The end of AMD

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Viditor
Great post Ctho!!

Acanthus...
Just a thought for you. If AMD actually were actually selling below cost, then the more they sold, the more they would lose...this just isn't the case.

K, all is well at AMD.

$50 CPUs will keep them afloat im sure with US $10bln in debt looming overhead.

Phenom is a joke, and Intel will drive quad core prices down to the bargain bin too once 45nm gets rolling.

Im not an Intel fanboi, im looking at this from AMDs position. Where is their out? When will profitability return?

Look at the numbers, look at their stock price, look at their debt. Youd have to be retarded to think AMD is making money.

You're jumbling together all kinds of things, and many of them are wrong...

1. Obviously AMD is selling their parts for a profit (as I pointed out). Otherwise, the more they sell, the more they lose...
2. AMD has only $5.34 B in debt, not $10 Billion.
3. AMD's debt is reducing and their cash is increasing.
4. AMD's sales are increasing.
5. AMD's ASP (Average Sales Price) is increasing.
6. AMD's graphics income is increasing.
7. AMD suspects that there is a very good chance they will break even this quarter, and that's without Phenom income.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Viditor
Great post Ctho!!

Acanthus...
Just a thought for you. If AMD actually were actually selling below cost, then the more they sold, the more they would lose...this just isn't the case.

K, all is well at AMD.

$50 CPUs will keep them afloat im sure with US $10bln in debt looming overhead.

Phenom is a joke, and Intel will drive quad core prices down to the bargain bin too once 45nm gets rolling.

Im not an Intel fanboi, im looking at this from AMDs position. Where is their out? When will profitability return?

Look at the numbers, look at their stock price, look at their debt. Youd have to be retarded to think AMD is making money.

You're jumbling together all kinds of things, and many of them are wrong...

1. Obviously AMD is selling their parts for a profit (as I pointed out). Otherwise, the more they sell, the more they lose...
2. AMD has only $5.34 B in debt, not $10 Billion.
3. AMD's debt is reducing and their cash is increasing.
4. AMD's sales are increasing.
5. AMD's ASP (Average Sales Price) is increasing.
6. AMD's graphics income is increasing.
7. AMD suspects that there is a very good chance they will break even this quarter, and that's without Phenom income.

Ahh you and dmens are volunteers at intel? all that equipment is dontated? I didnt know the cost of a processor was the cost of getting the silicon out of the dirt. You are twisting my words my friend, they arent losing money per processor, they arent making a return on their enormous investment.

5.34B in debt for the ATI aquisition... they also have 2 oustanding loans on fabs.

Hard to increase debt when no one will loan you more money.

Sales =/= profit

ASP is increasing because they have phenom out now... X2s are as cheap as ever.

Graphics income is increasing because they have a new product, shocker.

They wont break even, they wont even be close.

You also forgot to refute my edit... (Etrade and AMDs own financial reports).

 

[SickBeast]

Acanthus: AMD's only "out" right now is Fusion (and perhaps 45nm).

There is also the possibility that the dual-core Phenom will compete well with C2D on a new revision.

Buy low, sell high, isn't that what they say? It's risky, but they could wind up making some risky people a ton of money.

Oh, and by the way: AMD *will* be bought out before they go broke. Perhaps that is what they are hoping for at this point.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


Ahh you and dmens are volunteers at intel? all that equipment is dontated? I didnt know the cost of a processor was the cost of getting the silicon out of the dirt. You are twisting my words my friend, they arent losing money per processor, they arent making a return on their enormous investment.

5.34B in debt for the ATI aquisition... they also have 2 oustanding loans on fabs.

If you look at AMD's financials, you'll see that the TOTAL debt is $5.34 B...this includes both Fabs and ATI.

ASP is increasing because they have phenom out now... X2s are as cheap as ever.

Absolutely none of that ASP increase is from Phenom, and none of Phenom is calculated in the Q4 estimates.

You also forgot to refute my edit... (Etrade and AMDs own financial reports).

That's because it would take to long to explain and it's been gone over many times already...
Suffice to say that if you look at how much AMD had at the end of Q2 and the amount they had at the end of Q3, you will see that the difference is only $66 million...
There are a lot of aspects to GAP earnings that require extensive explanations, but very little of those "losses" are actual money...

 

[Cookie Monster]

There should be a rep system here because clarkey01 deserves one.

Nice post, haven't seen such posts from a AT user in a long while.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: CTho9305
AMD also provides a larger set of execution units - including 3 integer ALUs and 3 AGEN units; IIRC, Intel's architectures provide fewer of both (unfortunately I can't find a block diagram right now and don't want to go hunting through papers to find one).

Ars has a block diagram (and an overview of the Core uarch) that AFAIK is accurate.

That's another thing that's interesting about the PPro-derived microarchitectures - it looks like they do a "unified scheduler" of some sort - instructions of different types (integer, floating point, SSE) compete for the same set of resources (for example, if you're doing a floating point add (port 1) and a floating point multiply (port 0), you can only issue one integer operation in that cycle (port 2)). On K7-like architectures, the FPU (which handles floating point, MMX, and SSE) is largely independent of the integer execution core - I think you can issue a floating point add, floating point multiply, and 3 integer operations at the same time because the FPU resources are independent (though it's probably not sustainable - I'd have to think about how to keep that many units busy). What I find impressive is that the PPro-like design doesn't get demolished by the K7-like design - that implies that Intel did a damn good job of picking the mix of execution units (and which units to put on each port) for their target applications.

 

[SX2012]

I think everyone was expecting this:

http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2397&p=17

and instead got this

http://www.anandtech.com/cpuch...howdoc.aspx?i=3153&p=7

and now we have a AMD died thread

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: CTho9305
AMD also provides a larger set of execution units - including 3 integer ALUs and 3 AGEN units; IIRC, Intel's architectures provide fewer of both (unfortunately I can't find a block diagram right now and don't want to go hunting through papers to find one).

Ars has a block diagram (and an overview of the Core uarch) that AFAIK is accurate.

That's another thing that's interesting about the PPro-derived microarchitectures - it looks like they do a "unified scheduler" of some sort - instructions of different types (integer, floating point, SSE) compete for the same set of resources (for example, if you're doing a floating point add (port 1) and a floating point multiply (port 0), you can only issue one integer operation in that cycle (port 2)). On K7-like architectures, the FPU (which handles floating point, MMX, and SSE) is largely independent of the integer execution core - I think you can issue a floating point add, floating point multiply, and 3 integer operations at the same time because the FPU resources are independent (though it's probably not sustainable - I'd have to think about how to keep that many units busy). What I find impressive is that the PPro-like design doesn't get demolished by the K7-like design - that implies that Intel did a damn good job of picking the mix of execution units (and which units to put on each port) for their target applications.

on p6 style, the scheduler is unified, but the basic resources are replicated, so there is no competition on the resource side. what is being contended for is a scheduling slot. if the resource is pipelined, different operations can still be executed in parallel.

also, consider the upside of the p6 scheme in terms of latency in passing information from one uop to another.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Acanthus


Ahh you and dmens are volunteers at intel? all that equipment is dontated? I didnt know the cost of a processor was the cost of getting the silicon out of the dirt. You are twisting my words my friend, they arent losing money per processor, they arent making a return on their enormous investment.

5.34B in debt for the ATI aquisition... they also have 2 oustanding loans on fabs.

If you look at AMD's financials, you'll see that the TOTAL debt is $5.34 B...this includes both Fabs and ATI.

ASP is increasing because they have phenom out now... X2s are as cheap as ever.

Absolutely none of that ASP increase is from Phenom, and none of Phenom is calculated in the Q4 estimates.

You also forgot to refute my edit... (Etrade and AMDs own financial reports).

That's because it would take to long to explain and it's been gone over many times already...
Suffice to say that if you look at how much AMD had at the end of Q2 and the amount they had at the end of Q3, you will see that the difference is only $66 million...
There are a lot of aspects to GAP earnings that require extensive explanations, but very little of those "losses" are actual money...

Alright vid, ill just concede that my argument has no merit because i dont feel like arguing it against the condascending tone you set in most of your posts

Its all there in black and white, US $1bln in losses in the last 9 months. Where they magically came up with $3bln to reduce their debt recently is beyond me because im not seeing it in the books (which of course are unaudited).

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Alright vid, ill just concede that my argument has no merit because i dont feel like arguing it against the condascending tone you set in most of your posts

Its all there in black and white, US $1bln in losses in the last 9 months. Where they magically came up with $3bln to reduce their debt recently is beyond me because im not seeing it in the books (which of course are unaudited).

If I seemed condescending, I do apologize...that definitely wasn't my intent.
In my own defense, as the self-appointed "Defender of the Opposition", I do get barraged quite often...besides, I've been working on 4 hours sleep a night, and at my age, crankiness is often the result.

If you're interested, you can get the latest 10-Q (that's the quarterly report filed with the SEC) here.
Even though it's unaudited, it still has to be pretty accurate to avoid the legal penalties (recent laws now hold the CFO and CEO accountable, and can incur prison time if they're wrong).
Even though AMD shows a $1.6 Billion loss for the year, if you look at page 6, that represents a lot of things other than actual money...
The Net Cash used for operations over the first 3 quarters of 2007 was only $371 Million.
So in essence, during one of their worst years in a very long time...where they didn't have the lead in anything but higher end servers, AMD lost only ~$41 Million/month...and that number is trending to profit fast.

As to them dropping their debt $3 Billion, I really don't know what you mean. Could you have miscalculated on that?

 

[bryanW1995]

it's easy to trash amd right now b/c they're so weak in the areas that we are interested in: ie, high-end gaming rigs and low-end gaming rigs that will overclock to high-end speeds. it's nice that they game out with a decent gpu finally, but frankly I don't see how they're going to get back on an even footing with intel in the forseeable future. This isn't like the A64 and x2 days when amd had a slight lead but intel was still competitive in many areas, intel has a HUGE lead and they are only expanding it in the short-term with penryn and the medium-term with nehalem. frankly I don't see how amd will be able to stay in the desktop market if they don't find a way to get more competitive.

 

[zsdersw]

The ship is unsinkable. It is, after all, made of iron.

 

[Nemesis 1]

AMD isn't going anyware for awhile. They have just been put back a bit.

With all the talk of Intel vs. AMD . I am really excited to see Intels new Nehalem processors. It will be most interesting to see Nehalem with and without IMC . Ya this will finally tell us the differamces speeds between IMC and a fsb. It will also allow us to make direct comparison between Intels IMC vs. AMD . Wouldn't it be something if Intels version was both faster and better designed. If this occors than AMD has something to worry about.

Whats up with all the bad math and keeping up with current events . Intel moved Penryn forward 11/2 months. THATS current events. Math = 32nm cores Nehalem C in last qt. of 09 or 1st quarter of 2010. THATS 2 years. Don't worry about intel delivering on time. It seems Intel has been doing just fine at delivering the parts we want.

AMD is the one making hugh promizes and coming up way short. WAY SHORT.

 

[AlabamaMan]

Originally posted by: JumpingJack

Originally posted by: clarkey01
We must congratulate AMD for giving it's best. If anyone on this board feels they could of done better in the last 3 years then it's time for a reality check.

It's very well someone on a board saying " AMD sux, they did nothing for 4 years, borrrring" . I fully believe they have tried there best, why wouldn't they ? If they come short then why is there an outcry and teasing? Intel fans do know there beloved company will only raises prices if AMD failed?

What AMD need is someone with big pockets and knowledge of the industry....IBM

Yeah, this is a good point -- by itself, without the inevitable comparision to the other guy -- the Barcelona/Agena is a success. It was a massive overhaul, retaining the basic structure of the K8 which, clock for clock, did in fact improve significantly IPC wise over the prior generation product, based on data a healthy 15% IPC per core. Couple with a very complex native design, AMD has nothing to be ashamed of in this regard.

...

I recall seeing Phenom X2 benchmarks (with X4 with two cores disabled) which at the same clock speed outperfromed X2 by only 1-2%.

 

[trajan2050]

AMD hitting new lows every day.

ADV MICRO DEVICES (NYSE:AMD)

Last Trade: 10.50


Another factor limiting flexibilty as their capital base continues to erode.

 

[Viditor]

Originally posted by: trajan2050

Another factor limiting flexibilty as their capital base continues to erode.

Sorry, but just what the heck are you talking about?

 

[trajan2050]

Simply put, public companies use their own stock for all manner of capital expansions, debt reductions, to raise cash etc, just as a homeowner might borrow against the equity in his home. AMD just sold 49,000,000 shares to an Arab investment firm at 12.70, the closing price on that day, for $622 million. At todays price of $10.37 they would have had to sell a larger stake or accept much less cash.
As the price of a stock declines, exactly as a homeowner's equity declines in a bear real estate market, it can be a very limiting factor. For example, it is possible that a homeowner might owe more than the home is worth, making it impossible to borrow against it's value. In the case of AMD, if the stock continues it's slide, in the not too distant future it will reach a point where the value of the company is less than its debt, in effect a negative net worth, making it extremely difficult to raise cash.

 

[trajan2050]

http://online.barrons.com/arti...=yahoobarrons&ru=yahoo

Good article from Barron's about AMD.
Perhaps the most dramatic example of this flight from credit risk last week was provided by microprocessor-maker Advanced Micro Devices (AMD). Oddly, its stock has been clobbered since AMD announced that it would get a $622 million cash infusion from an arm of the government of Abu Dhabi in exchange for an 8.1% equity stake. Through Wednesday, Advanced Micro Devices had dropped 14.7% since it disclosed the deal on Nov. 16; the value of the Abu Dhabi stake was down by $92 million by Wednesday's close, when AMD's shares hit their lowest level in more than three years.

While bulls enthused about the cash infusion, the stock purchase doesn't go very far toward solving Advanced Micro Devices' primary problem -- competing head-to-head against Intel, a far-better-capitalized rival. In fact, in some ways the deal backfired, serving to cast a spotlight on AMD's balance-sheet issues. Caris & Co.'s Daniel Berenbaum wrote in a research note that the Abu Dhabi transaction was a "band-aid," rather than a cure.

AMD, which has more than $5 billion in debt and about $1.5 billion in cash, has lost more than $1.6 billion this year. Its stock, which closed Wednesday at 10.83, ended 2006 at 20.35.

 

[Cookie Monster]

Originally posted by: zsdersw
The ship is unsinkable. It is, after all, made of iron.

Isn't that what they said when the Titanic first set sail?

 

[Phynaz]

Originally posted by: Viditor

Originally posted by: Phynaz

Originally posted by: w00t
I'll believe AMD is done when they are

AMD is working on fusion to incorporate a CPU and GPU into one chip increasing mass production and decreasing cost.

Which is 3 years out, according to recent history.
What keeps the company fed until then?

I see...then let's base Nehalem's release on the actual release vs the proposed release of Itanium. Are you saying we will see Nehalem in 2011 then?

It's a nonsensical argument...

Name a product that AMD has shipped on time in the last 12-18-24 months. If you would like I can put together the list of Intel products they shipped on time or early in that same time frame.

You say it's nonsensical, I say it's extrapolating from prior performance.

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: Aluvus

Originally posted by: CTho9305
AMD also provides a larger set of execution units - including 3 integer ALUs and 3 AGEN units; IIRC, Intel's architectures provide fewer of both (unfortunately I can't find a block diagram right now and don't want to go hunting through papers to find one).

Ars has a block diagram (and an overview of the Core uarch) that AFAIK is accurate.

That's another thing that's interesting about the PPro-derived microarchitectures - it looks like they do a "unified scheduler" of some sort - instructions of different types (integer, floating point, SSE) compete for the same set of resources (for example, if you're doing a floating point add (port 1) and a floating point multiply (port 0), you can only issue one integer operation in that cycle (port 2)). On K7-like architectures, the FPU (which handles floating point, MMX, and SSE) is largely independent of the integer execution core - I think you can issue a floating point add, floating point multiply, and 3 integer operations at the same time because the FPU resources are independent (though it's probably not sustainable - I'd have to think about how to keep that many units busy). What I find impressive is that the PPro-like design doesn't get demolished by the K7-like design - that implies that Intel did a damn good job of picking the mix of execution units (and which units to put on each port) for their target applications.

on p6 style, the scheduler is unified, but the basic resources are replicated, so there is no competition on the resource side. what is being contended for is a scheduling slot. if the resource is pipelined, different operations can still be executed in parallel.

also, consider the upside of the p6 scheme in terms of latency in passing information from one uop to another.

By resources I was referring to scheduler slots. What's the latency advantage? Can't both architectures bypass any integer result to any integer unit in a single cycle? I wouldn't expect much advantage from the potential for faster float/sse->int communication with the unified architecture...

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

First of all, Microsoft is in league with AMD....as seen by their shared advertising and product tours. Primarily because of the Intel/Apple deal which gives Microsoft incentive, all things being equal, of having AMD succeed. They use their processors in their XBox 360.

Second, the AMD acquisition, while costly, puts AMD in a unique situation where they have access to the technologies of both high en CPUs and high end GPUs. This WILL yield enormous benefits at some point. Whether through a GPU/CPU hybrid chip or just a notebook platform like Centrino that offers optimized power savings and performance by integrating all their resources.

Third, I don't know about anybody else, but I'm seeing AMD chips all over the place now especially in places like Dell where they are featured in their $399 notebook deals that sell like hotcakes.

All things considered, I'm surprised that AMD has held onto as large a market share as they have and I think that bodes well for them. They're thinking of losing Ruiz and selling a FAB in Germany to TSMC which would be a cash infusion. Might be opening a mega plant in NY that wold be heavily subsidized. Their 38XX product line is in perfect position, pending a price drop in the immediate future, of capturing a majority of holiday sales. They're so far the far more "green" chip manufacturer. They're changing their sales strategy by shifintg to regional sales specialists.

Their stock hit is in line with the overall market over the past few weeks and, I don't think, an indication of a foundering business but rather, an undervalued one that rode the bigger wave down a little bit more. We'll see, I guess.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

I think we are all disappointed that AMD didn't capitalize when they had the chance. They had a product out for years that Intel couldn't touch until C2D and did very little to improve upon it. It was a costly lesson for them because Intel is rolling right now. They are executing well at every step and look to squash AMD.

I do like what AMD is doing in the graphics arena. Going multi-core now will pay big dividends for them in the future IMHO.

 

[AlabamaCajun]

Loose lips sink iron ships.
Intel is doing a bang up job on AMD do we really have to bitch fest online about it. If people love intel so much then go drink the blue coolaid and stop pissing in the green coolaid

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
I think we are all disappointed that AMD didn't capitalize when they had the chance. They had a product out for years that Intel couldn't touch until C2D and did very little to improve upon it. It was a costly lesson for them because Intel is rolling right now. They are executing well at every step and look to squash AMD.

I do like what AMD is doing in the graphics arena. Going multi-core now will pay big dividends for them in the future IMHO.

I dont know what you mean by multi-core, architecturally GPUs have been multi-core for 8 years or so.

If you mean more than 2 GPUs, that sounds awfully familiar to another company...

Ill give you a hint:

"Im not the one whos so far away when i feel the snakebite enter my veins, never did i want to be here again, and i dont remember why i came."