If I were the CEO of AMD... (rate)

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
You still haven't explained what advantage there is for selling out of integration now that AMD is finally seeing some payoff (consoles).

Benefits are just three: Cash in the bank, reduced management overhead and reduced OPEX.
 

tipoo

Senior member
Oct 4, 2012
245
7
81
Because AMD totally doesn't have large contracts with console manufacturers
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.

The console contracts were nice, and perhaps will make it easier to design cross platform titles. The trend toward more cores (not necessarily related to consoles, it is already in progress) will also help AMD be more competitive on the gaming CPU front.

However, I cant see either of these really helping AMD that much. Gaming (except facebook, pogo, etc, which any modern comp can do) is a very small part of the consumer market, which itself is only a part of the overall PC market which includes, education, enterprise and server segments. So basically a small part of one part of the market. Where AMD really needs to improve market penetration is servers, in which they are actually at an all time low.
 

tipoo

Senior member
Oct 4, 2012
245
7
81
The console contracts were nice, and perhaps will make it easier to design cross platform titles. The trend toward more cores (not necessarily related to consoles, it is already in progress) will also help AMD be more competitive on the gaming CPU front.

However, I cant see either of these really helping AMD that much. Gaming (except facebook, pogo, etc, which any modern comp can do) is a very small part of the consumer market, which itself is only a part of the overall PC market which includes, education, enterprise and server segments. So basically a small part of one part of the market. Where AMD really needs to improve market penetration is servers, in which they are actually at an all time low.


I think the eighth gen consoles will also help pushing HSA out the door too, as developers will want to use the GPU to offload some tasks. I don't know how much impact that will have on the broader market since it seems that would stay inside the developer companies, but it's something.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
The console contracts were nice, and perhaps will make it easier to design cross platform titles. The trend toward more cores (not necessarily related to consoles, it is already in progress)

Could you explain what do you mean by nice?

Margins on this kind of contract are usually below par, but you get a steady revenue stream for a sizable period. That's not usually something game changing.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
Step back and read what I wrote, you so desperately want to see me as bashing AMD that you cannot even recognize when I am doing the opposite.
My apologizes.
As to who would license the technology - anyone that is looking for something to give them an edge in integrated graphics over their existing rivals. Who wouldn't want to license it to compete against Apple or Samsung?
Anyone, meaning, who? You're saying in theory it will happen, but not saying who would actually license the tech. Intel already has access to AMD's patents, so no potential revenue uptick there.
Think of the business argument for why AMD spunoff their fabs and created GloFo. There is no reason why the same argument could not be made of their GPU tech. Unlock that shareholder value.
This is a flawed comparison. Apple doesn't own their fabs, but they are about the richest company on earth. Now do you see Apple going out and selling their IP to anyone? Nope, they do the exact opposite they come down on you fiercely if you even go near their patents. IP is THE most valuable asset you have in this industry, dilute it or sell it off and you're lost in the wilderness.

I am not against AMD licensing their GPU tech (although I still would like to hear who specifically would take them up on the offer) but they have to be very, very careful how they do it. The console contracts are a great example of doing it right, you drive your tech into the console market, and benefit on the PC side. The respective console vendors don't care about making GPUs other than the specific products so you are not creating a competitor to yourself. But start licensing the tech to a company that ends up directly competing with you, and you're cutting off your nose to spite your face.

AMD's problem is not lack of tech, innovation, they are not lacking at all on in these areas. What AMD lacks is the ability to create a market presence. They are stuck battling Intel which has tried every trick in the book (often illegal) to put AMD out of business. And they are up against a very determined Nvidia. It's not hard to see why this creates a struggling company!

AMD has no problems competing with Nvidia, but going up against Intel has bled them dry, they either have to find a way to push their x86 products into markets Intel can't, or get out of x86 for good. Again in one respect they have done this, the console contracts are x86 products Intel has no hope of competing with. AMD needs to do more of this, although it is very difficult because Intel has the distribution channel completely locked down.

So in a nutshell, how does AMD turn the ship around? In my view, they need a culture change. They need to methodically create a public image of themselves, create buzz for their products. Basically smart marketing combined with products that differentiate. They have the tech, but completely lack public awareness and image. The overwhelming opinion of the casual buying is that Nvidia is the best, in fact many don't even realize AMD exists, or think they are some obscure budget brand. Nvidia has carefully cultivated their image to the point where we see an Apple like following, that irrational attachment is a marketers dream.

AMD needs a CEO with some imagination, I don't this Rory is that guy.

edit - one thing that is critically important if for AMD to pour more resources into software. Think about what Steve Jobs did when he came back to Apple. Did he go out and innovate on the hardware side? Of course, but where the genius came from is on software. The original iPhone is an unbelievable example of the difference innovating in software can make. Jobs created an entire company infrastructure revolving around software, without it the hardware is useless. Sounds obvious but can't be stated enough. Look at what Nvidia has done on the professional graphics side. Do they make better Pro level GPUs? No not really, but they have the software base to back it up.
 
Last edited:

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
Intel already has access to AMD's patents, so no potential revenue uptick there.

Intel does not have access to all of AMD's patents, just the select ones that belong to a portfolio of x86-related patents.

Anyone, meaning, who? You're saying in theory it will happen, but not saying who would actually license the tech.
If we accept the notion that AMD's GPU IP is "the best" then who wouldn't want access to it?

You get overly defensive on the false perception that I didn't think AMD's GPU IP is the best, but then you get argumentative with me when I suggest other companies would kill to gain access to it.

You think Apple would look at their current iGPU, look at what AMD was offering to license to them (if AMD were to choose to license), and decide to stick with the status quo and keep the existing lesser-performing iGPU?

Apple can do, and did do, what it likes because it had/has one thing AMD didn't/doesn't - a warchest stuffed to the brim with billions and billions of cash. Same with Google, and Samsung. It takes money to make money and AMD doesn't have money to speak of.

AMD is not in a position to capitalize on its own IP in the same ways these larger players can and do capitalize on their own IP.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
Intel does not have access to all of AMD's patents, just the select ones that belong to a portfolio of x86-related patents.
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".
AMD is not in a position to capitalize on its own IP in the same ways these larger players can and do capitalize on their own IP.
Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
I did a quick search but did not find it. I'll post it if/when I do. But I'm confident that was said by Dirk.
 

grimpr

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2007
1,095
7
81
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".

Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.

I can attest to that, i heard it also on the web broadcast and my jaw droppped, it was on the AMD financial day after the Intel agreement if i remember correctly.
 

Idontcare

Elite Member
Oct 10, 1999
21,110
59
91
I did a quick search but did not find it. I'll post it if/when I do. But I'm confident that was said by Dirk.

If Intel really did have access to all of AMD's GPU IP do you really think they'd not use any of it?

That they'd keep plodding along with their existing iGPU tech?

It just doesn't stand to reason.

Intel wasted zero time implementing every other patent of relevance to their CPU product line - from ISA extensions to x64 - that they could gleen from AMD's cross-licensed IP.

That they would sit on their hands, having access to leading edge GPU technology but do nothing with it, while continuing to develop an unquestionably inferior GPU microarchitecture is silly if true.

If Intel was willing to dump a billion bucks into Larrabee, there is no way you can convince me they wouldn't dump a billion bucks into creating a GCN clone and eating AMD's lunch the same they have done with CPUs. I don't buy it.
 

Centauri

Golden Member
Dec 10, 2002
1,630
56
91
Aren't margins for that usually pretty thin? It's a nice steady source of revenue, sure, but they were also in 2 seventh gen consoles and it didn't have them rolling in the green.

7th gen: GPU, GPU
8th gen: GPU/CPU, GPU/CPU, GPU

One is better by a long shot than the other.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
...it was on the AMD financial day after the Intel agreement if i remember correctly.
I believe so yes. It is a curious thing but not really that uncommon. The payout/agreement between Intel and Nvidia gives Intel rights to license NV's patents, in exchange Nvidia has access to some of Intel's.

I seem to remember the cross-patent part of the deal between AMD and Intel was 5 years, but I could be wrong.
 

BenchPress

Senior member
Nov 8, 2011
392
0
0
I think the eighth gen consoles will also help pushing HSA out the door too, as developers will want to use the GPU to offload some tasks.
No, they don't.

HSA is acceptable for consoles, but the average desktop developer will not touch the GPU with a ten foot pole. They just want to use a single programming language of their choice and have the compiler optimize for whatever the hardware has to offer. A heterogeneous architecture is not an option, because you can have lots of different configurations of slow or fast CPUs/GPUs with different characteristics such as split or unified memory. Developers have to carefully balance the workloads and make tough decisions on where they want to run things and adjust their algorithms accordingly. It's impossible for the compiler to deal with such complexity.

That's why Intel developed AVX. And I'm not talking about AVX1, I'm talking about AVX1, AVX2, and whatever comes next that uses the VEX encoding. AVX can be extended up to 1024-bit. The important thing here is that AVX adds the same SIMD compute capabilities as the GPU, into the very cores of the CPU. This way it doesn't suffer from any of the problems that heterogeneous computing is facing.

The CPU and GPU have been converging for over a decade. The APU and HSA are basically an intermediate step towards unified computing. Intel is skipping that step and going straight for a UPU with AVX. AMD doesn't even have AVX2 support on its roadmaps yet. This should be their number one R&D priority if they want to survive beyond Haswell.
 

grimpr

Golden Member
Aug 21, 2007
1,095
7
81
If Intel really did have access to all of AMD's GPU IP do you really think they'd not use any of it?

That they'd keep plodding along with their existing iGPU tech?

It just doesn't stand to reason.

Intel wasted zero time implementing every other patent of relevance to their CPU product line - from ISA extensions to x64 - that they could gleen from AMD's cross-licensed IP.

That they would sit on their hands, having access to leading edge GPU technology but do nothing with it, while continuing to develop an unquestionably inferior GPU microarchitecture is silly if true.

If Intel was willing to dump a billion bucks into Larrabee, there is no way you can convince me they wouldn't dump a billion bucks into creating a GCN clone and eating AMD's lunch the same they have done with CPUs. I don't buy it.

To clone radeon ip no, but to take ideas and use whatever Intel decided its best for its interests to beef up its own gpu architecture without in expense of the x86 cores, most propably.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
If Intel really did have access to all of AMD's GPU IP do you really think they'd not use any of it?

That they'd keep plodding along with their existing iGPU tech?

It just doesn't stand to reason.
I agree it doesn't make much sense on the surface, but what it says is making a good GPU is not so easy. As I just posted, Intel has access to Nvidia's patents as part of that agreement. So are they taking advantage of it? Not so far.
Intel wasted zero time implementing every other patent of relevance to their CPU product line - from ISA extensions to x64 - that they could gleen from AMD's cross-licensed IP.
Actually Intel dragged their feet on AMD64, they setup a side "just in case" project as a contingency. Recall that Intel wanted to move away from x86 and push Itanium into the consumer space.
That they would sit on their hands, having access to leading edge GPU technology but do nothing with it, while continuing to develop an unquestionably inferior GPU microarchitecture is silly if true.
Well it is indeed true. As I stated, making a GPU is not so easy like some may think. You especially have to have extensive expertise on the software side, something Intel is very poor at. Intel's GPU drivers are absolutely the worst even today, and they've gotten a lot better.
If Intel was willing to dump a billion bucks into Larrabee, there is no way you can convince me they wouldn't dump a billion bucks into creating a GCN clone and eating AMD's lunch the same they have done with CPUs. I don't buy it.
You may not buy it, but it's reality. What you're not taking into account is Intel's overall business strategy. x86 into everything because they have exclusive rights to it. Intel wanted to push x86 into graphics because that would help extent their virtual monopoly. Ill conceived yes, but that was a major motivating force for them.

Again on the question of why Intel doesn't go out and make a GCN clone, it is not so easy. You need hundreds of engineers with the proper experience, a strategical challenge that takes years. People say AMD paid too much for ATI, probably yes, but I bet for Intel to come up with a division that is as good as the graphics division AMD has, it would cost them well over 5 billion. They spent at least a billion on a single failed graphics project, ATI tech is extensive not to mention the people that came along with the purchase, you can't simply go out and buy that so easily.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
642
126
Could you explain what do you mean by nice?

Margins on this kind of contract are usually below par, but you get a steady revenue stream for a sizable period. That's not usually something game changing.

Did you not read my entire post? The whole point of it was that the console contracts were not really going to be a game changer, like some seem to believe. They get some good publicity and some income: I dont see how that is not "nice" compared to not getting anything.
 

Ajay

Lifer
Jan 8, 2001
16,094
8,110
136
Yes they do, this has come up before. Dirk Meyer was asked during a conference call (they were discussing the new agreement with Intel) if Intel now has access to AMD's graphics IP. His answer was simply "yes".

Agreed. But with careful planning and execution, they can get to that point.

Yeah, but AMD goes and does stuff like marching into ARM when they already had good x86 SoC in the pipeline (Jaguar). They should have never wasted the talent, time and $$s are ARM development and just pushed that into improving their existing SoC line so that they could get it into phones in the next node (20nm). I can't tell you just how crazy this drives me. They also could have pursued the LP server market with those same cores. I like rooting for the underdog, but damn, AMD is thick D:
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
but I bet for Intel to come up with a division that is as good as the graphics division AMD has, it would cost them well over 5 billion. They spent at least a billion on a single failed graphics project, ATI tech is extensive not to mention the people that came along with the purchase, you can't simply go out and buy that so easily.

5 billion? Net? Not on your life. With that money you can buy Nvidia and still have a nice change for the tip.
 

BenchPress

Senior member
Nov 8, 2011
392
0
0
edit - one thing that is critically important if for AMD to pour more resources into software.
No. Why waste money on software when there's millions of developers eager to use new hardware if it offers them good ROI?

AMD already wasted lots of money on HSA. But it's not popular because it doesn't offer good ROI for developers. Only a fraction of hardware is every going to support it, the specifications are highly variable (forget about "code once - run everywhere"), it takes great expertise to maximize concurrency, and some workloads are just not parallel enough to compensate for the synchronization and bandwidth overhead of splitting things between the CPU and GPU. For the average developer it's a nightmarishly high investment with low returns.

AVX2 is a low investment, since the compiler can use it without having to deal with complex issues such as overhead trade-offs, and while it "only" offers twice the throughput, that's a guarantee (for any code that is also a theoretical candidate for GPGPU if the heterogeneous overhead is ignored). A consumer quad-core Haswell chip will offer nearly 500 GFLOPS of computing power, and that's nothing to sneeze at. It's like getting a GeForce 450 with your CPU, for free. Also, it's only going to get better. AVX can be extended from 256-bit to 1024-bit, and replacing the integrated GPU with more CPU cores to turn it into a UPU would also double the throughput, using the same code. So it's a very small and very safe investment for developers.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
Yeah, but AMD goes and does stuff like marching into ARM when they already had good x86 SoC in the pipeline (Jaguar). They should have never wasted the talent, time and $$s are ARM development and just pushed that into improving their existing SoC line so that they could get it into phones in the next node (20nm). I can't tell you just how crazy this drives me.
I completely agree with you. It was highly speculated that Dirk was fired because his lack of a proper ultra mobile strategy. But I don't see Rory doing anything on this front either, they are still stuck in the old mindset.
5 billion? Net? Not on your life. With that money you can buy Nvidia and still have a nice change for the tip.
What are you smoking? NVDA's market cap is about 8 billion, and you typically have to overpay get acquire a company. Plus in reality Nvidia is worth way more than their market cap suggests. And to that point, if it would really cost Intel only 5 billion to instantly be as good as AMD and Nvidia in graphics, what are they waiting for? 5 billion for Intel is pocket change, the only thing preventing them from jumping all in on graphics if that is really the entry cost would be gross stupidity.

Basically what you're saying is, 1 billion+ gives you Larrabee, a still born project. But 5 billion gives you a division as good as Nvidia. Are you really saying this?
 
Last edited:

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
What are you smoking? NVDA's market cap is about 8 billion, and you typically have to overpay get acquire a company. Plus in reality Nvidia is worth way more than their market cap suggests.

I'm not smoking anything, could you please refrain from this kind of comment in the future?

market cap is 8 billion, but 3.7 billions are cash equivalents and the company has essentially 0 debt, meaning that with 4.3 billion you can buy the company. Yes, an acquisition might imply in premiums, but even 15% over the share price isn't insignificant. So yes, you can buy Nvidia with 5 billion.

As for Nvidia be worth more than their market cap suggests, well, the shareholders, the people that actually put their own money in the company, disagree with you. Between your opinion and theirs, I'll stick with theirs.
 

AnandThenMan

Diamond Member
Nov 11, 2004
3,980
597
126
Can't agree with you at all if you really think Nvidia could be had for 4.3 billion, or 5 billion this is absurd.
 

mrmt

Diamond Member
Aug 18, 2012
3,974
0
76
Can't agree with you at all if you really think Nvidia could be had for 4.3 billion, or 5 billion this is absurd.

That's standard procedure in valuation methods. Cash and equivalents are added 1:1 to the market cap, debt is subtracted 1:1. If you find this absurd, well... I'll be curious for your valuation method that does not consider cash at 1:1 rate in the market cap.