From his post it sounds like he hates NVIDIA so much that he wants Intel to have a total monopoly. So much so that he's willling to pay extra for it. Seems like a "scorched earth" view on things.
True AMD kook is like a kamikaze.
He will gladly sacrifice entire AMD, as long as it gets Nvidia even one step closer to Chapter 11.
JoAnne Feeney - Longbow Research LLC
I was hoping perhaps you could help us understand how you accomplished two seemingly divergent goals. One being to accelerate the transition to these new adjacent faster-growing markets, while at the same time, cutting your expense bases. And given all the recent cuts there have been at the company, that's really brought things down to some very efficient levels, it would seem. It seems now, you're going to be stuck cutting sort of more of the creative talent. So I'm just wondering how you're thinking about doing both at the same time, 2 things that seem kind of contradictory?
Rory P. Read - Chief Executive Officer, President and Director
I think what's important is to look at terms of how we're simplifying our product development cycles. And we've talked about this before in terms of creating the reusable IP blocks to create the structure in order to streamline our development and also to lower our cost of that development. We believe with the work of many talented engineers across AMD, their focus is to really streamline that activity, lower that cost and deliver our based set of offerings, and then to build off of that with our reusable IP base in order to go attack those markets. They're adjacent, JoAnne, they're not fundamentally different. These are APU graphics-oriented opportunities that allow us to take solutions like Kabini and like our APU base into those segments at a lower cost base and across the portfolio.
AnandThenMan
Diamond Member
- Nov 11, 2004
- 3,991
- 626
- 126
Terrible year for AMD. What do you guys think is going to happen?
Will someone buy them?
Will they bounce back over time?
Will they cease to exist in a few years?
Sad news. I like AMD as a company but they've dropped the ball big time in the past couple years. No way they can remotely catch Intel in sheer fabrication capabilities, let alone performance and design. Just all around terrible decisions by upper management in the past few years.
Will someone buy them?
Will they bounce back over time?
Will they cease to exist in a few years?
Sad news. I like AMD as a company but they've dropped the ball big time in the past couple years. No way they can remotely catch Intel in sheer fabrication capabilities, let alone performance and design. Just all around terrible decisions by upper management in the past few years.
Things I took out of the AT article (relating to graphics):
-GPU division is turning a profit, just nowhere near enough to make up for the failures of the CPU division.
-More importantly, ASP for GPUs is up from this quarter last year, even with all the price cuts that have been going on. Also, retail sales are supposedly up from this point last year, with OEM sales being what is dragging overall sales down.
Neither of those points are anywhere near enough to save the company at this point, but anyone who thinks that the GPU division itself is helping drag them down (notwithstanding the argument that the purchase of ATI in the first place was/is the problem) is pretty mistaken.
blastingcap
Diamond Member
- Sep 16, 2010
- 6,654
- 5
- 76
Why should that be interesting? Keys, an NVidia focus group member, has 31 posts in this thread about the woes of AMD--nearly DOUBLE the next-highest post count:
http://forums.anandtech.com/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2276102
Are you surprised? I'm not. This reminds me of the ESPN boards when two teams meet in the playoffs and the victorious team's most unsavory fans go gloat on the losing team's message board. Curiously enough, those gloaters often disappear when their own team gets knocked out in the next playoff round.
People just throw numbers around like they know what they are talking about. They have no idea what it costs to design a GPU. It takes 4 years to design a product that you are going to sell for a year. They have no idea what first tape out costs. They have no idea what it costs to set up a production run. Add all that to the cost per chip price. These GPU's are barely around long enough to turn a profit on.
They know it costs X amount per wafer and you get Y number of chips at Z yield percentage and they think they've got it all figured out. This is why it's funny when people say a new chip on a new process costs less than an old chip on a mature process simply because it's smaller. They are clueless.
You cannot be serious?
earning 18million from a 342Million revenue?? Do you really think that is good? Its not a good return at all and much more could be made by simply investing the money instead.
Anyway, i pulled some random quarterly results from back when ATI was a stand alone company before AMD's influence.
march 2000
earnings 51.1 million
aug 2003
47.4 million
june 2004
48.6million
march 2005
57 million
oct 2004
61.2million
These are just some random stuff i just found. In no particular order. What i am getting at is AMD is not doing just fine with their GPU business. ATI was much more profitable because they knew how to make money. The only time you seen ATI do bad is when they failed to execute a product launch or some kind of slip up.
Right now for AMD they had perfect execution. They were first with 28nm GPUs. They got out their entire lineup before nvidia. They have great performance, and absolutely great products. Their HW has been fantastic for the GPUs. But dont you see, it doesnt add up. Where is the profit???? AMD doesnt know how to turn a profit. How can they only make 18million? A big part of this is missing and ppl dont seem to get it.
We dont know what all AMD has done, but we do know that their graphics HW isnt the problem. There is a big difference in the ATI of the past, nvidia, and the AMD today. You better believe the old ATI wouldve made a ton of money out of this opportunity yet AMD failed miserably to capitalize on this. They had a great chance but didnt turn a profit. why is this??
I'm not privy to any hard numbers, but I'd be willing to bet debt has a lot to do with it.
LOL Keysplayr, you cant be serious?
We dont give a s..t about the reason for your tap dance.
Man give it a rest. I can tell you, i am not going to tap dance because i use nv for my gaming.
...on the other hand, i have to admit - i enjoy your childish approach, its the kind of energy that keeps things moving
But please, - please - stop arguing with RS about the 7950 vs 660, and NV superior solution, i cant stand it any more, it hurt my eyes.
I work for a company that is the big player in our market. We can trounce everybody from technology to salesforce - and everything else.
AMD have always been the small player. It might seem lige a big company, - but for what they do, and for what experience i have for the cost of technology development, i think they are way to small. Its not going to work, and it have never worked.
Going by the numbers its seems AMD have earned money, but in reality they have been burning money for all years except a few. But it have been hidden in all kinds of arangement. AMD have always been the most lousy business. So AMD have been buring money all the way, but now it seems we we are at the end of the road.
In context, its worth remembering that for many business there is natural tendency towards monopoly. And thats especially the case here. Otellini is employed, and hugely qualified, to exploit that oportunity. He know the rules of macro economics, and is not afraid to get his hands dirty. He is the perfect leader for Intel in this situation.
Only TSMC and Samsung can compete against such force, but obviousy the IP is preventing that. On the other hand anti trust laws prevent Intel from gaining formal - they already have informal - monopoly. Some kind of solution must be found. It will be interesting.
From my perspective it would be beneficial for the industry with some big player as buyer for AMD, as that would force Intel to be more innovative and less risk adverse.
AMD have always been the small player. It might seem lige a big company, - but for what they do, and for what experience i have for the cost of technology development, i think they are way to small. Its not going to work, and it have never worked.
Going by the numbers its seems AMD have earned money, but in reality they have been burning money for all years except a few. But it have been hidden in all kinds of arangement. AMD have always been the most lousy business. So AMD have been buring money all the way, but now it seems we we are at the end of the road.
In context, its worth remembering that for many business there is natural tendency towards monopoly. And thats especially the case here. Otellini is employed, and hugely qualified, to exploit that oportunity. He know the rules of macro economics, and is not afraid to get his hands dirty. He is the perfect leader for Intel in this situation.
Only TSMC and Samsung can compete against such force, but obviousy the IP is preventing that. On the other hand anti trust laws prevent Intel from gaining formal - they already have informal - monopoly. Some kind of solution must be found. It will be interesting.
From my perspective it would be beneficial for the industry with some big player as buyer for AMD, as that would force Intel to be more innovative and less risk adverse.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
No, nobody in their right mind wants to pay just under 2 billion for ATI. Maybe 250mio. x86 is worthless. Not to mentopn all the bad and costly obligations you would get compared to taking it off a dead body for close to free.
No, they dont have anything that can bounce back and their business model is wrong. Right now they dont even know what to do it seems.
Maybe. Basicly depends if they take the VIA route or just give up.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
Well the entire business model on how semiconductors work, basicly exclude competition. Since most competition is harmfrul for the long run due to increased process and design costs. AMD already hit the line for what you can get with 15-20% marketshare.
Also being in a duopoly etc meaning taking less risks. Because you can lose everything to competitors without they having to take on such an economic risk. CPU designs today from Intel cost what...5 billion in R&D?
With a too high risk factor you aint gonna try something drasticly new, you gonna stick to more of the old.
Also R&D costs keeps going up and higher volume is needed to cover that, since people dont want to pay more. Higher prices=lower volume=lower profit. Right now Intel for example is getting right about the highest ratio in that area.
Just imagine a world with 5-6 AMDs instead. Then we would all celebrate Bulldozer performance on the latest 45 or 32nm node. While most likely paying alot more in the perfomance segment.
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
chimaxi83
Diamond Member
- May 18, 2003
- 5,457
- 63
- 101
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
LOL Keysplayr, you cant be serious?
We dont give a s..t about the reason for your tap dance.
Man give it a rest. I can tell you, i am not going to tap dance because i use nv for my gaming.
...on the other hand, i have to admit - i enjoy your childish approach, its the kind of energy that keeps things moving
But please, - please - stop arguing with RS about the 7950 vs 660, and NV superior solution, i cant stand it any more, it hurt my eyes.
When you say "we" are you also speaking for the guy I quoted in my original post? Because he seems to give a s..t. Or did you not see his post about tap dancing?
And I'm all for childish approaches. Children are usually truthful and innocent in their thoughts and reply without manipulative designs when they are asked questions. Out of the mouths of babes and all that.
Third paragraph = Wut?
Keysplayr
Elite Member
- Jan 16, 2003
- 21,211
- 50
- 91
33 posts now, Blastingcap. Nobody actually likes a truthful comment around here. "OMG he actually said what everyone is thinking but won't say!"
And it's "Keys, and Nvidia focus group member AND computer enthusiast" To you. ^_^
Actually sits there and counts my p.........grumble....grumble....
Knock it off, both of you.
-ViRGE
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh yes you are. AMD is a publicly traded company in the United States. This means that there are certain financial statements that they have to publish to the public every 3 months, and which have to be correct on pain of imprisonment of the corporate officials.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AMD
By their income statement, they are now paying $43M a quarter for interest.
Last edited:
Unless they changed the ways they did their accounting recently, as I understood it from reading awhile back after the ATI merger, R&D costs for APUs which is the bulk of their focus in recent times with Llano, trinity etc are ATI engineers being paid for my the "GPU" division.. but APUs being sold are accounted towards the "CPU" revenue.
As such, the GPU division's costs are higher while their revenue are lower, thus less earning.. aka, GPU R&D is subsidizing CPU R&D.
For them to even make a small profit is a considerable effort.
It's all one company, so of course they are sharing common knowledge without having to pay one division to another.
GPUs likely benefited from AMDs memory related IP. Are APUs using GPU related IP - well of course they are. Wasn't that the entire point of merger?
But I very very much doubt that cost of APU development gets unloaded to Graphics Division. It's one of those geek myths.
Wow that's more than NV is getting from Intel for chipset business settlement.
BTW I posted AMD historical operating income earlier:
Last edited:
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
The key at times is the GPU Division has done well for AMD.
Quarter 4 2010 -- 68 m
Quarter 2 2010 -- 33 m
Quarter 1 2010 -- 47 m
Quarter 4 2009 -- 53 m
This was also the time-line where AMD did over-take Discrete over-all leadership away from nVidia as well. They had momentum going.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 145
- 106
So even in the best of times, it would only take AMD 27½ years to recoup the money spend on ATI? Unfortunately the interest cost alone basicly means ATI is a constant loss. 5.5billion set on fire.
Not to mention discrete GFX in the long run is a dead one. Or maybe a tiny niche for 1 player.
SirPauly
Diamond Member
- Apr 28, 2009
- 5,187
- 1
- 0
Imho,
One may have to count the APU and chip-set numbers as well.
What is troubling out of this is the write down of APU products of 100 million. The APU was the differentiation, the revenue growth vehicle for AMD -- the major reason to be interested in nVidia or ATI at the time. If this doesn't grow considering the resources spent -- considering they bet the technology farm on it - time will tell and will be interested to see what Rory Read can do to improve this company moving forward.
One may have to count the APU and chip-set numbers as well.
What is troubling out of this is the write down of APU products of 100 million. The APU was the differentiation, the revenue growth vehicle for AMD -- the major reason to be interested in nVidia or ATI at the time. If this doesn't grow considering the resources spent -- considering they bet the technology farm on it - time will tell and will be interested to see what Rory Read can do to improve this company moving forward.
The AMD and Intel agreement was not so much about money as the ability to produce on fabs outside AMD. That together with all the ip, products, and competence is of imense value. But there is no way it can be released as the setup of the company is now. We will have to see some fundamental structural and ownership change, or AMD will just fade into nothing.
If it does, tons of knowledge is laid to vaist, and the result will lose products, have less innovation and no competition whatsoever for the x86 market. As a society, that is a total loss of ressources and future growth and income, and it shouldnt be tolerated for at such a crucial market as x86 computing.
I can se no point in returning to the 80ies, just for the sake of some principles, while the society and industrial production looses thousands of jobs and income because computing power is slowing down. Competition in free market works, the oposite just sucks big time for innotation to productivity.
If it does, tons of knowledge is laid to vaist, and the result will lose products, have less innovation and no competition whatsoever for the x86 market. As a society, that is a total loss of ressources and future growth and income, and it shouldnt be tolerated for at such a crucial market as x86 computing.
I can se no point in returning to the 80ies, just for the sake of some principles, while the society and industrial production looses thousands of jobs and income because computing power is slowing down. Competition in free market works, the oposite just sucks big time for innotation to productivity.
railven
Diamond Member
- Mar 25, 2010
- 6,604
- 561
- 126
I dunno, so far Detroit fans are acting more humble/classy than New York fans.
If AMD drops out of the race, I wonder if they'll still be a need for a Focus Group? Intel should totally start a focus group, I'd sell em my first born
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter