• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

AMD back into the red, post 20M$ loss.

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
Do you know that you'd end up with cheaper platform costs if you added a dGPU for your processor, right?

FX6300 = $120

R7 265 = $150

Total = $270

edit: with the dGPU you are $20 more expensive, you have one more PCB + Heat-Sink Fan. Quad-Channel (mobo, memory) will raise your price almost to the same price but with a single APU.
 
Last edited:

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
Do you know that you'd end up with cheaper platform costs if you added a dGPU for your processor, right?
It will definitely be cheaper if you count the power consumption numbers, funny how everyone brings Intel's efficiency into the equation when they're more expensive in virtually each & every price bracket vis-a-vis AMD but when the flip side is taken into account then power does not matter, for some that is :rolleyes:
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
It will definitely be cheaper if you count the power consumption numbers, funny how everyone brings Intel's efficiency into the equation when they're more expensive in virtually each & every price bracket vis-a-vis AMD but when the flip side is taken into account then power does not matter, for some that is :rolleyes:

I don't know, would you happen to have a good estimates for a beefier apu that does not exists?

I mean, I talked about platform costs first and foremost because of gddr5 prices, which is something known today, but I don't think we could have the slightest base to talk about power consumption here.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
I don't know, would you happen to have a good estimates for a beefier apu that does not exists?

I mean, I talked about platform costs first and foremost because of gddr5 prices, which is something known today, but I don't think we could have the slightest base to talk about power consumption here.
So you don't think an FX 6xxx & Radeon 260(x) on a single APU die would consume less power than them put separately on a mobo ? Sure the performance could be better if they were separate parts but power consumption would surely be less, so why not make an unbiased guesstimate for once.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
So you don't think an FX 6xxx & Radeon 260(x) on a single APU die would consume less power than them put separately on a mobo ? Sure the performance could be better if they were separate parts but power consumption would surely be less, so why not make an unbiased guesstimate for once.

Oh, true. Sorry, I was thinking about comparing the power consumption of the thing against an APU, not against FX. Sure, anything consumes less than the FX. The ancient platform and the Bulldozer architecture are the apex of the inefficiency by modern standards.

But as much as inefficiency goes, would this hypothetical APU beat FX + dGPU enough in power consumption to offset the prices of the GDDR5? FX + R260 would make, what, 210W + AM3 inefficiency tax, and we know for sure that it would consume a lot more than Kaveri at 100W. Let's say that we'll have a 50W delta. Is it enough?
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Seems kind of pointless to be arguing about a chip that doesn't exist, and even isn't on the amd roadmap. Even if it were to somehow appear in the future, the price/performance/power consumption of a CPU/discrete gpu combination could have changed by then.

Also if I recall the amd roadmap for future apus shows them going toward low power, not huge power hungry megachips.
 

R0H1T

Platinum Member
Jan 12, 2013
2,583
164
106
Seems kind of pointless to be arguing about a chip that doesn't exist, and even isn't on the amd roadmap. Even if it were to somehow appear in the future, the price/performance/power consumption of a CPU/discrete gpu combination could have changed by then.

Also if I recall the amd roadmap for future apus shows them going toward low power, not huge power hungry megachips.
Sure but we never know what the future holds, there was a topic created in the VCG section last week discussing the possibility of AMD going with an interposer or HBM for their APU's in the future & I also believe that to be a real possibility if the cost isn't too high. Now whether it's a year or two down the line is what we'll have to wait & see but the cost & performance benefits are really there, however the economic viability atm is not.
 

lefty2

Senior member
May 15, 2013
240
9
81
I don't know if anybody noticed, but AMD are now doing all their products at Global Foundries including GPUs and console chips. That has some implications. Basically, they will have to tape out all their products twice, once for TSMC and once for Global Foundries. That's got to add some additional costs to the process.
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
Seems kind of pointless to be arguing about a chip that doesn't exist, and even isn't on the amd roadmap. Even if it were to somehow appear in the future, the price/performance/power consumption of a CPU/discrete gpu combination could have changed by then.

Also if I recall the amd roadmap for future apus shows them going toward low power, not huge power hungry megachips.

I lol'd at megachip...
 

monstercameron

Diamond Member
Feb 12, 2013
3,818
1
0
I don't know if anybody noticed, but AMD are now doing all their products at Global Foundries including GPUs and console chips. That has some implications. Basically, they will have to tape out all their products twice, once for TSMC and once for Global Foundries. That's got to add some additional costs to the process.

dont remember the source but I read somewhere that AMD designed cat cores to be easily ported between different processes...in any case AMD has plently of experience with both glofo and tsmc, so I doubt the overhead is much of an issue.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
dont remember the source but I read somewhere that AMD designed cat cores to be easily ported between different processes...in any case AMD has plently of experience with both glofo and tsmc, so I doubt the overhead is much of an issue.

It is an issue. That AMD decided to scrap Krishna and Wichita when both are ready instead of back porting it to TSMC can give you an idea of the size of the task at hand.
 

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,455
5,842
136
It is an issue. That AMD decided to scrap Krishna and Wichita when both are ready instead of back porting it to TSMC can give you an idea of the size of the task at hand.

From what I understand, that was a time to market issue- by the time they ported K&W to TSMC, they would barely hit the market before Kabini was ready. But given that any 14XM products would only arrive in about 2016 anyway, the timing should fit a little better.

But yes, porting is certainly a non-trivial task.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
From what I understand, that was a time to market issue- by the time they ported K&W to TSMC, they would barely hit the market before Kabini was ready. But given that any 14XM products would only arrive in about 2016 anyway, the timing should fit a little better.

If backporting consumes the same amount of time of finishing the next design, which was in the middle of the R&D cycle, then not being trivial is an understatement.
 

MisterLilBig

Senior member
Apr 15, 2014
291
0
76
I seriously doubt that the console market crashed. AMD has sold about 11million semi-custom chips already. The console market of Sony and MS, last gen, is of 160+million(consoles sold), which took 7-8 years to get there. Even if the market were to be cut by a huge 50%, that's 70million more expected chips that AMD will sell to Sony and MS at the same time frame.

Who thinks the console market has or will crash by such amounts? In my opinion, I expect similar numbers to the last generation of Sony and MS consoles. It could be lower or higher, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Unoid

Senior member
Dec 20, 2012
461
0
76
shintakaiaai DK sensationalizes the thread name however my stock in AMD just jumped 11% from a mere 2 cent increase over expectation.

Keep classy


Trolling is not allowed here. YOu have been given an infraction. Keep it up, and a vacation will be in your future.
Markfw900
Anandtech Moderator
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Abwx

Lifer
Apr 2, 2011
11,885
4,873
136
Meanwhile AMD is calmly preparing its entry into new markets...

We have also reached a significant milestone in our ambidextrous strategy. We have introduced Seattle, our first 64-bit ARM server processor and the industry's first at 28-nanometer technology, positioning AMD as the only SOC provider to bridge the x86 and ARM ecosystems for server applications. We are excited to announce that we have started sampling Seattle this last quarter and plan to ship in the fourth quarter of 2014

http://techreport.com/news/26345/amd-seattle-is-sampling-on-track-for-fourth-quarter-release
 

pw257008

Senior member
Jan 11, 2014
288
0
0
I seriously doubt that the console market crashed. AMD has sold about 11million semi-custom chips already. The console market of Sony and MS, last gen, is of 160+million(consoles sold), which took 7-8 years to get there. Even if the market were to be cut by a huge 50%, that's 70million more expected chips that AMD will sell to Sony and MS at the same time frame.

Who thinks the console market has or will crash by such amounts? In my opinion, I expect similar numbers to the last generation of Sony and MS consoles. It could be lower or higher, in my opinion.

Totally agree on this. The console wins for AMD are going to be a nice, consistent source of revenue in the coming years.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
Totally agree on this. The console wins for AMD are going to be a nice, consistent source of revenue in the coming years.

Why do you think so? Revenues and margins tend to get a lot smaller in the due life of the contract. It's going to be a significant amount of revenues, but not a significant amount of operating profits, and the contract margins only get smaller as the contract unfolds.
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
14,003
3,362
136
Why do you think so? Revenues and margins tend to get a lot smaller in the due life of the contract. It's going to be a significant amount of revenues, but not a significant amount of operating profits, and the contract margins only get smaller as the contract unfolds.

The cost of production also takes a dive, 28nm wafers in 2015 doesnt cost the same as in 2013.
Also, sales volumes will increase the second year when the Console street price will get the first discount.
 

guskline

Diamond Member
Apr 17, 2006
5,338
476
126
I'm hardly an expert in accounting, but AMD seems to have stabilized and is running a much tighter ship. Some Wall street analysts seem to agree.

I'm glad for AMD. (P.S. My wife owns some Intel stock but my feeling is that a healthy AMD helps Intel stay sharp)
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Well just for perspective, I was looking at PC sales. Even in these down times, they are selling at around 75 million *per quarter*. So basically in two quarters, PC sales would equal the entire lifetime sales of the previous gen consoles. So yes, it is a consistent revenue stream for AMD, and will at least keep them afloat, but they really need to become more competitive in the cpu division.
 

MisterLilBig

Senior member
Apr 15, 2014
291
0
76
AMD does have serious issues bringing products. Well, not AMD. OEM's have serious issues bringing AMD products.

Atleast, I'm making the comment towards laptops. Its like Kaveri is very late on mobile. I think. You know, Jaguar too.

Atleast they do have two more companies making semi-custom chips, I wonder who they are? Any guesses?

I'd think Valve would benefit, but they stated that they wouldn't build PC's.

Maybe they meant server companies?
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,114
136
shintakaiaai DK sensationalizes the thread name however my stock in AMD just jumped 11% from a mere 2 cent increase over expectation.

Keep classy

FWIW. Keeping it classy would include not making fun of ShintaiDK's name.
Good luck with your stock portfolio.
 

Roland00Address

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2008
2,196
260
126
I'm hardly an expert in accounting, but AMD seems to have stabilized and is running a much tighter ship. Some Wall street analysts seem to agree.

I'm glad for AMD. (P.S. My wife owns some Intel stock but my feeling is that a healthy AMD helps Intel stay sharp)

As a non expert AMD to me is suffering from two completely different problems

--------------------------------------------

Problem A) AMD suffering a cash flow problem. It is very very expensive to run fabs and do all the R&D, and the fabs situation with AMD being the only major customer for the fabs was killing AMD. This was a big problem starting in mid 2006 and especially bad to 2009 (the year GF became its own company), and kinda stabilizing right about now in 2012 (AMD owns no more GF stock). The solution to that problem was spinning off the fabs as its own company, in theory the fabs would make money by growing and attracting new customers. The wall street crash of 2008 practically stopping business loans and bonds/debt, and losing your CEO does not help matters.

This was the fear of a fast death and AMD is relatively safe from the fast death for now, it appears AMD has stabilized.

--------------------------------------------

Problem B) AMD suffers an "execution" problem. AMD will always have less resources than the other tech companies (especially Intel but now ARM), and to execute you need resources, you need talent, and you need luck. AMD has to execute well for it does not have the Intel advantage of better fabs than everyone else (Intel's fabs are a couple years more advanced than everyone else, people will debate how much more advanced). If AMD does not execute well it will lose marketshare. Furthermore the problem is exasperated that AMD old markets are saturated and growing very slowly, and AMD new markets are very highly competitive.

The problem is AMD has always been hit and miss with the execution. Sometimes AMD hits Home Runs, more often though AMD seems to screw up, merely instead just Bunting, Flyballs, or Fouling it Off. (Bulldozer was an attempt at a home run, but it definitely was not a hit but instead a major Foul).

If AMD can't execute well it won't generate revenue for the market is very competitive and this will be a slow death

--------------------------------------------

Now Problem A and Problem B are two completely separate problems, like an Infection (fast death) and Cancer (slow death), yet they can affect each other (go on Chemo and suddenly you are less able to fight off an infection.)

AMD always had Problem A with the fabs costing a bloody lots of money, this was true in the 90s as well as the 00s, but AMD was able to execute "well enough" with to cover up the expenses of the fabs, they were able to do so until 2009.

Now AMD doesn't have the fabs (only having to deal with the WSA) and has lowered its expenses (reduced other expenses such as employee costs) it has very little to worry about Problem A. Thing is even now Problem A affects Problem B, by giving up the fabs you lose control over choosing how the fabs design chips changing electrical parameters, you also lose time, and you also lose information all these make it harder for AMD to execute. By giving up some of those "expensive engineers" aka laying people off, you may significantly reduce expenses but it now harder to get your product on market in time for it to make a significant effect.

Hell if you do not execute due to low cash flow you may not invest in the proper markets at the right time. Dirk Meyer (AMD CEO from 2008 to 2011) was let go for he focused on two of three markets.
  • He put most of his R&D in big cores (what became Bulldozer/Piledriver/Kaverai) trying to maintain and grow the server market/desktop cpus.
  • He put some R&D in small cores (what became Bobcat/Jaguar).
  • He ignored the mobile aka cellphone/tablet market, in fact selling AMD low powered graphics (ADRENO is anagram of RADEON) to Qualcomm, he also sold Xilleon to Broadcom. These sell offs generated very little money but Problem A needed to be address in any way possible, remember this was the time of the Market Crash of 08.
In hindsight we know this was a very bad move. AMD should have been putting all of efforts in its small cores, sustain its big cores temporary with a derivative of the phenom k10 architecture, and figure out how to make some money on mobile without going all in.

I think AMD is stable for now, but it is going to be a lot smaller company for the technology world is getting bigger, more fish are entering the pond, and I just do see how AMD grows.