backtop


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 TomZ on 7/22/2009 2:45:30 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
I agree. I buy AMD exclusively, because in MY opinion AMD makes a better product than Intel.
Maybe you prefer AMD processors for whatever reason, but that's not because they make a better product. Even a casual glance at benchmarks proves that.
quote:
AMD is a public company, so it gets public funding and bank loans. A CEO's job is to court business and funding (hence all the greasy charm) so cash obtained through sales is only part of the incoming flow.
That's also a crappy way of running a company - kind of a downward spiral. Getting loans and raising capital to meet short-term obligations or to fund growth are good, but borrowing money to fund a long series of quarterly losses is a bad thing.


RE: Eeep
By smackababy on 7/22/2009 3:27:57 PM , Rating: 3
AMD could try and switch from a public company to a nonprofit one. They have the numbers of years of operation in the red to show they have no profitability anymore.


RE: Eeep
By ipay on 7/22/2009 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
hahaha, burn!


RE: Eeep
By ICE1966 on 7/22/2009 3:28:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Maybe you prefer AMD processors for whatever reason, but that's not because they make a better product. Even a casual glance at benchmarks proves that.


Its very easy to say that this company or that company makes a better product, but to say its because it is proven in benchmarks is a little narrow in thinking, IMHO. I use AMD pruducts simply because I like them. I have used Intel in the past and there is nothing wrong with thier processors. I have a current AMD box that runs everything I throw at it including audio and mep encoding duties. I could have spent more money and built an even faster machine, but I did not need it, just as most people do not need what they have. I use my AMD machine to play game on and it runs great. So what if someone with an i7 turns a few more frames with thier machine, who cares except someone who needs bragging rights because they feel insecure about themselves. you know the kind, they want to say my box can score this or that when it really does not matter. I have the financial means to build whatever I want to build, and I chose AMD. they make very good processors, just as Intel does. people need to get off this high horse and throw these synthetic benchmarks out the door. Its real time, real world performance that matters.


RE: Eeep
By TomZ on 7/22/2009 4:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
Nice rationalization there. It sounds like you have a strong case of Core i7 envy. :o)


RE: Eeep
By clairvoyant129 on 7/22/2009 8:22:07 PM , Rating: 3
"i7 pushes out few more frames"? The low end i7 totally demolishes any high end PIIs. They aren't even in the same league... even the much slower C2Qs are faster than PIIs clock for clock. You also made a comment saying AMD uses less power than comparable Intel CPUs for the performance it gives. At the same power envelope, Intel CPUs give better performance than AMD. Which sites were you looking at to reach those conclusions? AMDzone.com lol?

And talking about e-peen... just because people want better performance or have money to spend, its bragging? So everyone should be like you and buy underperforming CPUs?


RE: Eeep
By themaster08 on 7/22/2009 9:06:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
who cares except someone who needs bragging rights because they feel insecure about themselves

Seriously, is that the only reason you think that people buy high-end Intel processors?

AMD's original Phenom processors were a complete flop, and the best available came in at 2.6GHz with a TDP of 140w (which soon dropped to 125w in later models). On top of that, this still wasn't enough to beat even the lower end of the Intel Core 2 Quad's, namely the Q6600 (which has a TDP of 95w).

It was only up until the release of the Phenom II line of processors that choosing Intel was more or less a no-brainer in the mid-range segment of the market. Unless, of course, you're a fanboy.

I find that some people who purchase AMD processors always find a way to criticise those who purchase higher-end Intel processors regardless of their reasoning, as though they have to justify their purchase.

They throw the "real world performance" card at them, probably because it makes them feel better. But I fail to understand how you can do so without trying both sets of processors. It seems to be the only half-baked criticism of Intel processors nowadays.

Buying mid-range/high-end Intel processors isn't necessarily about "bragging rights", at least it's not to the vast majority. It's about getting the best for your money, and Intel seemed to fit the bill much more than AMD in the mid-range market up until very recently.

If people wish to buy high-end processors, then that's their right. Do not criticise people for their purchases.


"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller

Related Articles
EU Fine Dings Intel's Q2 Earnings
July 15, 2009, 6:22 AM













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