- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
AMD drops out of top 10 chip makers list
- Thread starter myocardia
- Start date
Hadn't AMD just recently cracked the Top 10 for the first time in their history? I guess we have to look at the overall picture here.
Modelworks
Lifer
- Feb 22, 2007
- 16,240
- 7
- 76
I don't see anything special about the report.
They are reporting overall revenue and not how each company does in its field.
There isn't even 10 companies that make processors for pc's.
Comparing sony to amd is like comparing the sale of beer to coke.
They are both beverages but totally different markets.
They are reporting overall revenue and not how each company does in its field.
There isn't even 10 companies that make processors for pc's.
Comparing sony to amd is like comparing the sale of beer to coke.
They are both beverages but totally different markets.
They are taking about semiconductors, where there is a lot players out there. Texas Instruments, Samsung, Motorola, etc..If you start thinking about it, AMD deson't really have a presence in anything else except PC CPU's and GPU's (ATI).
Yes. The purchase of ATI (and spin-off of Spansion) put them at #8 in 2006. It was the second time they had been in the top 10; they were #10 in 2001.
How does it obviously mean that? If AMD's revenues had remained completely static from 2006, and everyone else in the top 20 experienced dramatic growth, AMD still would have fallen on the list. If the bottom fell out of the market and they just fell faster than everyone else, they would have fallen on the list. This is not a zero-sum game. How about instead of empty speculation, we look at actual numbers?
iSuppli's 2006 list put AMD's post-acquisition revenues at $7.5 billion. 2007 revenues, using iSuppli's Q4 prediction and previous data available from Anandtech and others, come to $5.5 billion. That's a drop of about 26.7%, which is pretty painful.
What should be more worrying for AMD is Intel's revenues, which (from iSuppli's Q4 estimate and Intel's conference calls) could be $34.9 billion for 2007. For 2006, iSuppli had Intel at $31.5 billion. Interestingly, for 2005, iSuppli had Intel at $35.5 billion. A lot of Intel's advantage comes from the mobile sector, which makes up a big part of Intel's revenues and has not been exposed to as fierce a price war as the desktop sector.
taltamir
Lifer
- Mar 21, 2004
- 13,576
- 6
- 76
So its not that they just dropped due to suckage... they just recently entered and then immediately dropped out... not as bad...
Except, what caused them to be enter it in the first place was buying ATI... so the two companies put together were enough for 8th place... but they quickly dropped together to what AMD was alone? not so good after all... meh
They got into that list for the first time ever just last year...(end of Q4 06)
Obviously they will go back and forth being on it and off it for awhile. They never made it over 7th place.
Nothing to see here...move along.
Edit: BTW, you might check and see if the reason they were dropped is because they sold of a huge chunk of Spansion this last quarter (dropping their overall chipmaker marketshare).
They sold off close to half of their ownership in Spansion last quarter (~10% of the company).
BTW, since they sold at a loss, that was $120 million of their Q3 loss...
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
I'm not sure. If that's true, I guess it's no big deal.
Who said anything about processors?
I love the way that you say I'm merely speculating, yet your numbers make it look even more dire than I thought it would be. Good info, though. Also, Intel has made huge gains in the server sector of late, not just in the mobile sector. That has been AMD's bread and butter since the Opteron debuted, and is much more important to their success than how well their Turions sell.
My understanding was that they hit the top 10 for the first time in Q4 of 2006 at #7, then fell to #8 at the end of Q1 07...
This was due to ATI and Spansion ownership (as you said).
Edit: Correcting myself here...
I had forgotten that this was iSuppli...they publish Revenue Share numbers, not unit Market Share.
Spansion won't have made a difference as far as Revenue Share goes because AMD's ownership is less than 50%.
AFAIK iSuppli's numbers started treating Spansion as a separate entity in 2005, when Spansion went public.
You were just speculating; where you were jumping to conclusions, I went to the actual numbers. AMD's revenues are substantially down for 2007, but their drop in iSuppli's rankings is not sufficient basis to conclude that is so. You have to look at their reported revenues instead of just jumping to OMGZORZ conclusions.
And again, mobile is important to Intel's revenues staying on course. IIRC, something like 1/3 of Intel's 2006 revenues were from the mobile sector in one form or another. Intel has taken back market share in the server space over the last year, but that market does not have near the growth potential that mobile does.
Almost...Spansion went public in the middle of Dec 05, so it didn't effect the iSuppli list until Q1 06. The IPO is indeed when AMD's stake dropped from 60% to 40% (so they could take it off the books as part of AMD). At the time though, Spansion was losing money...
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
So, you're speculating that I was speculating. How quaint. You do realize that we don't always provide a link to every conclusion that we draw, don't you? Or do you have a link, proving that I was speculating?:laugh:
That's because Intel owns the mobile market. In the past year, AMD has gained 3% more marketshare in the mobile market, yet have lost more than 10% of their marketshare in the server market:
Now, which processor do you think either company makes more profit from, these two, or these two? BTW, what does potential have to do with lost or gained sales? I mean, I have the potential to make $500 million this year. Think I will?
Would you prefer I describe your post as "grossly misrepresenting the data you provided"?
Yes, I know...
It has rather a lot to do with long-term revenue trends, which is the context I brought it up in. These kinds of threads are of no value without considering where the market is headed in the future (in which case their value is still the subject of disagreement). Your OP raises the possibility that AMD might go "belly up", and market trends are a massive factor in that.
I mean, I have the potential to make $500 million this year. Think I will?
The odds of the mobile sector continuing to outgrow the desktop and server sectors, especially desktop, are probably somewhere north of 90%. Would you give yourself comparable odds?
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Yes. I wasn't speculating, I was drawing a conclusion from the facts that had been presented to me. If you had different data that you thought I should read, that's a good thing, as long as your sources are credible. Your opinion or description about any of my ~6,300 posts, I honestly could care less about, if you want to know the truth.
Actually, you'll want to reread my OP. I drew no conclusions at all. I merely said that AMD's position looked worse to me than we keep being told.
Got a link for that? I haven't seen any 90% figures quoted anywhere. I can guarantee you though that both AMD and Intel would rather sell 100 million server processors this quarter, than the same amount of Celeron M's and 1.6 Ghz Turions.
I don't think you are following at all.
Suppose I said, "My garbageman wears glasses, and this obviously means that he is an expert in advanced mathematics".
You realize that that is not in fact obvious, and that there are other possible explanations. So you look into it, and find that he actually holds a PhD in mathematics.
Your discovery does not validate my original, bad logic. Although my conclusion was correct, the method was wildly incorrect.
Except the conclusion that this report "obviously means that AMD's sales have dropped off much, much more than we've been led to believe" by whomever, which is the only conclusion that I ascribed to you. Additionally, this statement that you drew no conclusions at all appears to conflict with "You do realize that we don't always provide a link to every conclusion that we draw, don't you?"
This iSuppli report obviously means that the mobile sector will grow much, much faster than the desktop or server sectors. Problem solved.
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
No, I don't think you're following at all. See, because I didn't spend 4 hours tracing down links to everything I've read about AMD in the last month or so, and include links in the OP, does not mean that I can't draw conclusions from what I've read. Get the point yet?
I'd like to hear your logic on this one.Okay, it's going to grow 6% faster. I never said it wouldn't. Now, do you have a link to this over 90% claim, that you so outrageously made? BTW, you never answered my claim that both AMD and Intel would much rather sell server processors, than laptop processors. Was that because you agreed?
People have been predicting the demise of AMD for years on this forum.
AMD is still in business and will be for a long time. Just because they don't sell as many cpu's as Intel, they never have. I don't care what the profit and loss statements say, all of their employees are still getting a paycheck and they managed to purchase ATI.
Give AMD some credit, while they are clearly at a performance disadvantage compared to Intel now, they did spend a couple of years ahead of Intel in that department. Amazing considering the difference between the two companies in resources and overall sales.
AMD is still in business and will be for a long time. Just because they don't sell as many cpu's as Intel, they never have. I don't care what the profit and loss statements say, all of their employees are still getting a paycheck and they managed to purchase ATI.
Give AMD some credit, while they are clearly at a performance disadvantage compared to Intel now, they did spend a couple of years ahead of Intel in that department. Amazing considering the difference between the two companies in resources and overall sales.
Consider re-reading your own OP to look at what you actually said. Particularly note where you indicate that this specific piece of information, not some wholistic evaluation of many things that you have read, "obviously means" something. See if you can trace why this is problematic.
I'm not sure where your obsession with links comes from, as I haven't asked you for any.
"I drew no conclusions at all."
"You do realize that we don't always provide a link to every conclusion that we draw, don't you?"
If the first of these is true, what relevance does the second have to this thread?
For that matter, in that context, why say that something "does not mean that I can't draw conclusions from what I've read"? You seem to be in disagreement with yourself over whether or not you have drawn any conclusions, for whatever reason. It just seems odd.
That claim is supported by the iSuppli numbers just as well as the one in your OP. I don't know where you got 6% from, or even what time period that is in reference to. Amusingly, your phrasing implies 100% confidence (and of something much more specific than "this thing will grow faster than these other things"), which is well above 90%.
Incidentally, I'm getting the impression that you misread what I said on this pretty drastically, so you may wish to reread it more carefully.
Your claim was that they would rather sell server processors than low-end mobile processors. I feel that my response to this non sequitur was appropriate.
If you wish to have the last word, consider this your opportunity.
- Jun 21, 2003
- 9,291
- 30
- 91
Yeah, I've traced why it's problematic for you. You're trying to prove that I claimed AMD was going to go bankrupt, when I didn't. I can see that causing you problems.
Actually, the only link which provided actual numbers, this one, and it says this:
Leading the growth surge was increased demand for laptop processors, which jumped by 26.6 per cent in the quarter.
Oh, and I got the 6% number from the same place you got the >90% number, obviously: I simply made it up.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
AMD has been at the front and back many times. They are well diversified so I feel they will survive as long as they decide too.
I don't play fanboi, I have used Intel, Cyrix, AMD throughout my PC days (and even others in my Apple days in the 80's)
Today's best bet in a new system is with Intel, but for many an AMD chip will extend the life of their current rigs for a lot less money and time.
I don't play fanboi, I have used Intel, Cyrix, AMD throughout my PC days (and even others in my Apple days in the 80's)
Today's best bet in a new system is with Intel, but for many an AMD chip will extend the life of their current rigs for a lot less money and time.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter