AMD shut out of the debt market

[Abwx]

Yes, AMD do have and has had competitive products for many years, so we've established that is not an issue.

The issue is marketing.

In CPU dept Intel s marketing has more money at its disposal
than AMD has for its whole RD budget while in the GPU market
Nvidia has all its money dedicated to GPU promotion , way more
than what AMD could put for this sector.

When i say marketing i include all the FUD spreading and viral marketing that is financed by their "competitors"....

 

[Idontcare]

Yes, AMD do have and has had competitive products for many years, so we've established that is not an issue.



From the holistic perspective examples you listed:

Pricing- AMD has been leading in pricing almost their entire existence. Scratch that, their entire existence.

Cost- Hard to comment without knowing the cost of all 3 competitors. What's clear is that AMD can operate at much lower margins than the other 2.

Performance- We've already established that AMD is not only competitive, but leading in many categories.

Support structure- What are you referring to here?

Features- AMD has FMA3, FMA4, BMI in their latest CPU's, 1 year ahead of the competition. For GPU's, they've consistently lead NVidia in features for many years. intel isn't even on the same planet let alone ballpark, in regards to GPU features, performance, efficiency, drivers, dev relations and a plethora of other factors. What could you be referring to here when you say they are behind the competition on features?

Whatever you can throw in there- I'm thinking about a salesperson's bias and commission, ie retail edge. Online viral marketing. etc

As for lower pricing, if lower prices on competitive, performance and efficiency leading products doesn't translate to higher sales then there have to be other dynamics in play. We've seen one such example during the P4 and antitrust days. Perhaps this is still ongoing behind the scenes.

TL;DR- Lower sales *is not* necessarily indicative of competiveness.



Considering GPGPU and heterogeneous computing is the future of computing, I wouldn't consider this a liability in any way. It does however show that AMD is once again ahead of the curve in features, and the market is headed in this direction with the overwhelming support of HSA.

AMD's GPU market share fell when intel began supporting nv enthusiastically in their products. This is indicative of a monopoly controlling the market.



The financial markets are puppets of the U.S. administration thanks to bailouts on the taxpayers backs. The big MM's and financial institutions manipulate the markets constantly. Anyone watching could see that plainly. And lest we forget that Otellini is on Obama's technical advisory squad. From there, it's just a matter of connecting the dots.

In other words, despite AMD's competitiveness they are doomed because even in their best of years the world is conspiring against them and holding them back.

If you really believe what you write then you should be more convinced, of all of us, that AMD's eventual bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion.

After all, what hope is there when they are as competitive as they currently are, by your own assessment, and yet they are still losing buckets of money?

You might argue that AMD is about to come out with a bevy of new and even more competitive products, but as you acknowledge this will be of little consequence because having competive products is not AMD's problem, having the world conspire against them is.

And that (if it is true) ain't about to change just because the calendar now reads "2013". Sorry to tell you what you must already know regarding AMD's fate, must be a bleak outlook from where you sit if you really believe what you write in your own posts.

 

[piesquared]

In other words, despite AMD's competitiveness they are doomed because even in their best of years the world is conspiring against them and holding them back.

If you really believe what you write then you should be more convinced, of all of us, that AMD's eventual bankruptcy is a foregone conclusion.

After all, what hope is there when they are as competitive as they currently are, by your own assessment, and yet they are still losing buckets of money?

You might argue that AMD is about to come out with a bevy of new and even more competitive products, but as you acknowledge this will be of little consequence because having competive products is not AMD's problem, having the world conspire against them is.

And that (if it is true) ain't about to change just because the calendar now reads "2013". Sorry to tell you what you must already know regarding AMD's fate, must be a bleak outlook from where you sit if you really believe what you write in your own posts.

No I don't think they are doomed at all, quite the contrary. Bankruptcy is nowhere in sight. The industry is different than it was even a couple years ago. They are lowering their break even point while adjusting their portfolio to target new market conditions, still have $1.2B cash and debt is reduced to $2B. Their products will sell in the new world of computing because the new world isn't controlled by a monopoly and AMD has products perfectly tailored for the new landscape. That monopoly is going to crater hard and probably quite astonishingly fast. That's not to say BK is anywhere in sight for them, but the monopoly will be gone, therefore competing products can emerge as a viable alternative and have a chance in the marketplace.

HSA is being adopted by big industry heavyweights. It's all but a foregone conclusion to be in at least 1 of the 2 major consoles yet to be released. Does anyone think there isn't a compelling reason to do so? Clearly the industry is moving away from the intel stewardship, there's really no denying that. It needs new life, not just more of the same stale paradigm with minor speed increases. Something revolutionary that opens completely new doors should do the trick.

 

[pablo87]

This kind of hypothetical supposition is difficult to wade into because the contract pricing for prior business quarters benefited from the take-or-pay (ToP) backdrop that was entrenched in the "risk management" side of the capacity-build equation on the side of GloFo's management.

Were the WSA not in place, and were it not for the take-or-pay clause, AMD would have surely paid a far steeper price per wafer (and likely never swung the cherry deal of paying only for good die in the early 32nm ramp days), and they would have been far more susceptible to the capacity expansion plans of GloFo's management.

In other words, yes to be sure Q4's numbers would have been markedly improved if the WSA and ToP contract did not exist, but all the numbers for the prior quarters would have been commensurately worse if it weren't for those same contracts.

The low yields relate to the APUs I believe.

In order to be apples to apples, global foundries would have to provide AMD with yields as good or better than TSMC, at wafer prices that are the same price if not cheaper (to account for the lower density). Otherwise, why would you go to them when you already have a reliable vendor like TSMC?

Secondly, there was no reason to launch Trinity APUs - with Wichita, you got 4 complete cores, you would have integrated GCN (which makes way more sense wr to cross firing) so you'd end up with better graphics, lower power (for mobile) and half the die size. And no engineering costs to port any GPUs cores over. even LLano was better off at TSMC. Not to mention the yield cluster**** and lost business because it...Its complete irrationality driven by the WSA.

For the remaining business, you wouldn't leave the BD die size at 315mm^2 esp. when you can dramatically cost down by launching a version w/o L3 (what they had with previous generation). Plus a lot of what they built was the old 45nm product.

There's easily $400MM in savings right there at a cost level, not to mention probably higher revenues and prices.

AMD is a decent company, their results reflects an awful, awful deal - they completely ***** the company over with that WSA.

 

[Genx87]

No I don't think they are doomed at all, quite the contrary. Bankruptcy is nowhere in sight. The industry is different than it was even a couple years ago. They are lowering their break even point while adjusting their portfolio to target new market conditions, still have $1.2B cash and debt is reduced to $2B. Their products will sell in the new world of computing because the new world isn't controlled by a monopoly and AMD has products perfectly tailored for the new landscape. That monopoly is going to crater hard and probably quite astonishingly fast. That's not to say BK is anywhere in sight for them, but the monopoly will be gone, therefore competing products can emerge as a viable alternative and have a chance in the marketplace.

HSA is being adopted by big industry heavyweights. It's all but a foregone conclusion to be in at least 1 of the 2 major consoles yet to be released. Does anyone think there isn't a compelling reason to do so? Clearly the industry is moving away from the intel stewardship, there's really no denying that. It needs new life, not just more of the same stale paradigm with minor speed increases. Something revolutionary that opens completely new doors should do the trick.

Heh the market may be moving away from Intel's x86 and into Arm. But AMD doesnt have anything worth mentioning in that market either. Or at least nothing that cant be done better by a competitor. The effects of years of mismanagement are coming home to roost at AMD.

 

[Abwx]

In other words, despite AMD's competitiveness they are doomed because even in their best of years the world is conspiring against them and holding them back.

15bn at least where spent to keep them reaching a critical size
through rebates and illegal contracts that targeted every single
retailer in western europe while MB manufacturers were put
under heavy pressure once K7 was launched.

Remember Asus s white anonymous boxes...?...

 

[Genx87]

15bn at least where spent to keep them reaching a critical size
through rebates and illegal contracts that targeted every single
retailer in western europe while MB manufacturers were put
under heavy pressure once K7 was launched.

Remember Asus s white anonymous boxes...?...

Sure and that happened how many years ago? And AMD settled for how much money? What about the series of disasters in designs at the CPU level since 2006? About the the inability to exploit any advantage against Nvidia? The brilliantly thought out future looking idea to sell their mobile division to Quallcom? Just the world conspiring against poor AMD to keep them down eh?

 

[Abwx]

Sure and that happened how many years ago? And AMD settled for how much money? What about the series of disasters in designs at the CPU level since 2006? About the the inability to exploit any advantage against Nvidia? The brilliantly thought out future looking idea to sell their mobile division to Quallcom? Just the world conspiring against poor AMD to keep them down eh?

This did cost them way more than the pitance Dirk Meyer uncompetently
negociated , that s why he was fired among others.

Nvidia got as much for a lesser injury....

 

[Genx87]

This did cost them way more than the pitance Dirk Meyer uncompetently
negociated , that s why he was fired among others.

Nvidia got as much for a lesser injury....

At least you are admitting poor management within your conspiracy. That is a start.

 

[Abwx]

Do a marketing contract with all retailers that stipulate that if he
does some advertisement for HIS business using a pentium4 PC as main
picture witrh the "intel inside logo" and he will be given a rebate that
amount to half of his advertisements costs.

Then put a clause that expressely stipulate that the retailers wont
sell PCs using the competition CPUs.

That s the treacherous contract that Intel proposed to every single
retailer in western europe when they launched the P4.

Call this a conspiracy if you want , the contract was illegal but
fortunately for Intel AMD made a settlement and this ended the EU
investigations , otherwise it would had cost them bns in fines.

 

[Genx87]

Do a marketing contract with all retailers that stipulate that if he
does some advertisement for HIS business using a pentium4 PC as main
picture witrh the "intel inside logo" and he will be given a rebate that
amount to half of his advertisements costs.

Then put a clause that expressely stipulate that the retailers wont
sell PCs using the competition CPUs.

That s the treacherous contract that Intel proposed to every single
retailer in western europe when they launched the P4.

Call this a conspiracy if you want , the contract was illegal but
fortunately for Intel AMD made a settlement and this ended the EU
investigations , otherwise it would had cost them bns in fines.

But at the end of the day that has nothing to do with mismangement of their CPU line, GPU line, and selling off the potentially very lucrative mobile divison for pennies to Qualcom. We can also toss on their disaster at managing their contracts with GF that cost them a lot of money.

 

[Abwx]

This did cost them a few bns , enough to double their production
capacity to a critical size that would had allowed them to compete.

AMD s problem at the time was manufacturing capacity with a single
facility in Dresden.

What Intel was afraid of wasnt the K7 or K8 but that AMD would
reach a critical mass in theses years , hence their extremely
agressive and ruthless strategy as they envisioned such a move
as an existential one.

 

[Idontcare]

Do a marketing contract with all retailers that stipulate that if he
does some advertisement for HIS business using a pentium4 PC as main
picture witrh the "intel inside logo" and he will be given a rebate that
amount to half of his advertisements costs.

Then put a clause that expressely stipulate that the retailers wont
sell PCs using the competition CPUs.

That s the treacherous contract that Intel proposed to every single
retailer in western europe when they launched the P4.

Call this a conspiracy if you want , the contract was illegal but
fortunately for Intel AMD made a settlement and this ended the EU
investigations , otherwise it would had cost them bns in fines.

There are two villains in that story. Intel may have baited the trap but it was the people who willingly let Intel line their pockets while knowingly harming their own customers that got away with the crime in that case.

It takes an unscrupulous reseller to make Intel's plan work, individuals who were ready and willing to be corrupted by the already corrupt.

But its no different than the mortgage scandal that rocked the banking industry, or the vastly larger CDS scandal that was meticulously kept off the front page...the folks who profited from it all will walk away unscathed and unnamed.

AMD may have been the victim, but Intel was most certainly not the sole perpetrator of the crime.

 

[MisterMac]

So we're clear then.

AMD woes are definately not AMD's fault - it's the world vs AMD.

Maybe abit mismanagement - but mostly the world being a prick ?

 

[Phynaz]

So we're clear then.

AMD woes are definately not AMD's fault - it's the world vs AMD.

Maybe abit mismanagement - but mostly the world being a prick ?

That's the way it always is for AMD. Glad you have finally come around.

 

[Idontcare]

That's the way it always is for AMD. Glad you have finally come around.

That and it is a battle they are continually losing BUT for some reason they are guaranteed not to lose eventually.

 

[CHADBOGA]

That and it is a battle they are continually losing BUT for some reason they are guaranteed not to lose eventually.

That's the miracle of HSA for ya. :awe:

 

[OCGuy]

Some of the stuff I am reading here by the admitted Amdzone brigade just has no basis in reality. But it is fun(ny) to read.

What isn't funny is a buyout or re-structure BK causing them to slip behind even more. That will slow down Intel and nV progress in x86 CPUs and discreet GPUs.

And let's face it, it isn't a sporting event where a mircale product line can just come out of nowhere and win. The "Brain drain" from AMD will have tangible consequences even 10 years from now, if the AMD brand still exists as it does today.

 

[Nemesis 1]

15bn at least where spent to keep them reaching a critical size
through rebates and illegal contracts that targeted every single
retailer in western europe while MB manufacturers were put
under heavy pressure once K7 was launched.

Remember Asus s white anonymous boxes...?...

Complete BS , AMD was making every cpu they could sell and they did until 2006. AMD couldn't sell anymore cpus if it wanted to . You can't sell what you don't have . Why you guys keep forgetting this is no longer a matter of ignorance . It willful . So be it . But Most all here KNOW amd had no more cpus to sell than they could fab .What year was it AMDs second fab came online 06 or 05

 

[erunion]

AMD may have been the victim, but Intel was most certainly not the sole perpetrator of the crime.

I realize you are probably using the term crime figuratively, but the problem with the AMD persecution narrative that is so common is that it benefits from hindsight.

What Intel did was not illegal when it was done, it was deemed anti-competitive after the fact. Exclusivity contracts are common in other industries, like selling only Coca Cola brand soda in a restaurant.

Intel wasn't judged solely on what it did, but also the current landscape of the market

 

[krumme]

Anands surface pro review just show that at least for 2013 Intel does not have anything to offer for the low end. Who in their sane minds thinks this, way to expensive, bulgy, and battery consuming device is going to sell in any meaningfull numbers? Between the lines even the speed and quality nerd Anand is starting to doubt. Putting Intel forward for those portal devices look more than painfull. 225usd cpu in 400usd market. Its a NUC.

Intel absolutely needs the new atoms - if- and why - they want to be in this comodity market. IB in a tablet form factor, is a buldozer in desktop, it just doesnt take off, so at least for 2013 AMD have a huge market by the numbers albeit with low profit potential.

What remains to be seen for 2014 is: how fast will the new Atoms be and will it outweight the dirt cheap 28nm temash flooding the market at that time?
Will AMD be able to evolve and get better proces tech for their small apus - 20nm/14nm?
Will the gpu tech be able to give them an market advantage (not only the best bm numbers, they mean nothing)?

 

[mrmt]

Intel absolutely needs the new atoms - if- and why - they want to be in this comodity market. IB in a tablet form factor, is a buldozer in desktop, it just doesnt take off, so at least for 2013 AMD have a huge market by the numbers albeit with low profit potential.

The market segmentation, a high end *convertible* powered by Core and a low-end tablet powered by atom makes a lot of sense IMHO. Core isn't about cheap tablets, but high end notebooks that can be used as a tablet as well.

Once Haswell arrives and address the battery life issue, Intel will have a competitive solution for the high end. Haswell, or Broadwell will make the tablet form factor a staple for Core's performance levels, not something that must be heavily engineered as today. So I think it's the right direction. As for Atom, given the target market, phones and tablets, I doubt that it will be more expensive than Temash.

All in all we're going to see a replay of Brazos launch. AMD brings a nice product to the market, Intel brings the bottom end of the Core line up to check growth from the top and leaves the bottom for AMD.

 

[Abwx]

.

What Intel did was not illegal when it was done, it was deemed anti-competitive after the fact.

The same as Madoff , it s legal provided you are not caught
the hand in the bag....

 

[CHADBOGA]

The same as Madoff , it s legal provided you are not caught
the hand in the bag....

Other than being nothing like Madoff, yeah that's exactly it. LOL

 

[mrmt]

What Intel did was not illegal when it was done, it was deemed anti-competitive after the fact. Exclusivity contracts are common in other industries, like selling only Coca Cola brand soda in a restaurant.

It was illegal, but it was not deemed illegal at the time, neither by Intel, nor by its partners.

You have to be a fool to sign a contract containing something you know illegal, and that applies to Intel and the counterparts on the contracts. The OEMs that signed the contract are as guilty as Intel, they just weren't sued because anti-trust organisms had more to gain by singling out Intel and stopping the problem in the source than spend years trying to produce evidences against an entire sector. Had the investigators alone be able to easily produce evidences against Intel and the partners, the OEMs wouldn't have the easy time they had.