backtop


Print 35 comment(s) - last by Chocobollz.. on Dec 11 at 1:20 AM

AMD will now own about 34.2% of the spinoff

To say it has been a tough year for the computer industry would be an understatement. AMD has been particularly hard hit, despite being the second largest chipmaker around.

In October, AMD announced that it would be spinning off its chip making facilities into a different company with AMD holding 44.4% of the new chip making company. The spin off resulted in a suit brought against AMD by rival chipmaker Intel over alleged license violations caused by the spinoff of AMD's processor making arm.

AMD announced this week that in an effort to reduce its manufacturing costs and adjust to the current state of the economy it would own even less than the previously noted 44.4% of the chip making spinoff. The majority owner of the spun off chip making division was the Abu Dhabi-based Advanced Technology Investment Company (ATIC) and a minority owner was Mubadala Development.

Amendments between AMD and ATIC will have AMD owning 34.2% of the chip making arm and ATIC grabbing 65.8% of the Foundry. An AMD representative said the sale was due to "changing economic times." AMD is fighting for its survival in the face of falling profits and increased competition. AMD announced this week that it was cutting revenue projections by 25% for Q4 2008.

Other amendments between the owners of the Foundry include a restructured agreement that allows Mubadala to purchase 58 million shares of AMD common stock at a revised purchase price equal to the lower of average closing price per share on the NYSE during the 20 trading days prior to and including December 12, 2008; or the average closing price per share of AMD common stock on the NYSE during the 20 trading days prior to the transaction close date.

AMD released a statement saying, "All other material economic terms of the transaction agreements remain unchanged. ATIC will still invest $2.1 billion to purchase its stake in the Foundry Company, of which it will invest $1.4 billion directly in the new entity and will pay $700 million to AMD."



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Why not even just 25%?
By Regs on 12/9/2008 1:25:47 PM , Rating: 2
The only problem now, and it's a big one, is that Intel controls the prices.


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By Clauzii on 12/9/2008 7:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'd say that some of AMDs CPUs are just as good or even better than Intels in the low and midrange performance segments. For gaming, yes Intel is the fastest, but for a fair budget, an AMD/ATI Platform ain't something to spit at, given the total cost of CPU/GPU/MB.

And, as implied, I have confidence in AMDs somewhat revised roadmap, which I think reflects AND deals with the current economic situation ALL markets are dealing with. Of course I'd rather seen them have 100%, but at the same time I also believe in new ways of thinking when old ways don't pay off enough anymore.

I also think splitting off the foundry is a good choice, since the foundry can work for others in times of lower needed production of specific parts in the AMD/ATI line of chips.

If money is no problem, then Intel IS the fastest at the moment (and have almost been like that since they emerged), but not at any given pricesegment.

But hey, that comes from someone who thinks it's totally ridiculous with like 20 different pricesegments...


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By StevoLincolnite on 12/9/2008 9:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
I agree how AMD is still competitive in the low-end and mid-range market segments, there "Complete" platforms also make for the best bang-for-buck systems with the Radeon 2400 based IGP that will poop over any intel based set-up in the 3D acceleration without forking over for a discreet 3D Accelerator.

Even then the GPU will make a larger dent in performance most of the time in comparison to a new CPU, Back when FarCry 1 was first released I had a Pentium 3 667 with 512mb of SD Ram @ 133mhz - I went and grabbed a Geforce 5700LE and overclocked the core from 250mhz to 540mhz and the memory from 400mhz to 540mhz and managed to run FarCry pretty much in all it's glory. (SM1.4 and all settings on max at 1024x768) - Yet the Processor requirements stated a minimum of a 1.4ghz processor was required. - Such a situation wont be true for every game, but people grossly over-estimate the processor performance they need to run a game decently.

I look at it this way, If I can save 100 bucks on a CPU purchase by going with a slower AMD chip, I can spend that 100 bucks on a faster GPU and ultimately get more performance in what I use my system for and that would be gaming.


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By Clauzii on 12/9/2008 9:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly my thought too.

Btw. ATI has just lowered the prices on 4870 cards, since they are not the fastest anymore, with nVidia getting new drivers. At the same time they have now sold more than 2,000,000 4000-series cards, so they should be able too, I think.


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By PrinceGaz on 12/9/2008 10:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it is only really now that AMD's purchase of ATI finally makes sense. At the time it seemed like madness spending that much on a company that was in second place, but now it seems like the graphics-division could be central to keeping AMD competitive in the market sectors they are aiming for. I'm not sure if that is how they expected things to turn out, but buying ATI now seems like an increasingly wise far-sighted move.


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By kilkennycat on 12/10/2008 12:57:36 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
I look at it this way, If I can save 100 bucks on a CPU purchase by going with a slower AMD chip, I can spend that 100 bucks on a faster GPU and ultimately get more performance in what I use my system for and that would be gaming.


Really, then maybe you should look at the Recommended Specs for the PC version of Grand Theft Auto 4.

Recommended system requirements
• Operating system: Windows XP SP3 or Windows Vista SP1
• Processor: Intel Core 2 QUAD 2.4 GHz / AMD Phenom X3 2.1 GHz
• RAM: 2.0 GiByte (XP) / 2.5 GiByte (Vista)
• Hard drive: 18 GiByte
• Graphics card: Geforce 8600 with 512 MiByte / Radeon HD 3870
• Internet

Cheesy PC ports from Xbox360/PS3 console titles (like this one) make use of as many cores that they can find, thanks to the multicore architecture ( minimum 3 cores..) of these consoles, plus zero attempt by the developers to optimize the code for fewer but far more powerful CPU cores. With its cartoon-style graphics, the GPU pretty well dawdles while the game pushing the available CPU cores places the ultimate limit on the game's "frame-rate" The HD3870 recommendation above is an overkill except maybe for those with display sizes well in excess of 1920x1080.


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By Samus on 12/10/2008 3:32:22 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The only problem now, and it's a big one, is that Intel controls the prices.


An entry level Core i7 for $300, a high-end for $1100, and motherboards that cost no less than $300 and require memory more than twice as expensive as others is a good example.

Even with the Quad Core2 hit with the x975 chipset, it didn't cost $300 for the entry level, and the motherboards were all under $200.

Seriously...what the frak?!


RE: Why not even just 25%?
By eye smite on 12/10/2008 2:56:07 PM , Rating: 2
hehe not for me they don't. I just got a tricore BE for $120, a 780V msi board for $72, 2 gigs of ddr2 800 for $30 and a 160gig SATA drive for $43. If they're controlling market prices it's the first and only time I can thank intel for making it so cheap for me to build a complete system. Let the cheap times roll.


"Death Is Very Likely The Single Best Invention Of Life" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles
AMD Cuts 4Q Revenue Forecast 25 Percent
December 9, 2008, 5:43 AM
AMD Splits in Two
October 7, 2008, 9:37 AM













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