AMD Q3 results: even worse than revised expectations

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
so...INTEL payed 1 billion + free license, because of PR?

yeah, right :rolleyes:

I know you dont like it. But I proved to you now that AMD couldnt deliver when they got the deals. In other words, capacity contrained. Then you can claim and say whatever, it doesnt change that fact.

AMD can only blame itself.
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
I know you dont like it. But I proved to you now that AMD couldnt deliver when they got the deals. In other words, capacity contrained. Then you can claim and say whatever, it doesnt change that fact.

AMD can only blame itself.

WHAT?
i didn't deny that they couldnt deliver...it's a fact

what i am saying, is that when they could, nobody accepted, even for free
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
WHAT?
i didn't deny that they couldnt deliver...it's a fact

what i am saying, is that when they could, nobody accepted, even for free

When could they deliver? And when was it "free"? It sure wasnt 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006. When was it? And where was those CPUs free? Was it free as in really free. Or was it you get 1 mio free CPUs if you sign this contract to take 10million CPUs.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
You didnt answer the question.

Lets try again:
my google skills are really bad...
In the 48-page filing, which has an exasperated tone, AMD highlights its efforts — most of which it claims were rebuffed — to persuade major original equipment manufacturers to use its processors. For instance, when AMD offered HP, the biggest computer maker in the world, a million processors for free, HP took only 160,000, said AMD.

http://www.zdnet.com/amd-sues-intel-3039205918/

too bad, i can't find the 48 page pdf (from 2005)... only the 2009 lawsuit :(
 

Final8ty

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2007
1,172
13
81
Thats abit of a myth. AMD was capacity constrained. Meaning they couldnt make more CPUs than they did. And also why they priced their CPUs as they did. Its not for fun AMD did a what? 75% total pricecut after Core 2?

Maybe you forgot the prices 11 months before Core 2 hit:
Athlon 64 X2 3800+ $354
Athlon 64 X2 4200+ $482
Athlon 64 X2 4400+ $537
Athlon 64 X2 4600+ $704
Athlon 64 X2 4800+ $902

All while they were more busy making PDFs like this:
http://shintai.ambition.cz/amd-arrogance.pdf

AMD simply didnt innovate or move anywhere when they had the lead. They just sat back and thought it was a sure win from here without effort.

Yep i always said that they were very complacent back when they had the lead and was squandering, dragging there feet, now look where they are.
 

ocre

Golden Member
Dec 26, 2008
1,594
7
81
AMD was on top of the world selling every chip they could possibly produce. Then management decides that they could sit back and suck in the riches, putting developments off. The pushed and pushed things out. Their internal timelines such as the node shrink to 65nm was pushed out. AMD was swimming in riches and got drunk on the Athlon success. Pushing off development while intel was pouring in the cash in order to be on top.

AMD underestimated their competitor and was quite arrogant. They had great engineers, the best in the world, but sadly they were not in charge. Many many bad choices hurt AMD. Of course, intel didnt help with their actions but people have to understand that intel done extreme things because AMD chips were in such high demand. Intel was trying to offer too good to be true deals because OEMs would rather have AMD chips. This is a massive achievement. But right in the middle of this huge success, management decided to push out future development. It wasnt long before conroe smashed AMD to fragments. Not only was it bad as, intel had a complete node advantage. Had AMD not pushed off their development and node shrink things would be very very different today. Since Conroe, AMD has been way behind. No longer was their huge demands for the much slower AMD processors. No longer did intel have to try to cut deals to be attractive to OEMs.

All of these things go together. This is besides the ATI acquisition which further contributed to AMD woes. AMD didnt think this through. They must have thought that they could just buy graphics and glue them into their chips with ease. But reality is that all of a sudden, AMD riches went to pennies. AMD graphics could not pay for its ATI acquisition (and still hasnt made enough profit for it). So the debt is piling. Their CPUs were struggling to sell. AMD keeps slipping and slipping.

AMD is still struggling. But its not intels, nvidias, or anyones fault. A lot of bad decisions and bad management. Things dont always go as planned and slip ups happen. But this is more like self-mutilation than a random accident. Can we expect it to ever improve? Especially when the same heads that charged them over the cliff are still in control?

For the record, you could not have found a bigger fanboy for AMD than me. But over the years my frustrations have swelled to disgust. My love was for the talent and heart of AMD, but all that is left is the big heads that run them to ruins. Its a sad place in my heart but i cry no more for them.

There was so much going on that.
 

Nemesis 1

Lifer
Dec 30, 2006
11,366
2
0

Only one company makes sense for ATI part of AMD thats intel . That would put NV under hugh pressure as intel process lead would kill anything NV could do on a larger node
 

fastjetdriver

Junior Member
Oct 17, 2012
7
0
0
AMD isn't the only one feeling the burn, just ask Intel. Personally I couldn't work with out a pc, tablets are not for work.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
It is a shame that ATI had to be purchased by AMD. That company could have stood on its own. Instead, AMD bled them dry. This is a sad.
 

ArchAngel777

Diamond Member
Dec 24, 2000
5,223
61
91
AMD isn't the only one feeling the burn, just ask Intel. Personally I couldn't work with out a pc, tablets are not for work.

Didn't Intel just make 3 Billion? Granted the future forecast had 5% drop in revenue, but if they can drop operating costs similar to the revenue drop, they could still be quite profitable.
 

ShintaiDK

Lifer
Apr 22, 2012
20,378
145
106
It is a shame that ATI had to be purchased by AMD. That company could have stood on its own. Instead, AMD bled them dry. This is a sad.

More silly is it that ATI gave AMD about nothing in the end besides debt. The APUs aint exactly exeptional and they was very late. More importantly, a simple sub 250mio R&D could have made a just as good GPU. Or they could simply license one. Using 5.5billion on it was just nuts, specially when the money was dire needed elsewhere
 

krumme

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2009
5,956
1,595
136
Does it matter if they go down? They haven't competed in the $200+ price point for years now.

So the i3 2100 won't get any cheaper... boo hoo.

You cant be over 30 years old :) Some of us could tell you about x86 prices of the 80ies and start of 90ies before the K6 came along. You better start saving boy !
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
More silly is it that ATI gave AMD about nothing in the end besides debt. The APUs aint exactly exeptional and they was very late. More importantly, a simple sub 250mio R&D could have made a just as good GPU. Or they could simply license one. Using 5.5billion on it was just nuts, specially when the money was dire needed elsewhere

indeed, amd and ati should have fused, instead of killing amd
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,147
1,329
126
It's embarrassing reading some posts in this thread of nvidia fanboys tap dancing hoping to see AMD go down.

I'm not really interested in going back to paying $1000 for a decent CPU and $1000 for a top end GPU because Intel and nvidia have no competition any more. I think AMD is hosed though, so it's probably inevitable that CPU prices will wind up going way up to where they were in early 2000s.

The GPU division of AMD puts out far too good a product for that to go by the wayside. They're not just competitive, many times they're on top performance wise, such as right now. Someone will likely come in and carve that division out.

Bring on Intel making GPUs with ATI's team on 14nm. I would like to see how that would pan out vs nvidia trying to compete against Intel's process advantage. Would keep prices in check like they are currently.
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,211
50
91
It's embarrassing reading some posts in this thread of nvidia fanboys tap dancing hoping to see AMD go down.

I'm not really interested in going back to paying $1000 for a decent CPU and $1000 for a top end GPU because Intel and nvidia have no competition any more. I think AMD is hosed though, so it's probably inevitable that CPU prices will wind up going way up to where they were in early 2000s.

The GPU division of AMD puts out far too good a product for that to go by the wayside. They're not just competitive, many times they're on top performance wise, such as right now. Someone will likely come in and carve that division out.

Bring on Intel making GPUs with ATI's team on 14nm. I would like to see how that would pan out vs nvidia trying to compete against Intel's process advantage. Would keep prices in check like they are currently.

Wow dude. Absolutely any other option but Nvidia eh? You'd still have to pay a grand for a CPU though, right? I mean if Intel absorbed ATI people.

Oh and by the way, I don't think anyone is doing a tap dance that AMD is failing. That's not it at all. Whatever tap dance you think there is, is probably the enjoyment of watching AMD fanboys squirm "because" AMD is failing. This is just an observation, but I think this is the case. Nobody truly "wants" AMD to die out. Just their zealot fans. IMHO.
 
Last edited:

blackened23

Diamond Member
Jul 26, 2011
8,548
2
0
Oh well that sucks. Too bad but they probably deserve it after years of being mismanaged, tonight I will toast to my old 9700 pro which I still have boxed in my closet. I think I used that GPU the longest of any i've owned.
 

iCyborg

Golden Member
Aug 8, 2008
1,344
61
91
More silly is it that ATI gave AMD about nothing in the end besides debt. The APUs aint exactly exeptional and they was very late. More importantly, a simple sub 250mio R&D could have made a just as good GPU. Or they could simply license one. Using 5.5billion on it was just nuts, specially when the money was dire needed elsewhere
So why is Intel's HD still behind APUs on the graphics side when, according to you, you can get there for <$250M? Even with a 22nm vs 32nm advantage. Or why didn't Intel just license it from nV or someone?
Paying $5.5B may be silly, but your claim is even sillier. It'd be interesting to compare money and resources Intel put into Larrabee and HD over the last years, I somehow doubt it was 'couple hundred million dollars'...