Print 46 comment(s) - last by erikejw.. on Jul 23 at 10:00 AM

AMD thinks things will turn around in the second half of 2009

AMD has posted its financial information for Q2 2009 and has reported yet another loss. The silver lining to the quarterly loss cloud is that the financials showed some improvement over the previous quarter. AMD also remains optimistic about Q3 and the rest of 2009.

AMD will be releasing new platforms before the end of the year that the chipmaker hopes will help turn its fortunes around. The company will be releasing its new Opteron processor servers, a market that AMD is still very competitive in, and will releases new notebook platforms.

According to EWeek, CEO Dirk Meyer notes that AMD worked on controlling costs in the first half of 2009 and that the cost controlling methods are expected to pay dividends in the second half of the year. Perhaps the largest of those cost-controlling methods was the spinoff of AMD's foundry operations into an independent company.

Meyer said during a call with financial analysts, "With a strong flow of new products and a leaner cost structure, coupled with assumption of modest seasonal growth, we are positioned for a stronger financial performance in the second half of this year."

Among the new platforms for notebooks that AMD intends to let loose onto the market in Q3 2009 are the Tigris platform for mainstream notebooks and an unnamed platform that is aimed at thin and light notebooks.

AMD reported a loss of $330 million for Q2 2009 amounting to $0.49 per share with revenue for the quarter of $1.18 billion. Analysts on Wall Street had predicted a loss for AMD of $0.47 per share with revenue of $1.13 billion. Despite the loss for the quarter, the numbers AMD posted looked better compared to a year ago.

Analyst John Spooner told eWeek, "The chip maker, like its rival Intel, showed sequential improvement in revenue," Spooner wrote. "Unit shipments fared reasonably well, with some improvement in the server space. Thus there are signs that point to AMD's business improving and the company marching toward its goal of becoming profitable (at least on a quarterly operating basis) in the second half of the year."

AMD rival Intel did well for the quarter until the massive EU fine was deducted making for $398 million loss.

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: Eeep
By IlllI on 7/22/2009 11:43:11 AM , Rating: 1
even though they are cheaper, some of their chips like phenomII are the same size, or maybe even bigger than the one from intel. i read something from anandtech a few months back about size vs price. intel has the edge in the size category, so can fit more chips on a wafer than amd can

RE: Eeep
By omnicronx on 7/22/2009 12:00:16 PM , Rating: 2
Both Intel and AMD are now on the 45nm process (for the Phenom 2 at least), and have been since the beginning of the year.

RE: Eeep
By Sazar on 7/22/2009 1:05:40 PM , Rating: 1
I believe he was referring to the diameter of the wafer's said chips are being procured from. You are correct about the process size but Intel uses larger wafers and therefore is able to get more chips per wafer than AMD, assuming that the yields are similar.

I believe Intel has been using 300mm for a while and is working on a 450mm wafer. I am not sure if AMD has moved to 300mm yet, but I do know they were on the 8" platters before and were planning on making the switch.

RE: Eeep
By ClownPuncher on 7/22/2009 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 1
AMD moved to 300mm wafers somewhere in 2005 iirc.

RE: Eeep
By erikejw on 7/23/2009 10:00:04 AM , Rating: 1
The Anandtech size thingy was about die size and transistors.
Intel get more performance from a same size silicon size or smaller one and therefore have lower productions costs per chip compared to AMD so if the price was the same for the CPUs Intel would still have a higher bottom line.

RE: Eeep
By monomer on 7/22/2009 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 3
The OP is referring to which shows that the Phenom II 940 has a die size of 258 mm2, while the roughly comparable C2Q Q9400 has a die size of 164 mm2. So for processors sitting in the same price/performance bracket, AMD is using over 50% more silicon than Intel, even though both are on the 45 nm process.

The picture is a little better for the Phenom I 955, which has the same die size as the 940 at 258 mm2, while the comparable C2Q Q9550 has a die size of 214 mm2, so AMD is using only about 20% more silicon than Intel.

RE: Eeep
By IlllI on 7/22/2009 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 3
yes, thank you. thats the thing i was referring to. i just couldn't remember which article it was from

RE: Eeep
By ClownPuncher on 7/22/2009 1:12:23 PM , Rating: 4
PII x4 955 die size - 258mm squared - 758 million transistors
I7 920 die size - 263mm squared - 731 million transistors

The 955 is a smaller chip with more transistors. Both processes(955 and i920) are mature enough to have good yeild ratios. Both are good processors as well.

RE: Eeep
By Lifted on 7/22/2009 3:10:02 PM , Rating: 1
Can't really compare Phenom II to an I7. Different league performance wise. More comparable to the Core 2 Quad series which are a bit smaller.

RE: Eeep
By hyvonen on 7/22/2009 4:09:35 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah, except that i7 920 is a much better CPU. From that Anandtech article:

Unless you’re running applications that are very well optimized for Intel’s architectures, the Phenom II X4 955 is faster than the Core 2 Quad Q9550. Compared to the Core i7-920, it loses hands down although the chip does come close in some games.

Don't compare apples to oranges, dear sir.

Bottom line: gross margins directly point to the CPU_value/manufacturing_cost ratio, and Intel's is much higher.

RE: Eeep
By ClownPuncher on 7/22/2009 5:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
Apples to oranges? More like tasty apples with really tasty apples. Analogies aren't hard.

The discussion wasn't about which was better, it was about which makes more money per sq mm. All I did was list how big the "mid range - high end" entry from each company was. They are both close to the same price, and close to the same size.

We already know the i7 920 is faster, now we move on to other aspects of the industry for our discussion...

RE: Eeep
By AlexWade on 7/22/2009 1:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
Doesn't the Phenom series have L3 cache? That would explain the larger die size.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken
Related Articles
EU Fine Dings Intel's Q2 Earnings
July 15, 2009, 6:22 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki