AMD Announces Proposed Plan to Sell Singapore Facility

[VirtualLarry]

There is hardly any demand for 6 cores. Even AMD gives up on this and goes back to 4. No amount of competition gonna change that.

Uhm, baloney. The problem with AMD releasing only 4-core for FM2, rather than the 8-core for AM3+, is that the addition of the GPU on-die, would make the chip prohibitively expensive to mfg if it were an 8-core.

But there's no reason for both Intel and AMD to not release an 8-core CPU that lacks an IGP.

As long as each of those cores has competitive performance and efficiency, which AMD's do not.

But hey, that's no excuse for Intel not to release consumer 8-cores. At least if ShintaiDK's pro-monopoly position is to be believed.

I can think of a number of various types of software that would benefit from more cores on the desktop.

 

[KingFatty]

Just to revisit the original story of AMD selling off and leasing back the Singapore property.

It seems everyone sees this as an act of desperation, like it's a short term gain with long term pain.

But when I read the article, it said that they are only going to use a portion of the facility.

So could the real story be that AMD just doesn't need the entire facility anymore, and can get by with using just a portion, so it makes economic sense to sell off what is not needed, and just lease what small portion is needed?

I dunno, maybe someone can clarify to me why the news story should be interpreted as nothing but bad news for AMD? maybe I'm too optimistic and looking for the silver lining by reading the fine print incorrectly?

 

[Homeles]

Let me fill you in on a fact homeles. Having studied economics myself (but was not my major), economics is not based on fact, it is based on theories.

I'm aware of this. However, PPB is not; he lives in a world where everything is black or white.

The point is that PPB could not comprehend any circumstance where a monopoly can be economically advantageous. So I linked a well-researched paper authored by two PhDs with an opinion that contradicted him.

At this point, the horse has been led to water; it's up to him to decide whether or not he wants to drink from the pool of enlightenment.

So we have one economist with a pretty far fetched theory.

Okay, you've just defeated the point of your tirade.

Since you seem to be okay with patronizing, let me give you a taste of your own medicine. Let me fill you in on a fact: it's a pretty bad idea to disregard someone's opinion on the basis that many experts have different opinions on a subject, and then insist your opinion is the correct one.

This is aside from the fact that even if AMD disappeared, intel would not be a monopoly - The face of computing has changed. There is no longer an all out desktop IPC battle, the real competitors for intel are ARM SOC vendors and every indication is that Intel is facing an uphill battle here. That is intel's primary competition. Not AMD. Computing has changed - 15 years ago, 99% of consumer computing devices were intel and Microsoft based. That is hardly the case anymore, and AMD is not intel's primary competition.

This is absolutely the case. We can take a look at the high-level changes made with the Haswell platform and Intel's refocus on Atom. AMD is largely irrelevant right now in the context of stagnating industry innovation and monopolistic pricing.

But how can a competitor emerge, if the product is protected by a gov't-granted monopoly? (Patents)

The only way to truly foster competition in the tech industry, is to abolish patents.

I agree that the patent system is broken, but isn't that a bit off topic?

 

[_Rick_]

You seem to assume demand is static...

CPUs is a mature market. Demand is stabilizing quite a lot.
In fact, in the user-facing market, I'm not sure anyone even needs Moore's law anymore.

Sure, mobile is another story, but that's happened in a mature market, and the bubble is basically over as well, once 14nm Atom is out. There's nowhere left to go but smaller, and currently only Intel is half-way pulling it off. Which puts them in the monopoly position.

The only CPU market that really sees continual high margins and slow but steady growth is HPC and data center stuff. And apparently Intels advantage there is currently sufficient that they did stop innovating. No way that IB-E would be this late, if there was any decent alternative for high dynamic range dual socket servers.


As for the sale of the facility - I'm currently working in a facility that has been sold and rented back to generate some cash flow in a moment of need. Basically half the people there worry about when the heating/AC becomes too expensive and the site will be relocated elsewhere.... Makes for a great working environment.
But yeah, this kind of CAPEX vs OPEX trade is basically the inverse of what a healthy business should do. Decreasing OPEX is en vogue, with all these lean management styles and what not. So it smells like they're just putting some make-up on the pig that is their financial report, and hope to live another quarter.

 

[blackened23]

Since you seem to be okay with patronizing, let me give you a taste of your own medicine.

First, my post was based on my assumption that you were posting the theory in question as an absolute fact - when it is a theory. On that note - while it is an incredibly well written and academic theory it is still one that I do not agree with. Anyway, I was wrong in that initial assumption, so apologies about that.

You're correct, everyone has a right to an opinion and everyone has their belief system and theories. However - it should be noted that while most issues faced within economics do not have a "concensus", that is not the case with regard to the question of monopoly or free trade. The vast majority of economists do not feel that a monopoly is ever beneficial to a consumer, and I would very much agree with that. That is a highly unpopular view for many reasons, and even if Intel were a monopoly - it would be highly regulated by the US government which brings its own set of problems. I do not for one second trust the US government to oversee Intel. Would *you* trust the US government to run or oversee the state of affairs of Intel? That would be a complete disaster.

The ideal market would be like this: Intel releases a killer product which is a viable contender against ARM SOCs (bay trail). This spurs ARM SOC vendors to "step it up", so to speak, and release even better products. Competition spurs innovation. Innovation spurs better products and lower prices. Conversely, monopolies are highly regulated by the US Government (for US based monopolies, obviously) and that would completely destroy any incentive for Intel to lower prices, innovate, or create more compelling products. Much like the current situation with cable providers in the US - they have no incentive to lower prices and their prices have gone up exponentially in recent years. As well, the US is still bottom of the barrel in terms of broadband connectivity when compared to various European countries. That is pretty sad, but it's a side effect of monopoly cable providers.

I *hope* intel brings with pain with Bay Trail. I *hope* Intel competes well in this sector, because it's about time ARM Holdings has a legitimate competitor to worry about. That's what a competetive market is ALL about - it is all about one up-manship between various firms, and we as consumers benefit. Monopolies do not have any incentive to create such compelling products. They do not have an incentive to lower prices. Monopolies are run day to day with a status quo and are overseen by US government regulations. That very US government oversight adds another layer of bureaucracy to monopolistic firms that further removes any compelling reason to innovate or lower prices.

Anyway, with regard to AMD - I share your dislike for current AMD CPUs - but I should state that while AMD is merely a blip on the radar these days, AMD did advance the state of x86 in prior years. Let me borrow a line from IDC here. Without Athlon, intel would not have been compelled to work so diligently on Conroe. Without AMD, x64 would be a messy state of affairs (x64 is based on AMD's work). The sad fact of the matter is that poor management ruined AMD to the point that they don't have enough money to stay relevant these days, although we'll see how they do with console revenue. I would love for AMD to be relevant, I would love for them to be a contender. I would be ecstatic if they released another Athlon calibur product; although I don't see that happening - it's going to be incredibly tough for them due to their financial situation - you need money to make money in the silicon industry.

 

[PPB]

If you ask 20 different economists the same question, you will get 20 different answers. Economics is not an exact science.


There are normative and positive economists, and they do not agree on anything. Economic theories are as subjective as the opinions on this forum and they absolutely do not have a concensus on most topics. Furthermore, nearly every economist would argue against any monopoly type of situation being beneficial for the consumer.

Props for resuming not only what I think regarding economic theory (and most social "sciences", mind you), but also helping describe why citing papers on economics is almost trivial. For any whacky theory you might cite, I can assure you anyone can google another one contradicting it in a matter of seconds.

But to think that someone would go such lengths into rationalizing that a monopoly would be good in any kind of market is no ordinary feat (not in the good sense, im afraid). Good for him, I guess.

 

[Homeles]

First, my post was based on my assumption that you were posting the theory in question as an absolute fact - when it is a theory. On that note - while it is an incredibly well written and academic theory it is still one that I do not agree with. Anyway, I was wrong in that initial assumption, so apologies about that.

It's fine, and I'm happy to see that you took my snarky response so well.

Would *you* trust the US government to run or oversee the state of affairs of Intel? That would be a complete disaster.

Anyway, with regard to AMD - I share your dislike for current AMD CPUs - but I should state that while AMD is merely a blip on the radar these days, AMD did advance the state of x86 in prior years.

Right. And no, I don't trust the US government to handle things, particularly with the clowns running it that we have today.

A monopoly in today's society would be absolutely terrible. There's far too much corruption, even in the US, to have any hope of a "good" monopoly. I'd still argue that some good is intrinsic to all monopolies, but the cons far outweigh the pros at this point in time. I think that maybe someday it could work, but that's a whole different story.

And yes, AMD absolutely has had a positive effect on the CPU industry, but their influence is next to nil now. The repercussions that would occur if AMD were to go out of business would be pretty minor at this point -- the "negative" consequences have already occurred. In the meantime, Intel has another fire under its ass right now, and since their war chest is already so fattened thanks to AMD's failures, we should be seeing a lot of progress when it comes to affordable, power efficient computing.

Things are only barely starting to get interesting, though. I can't wait until Silvermont makes it to the market, and we begin to see what changes occur in the industry as a result of Intel's refocusing. We're already getting tremendous battery life jumps with Haswell... it will only get better from here.

Silvermont shouldn't be high-performing enough in the context of making a huge difference when it comes to notebooks and low power/cheap desktops, but we're getting there. I totally agree with the philosophy that there's a level of performance that's "enough" for most people. We're mostly there already... even a 17W IVB has a lot of muscle behind it. It won't be long before Atom's in a similar position for far less.

Regardless, it's exciting to see (perhaps moreso) that the peak performance boundaries are still being pushed, in spite of a lack of competition. I'm really itching to see what is coming with Skylake... Haswell was a pretty conservative move on the CPU side of things, and we're due for something big.

Props for resuming not only what I think regarding economic theory (and most social "sciences", mind you), but also helping describe why citing papers on economics is almost trivial. For any whacky theory you might cite, I can assure you anyone can google another one contradicting it in a matter of seconds.

But to think that someone would go such lengths into rationalizing that a monopoly would be good in any kind of market is no ordinary feat (not in the good sense, im afraid). Good for him, I guess.

Whatever makes you feel better about yourself. At this point, you're just trying to save face. It would have been a much better idea to have accepted the fact that your opposition has a point.

 

[Idontcare]

Just to revisit the original story of AMD selling off and leasing back the Singapore property.

It seems everyone sees this as an act of desperation, like it's a short term gain with long term pain.

But when I read the article, it said that they are only going to use a portion of the facility.

So could the real story be that AMD just doesn't need the entire facility anymore, and can get by with using just a portion, so it makes economic sense to sell off what is not needed, and just lease what small portion is needed?

I dunno, maybe someone can clarify to me why the news story should be interpreted as nothing but bad news for AMD? maybe I'm too optimistic and looking for the silver lining by reading the fine print incorrectly?

As a singular event, a solitary datum point, it could mean a number of innocuous things that barely rise above "uninteresting news, at best".

However, when put into context with the backdrop of AMD's financials, history, momentum, and future...the latest datum is being added to a list of existing data which paint a consistent, and dire, picture of AMD as you connect all those dots and sum them up into one conclusive prognosis.

They are selling assets to raise cash because their cash-flow isn't healthy enough to support ongoing operations, including debt maintenance.

It just so happens that because their revenue has collapsed over the past years, causing the cash-flow crunch, that it also means they are not moving enough product to necessitate the facilities as well.

I suppose you could call that a win-win, but its not the kind of "win" that any business aspires to achieve.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Uhm, baloney. The problem with AMD releasing only 4-core for FM2, rather than the 8-core for AM3+, is that the addition of the GPU on-die, would make the chip prohibitively expensive to mfg if it were an 8-core.

But there's no reason for both Intel and AMD to not release an 8-core CPU that lacks an IGP.

As long as each of those cores has competitive performance and efficiency, which AMD's do not.

But hey, that's no excuse for Intel not to release consumer 8-cores. At least if ShintaiDK's pro-monopoly position is to be believed.

I can think of a number of various types of software that would benefit from more cores on the desktop.

They can make all kinds of theoretical products. Or take some from the servers that you dont wish to pay for. But the requierment is usually to get all the fun for cheap for a niche set of people.

Will you demand AMD selling 300$ 16 core Opterons to you when they stop the AM3+ line? Or will you accept that your target group is simply too small. And that you need to pay more, alot more?

 

[AtenRa]

for a niche set of people.

Those niche set of people (you and me and everyone else in this forums) are driving the technology making AMD, Intel and NVIDIA spending billions for High-Tech products.

Entry, Low and a lot of mainstream segment buyers dosnt have a clue about PC technology. You could sell them a Pentium 4 today with an SSD and they would be happy. It is the High-End segment that demand faster and faster hardware all the time. It is the High-End segment that will spend $1K for Titan and 600+ for 6-core CPUs.

So what we are demanding is that Intel will give us the High-End first. We may spend more than the entry/Low segment but we are not stupid. Nobody will spend 600+ for an IV-E three(3) months after HasWell mainstream at 300+ has been released. But it would be the other way around if IV-E was released 12 months ahead of IV 1155.

 

[beginner99]

Just to pick one of those fallacies: when you say that a monopoly is better if it gives you the best process node, you ignore the fact that you can't guarantee Intel would give you the best process node in a monopoly situation. Intel is giving you the best process node right now because it's the thing that separates them from their competition and makes them better than them, genius.

And why would I buy a new CPU if there are no new models that perform any better than my old one? I would not. Intel has been competing with itself mostly for the last couple if years.

And ultimately on a longer timescale if they completely stop innovating and/or inflate prices that would be exactly what "Team ARM" was dreaming of.

This forum keeps proving that even a tied duopoly wont even cut it sometimes when it comes to benefitting the customer (specially, their wallet), as brand loyalty really can skew the perception of reality and make people think, for example, 1k single GPUs are okay even if they give 30% perf for >250% price.

Why? A 4770K is pretty much the same price the i7-875k was 3 years ago. But now you do not need to buy a graphics card (if you don't play games) so the total system cost is lower.