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

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.


"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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