AMD must double processor market share to survive

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
"Advanced Micro Devices needs to more than double its share of the microprocessor market to survive, according to a brief filed by the company's lawyers in its antitrust lawsuit against Intel. "

Inforworld article.
 

Extelleron

Diamond Member
Dec 26, 2005
3,127
0
71
That's not going to be easy unless AMD starts producing faster processors with better performance per watt and price/performance.

C2D came at exactly the wrong time for AMD; they were just beginning to acheive significant OEM support and were increasing market share, and then suddenly that evaporated in the summer of 2006. They went from having not nearly enough production to support the great demand for their processors to having excess production (Fab 36 isn't at 100% and Fab 38 is just sitting idle) with subpar demand. That's probably the number one problem with AMD right now. They have way more infastructure than they need to support their current business; they easily have the production resources for 2x what they produce now, but most of that is sitting idle and wasting money.

I'm sure Asset Light will do something with that, but who knows what exactly.

 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Take it with a grain of salt, since the context is an antitrust complaint.

Intel and its partners have treated AMD somewhat unfairly, but this is not a strong scapegoat for all of the company's woes, nor an overwhelming reason for it to be in danger of going out of business.
 

Andrew1990

Banned
Mar 8, 2008
2,155
0
0
Couldn't AMD just use FAB 38 to produce graphics chips? Usually ATI/AMD has a paper launch with a lot of their products. Couldnt they just mass produce the chips and overwhelm Nvidia with production numbers and lower cost?
 

CTho9305

Elite Member
Jul 26, 2000
9,214
1
81
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Couldn't AMD just use FAB 38 to produce graphics chips? Usually ATI/AMD has a paper launch with a lot of their products. Couldnt they just mass produce the chips and overwhelm Nvidia with production numbers and lower cost?

Take a look at this thread
 

Phynaz

Lifer
Mar 13, 2006
10,140
819
126
Originally posted by: Viditor
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...


You must have read a different article, because the article I linked to says no such thing.

Please don't hijack my thread, you can create another to talk about potential judgements.

Thanks.

Your posted link in the OP, as sickbeast pointed out, does discuss the antitrust case. Viditors post was on topic. You need to relax a bit more when you see a Viditor post. Don't fly off the handle and call him a hijacker. Put your personal issues aside, and discuss the subject matter ONLY. -Thanks

Anandtech Moderator - Keysplayr2003
 

SickBeast

Lifer
Jul 21, 2000
14,377
19
81
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Originally posted by: Viditor
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...


You must have read a different article, because the article I linked to says no such thing.

Please don't hijack my thread, you can create another to talk about potential judgements.

Thanks.
Actually your article does discuss then antitrust case:

The argument that Intel's alleged anti-competitive behavior has so hurt AMD that its future is in jeopardy is crucial to the company's claims for relief, including damages.

:beer:
 

Syzygies

Senior member
Mar 7, 2008
229
0
0
Originally posted by: Phynaz
Please don't hijack my thread, you can create another to talk about potential judgements.
Isn't starting a thread like having a kid? (only much easier): you'll always be surprised how they turn out...
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Viditor
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...

AMD's lawyers are being very very clever with how they are spinning this weave.

And yes it is in this very same cleverness that is at the heart of the anti-trust lawsuit and these "survival" market share numbers are coming together.

You see this, I see it in your post, putting these two's and two's together.

It reminds me of that period in 1997 when Intel wanted some DEC IP but the DOJ nixxed the sell (for anti-trust reasons) so Intel and DEC sued/counter-sued each other over some inrelated issues and viola what do you know they settled out of court and Intel's settlement was to receive the very IP from DEC they attempted to purchase. They were crafty, Intel and DEC getting around the DOJ that way...and AMD is getting crafty here too, I see it now.

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Couldn't AMD just use FAB 38 to produce graphics chips? Usually ATI/AMD has a paper launch with a lot of their products. Couldnt they just mass produce the chips and overwhelm Nvidia with production numbers and lower cost?

Take a look at this thread

I loved that article you wrote as the OP.

That it got so few posts is a testament to how dead-on the contents were (no one had anything to "correct"), too bad it never got stickied as it certainly elevated the average thread IQ in the forum for that period when it was on the 1st page.
 

euroxracer

Junior Member
Apr 30, 2008
15
0
0
well since ati is losing to nvidia and amd is losing to intel, they just arent in a good situation right now. even tho their spider marketing strategy is good, nvidia has the same hybrid sli. so they better come up with something that nvidia cant counter. though im a nvidia fan

sad to see so many threads on intel and barely anything on amd cept how crappy they are doing
 

Viditor

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 1999
3,290
0
0
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Viditor
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...

AMD's lawyers are being very very clever with how they are spinning this weave.

And yes it is in this very same cleverness that is at the heart of the anti-trust lawsuit and these "survival" market share numbers are coming together.

You see this, I see it in your post, putting these two's and two's together.

It reminds me of that period in 1997 when Intel wanted some DEC IP but the DOJ nixxed the sell (for anti-trust reasons) so Intel and DEC sued/counter-sued each other over some inrelated issues and viola what do you know they settled out of court and Intel's settlement was to receive the very IP from DEC they attempted to purchase. They were crafty, Intel and DEC getting around the DOJ that way...and AMD is getting crafty here too, I see it now.

Interesting analogy...

One thing I find very telling is that AMD has moved past trying to prove their case, it seems they think it's almost a given that they will win. They now appear to be focusing on setting things up for a very high settlement amount.
When the suit was first announced, Wells Fargo Securities predicted that AMD would receive a ~$4 Billion settlement from Intel...I wonder where their estimates are now?

Originally posted by: CTho9305
Originally posted by: Andrew1990
Couldn't AMD just use FAB 38 to produce graphics chips? Usually ATI/AMD has a paper launch with a lot of their products. Couldnt they just mass produce the chips and overwhelm Nvidia with production numbers and lower cost?

Take a look at this thread

I loved that article you wrote as the OP.

That it got so few posts is a testament to how dead-on the contents were (no one had anything to "correct"), too bad it never got stickied as it certainly elevated the average thread IQ in the forum for that period when it was on the 1st page.
[/quote]

+1
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,949
3
76
They could rent out FAB38 to garage bands, maybe? Just put up some partitions and you're ready to go.
 

Dadofamunky

Platinum Member
Jan 4, 2005
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: Viditor
What the article is talking about is that Intel (if found guilty) is going to be paying AMD a LOT of money...
If the judge accepts that statement, then a $60 Billion judgement would not be out of line.

Of course I don't expect the judge to accept it, and I expect the judgement to be closer to $5-10 Billion...

Antitrust? Under the Bush Administration???

:confused: :disgust: :laugh:
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Extelleron
That's not going to be easy unless AMD starts producing faster processors with better performance per watt and price/performance.

C2D came at exactly the wrong time for AMD; they were just beginning to acheive significant OEM support and were increasing market share, and then suddenly that evaporated in the summer of 2006.

Not too mention the G80 in Nov'06, hot on the heals of C2D in June'06.

Having the R600 and Phenom turn out as late and underperforming as they did was a double-strike.

Originally posted by: Extelleron
They went from having not nearly enough production to support the great demand for their processors to having excess production (Fab 36 isn't at 100% and Fab 38 is just sitting idle) with subpar demand. That's probably the number one problem with AMD right now. They have way more infastructure than they need to support their current business; they easily have the production resources for 2x what they produce now, but most of that is sitting idle and wasting money.

I'm sure Asset Light will do something with that, but who knows what exactly.

The AMD fans aren't going to like my analogy here but this is exactly what happened to Texas Instruments in 2007. We had 300mm RFAB sitting empty (no tools for 3 years), and KFAB amd DM6 were not loaded very well. 65nm had been out for nearly 18months and practically no one was buying them.

Then management said "that's it, we're done, close KFAB, shut down R&D, we are going fabless for CMOS and we'll keep a couple fabs around for making analog still". And the plans have been underway to shift all CMOS production to the foundries.

AMD sitting where they are, looking at fabless and happy Nvidia, being told by their ATi guys how well it worked for them to be fabless too...and you can bet they (BOD, shareholders, executive management) would be happy to make a profit just selling GPU's fabbed at TSMC at this point in time...
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Dumb question, but I have to ask: Why is AMD building another Fab in New York if there's already an unused one?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,095
513
126
Originally posted by: Foxery
Dumb question, but I have to ask: Why is AMD building another Fab in New York if there's already an unused one?

Often the fabs themselves are end of lifed by process changes. Apparently it is cheaper to build a new fab than to upgrade the equipment in an existing fab.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Foxery
Dumb question, but I have to ask: Why is AMD building another Fab in New York if there's already an unused one?

Simple answer is that they aren't building the fab in NY.

The whole media affair with the idea, including romancing NY's politicians into getting supporting funding, is merely good management at work generating options and open doors for the future.

Has phenom been a hit, and had the R600 been crazy profitible then AMD would have needed major 45nm capacity to supply their 30% market share volumes.

Preparing for this possibility in advance, AMD management intelligently sought out and secured as much leverage and subsidizes as possible for their capacity expansion opportunities.

Even if they do break ground and build the fab shell (costs around $250M to do that) then the fab shell can sit empty and mothballed for a decade or more without a single wafer being produced.

Texas Instrument's first 300mm fab (DM6) sat as an empty shell for nearly 3 years. Their second 300mm fab, RFAB, was built some 4 years ago and sits empty still...and that was after TI convinced the state of Texas to subsidize it with $50M to build the fab.

AMD won't do anything with the fab option in NY other than peddle PR to the media to keep hope alive. This is SOP for this part of the fab business.
 

jdkick

Senior member
Feb 8, 2006
601
1
81
I'm doing my part... we're refreshing one of our computer labs this summer using AMD-based (4000+ X2) business desktops vs our standard Intel C2D config. :)
 

Foxery

Golden Member
Jan 24, 2008
1,709
0
0
Ah, I didn't realize the NY Fab was only a "maybe." In fact, now I see why their stock is up this week - the rumor mill thinks they might save money by going fabless.

The ArsTechnica writeup on the lawsuit has some interesting tidbits, too. (Link) The response from Intel's lawyers made my eyes pop out. This is worth quoting:

"Its [AMD] brief period of a computing performance advantage with the Opteron microprocessor cannot mask AMD's historical and current position as a laggard in computing performance, its consistent record of failing to offer suitable solutions to corporate customers, or competitive products for the notebook (or mobile) market segment, and finally its well deserved reputation for unreliability, among other deficiencies."

The emphasis is mine. Is Intel antagonizing AMD over the TLB Bug, or am I severely missing something about AMD's "reliability?" And the remark about corporate solutions seems completely off-base. Opteron servers are fantastic.

As if this weren't bad enough already, our inefficient legal system has set a court date 11 months from now (nevermind the length of actual proceedings) when AMD claims to be dying. (An exaggeration by the legal team, but still...)
 

magreen

Golden Member
Dec 27, 2006
1,309
1
81
Let's say AMD is awarded some huge figure like $20 billion. Can they catch up to Intel?

It seems like they haven't had money to do big league RnD (Intel scale) for certainly 2 years, but probably more like 5. They're behind in manufacturing by a generation, and two generations in design, it seems to me.

Can throwing money at them change anything long term to make them competitive with Intel?

(And hey, if I'm wrong on any of my assumptions here I'll be happy to hear it... I'll learn something either way.)
 

magreen

Golden Member
Dec 27, 2006
1,309
1
81
I'm assuming that RnD is cumulative, i.e. that in building the latest and greatest chip a company is drawing on most all of its years in RnD, not just the last 4 years. So Intel in building the C2D drew on decades of RnD, not just the RnD done during the P4 era. And so if AMD missed out on the last X years of RnD they'd have to not just be funded to do big league RnD now, but they'd have to make up for the years of RnD they missed.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: Foxery
The emphasis is mine. Is Intel antagonizing AMD over the TLB Bug, or am I severely missing something about AMD's "reliability?" And the remark about corporate solutions seems completely off-base. Opteron servers are fantastic.

As if this weren't bad enough already, our inefficient legal system has set a court date 11 months from now (nevermind the length of actual proceedings) when AMD claims to be dying. (An exaggeration by the legal team, but still...)

I believe the "reliability" to which they are referring is not one of the CPU's functionality (bugs, etc) but more to the company's productization management not being consistent (i.e. unreliable) in their approach to the various market segments and supply channels therein.

Consider the business quarter in which AMD finally got DELL to sign up...and AMD proceeded to shat all over their distribution channels for the next 90-120days.

That is an unreliable management team making decisions in an erratic and inconsistent fashion...and if you are relying on AMD to be consistent with their supplies, roadmaps, and market segments (skt939, quadfather, etc) then you MUST take the performance record into consideration...and at this time calling AMD's productization group "unreliable" is more flattering than how I would phrase it.
 

golem

Senior member
Oct 6, 2000
838
3
76
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Foxery
The emphasis is mine. Is Intel antagonizing AMD over the TLB Bug, or am I severely missing something about AMD's "reliability?" And the remark about corporate solutions seems completely off-base. Opteron servers are fantastic.

As if this weren't bad enough already, our inefficient legal system has set a court date 11 months from now (nevermind the length of actual proceedings) when AMD claims to be dying. (An exaggeration by the legal team, but still...)

I believe the "reliability" to which they are referring is not one of the CPU's functionality (bugs, etc) but more to the company's productization management not being consistent (i.e. unreliable) in their approach to the various market segments and supply channels therein.

Consider the business quarter in which AMD finally got DELL to sign up...and AMD proceeded to shat all over their distribution channels for the next 90-120days.

That is an unreliable management team making decisions in an erratic and inconsistent fashion...and if you are relying on AMD to be consistent with their supplies, roadmaps, and market segments (skt939, quadfather, etc) then you MUST take the performance record into consideration...and at this time calling AMD's productization group "unreliable" is more flattering than how I would phrase it.

+1. That was my take on how Intel's lawyers used the term "reliablity" too. For the most part, I agree. When AMD had the performance crown, they basically sold every chip they could make. To supply someone like Dell or HP, they would have had to shift chips away from other customers.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,118
58
91
Originally posted by: magreen
Let's say AMD is awarded some huge figure like $20 billion. Can they catch up to Intel?

Not likely, and if I were a shareholder and AMD did score $20B from Intel then I'd be pissed as hell if that was how they chose to spend the money.

For the love of god there are soooo many other ways to turn $20B investment into $40B in a few years...pissing it away by trying to do it in the semiconductor industry is just silly.

If AMD get's $20B (or some other many-billion dollar figure) I sure hope they invest it wisely into making themselves the leader in some other business segment which isn't capital intensive. Like what IBM has been doing these past 2 decades.

AMD needs to go fabless and learn to make products that are simply "good enough" while having profits for a few years in a row. No one looks down on low-tech but profitable company like BIC (ballpoint pens, shavers, notepads).