backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by amagriva.. on Oct 17 at 7:03 AM

The company is expected to announce the number of lay offs in the next week -- around the time it will be reporting its quarterly financial results

Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) will be cutting as much as 30 percent of its staff before the end of the year.

AMD, which makes processors for PCs and servers, is getting ready to lay off anywhere from 20 to 30 percent of its employees in the next few weeks. The company is expected to announce the number of lay offs in the next week -- around the time it will be reporting its quarterly financial results.

This marks AMD's second big staff cut in a year's time. About a year ago, it cut 10 percent of its employees. At the end of Q2 2012, the company said it had 11,737 employees.

Why is AMD making such drastic reductions in staff? Mainly because it is struggling to compete with other chip makers like Intel. Intel has not only grabbed the PC and server markets, but has also dipped into the mobile market as well, offering tablet and smartphone chips. AMD, on the other hand, hasn't made a push for mobile yet. This is clearly problematic, considering the PC market has been in decline in favor of mobile devices, and chip makers like Intel and AMD have to adapt to stay alive.


In addition to competition, SemiAccurate reported that AMD's board is a huge reason as to why the company was forced to make staff cuts. The report said that AMD's board is "incompetent" and that the company "staffed senior management with toadies who would do their bidding rather than do the right thing." SemiAccurate noted that AMD is mainly cutting engineers, and that AMD likely will not survive with this cut.

AMD has already announced ahead of its quarterly earnings report that that revenue would decrease 10 percent instead of the previously forecasted four percent decrease to two percent increase.

However, AMD is hoping for a brighter future with its first mobile chip release for Windows 8 tablets this year.

AMD is expected to announce quarterly earnings this Thursday.

Source: SemiAccurate



Comments     Threshold


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

Close but not quite right
By Beenthere on 10/14/2012 8:23:34 PM , Rating: 4
AMD may eliminate up to 30% of it's engineering staff in certain departments , not necessarily company wide. Expect some of the graphics work to be sub-let and some head count trimming in other areas.

AMD has to respond to the world wide economic depression like any other company. Even though Trinity/Brazos is selling well and Vishera will too, PC industry sales volume is down to that of 2001 because of an economic depression that is into it's fith year and likely to continue for another 3-5 years. It sucks for all involved.

Many businesses have closed their doors for good and over 30 million people in the U.S. alone are currently unemployed. That's 30 million consumers who are lucky to be able to buy food and pay rent - and many can't even do that. Several U.S. states have filed for bankruptcy because they can't pay their bills due to the drain from social services to the unemployed and homeless. Tax revenues from those unemployed significantly hurt the states ability to maintain basic services.

Those who have not been negatively impacted by the economic depression seem almost oblivious to it all. For those who have lost their jobs, homes, life's savings and more - and there are Millions of people in the U.S. in this situation, it's devastating.

The lack of this formerly available consumer discretionary income from people in the U.S., UK and Asia who are in the same exact situation, has hurt PC sales and many other industries dramatically.

Not to worry however as all is peaches and cream on Corruption Hill. They still get a golden life and platinum parachute no matter how incompetent they are nor how badly they have hurt the U.S.




RE: Close but not quite right
By someguy123 on 10/14/2012 8:38:02 PM , Rating: 4
Sure PC volume is down but the problem is that AMD has essentially cut its addressable market to laptop, HTPC and virtual machine/cryptography. They have no competitive desktop/server CPU in performance, their apus are basically in the price range of superior cpu/gpu combos when it comes to desktops, they have no power competitive chip in mobile, and their desktop cpus keep dropping in price. AMD has basically run itself into a corner by leaning so heavily on its ATi acquisition, and news of reducing engineering staff doesn't make the future look any brighter.


By StevoLincolnite on 10/15/2012 3:03:44 AM , Rating: 3
Via you're our only hope...
/end tongue in cheek.

Server wise AMD aren't doing to bad, they do have the 12 core Interlagos which was a step up from the 12 core Magny-cours. (Not a typo.)

Good thing for AMD is that servers can generally use every single thread you throw at it and it's usually integer heavy which plays into the Bulldozers architecture's strength.

However these days a larger emphasis has been placed on TDP's in the server space as power consumption is a massive cost burden, which is where Intel based servers shine over AMD's ones.

And don't kid AMD, they know how lucrative the server space is, which is only going to accelerate as more and more devices rely on the internet, which was how we got Bulldozer in the first place with it's poor floating point but excellent integer performance.

But in the Mid-Range and High-End consumer space, the sad fact remains they severely dropped the ball.

Whether it will be fixed when they "fuse" the GPU into the CPU tightly enough where the GPU handles floating point remains to be seen, GPU's after all are very good at such tasks, but cutting back on engineering isn't going to accelerate such a transition unfortunately.


RE: Close but not quite right
By FITCamaro on 10/14/12, Rating: 0
RE: Close but not quite right
By SpartanJet on 10/14/2012 9:06:02 PM , Rating: 2
Lets blame Obama for AMD being run into the ground with terrible non competitive products and poor management. I see how it works when the business fails blame the government, when it succeeds the business takes all the credit.

Last I checked Intel is also doing business during this "depression" and while profits might be down they are doing ok.


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/14/12, Rating: -1
RE: Close but not quite right
By StevoLincolnite on 10/15/2012 3:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
Obama Economy? You do realize Obama took over after the financial crisis began? So he wasn't given a very easy environment to take office in.

Regardless, his choices when the USA went into recession was absolutely wasteful, trillions spent bailing out companies when he could have created more jobs by building infrastructure at a fraction of the cost (Think: Fiber internet to all, New/Better roads/transport networks etc'.)
which would have also benefited the people greatly.

Even then every developed country (Sovereign or not.) was doing it hard with the exception of Australia who weathered the storm and was booming.


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/15/2012 12:12:38 PM , Rating: 1
By Obama economy I was referring to the wasteful spending he implemented. When he took office and chose to spend 4 years selectively benefiting small segments of the economy, he took ownership and drove the "recovery". I did not say he caused the problem, but he made choices on how to fix it and thus owns those.

I agree, infrastructure could have been better invested in, except the fiber internet remark. Who would own those lines or be allowed to use them? Honest question since internet companies are private.


RE: Close but not quite right
By Fujikoma on 10/15/2012 1:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
You're leaving out the fact that he put a war on the books that wasn't being accounted for previously.
You're also forgetting that no government official is going to cut off cheap foreign labor... which means the U.S. economy would never have rebounded in four years. This country's economy will rebound when wages in these poor areas normalize. Prices did not decrease when products were moved overseas, the profit margin did. When that profit margin is affected, the screaming chorus has been to cut regulation and taxes. Making a healthy profit is one thing... expecting to make an obscene profit at the expense of the common good is really a bad thing. Excess is detrimental in most things.
You definately are forgetting that the conservative base has consistently refused to work with the current administration. There has never been any compromise on their part. That's a shame, since Republicans used to be for minimal government before they were hijacked by these wack-a-loon religious types. These new religious conservatives have no understanding of government, citizenship or the concept of the common good of this nation. We have nut jobs gutting our education over 'teach the controversy' when none exists and driving qualified people from the teaching profession by killing the pay and benefits. They clamour for the government to 'honor' the bonus contracts of the bankers that led the financial meltdown and yet call for cuts to the negotiated contracts with union workers.
Obama may not have been my choice for President, but I'd be damned if I helped elect someone as ignorant as Palin into any government position. I feel sorry for him, since he's far more intelligent than Bush Junior (being likable isn't the same thing as being an intelligent leader) could ever dream to be and he's had to deal with stone-walling that was meant to harm the economy and make him un-electable in the next cycle. That one guy is not solely responsible for this economy slowly moving along... there are 435 other people involved and the public at large for electing people based on emotion and not education.


RE: Close but not quite right
By Reclaimer77 on 10/15/2012 6:11:16 PM , Rating: 2
Excuses excuses...


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/15/2012 11:26:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You''re leaving out the fact that he put a war on the books that wasn't being accounted for previously.


Can you explain this to me, exactly how you mean it? I have heard/read this claim elsewhere, I am curious as to the specifics of it.

quote:
You're also forgetting that no government official is going to cut off cheap foreign labor... which means the U.S. economy would never have rebounded in four years. This country's economy will rebound when wages in these poor areas normalize. Prices did not decrease when products were moved overseas, the profit margin did. When that profit margin is affected, the screaming chorus has been to cut regulation and taxes. Making a healthy profit is one thing... expecting to make an obscene profit at the expense of the common good is really a bad thing. Excess is detrimental in most things.


Sorry, which things are you talking about? There is a natural balance to all things, and I will agree that excess is detrimental, but not on these scales. No way the entire economy has been dealing with such excess that virtually every sector is going through a correction. Even IF that were the case, then the proper way to deal with a market CORRECTION is to get out of the way and let it happen... Not throw good money after bad, as this administration (and the one before) did. A "stimulus" is flawed by its very concept because it is designed to prop up a correction, a correction that is required for the economy to return to balance. Unfortunately, there are areas of the economy that crashed as a result of the very idea that the economy can be permanently pushed in a certain direction, when in reality it operates in a very simple way (that companies and individuals will act in their own self-interest [not to be confused with "at any cost", and how one defines "self" can extend infinitely, such as to family, employees, friends, communities, shareholders, country, etc]. To find the balance, you must resign to the fact that you have very little influence over it in ways outside of your spending dollar. Every rule put in place, companies or people will find a way around it (or a way to pass the cost/risk to someone else).

quote:
You definately are forgetting that the conservative base has consistently refused to work with the current administration. There has never been any compromise on their part. That's a shame, since Republicans used to be for minimal government before they were hijacked by these wack-a-loon religious types. These new religious conservatives have no understanding of government, citizenship or the concept of the common good of this nation. We have nut jobs gutting our education over 'teach the controversy' when none exists and driving qualified people from the teaching profession by killing the pay and benefits. They clamour for the government to 'honor' the bonus contracts of the bankers that led the financial meltdown and yet call for cuts to the negotiated contracts with union workers.


Oh my, where to begin with this one...

There is no "working with" WRONG. Its like saying, "ok, we can amputate both legs [left], give you a Porsche [right, and not republican, but truly conservative], or take a leg and give you a motorcycle". You don't choose a compromise between right and wrong, its either right, or wrong. Plus, let's not forget that the Democrats have been in charge since ~2006, so while Obama did not have as much time with a majority as some may say (I will give that point), they ALL knew what they wanted to accomplish as soon as he was put into office and, in all likelihood, had the legislation at least drawn up to be presented. Let's not forget that Obama has also been decidedly unshy about circumventing his constitutional powers and issuing executive orders when "Congress refuses to act" (Dream Act, anyone??). There is a reason why Obama's budget proposals have never received even one vote, and a reason why Harry Reid has not passed a budget (as required by law) since he came into power.

By "religious wack-a-loon" types, I assume you are referring to the Tea Party movement. Do you know what the movement even stands for? What their PRINCIPLES are? Or are you more in tune with the "99%" crowd? If they tend to be religious, so be it. They are not calling for mandatory Christianity courses for people, they are calling for a return to the INALIENABLE rights granted to us by our CREATOR, however you may define that. Its pathetic how people are able to soak in what the media has to say about a very PEACEFUL movement while simultaneous glorifying a bunch of violent, lazy-ass petulant college kids who don't have a clue about anything?

"The common good"... interesting. Can you please define where that starts and where that ends? As much as you may scoff at the idea of a "slippery slope", name one time a government has relinquished power it has bequeathed to itself? So, if it is in the common good for you to, let's say, weigh a certain amount because your morbid obesity drives up healthcare costs, should the government be allowed to regulate what you eat, or mandate or "tax" you to join a gym? Don't think that would happen? Look at the "iffy-at-best" science of global warming and how it is manhandling the auto industry. Or coal industry. Or any industry really that does not make up the <1% of green energy production.


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/15/2012 11:35:27 PM , Rating: 1
Part II, due to database limitations...

Now on to education, you do realize that, per capita, we spend a ridiculous amount on education without a proportional return, right? The problem is not the schools, but in many areas the teachers unions that protect the under-performing teachers while simultaneously demanding unreasonable compensation (particularly during an economic downturn, see Chicago). Need proof? Look here, moron.

http://mat.usc.edu/u-s-education-versus-the-world-...

Not to mention, I went to a private grade school and high school (because my parents worked their asses off, mind you), and the teachers were paid LESS than their public counterparts, yet we consistently scored better by every measure in the area. Coincidence?

I did not want to resort to name calling, but good God man you asked for it. Do you not do any of your own research, or at least take a second to think about logical facts?

quote:
Obama may not have been my choice for President, but I'd be damned if I helped elect someone as ignorant as Palin into any government position. I feel sorry for him, since he's far more intelligent than Bush Junior (being likable isn't the same thing as being an intelligent leader) could ever dream to be and he's had to deal with stone-walling that was meant to harm the economy and make him un-electable in the next cycle. That one guy is not solely responsible for this economy slowly moving along... there are 435 other people involved and the public at large for electing people based on emotion and not education.


How was Palin any more ignorant that Obama? Tell me, why won't Obama release his college records after crying like a little bitch over Romney's tax returns (which he paid ~15%, or the capital gains rate since he is not being directly paid by anyone, on. Oh, and did I mention that after tax AND charity it amounted to about 58%? Proof: http://washingtonexaminer.com/taxes-charity-cost-r... How much has Obama given in charity? What has he given to his brother in Kenya? Ok, get back to me on that one). Palin's state, if you hadn't checked recently, has been running surpluses last I looked. They are giving money BACK to citizens. Also, uh, she, ya know, has run something? What has Obama ran (other than the country, vehemently unsuccessfully)? "Community organizer"? What the hell is that, anyway? Sounds like the kid in grade school put in charge of making sure the kids line up correctly for lunch. Its pathetic.

Please, please. Please. If Obama is WAY MORE INTELLIGENT THAN MORON SARAH PALIN, give me one unanimously successful program he has put in place that has benefited this economy. Just one. The auto bailout? Nope, GM was #1 for a month when Japan was hit with a tsunami, then they took over again. The green energy initiative? Uh, nope. Please, give me just one.

Sorry, but you just got "Conservatived", bitch.


RE: Close but not quite right
By Ammohunt on 10/15/2012 2:16:34 PM , Rating: 3
The proper terminology would be the Democrat economy sine this all started when they took over the house and senate in 2006. Its been down hill ever since.


RE: Close but not quite right
By silverblue on 10/15/2012 8:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are talking David and Goliath here

Exactly. AMD is MINISCULE compared to Intel (in fact, currently their market cap is approximately one-fiftieth of Intel's). Their product volume is far larger than a player of their comparative size would ordinarily have, however they're a whole node behind AND using SOI for Llano/Trinity/FX so it's a lot more expensive for them, which means lower margins. Additionally, they've had to pay GlobalFoundries off and will continue to do so for the next few years.

One can only hope that the engineers who're being booted are literally surplus to requirements, but in the past, we've seen the wrong sort of people go, which makes me think this is more of the same. AMD cannot disappear though - aren't they supposed to have significant backing in the UAE, along with two next-gen console wins to provide GPUs/APUs for?

AMD needs to accelerate their roadmap. Steamroller cannot come quickly enough on the server front.


RE: Close but not quite right
By batjohn on 10/14/2012 11:03:37 PM , Rating: 3
Give me a source? Last I knew he said its improving but a long ways to go. Or are you referring to the Romney commercial where they cut around the part that showed he was actually quoting McCain?


RE: Close but not quite right
By bigboxes on 10/15/2012 1:16:06 AM , Rating: 4
Please shut up. Your partisanship gets old. Doesn't matter how unrelated it is you always have to inject partisan politics into every DT article. Congrats. You are a sheep.


RE: Close but not quite right
By amagriva on 10/17/2012 7:03:49 AM , Rating: 2
reconcile with yourself and surrender. muscle cars are history, you can't f with your thirteen cousin anymore without being arrested, there are no more buffalos running in your backyard: you have killed them all. commies are gone into business, maybe two or three dozens in SF yet, so stop looking around for foes, you can only use you big guns to shoot yourself in the foot. so lay down and relax (you can help yourself with 40 tabs of lorazepam)and finally reunite with your buddies dinosaurs...


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/14/2012 10:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Could not agree more. Sure, AMD is focusing on laptop and mobile space more than a "competitive" desktop chip... Is that not where the market is headed?? I am a hardware enthusiast (as much as I can afford to be, anyway), and even I will not deny that the desktop is dying... Is it going away? No, but the demand for it is permanently decreasing due to the inconvenience of being tethered to a single spot.

People like to blame the board for running the company into the ground. As you stated, this is a company looking to SURVIVE market conditions while at the same time putting out a less-than-competitive "flagship" product. I have always been an AMD fan (have owned Athlons, Opterons, Phenoms, Llanos, and typing this up on a WONDERFUL E350), and I fully support them going into "survival" mode for the time being. They have opened up their API (wrong term, but whatever the interconnect is for their GPUs to CPUs), putting them in position to provide hybrid chips in the future to anyone wanting to pair up their GPU with an ARM processor, and if what I have read is correct they have locked down the GPU designs for all three next-gen consoles, which should certainly help keep them afloat.

AMD is hurting right now (like almost all non-commodity based companies), but they are not out of the fight. Tough times call for tough measures, but if you want AMD to stick around this is what is required. I like their mobile offerings, especially compared to Intel (at least in the GPU side), so we will see how things shake out.


RE: Close but not quite right
By someguy123 on 10/15/2012 1:47:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you're really going to argue market trends the trend right now is low powered mobile, something that AMD has no solution for. Don't get me wrong, their apus are basically the best chips available for laptops/low profile htpc, but that's not where the growth is.


RE: Close but not quite right
By ET on 10/15/2012 4:24:36 AM , Rating: 2
x86 for low powered mobile is a difficult proposition in any case. Windows 8 has to become a success for that to really happen.

Still, there's quite a bit of a market for commodity laptops. Also AMD's APU's are down to 4.5W, which is in tablet territory, so they can get into the Windows tablet space.

But it's a precarious position. I think that the window of opportunity is closing, as Intel readies better solutions for the low power space.


RE: Close but not quite right
By tjacoby on 10/15/2012 12:17:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, they need a more competitive offering in the tablet arena, but I think they are on their way (and with a possibly superior GPU offering to boot).


RE: Close but not quite right
By ET on 10/15/2012 4:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
I'm really worried that it's the end. The prospects of success for AMD don't seem too good on the CPU front. Intel has a process advantage, a performance advantage, and is making strides in graphics. I think it won't be long before it will offer products competitive with Brazos and its descendants, and even with Llano.

AMD still performs decently in GPU, but it's a hard battle with NVIDIA, and the increasingly powerful integrated graphics are eating the low end graphics card market.

I really hope AMD survives, because I don't want an Intel/NVIDIA market.


RE: Close but not quite right
By jeffkro on 10/15/2012 12:26:35 PM , Rating: 2
"People like to blame the board for running the company into the ground."

Its also the fault of intel for using illegal and unfair business practices against AMD. This massively reduced AMD's income and so obviously cut into their RnD budget. Hopefully intel won't be able to pull off the same anti-competitive business practices against ARM companies.


RE: Close but not quite right
By siuol11 on 10/15/2012 4:41:57 AM , Rating: 3
Yours is not close and not right.
States are not going broke because of the money the spend on the unemployed and the homeless, but because they give large tax breaks to cutthroat businesses that drain the state coffers.
AMD is cutting its engineers (the lifeblood of the company) because the board is incompetent, they've already cut redundant staff. These cuts to engineering will hurt their future product lines and that's just not good, no matter what the overall economy looks like.


RE: Close but not quite right
By melgross on 10/15/2012 11:03:45 AM , Rating: 2
This is simply another move, and a major one at that, that's leading them to the end game. Cutting engineering staff in a business that is all about engineering, is always destructive. No matter how you look at it, this is a big cut, and will make them less competitive, and they aren't very competitive right now.

If business thinks that they are going the way of the Dodo, they will pull their business away from them, and that will hasten the end.


RE: Close but not quite right
By ICBM on 10/15/2012 6:21:34 PM , Rating: 2
We can't forget that Intel behaved in an anti-competitive way for how many years? Those were the years when AMD was not just able to compete, but win. So it hurt AMD way way more than the 3 Billion they took as a settlement. If AMD would have doubled or tripled their profits during the Athlon-Athlon64/Opteron years without illegal interference from Intel, who know what they could/would have done R&D wise. It is just a sad situation and Intel got off with a swat on the wrist and one less competitor.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














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