Bay Trail benchmark appears online, crushes fastest Snapdragon ARM SoC

[SiliconWars]

No, but the point you missed was, that you obviously didnt check Intels reults for their software and service group that McAfee is part of. Else you wouldnt have posted such a silly thing.

How much and how much is attributable to McAfee?

 

[ShintaiDK]

For a firm whose revenue was 1.2bn , guess thay paid
at a 40 PER , at best , it will take 40 years if there s
no revenue growth ...or decline.

Unless you information is completely wrong...
http://news.techeye.net/business/mcafee-posts-record-revenue-results-for-2010

 

[mrmt]

Is this the same ATI, without which there would have been no console revenue up till now, and no ~$6 billion over the next few years on the next gen?

Would you spend 5.5 billion straight from your pocket to get costs 8 years latter 6 billion with (let's be generous) 50% of these being eaten by costs? No? Because this is exactly what you are saying it was a good deal for AMD.

ATI acquisition was an outright disaster for AMD. Only the same incompetent team that delayed their 65nm node and started Bulldozer would do such a deal.

 

[blackened23]

AMD on purpose delayed a node, simply because they didnt think Intel could beat them. Instead all they saw was $ signs by milking what they had. Then they wasted 5.5B$ on a disaster called ATI afterwards. Not to mention delayed chip designs.

I'd have to differ with you a bit, here. The only fault of AMD was paying way too much for ATI. It was a good business acquisition, period, as creating any type of SOC for a modern mobile device requires graphical expertise. Expertise that AMD did not have up to that point. I think the real fault of AMD is their hubris during the athlon era - they sat on the athlon thinking that Intel would never catch up (that woke the sleeping giant) while Hector Ruiz started blowing through all of their cash savings, without corresponding investments into future architectures and chips. And AMD paid dearly for this - when conroe was released AMD didn't have a proper answer. And they just haven't been able to catch up since then. Meanwhile, their cash reserves continually became smaller and smaller which resulted in even less investment into R+D, which puts AMD in a situation where they will never catch up. Thank Hector Ruiz for this.

But I do feel like ATI was a smart business acquisition, even if they paid way too much.

 

[Abwx]

Unless you information is completely wrong...
http://news.techeye.net/business/mcafee-posts-record-revenue-results-for-2010

lol , that s 2010 , but in 2011 :

McAfee's revenue decreased by 27.5% in 2011, to $1.2B

http://www.factbrowser.com/facts/7498/

And 2012 :

This January Intel reported full year revenue in 2012 of $53.3 billion and a net income of $11.0 billion. Of that McAfee contributed $469 million of revenue in 2012, according to the company’s SEC filing. It's hard to compare that number to its previous year's revenue which dropped 27 percent due accounting rules, that required Intel to write down approximately 30 percent of McAfee's $1.4 billion of deferred revenue, according to a Gartner report.

http://upstart.bizjournals.com/news/technology/2013/04/04/john-mcafee-trouble-impacts-company.html

Total Berezina...

 

[ShintaiDK]

I'd have to differ with you a bit, here. The only fault of AMD was paying way too much for ATI. It was a good business acquisition, period, as creating any type of SOC for a modern mobile device requires graphical expertise. Expertise that AMD did not have up to that point. I think the real fault of AMD is their hubris during the athlon era - they sat on the athlon thinking that Intel would never catch up (that woke the sleeping giant) while Hector Ruiz started blowing through all of their cash savings, without corresponding investments into future architectures and chips. And AMD paid dearly for this - when conroe was released AMD didn't have a proper answer. And they just haven't been able to catch up since then.

But I do feel like ATI was a smart business acquisition, even if they paid way too much.

You can always argue about the price, since (almost) everything is good at a certain price.

How much is ATI worth today? 500M$ on a really good day?

 

[blackened23]

You can always argue about the price, since (almost) everything is good at a certain price.

How much is ATI worth today? 500M$ on a really good day?

Let's not get into a big long debate about performance of their APUs, but with that being said - My main point is that *every single* mobile CPU or SOC that AMD creates for the mobile space requires a graphical counterpart - and that is why AMD had to acquire either nvidia or ATI. Without ATI, AMD would be completely dead in the water right now - as things are, AMD is struggling due to past mismanagement, but trust me. They needed ATI. They just paid way too much for them.

This all ties in with Ruiz' complete inability to manage his firm properly and his tendency to blow through all of AMD's cash reserves in a blink of an eye. Heck, i'm pretty sure that he embezzled some of those cash reserves as well. Ruiz probably knew that he was paying way too much for ATI and just didn't care.

 

[mrmt]

I'd have to differ with you a bit, here. The only fault of AMD was paying way too much for ATI.

This.

Companies live and die by how much they earn and how much they spend, and you can't just say that "they paid too much, but it was good". ATI acquisition was a disaster *exactly* because AMD paid too much.

After they bought ATI they didn't have funds to upgrade their fabs to 32nm, which lead to the disastrous Globalfoundries spin off and the WSA, that tied AMD to GLF until 2024. They also had to settle with Intel for much less than they could if they had cash.

Given that there was a lead time of 5 years between ATI acquisition and the first fusion parts, how better AMD would be if instead of spending 5.5 billion buying ATI, they had spent 3 billion building a GPU.

 

[Abwx]

Given that there was a lead time of 5 years between ATI acquisition and the first fusion parts, how better AMD would be if instead of spending 5.5 billion buying ATI, they had spent 3 billion building a GPU.

With billions thrown at the problem through years
Intel still has not an efficient GPU arch , it s even
likely that they spent way more than what AMD
has to pay for ATIs IP.

 

[ShintaiDK]

lol , that s 2010 , but in 2011 :

But but what? You select, on purpose, a single accounting change to somehow validate your misleading claims?

 

[ShintaiDK]

They needed ATI. They just paid way too much for them.

Thats the misconception. They didnt need ATI. They just needed a future GPU tech. And with 5-6 years before their first APU. They had plenty of time.

 

[blackened23]

Companies live and die by how much they earn and how much they spend, and you can't just say that "they paid too much, but it was good". ATI acquisition was a disaster *exactly* because AMD paid too much.

Whoa whoa whoa. The misfortunes of AMD happened long before the ATI acquisition. The money issues go way deeper than ATI itself. AMD could have paid the same amount and would have been just fine, but there was a corporate culture of over-spending and embezzlement MANY YEARS prior to that, and no proper investments into R+D and technological advancements. Meanwhile, Ruiz was stuffing his pockets with AMDs cash and spent outrageous amounts of money on FABs that AMD didn't need, while not investing properly into R+D. I'm sorry to say without R+D a silicon company cannot survive.

**Despite what anyone here says, AMD did not need FABs. They did not need them then, did not need them ever.

So then what happened? Remember AMD didn't invest properly into R+D and simply thought that they could maintain status quo with the Athlon forever. Instead, their outright arrogance cost them the desktop market, because they didn't have an answer to the Conroe in 2006. **This is when the beginning of AMD's downfall became apparent. When Conroe was released. All because of their mis-spending, lack of corporate leadership, and lack of R+D investments.

Their problems began LONG before the ATI acquisition. Because of Ruiz and the lack of proper corporate management. Trust me.

 

[SiliconWars]

But but what? You select, on purpose, a single accounting change to somehow validate your misleading claims?

It seems obvious that since Intel bought McAfee they've gone rapidly downhill and Abwx is probably right that it'll take ~40 years to recoup that $8 billion.

The real question is why didn't Intel buy ATI? $5.5 billion too rich yet they've wasted way more than that since on their "graphics" and other bad spending.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Whoa whoa whoa. The misfortunes of AMD happened long before the ATI acquisition. The money issues go way deeper than ATI itself. AMD could have paid the same amount and would have been just fine, but there was a corporate culture of over-spending and embezzlement MANY YEARS prior to that, and no proper investments into R+D and technological advancements. Meanwhile, Ruiz was stuffing his pockets with AMDs cash and spent outrageous amounts of money on FABs that AMD didn't need, while not investing properly into R+D. I'm sorry to say without R+D a silicon company cannot survive.

**Despite what anyone here says, AMD did not need FABs. They did not need them then, did not need them ever.

So then what happened? Remember AMD didn't invest properly into R+D and simply thought that they could maintain status quo with the Athlon forever. Instead, their outright arrogance cost them the desktop market, because they didn't have an answer to the Conroe in 2006. **This is when the beginning of AMD's downfall became apparent. When Conroe was released. All because of their mis-spending, lack of corporate leadership, and lack of R+D investments.

Their problems began LONG before the ATI acquisition. Because of Ruiz and the lack of proper corporate management. Trust me.

AMD didnt spend much on fabs. And ATI took out any hope of a future there. Including a proper R&D budget for IC design.

Remember, before Conroe, AMD was capacity constrained. Same reason why an entry level dualcore costed 600$.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Agenda is a personal attack now is it? I bet I can find posts by you and the rest claiming that the E-series are for idiots with too much money and the 25/2600K etc are all that anybody needs.

Find one from me saying that

As for personal attacks, you should know plenty about it, or you would on any other forum.

Not sure what this even means, heh.

 

[ShintaiDK]

The real question is why didn't Intel buy ATI? $5.5 billion too rich yet they've wasted way more than that since on their "graphics" and other bad spending.

Much cheaper to do your own graphics. Intel already had the foundation with its IGPs to build onto to save additional money. And ATI never made much money outside the chipset business. Also you would have to merge ATI into Intel. Thats always expensive and painful (As we have seen with ATI and AMD.). You might say McAfee now, but they work with something (completely) different. So thats not a issue. One could say nVidia here, since that company would essentially be impossible to merge into either AMD or Intel.

I read somewhere that Intel uses around 200M$ a year on GPU R&D. (Larabee is x86, not GPU.)

 

[CHADBOGA]

This has been discussed at legnth , their chance
was crushed by illegal activities , intel did throw more
than 10bn to crush them , it worked and this is why
we are here theses days.

During the time of the "illegal activities", AMD were capacity constrained anyway, so that had nothing to do with AMD's chances of becoming a true equal to Intel.

 

[blackened23]

Much cheaper to do your own graphics. Intel already had the foundation with its IGPs to build onto. And ATI never made much money outside the chipset business.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I could speak at length about AMD's issues - I would love for them to be competitive, but they just sealed their own fate years ago due to mismanagement and over-spending. But I do believe very strongly that acquiring ATI was a good move, they just paid too much for them.

Intel didn't begin pursuing integrated graphics seriously until they were urged to do so by Apple circa 2007-2008 - And by that time, they had all of the cash in the world to throw at this "problem" until they found a sufficient answer. In the grand scheme of things, it wouldn't be surprising if intel had spent more on R+D for their iGPUs than AMD spent on ATI. Nobody has a bigger war chest (eg cash reserves) than Intel, AMD was once nearly in that position but Ruiz and company completely blew their opportunity.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Much cheaper to do your own graphics. Intel already had the foundation with its IGPs to build onto to save additional money. And ATI never made much money outside the chipset business.

I read somewhere that Intel uses around 200M$ a year on GPU R&D. (Larabee is x86, not GPU.)

GT3 is a fine iGPU for low power graphics. Broadwell's Gen 8 should only improve things further.

 

[SiliconWars]

During the time of the "illegal activities", AMD were capacity constrained anyway, so that had nothing to do with AMD's chances of becoming a true equal to Intel.

The various fines and payoffs intel has had to make as compensation is in stark disagreement with this. Intel's argument about capacity constraints weren't accepted by anyone.

 

[ShintaiDK]

GT3 is a fine iGPU for low power graphics. Broadwell's Gen 8 should only improve things further.

And if we move back to the topic again. Intels gen7 IGP scales down in power quite well with Silvermont. So now they got a unified GPU uarch across the board.

Broadwell and Airmont will be interesting there. Discrete cards are losing volume very fast to IGPs.

 

[SiliconWars]

And if we move back to the topic again. Intels gen7 IGP scales down in power quite well with Silvermont. So now they got a unified GPU uarch across the board.

It will only be half as fast as the main competition. How much business has a poor IGP cost Intel at Apple for example? They even have to custom build chips for Apple because the crap they offer the rest isn't good enough graphically. This doesn't come cheap.

Count up all these issues Intel has over their poor graphics performance and it's crystal clear that it has cost them a lot more than $5.5 billion over the years. And they are still not on parity with the real leaders, and possibly might never will get there.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It will only be half as fast as the main competition. How much business has a poor IGP cost Intel at Apple for example? They even have to custom build chips for Apple because the crap they offer the rest isn't good enough graphically. This doesn't come cheap.

Count up all these issues Intel has over their poor graphics performance and it's crystal clear that it has cost them a lot more than $5.5 billion over the years.

What problems are you refering to?

Apple loves Intel CPUs.

 

[SiliconWars]

What problems are you refering to?

Apple loves Intel CPUs.

Not so much "problems" but having to make custom CPU's for Apple is adding costs they wouldn't have had they just had proper graphics.

Now Apple is demanding even more, which means bigger and bigger dies and stuff like Crystalwell which certainly didn't come cheap on the R&D budget. All of this could have been avoided and the money spent elsewhere.

AMD's aquisition of ATI might have cost them a lot, and they might have overspent, but at least they are still not spending it.

 

[Sweepr]

Not so much "problems" but having to make custom CPU's for Apple is adding costs they wouldn't have had they just had proper graphics.

Now Apple is demanding even more, which means bigger and bigger dies and stuff like Crystalwell which certainly didn't come cheap on the R&D budget. All of this could have been avoided and the money spent elsewhere.

AMD's aquisition of ATI might have cost them a lot, and they might have overspent, but at least they are still not spending it.

So AMD didnt spend a cent in graphics technology R&D since 2005?