AMD in peril?

[FilmCamera]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: KLin

Originally posted by: Aimster
well worst case scenario, someone will buy them out. Someone with lots of excess cash on their hands.

Say hello to GoogleCPU :laugh:

Advanced Microsoft Devices

Oh god...now the CPU will blue screen before your computer even is able to POST.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: FoBoT

Originally posted by: Hyperlite

Originally posted by: FoBoT
i got one of those 65 nm x2 cpu thingys for my daughters computer

oh yeah? hows that thingy workin for ya?

super, she really like her new computer

i had some trouble with the RAM, i have to run it slower than it was supposed to be able to work at

You'll want to raise the voltage on that.

i tried that and vista still crashed, so then i slowed it down and moved the sticks in different slots <shrugs> it doesn't crash now

 

[RU482]

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
LINK

Future doesn't look good for AMD if they don't get something out there on the market soon. =/

I can't tell you how many times I've seen this posted since I joined this forum 7 years ago...yet they're still here

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: DigitalCancer
LINK

Future doesn't look good for AMD if they don't get something out there on the market soon. =/

Guess they shouldn't have bought out ATI, lol. I hope they pull through though, surely they'll find a way.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Intel will not let AMD die. Intel needs AMD to keep the feds off their case. Even if they lose the ongoing court battle, it's small stuff compared to what they may be faced with if AMD goes under.

 

[Chaotic42]

Edit: Wrong thread

 

[DigitalCancer]

yea, i hope AMD doesn't go out. I know they won't anyhow. ^_^

Intel is what i am now. Went from a 2400+ to a 64 3200+ - 3700+ - and now i'm w/ an E6400 (damn, i went to the other side). =/

 

[tfinch2]

I'm about to apply at AMD.

 

[Ricochet]

AMD got pummeled again today. Geez, to buy or not to buy?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
more than 70% of all mergers fail to deliver shareholder value. I doubt a perennial f-up like amd is going to beat the odds.

a lbo would be the best thing that could happen to them. fire the moronic board, axe half of their execs and pump r&d.

i don't think negative EBITDA companies are LOBable

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: AndrewR
What I find amusing is that AMD was taking market share from Intel very consistently, which had never really happened before. They are finally in with one of the largest OEMs, Dell, and made serious in-roads into the market which has the highest profit margins, servers. Yet, when the tech lead went back to Intel (which they previously ALWAYS had anyway), the doom and gloom predictions come out for AMD. Wall Street, and consequently American business, is so short-sighted it's deplorable.

US auto industry: "Let's make outrageous concessions to the UAW to keep them working on a short term basis. We'll worry about the debilitating effects later." Guess what's happening now?

Barcelona should be good for AMD. Once they integrate ATI, they'll have an even better position to compete with Intel. One fairly short term, one longer term.

It damn well better come back as I have money in them.

It's not that hard to get "market share" if you are cutting prices on your chip to sell at a loss (see loss leader). Problem is that the Corporation as a whole is taking huge losses and is burning cash like a dot com back in 2000. They took out HUGE debt to buy ATI and now that they lost their performance leadership to C2D, their more profitable "high end chips" are now low/mid end not as profitable price cutted chips.

AMD is praying right now their new chips will beat C2D. If it doesn't, Wall Street will murder the stock.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: ricochet
AMD got pummeled again today. Geez, to buy or not to buy?

i'll be willing to gamble at 11-12 down to 9 and cut my losses at 6.

 

[Luthien]

oh, boy I hope they don't fail. Would be horrible. We would be back to slower cpu upgrades and the cost for a $50 cpu today would be $500 tommorrow. Would be very very bad for the consumer.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Luthien
oh, boy I hope they don't fail. Would be horrible. We would be back to slower cpu upgrades and the cost for a $50 cpu today would be $500 tommorrow. Would be very very bad for the consumer.

amd likely to cut prices april 9

 

[Ronin]

Originally posted by: LegendKiller
more than 70% of all mergers fail to deliver shareholder value. I doubt a perennial f-up like amd is going to beat the odds.

a lbo would be the best thing that could happen to them. fire the moronic board, axe half of their execs and pump r&d.

Yeah, perennial F-ups. You know, like producing lower cost, better performing CPUs for generation upon generation over Intel until the C2D.

Tell me, do you really know anything about the CPU market at all and its history?

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: Luthien
oh, boy I hope they don't fail. Would be horrible. We would be back to slower cpu upgrades and the cost for a $50 cpu today would be $500 tommorrow. Would be very very bad for the consumer.

Lets see what that statement implies:
1) Moore's law didn't work back before AMD was a power.
2) Intel always had pricy chips.
3) A duopoly is much better than a monopoly.

Lets get back to reality with some rebuttals.
1) Moore's law worked just well before AMD was a significant player. Heck, if you look just after the 486 (when AMD became significant), Intel actually slowed down. Yep, with AMD Intel was slower than before AMD.

2) Some price data.
[*]1974: Intel's first general purpose microprocessor the 8080 at $395. AMD market share: 0%.
[*]1982: 286-6 MHz: $360. AMD market share: not much more than 0%.
[*]1985: 386-16MHz: $299. AMD market share: ???.
[*]1988: 386SX-16MHz: $219. AMD market share: ???.

Lets see, what was happening to Intel prices before AMD was a major player? Oh yeah, <$500 and dropping with each new generation release. Now AMD became a major player and what happened?

[*]1989: 486-25MHz: $900.
[*]1991: AMD announces 30% market share.
[*]1993: Pentium-66MHz: $964.
[*]1996: Pentium-200MHz: $599. AMD market share: 12%.
[*]1997: Pentium 2-233 MHz: $636, 300 MHz ($1981) Ouch, AMD is in full swing with its K5/K6 processors and Intel's prices are skyrocketting. AMD market share: ~10%.
[*]1999: P3 - 500 MHz to 733 MHz: $239 to $776. AMD market share: 14%.
[*]2000: Athlon does well, hits 1 GHz: $1299. P3-933 MHz: $794. AMD market share: 16%.

A year later prices finally plummet (after the crash of the Internet and Computer stocks).

[*]2001: P4-1.7 GHz $352. AMD market share: 20%.
[*]2002: P4-3.06 GHz $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2003: P4-3.2 GHz HT: $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2004: P4-3.6 GHz: $637. AMD market share: 16%.
[*]2005: Pendium D-3.4 GHz: $637.
[*]2006: Core 2 Duo-2.66 GHz: $530.

I listed the top consumer processor at the time, usually at the major new feature releases. As you can see, the price did fluctuate, but the fluctuations really didn't have any correlation like you implied. When AMD gained market share around 1990, prices INCREASED for both companies. When AMD lost market share in the late 1990s, prices DECREASED (save for the P2-300 MHz beast). Only once the stock market crash (in 2001 no one needed computers because they just bought them for the y2k problem a year ago), did prices fall significantly. And they have been steady since. Steady whether AMD is in the CPU speed lead and steady whether Intel is in the CPU speed lead.

3) I'm bored of typing, read about the result of a duopoly. It isn't much better than a monopoly.

 

[andylawcc]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Luthien
oh, boy I hope they don't fail. Would be horrible. We would be back to slower cpu upgrades and the cost for a $50 cpu today would be $500 tommorrow. Would be very very bad for the consumer.

Lets see what that statement implies:
1) Moore's law didn't work back before AMD was a power.
2) Intel always had pricy chips.
3) A duopoly is much better than a monopoly.

Lets get back to reality with some rebuttals.
1) Moore's law worked just well before AMD was a significant player. Heck, if you look just after the 486 (when AMD became significant), Intel actually slowed down. Yep, with AMD Intel was slower than before AMD.

2) Some price data.
[*]1974: Intel's first general purpose microprocessor the 8080 at $395. AMD market share: 0%.
[*]1982: 286-6 MHz: $360. AMD market share: not much more than 0%.
[*]1985: 386-16MHz: $299. AMD market share: ???.
[*]1988: 386SX-16MHz: $219. AMD market share: ???.

Lets see, what was happening to Intel prices before AMD was a major player? Oh yeah, <$500 and dropping with each new generation release. Now AMD became a major player and what happened?

[*]1989: 486-25MHz: $900.
[*]1991: AMD announces 30% market share.
[*]1993: Pentium-66MHz: $964.
[*]1996: Pentium-200MHz: $599. AMD market share: 12%.
[*]1997: Pentium 2-233 MHz: $636, 300 MHz ($1981) Ouch, AMD is in full swing with its K5/K6 processors and Intel's prices are skyrocketting. AMD market share: ~10%.
[*]1999: P3 - 500 MHz to 733 MHz: $239 to $776. AMD market share: 14%.
[*]2000: Athlon does well, hits 1 GHz: $1299. P3-933 MHz: $794. AMD market share: 16%.

A year later prices finally plummet (after the crash of the Internet and Computer stocks).

[*]2001: P4-1.7 GHz $352. AMD market share: 20%.
[*]2002: P4-3.06 GHz $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2003: P4-3.2 GHz HT: $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2004: P4-3.6 GHz: $637. AMD market share: 16%.
[*]2005: Pendium D-3.4 GHz: $637.
[*]2006: Core 2 Duo-2.66 GHz: $530.

I listed the top consumer processor at the time, usually at the major new feature releases. As you can see, the price did fluctuate, but the fluctuations really didn't have any correlation like you implied. When AMD gained market share around 1990, prices INCREASED for both companies. When AMD lost market share in the late 1990s, prices DECREASED (save for the P2-300 MHz beast). Only once the stock market crash (in 2001 no one needed computers because they just bought them for the y2k problem a year ago), did prices fall significantly. And they have been steady since. Steady whether AMD is in the CPU speed lead and steady whether Intel is in the CPU speed lead.

3) I'm bored of typing, read about the result of a duopoly. It isn't much better than a monopoly.

that's some quality rebuttal right there.

 

[natep]

I did notice on the latest Vista commercial that I saw, an AMD logo was in the bottom corner. Not sure if that will change things too much.

 

[jpeyton]

Peril? Doom?

Nah.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: andylawcc

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Luthien
oh, boy I hope they don't fail. Would be horrible. We would be back to slower cpu upgrades and the cost for a $50 cpu today would be $500 tommorrow. Would be very very bad for the consumer.

Lets see what that statement implies:
1) Moore's law didn't work back before AMD was a power.
2) Intel always had pricy chips.
3) A duopoly is much better than a monopoly.

Lets get back to reality with some rebuttals.
1) Moore's law worked just well before AMD was a significant player. Heck, if you look just after the 486 (when AMD became significant), Intel actually slowed down. Yep, with AMD Intel was slower than before AMD.

2) Some price data.
[*]1974: Intel's first general purpose microprocessor the 8080 at $395. AMD market share: 0%.
[*]1982: 286-6 MHz: $360. AMD market share: not much more than 0%.
[*]1985: 386-16MHz: $299. AMD market share: ???.
[*]1988: 386SX-16MHz: $219. AMD market share: ???.

Lets see, what was happening to Intel prices before AMD was a major player? Oh yeah, <$500 and dropping with each new generation release. Now AMD became a major player and what happened?

[*]1989: 486-25MHz: $900.
[*]1991: AMD announces 30% market share.
[*]1993: Pentium-66MHz: $964.
[*]1996: Pentium-200MHz: $599. AMD market share: 12%.
[*]1997: Pentium 2-233 MHz: $636, 300 MHz ($1981) Ouch, AMD is in full swing with its K5/K6 processors and Intel's prices are skyrocketting. AMD market share: ~10%.
[*]1999: P3 - 500 MHz to 733 MHz: $239 to $776. AMD market share: 14%.
[*]2000: Athlon does well, hits 1 GHz: $1299. P3-933 MHz: $794. AMD market share: 16%.

A year later prices finally plummet (after the crash of the Internet and Computer stocks).

[*]2001: P4-1.7 GHz $352. AMD market share: 20%.
[*]2002: P4-3.06 GHz $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2003: P4-3.2 GHz HT: $637. AMD market share: 15%.
[*]2004: P4-3.6 GHz: $637. AMD market share: 16%.
[*]2005: Pendium D-3.4 GHz: $637.
[*]2006: Core 2 Duo-2.66 GHz: $530.

I listed the top consumer processor at the time, usually at the major new feature releases. As you can see, the price did fluctuate, but the fluctuations really didn't have any correlation like you implied. When AMD gained market share around 1990, prices INCREASED for both companies. When AMD lost market share in the late 1990s, prices DECREASED (save for the P2-300 MHz beast). Only once the stock market crash (in 2001 no one needed computers because they just bought them for the y2k problem a year ago), did prices fall significantly. And they have been steady since. Steady whether AMD is in the CPU speed lead and steady whether Intel is in the CPU speed lead.

3) I'm bored of typing, read about the result of a duopoly. It isn't much better than a monopoly.

that's some quality rebuttal right there.

don't expect anything less from dullard

 

[dullard]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: andylawcc
that's some quality rebuttal right there.

don't expect anything less from dullard

Glad the two of you liked it. I've been thinking about making a post like that for ~6 years (even before I joined Anandtech). I've written a paragraph response here or there, but I never did put all the data together in one post. Maybe one day, I'll find more AMD market share data and plot AMD market share vs Intel's top chip price. But that day will have to wait, as it took long enough to find that data.

I have done similar posts regarding AMD's quarterly profits. So many years went by and AMD had a quarterly loss after quarterly loss. AMD finally hits a few homeruns with their products recently and the stock soared. But in the end, AMD can only profit in those hit years. Intel profits in all years, good or bad. Thus, I like JS80's response to AndrewR. But you didn't go far enough. It isn't that Wall Street will murder a good stock based on one fluke bad year. Instead, Wall Street will put a stock back to the sub $12 range it has repeatedly visited based on many years of losses. It was a fluke that AMD made money and its stock soared in that fluke time. AMD is just now returning to its normal situation of losing money and a low stock price.

AMD makes good products. AMD doesn't make good profits. Tech people tend to confuse those two statements.

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: andylawcc
that's some quality rebuttal right there.

don't expect anything less from dullard

Glad the two of you liked it. I've been thinking about making a post like that for ~6 years (even before I joined Anandtech). I've written a paragraph response here or there, but I never did put all the data together in one post. Maybe one day, I'll find more AMD market share data and plot AMD market share vs Intel's top chip price. But that day will have to wait, as it took long enough to find that data.

I have done similar posts regarding AMD's quarterly profits. So many years went by and AMD had a quarterly loss after quarterly loss. AMD finally hits a few homeruns with their products recently and the stock soared. But in the end, AMD can only profit in those hit years. Intel profits in all years, good or bad. Thus, I like LS80's response to AndrewR. But you didn't go far enough. It isn't that Wall Street will murder a good stock based on one fluke bad year. Instead, Wall Street will put a stock back to the sub $12 range it has repeatedly visited based on many years of losses. It was a fluke that AMD made money and its stock soared in that fluke time. AMD is just now returning to its normal situation of losing money and a low stock price.

AMD makes good products. AMD doesn't make good profits. Tech people tend to confuse those two statements.

 

[Special K]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: andylawcc
that's some quality rebuttal right there.

don't expect anything less from dullard

Glad the two of you liked it. I've been thinking about making a post like that for ~6 years (even before I joined Anandtech). I've written a paragraph response here or there, but I never did put all the data together in one post. Maybe one day, I'll find more AMD market share data and plot AMD market share vs Intel's top chip price. But that day will have to wait, as it took long enough to find that data.

I have done similar posts regarding AMD's quarterly profits. So many years went by and AMD had a quarterly loss after quarterly loss. AMD finally hits a few homeruns with their products recently and the stock soared. But in the end, AMD can only profit in those hit years. Intel profits in all years, good or bad. Thus, I like LS80's response to AndrewR. But you didn't go far enough. It isn't that Wall Street will murder a good stock based on one fluke bad year. Instead, Wall Street will put a stock back to the sub $12 range it has repeatedly visited based on many years of losses. It was a fluke that AMD made money and its stock soared in that fluke time. AMD is just now returning to its normal situation of losing money and a low stock price.

AMD makes good products. AMD doesn't make good profits. Tech people tend to confuse those two statements.

Why can they not sell enough to turn a profit, while Intel can? Is it true that AMD doesn't have enough fabs to meet demand? Does the public still have some conception that AMD doesn't make quality products?

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: Special K

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: andylawcc
that's some quality rebuttal right there.

don't expect anything less from dullard

Glad the two of you liked it. I've been thinking about making a post like that for ~6 years (even before I joined Anandtech). I've written a paragraph response here or there, but I never did put all the data together in one post. Maybe one day, I'll find more AMD market share data and plot AMD market share vs Intel's top chip price. But that day will have to wait, as it took long enough to find that data.

I have done similar posts regarding AMD's quarterly profits. So many years went by and AMD had a quarterly loss after quarterly loss. AMD finally hits a few homeruns with their products recently and the stock soared. But in the end, AMD can only profit in those hit years. Intel profits in all years, good or bad. Thus, I like LS80's response to AndrewR. But you didn't go far enough. It isn't that Wall Street will murder a good stock based on one fluke bad year. Instead, Wall Street will put a stock back to the sub $12 range it has repeatedly visited based on many years of losses. It was a fluke that AMD made money and its stock soared in that fluke time. AMD is just now returning to its normal situation of losing money and a low stock price.

AMD makes good products. AMD doesn't make good profits. Tech people tend to confuse those two statements.

Why can they not sell enough to turn a profit, while Intel can? Is it true that AMD doesn't have enough fabs to meet demand? Does the public still have some conception that AMD doesn't make quality products?

I heard somewhere AMD's distribution channel is a mess.

The primary reason they cannot turn a profit is the price war that they wage to gain "market share" at the same time taking huge cuts to gross margin while pumping tons of cash into R&D to attempt to stay ahead of intel along with the payments required on the new debt they incurred acquiring ATI killing shareholder value.

Other than that, yea AMD makes quality products.

 

[darkxshade]

They really shot themself on the foot with the ATI deal.

 

[SolMiester]

Originally posted by: darkxshade
They really shot themself on the foot with the ATI deal.

Quite right, fancy buying a lame duck...pfffh