10:31:13 PM , Rating: 1
Do you have a source for that, because I was pretty sure that wasn't the case? Could certainly be wrong, though.


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/10/2007 7:51:59 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
so basically if they have another two years like they already had, they'll be bankrupt


The situation is not famous for sure but, they wont go away anytime soon.

AMD can play that game of 'price cut' because since they transitioned to a 300mm die area process they can compete with Intel on price because 'brisbane' is almost 20mm2 smaller.

http://www.chip-architect.com/news/2007_02_19_Vari...

Besides, considering the scaling factores in the above site, based on the actual implementations and not the ideal, that gives a medium scaling factor for logic+sram of 0,59 they would be very foolish to sell now that they have an advantage, because they too can *EASELY* play the MCM game.

A 4 core MCM like Penryn at 45nm process will be 107mm2 x2 = 214mm2

Extrapolating a 4 core Barcelona at 45nm process will be
283mm2 x 0,59 = 167mm2

so:
A 2 core Penryn at 45nm process will be 107mm2

a 2 core Phenom at 45nm process will be 83,5mm2

again:
Extrapolating from Penryn that has 6.0mm2/MB for the SRAM a 8 core MCM Shangai(the K10,5 next revision for Q2/08) with 16MB L2/L3 at 45nm process will be 167mm2 x 2 = 334mm2 + (6x8)mm2 = 382mm2

To compete Intel will have to have a MCM with 4 Peryns that will be 4x107mm2 = 428mm2 (hugely expensive) or develop the very long process of making a 4 core chip.

Being compatible without doubt with AM3 and socketF a 8 core single chip from AMD shangai will be like a bucket of water full of ice down the Intel head.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMD_K10

I'm not agains Intel and 'Yes people dont care of what is inside the package', but Barcelona is not only the number of cores in a single die, it is a superior technology that know is maturing, is relatively slow and cache starved, but will absolutely "kick ass" with its 8 core MCM when it arrives... and it will most probably arrive because its such a natural a small step a 2 chip MCM.

Bottom line is that AMD will be able to always offer the same number of cores for less money. In the meantime until Q2/Q3 2008 45nm process, Barcelona dont have to be much more performant than Penryn, it will only have to be equal and price competitive.


RE: wa
By zsdersw on 7/10/07, Rating: -1
RE: wa
By Kietsche on 7/11/2007 6:32:22 AM , Rating: 3
Great way to miss the point of a thoughtfully written post.

Your post wasn't a sentence either, since it didn't start with a capital letter. In addition, the English language is governed by usage, and has a continually expanding (particularly so in recent years due to the technology industry - would you be one of the people who said "robot" wasn't a word before it was in the OED?) lexicon in response to this. "Performant" gets "about 2,490,000" hits on Google UK as of today. Lastly, if you didn't know what it meant, it's pretty easy to look up.


RE: wa
By zsdersw on 7/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: wa
By Andrwken on 7/10/2007 11:26:31 PM , Rating: 4
Interesting argument, but it is pretty clear that Intel has always held the advantage in process and speed of implementation, not Amd. And if you believe Intel has just started pondering a native quad core, that is naive. Also, volume is probably more critical to a healthy business model in a price war as this, which last I checked Intel is what 80% marketshare? Intel will always be able to sell cheaper and maintain profit due to volume alone. So, until that changes I believe your statements are a bit hopeful.


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 1:09:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yes Intel as the bulk advantage of volume, but i believe this is not much a price war the way i sense you imply, AMD is not losing money per chip sell, in a desperate attempt to retain market share... AMD can target the more varied market segments better, and always did it from a long time ago...

Its not always bulk volume or maximum performance attainable by >1000$ factory overclocked chips the only thing that matters... its efficiency also.


RE: wa
By Andrwken on 7/11/2007 2:15:03 AM , Rating: 3
Yes efficiency in process can give them a big boost, but if performance is not up to snuff, then your efficiency gives you a very modest profit on the midline and nothing on the bottom end, just like now. The Barcelona ramp is a problem in that when they do get up to the promised speeds, they may be dealing with an entirely new architecture from Intel again, which initially looks to eliminate the last of Amd's technical superiorities, like IMC. And if Amd is not losing money per chip, then they have to be losing on lack of volume (idle facilities). They aren't bleeding cash for nothing.


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 1:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but if performance is not up to snuff, then your efficiency gives you a very modest profit on the midline and nothing on the bottom end, just like now


Yes, but an interesting fact in IT spin, is that that performance measure is always taken from top of the lines and not from the bottom.

AMD as of yet dont have a quad core in the market to compete, period. So lets see about price/watt per performance points.

Yes the core 2 is a superior design than the K8, but if you were able to compare 2 CPUs with equal cache size at the same clock speed i believe that Intel would win in integer performance for only say 10%, and be almost equal in most floating point benchs, because AMD hypertransport platform is superior.

* that would take a C2duo with *1M L2* at 2,4 to 3,0 Ghz to compare with brisbane *

http://www.hardocp.com/article.html?art=MTIzMywxMi...

quote:
...new architecture from Intel again, which initially looks to eliminate the last of Amd's technical superiorities, like IMC


I believe that was already addressed in c2duo and the tradeoff is, for having an IMC than the L2 cant be so big.

I believe that HT3.0, Direct connect 2.0, will be superior to CSI when CSI arrives.

Second i dont believe that the intension of FUSION is to put a full GPU integrated with the CPU, but to make an instant on, double, triple, quad, penta... crossfire(in asymetric form). Since the CPU will have GPU function it can be like any other GPU... meaning booting without a GPU graphics card or a software layer framebuffer(for servers), and 'instant on' crossfire.

Expect CrossFire 2.0 to be nothing much more than Direct Connect 2.0 with some drivers and a special HT3.? for connection with HTX slots. Since also the GPU will have CPU functions for floating point and SIMD/MIMD, expect those superior design schematics showing a 4 SMP all fully connected around HT and DC(for servers), to show also 2 CPUs and 2 GPUs instead.

Yes, i believe that AMD will end up abandoning PCIe slots in their chipsets for graphics, and adopt HTX slots instead.

One of the few great advantages of AMD will still be their platform. Intel was/is foolish by not adopting hypertransport. Transporting for the present time if they did, the C2duo on HT will have absolutely killed AMD.


RE: wa
By mmarq on 7/11/2007 1:38:03 PM , Rating: 2
A last detail more directly related with this topic...

I believe that was one of the major reasons AMD bought ATI. Otherwise Intel and market pressure would make no good GPU 'manufacturers' to design and make graphic cards for the HTX slot. Co-processores are already here for HTX slots, but no good graphic card will be anytime soon if AMD dont take that matter in their own hands.


RE: wa
By zsdersw on 7/11/2007 1:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes the core 2 is a superior design than the K8, but if you were able to compare 2 CPUs with equal cache size at the same clock speed i believe that Intel would win in integer performance for only say 10%, and be almost equal in most floating point benchs, because AMD hypertransport platform is superior.


HyperTransport is "superior" only in multi-socket systems, and even then, it earns the "superior" adjective only in systems above 2 sockets.

quote:
I believe that HT3.0, Direct connect 2.0, will be superior to CSI when CSI arrives.


Based on what? Your AMD fanaticism?