I wonder if AMD ends up undergoing divestment and say, the TSMC targeted stuff (Jaguar, discrete GPUs) goes to one company apart from all the other stuff.. would that company have any obligation to GF?
- Status
You have two scenarios here, both have problems:
- The first scenario where you have a spun off company, completely independent from AMD, that would be able to manufacture chips at TSMC, but it would have no license deal with Intel and consequently wouldn't be able to manufacture x86 chips. The company also wouldn't be able to transfer funding to AMD, meaning that AMD would have 0 incentives to pursue this route.
- The second scenario is where you have an AMD subsidiary or least a company controlled by AMD. In this case, the company wouldn't be out of the WSA range, meaning that it would have to manufacture chips at GLF.
The WSA is a death embrace, only in a chapter 11 restructuring AMD will be able to get rid of the thing, this or *a lot* of money paid up front. AMD cannot get the money, and chapter 11 brings a whole set of problems for everyone.
In the end, it's GLF way or the highway (chapter 7).
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
According to the arstechnica article they are more as Rocky
Here's the original photo from the article.
They could certainly sell-off the assets that exist surrounding the "cat" line to any company with an existing x86 license should that company be interested in pursuing it. (Via for example)
That'd be pretty crazy and interesting. But it'd be bad news if Jaguar was sold without the graphics tech. Maybe the latter could be licensed.
Just imagining how much AMD paid for ATi, I wonder how much it'd realistically go for today.. AMD is worth so much less than what they paid then, yet it's not like the graphics division brings in much less than it used to..
Just imagining how much AMD paid for ATi, I wonder how much it'd realistically go for today.. AMD is worth so much less than what they paid then, yet it's not like the graphics division brings in much less than it used to..
Here's the original photo from the article.
Your link is not even from the arstechnica site. That photo was taken several years ago, at an informal AMD party where they celebrated the 10th time that they had been killed by Intel.
Burning more shareholder equity while partying like it was 1999? You're right, that does sound just like AMD :whiste:
- Mar 13, 2006
- 10,140
- 819
- 126
Way to make yourself took even dumber.
http://arstechnica.com/business/201...derdog-stuck-it-to-intel/?comments=1&start=40
Aurich Lawson Ars Creative Director said:
Last edited:
They were trying to make a nice server chip with Phenom 1 and 2. It was actually not a bad server chip when it was competing against the core 2 series, problem was with their fabs and the 65nm and 45nm production. Initially it was low yield and late, by the time AMD fixed those issues Intel was moving on past with a well executed tick tock.
Give it a rest guys. Bobcat actually sold like hotcakes - and not for the embedded. Its hardly there you can fault AMDImagine how many Atom AMD could have pushed. Zero,- as they could not afford all the "design wins" for phones and tablets and as its absolutely crap for..., well its just crap for everything. The netbook market it had existed 3-5 years ago.
Part of the problem is that in late 2012 and early 2013 bobcat is not selling like hotcakes anymore. It was selling very well in early 2011 and early 2012, but it is starting to decline
q2-2012 amd sold 8.423 million mobile cpus
q3-2012 amd sold 7.773 million mobile cpus
difference is a loss of 650,000 mobile cpus
during that same time period (just focusing on mobile bobcat cpu sold instead of all mobile cpus sold)
q2-2012 amd sold 5.561 million bobcat cpus
q3-2012 amd sold 4.674 million bobcat cpus
difference is 887,000 bobcat mobile cpus. The entire loss of the mobile cpu from q2 to q3 was due to less bobcat sells. AMD actually gain more high end mobile cpus from people switching from llano to trinity but this gain did not recoup the loss of bobcat
http://www.cpu-world.com/news_2012/2012112001_AMD_sold_15_4_million_CPUs_in_Q3_2012.html
During that same time period amd also lost 1.3 million desktop cpu sales comparing q2 vs q3.
-------
Has anyone seen the q4 breakdown?
This just shows that you are not reading my posts. The link to the image that I gave is from arstechnica site
http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/amd-boxer-training.jpg
The link that you give "is not from arstechnica site"
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/227626/Shared/amd-clown-burst.jpg
I repeat: the dropboxusercontent.com image is from an old informal party at AMD. Now try to guess who is the Clown...
You are doing that thing again, just like you did over the "Windows Home cannot use 16GB of ram" emberrasment, where you strive to prove to everyone that you are/were technically right because you just can't admit/accept that you might have been wrong.
Its fooling no one, win the battle but lose the war, and in a forum the thing you are losing is your credibility.
Picking fights and hanging on to the bitter end with semantics is just painting yourself as the kind of poster you really don't want others to assume you to be.
Learn to say the occasional "mea culpa" or "my bad", being wrong on occasion happens to everyone. However gracefully, or not, you handle it when it does happen is how you will come to be judged by your peers.
(and that is true in all walks of life, not just these forums)
That's not context. It's you trying to shill using a year-old report while ignoring everything that shows you to be incorrect.
This was already addressed in a thread last week:
What I wrote last week said:
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,447
- 5,819
- 136
Accusation of shilling from a moderator? Hope there's some hard evidence to back that up
Accusation of shilling from a moderator? Hope there's some hard evidence to back that up
My post that I just quoted was a direct response to him last week, and he posted in the thread after I posted it. Now he comes in here, ignoring that, and trying to use a year-old article to claim that Intel is losing market share.
What else would you call that?
NTMBK
Lifer
- Nov 14, 2011
- 10,447
- 5,819
- 136
Being a (massively overenthusiastic) fanboy.
Shilling is when he gains personally from his fanboyism (e.g. he is on the payroll for AMD, or owns stock), and is a much more serious accusation.
ShintaiDK
Lifer
- Apr 22, 2012
- 20,378
- 146
- 106
One of the regular trolls that always emerges when bad news hit his favoured company
A shill implies that he is payed to do so. But I am pretty sure he is not smart enough for that. He does it out of pure devotion for free.
Last edited:
Fine. Technically I don't know that that's the case.
But if he isn't being paid to post here -- he should be.
Accusation of shilling from a moderator? Hope there's some hard evidence to back that up
Isn't the shilling obvious? Overall market didn't report numbers even close to AMD drop. Heck, Nobody but AMD reported the kind of precipitous fall in revenues like AMD did. Nobody. In AMD's case, it may be called a classic red herring to blame the market for their current conditions, and even AMD CEO, CFO, CTO, SVPs and what not agree with that. They acknowledge that the market is choppy, but that they aren't where they were supposed to be and he is trying to turn the ship around. Even if you look at glassdoor former employees will give evidence of a company in trouble.
...and yet the AMD fanboys here are not even ashamed in blaming tough market conditions for AMD problems. Galego is just one more to do that.
Edit: Technically, not shilling.
Except that in my original post i clearly wrote "link" not "image". It is not my fault if some people cannot see the difference. Unless you can shown me that https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/ is the new arstechnica site: http://cdn.arstechnica.net/
in whose case I will apologize...
Regarding the 16 GB issue... well, as you know I already posted in public that I was wrong, I explained why I was wrong, and I gave the thanks to the guy who corrected me.
That is more than you do. I recall the Windows 7/8 BD patches issue, where you tried to convince me about how more performance would become at the expense of more power. You went towards the 'technical' side posting lots of equations to try to win your argument. I provided you real word measurements showing how the FX-patches generated improvement in performance whereas cutting down power consumption.
Your answer to the correction? You just disappeared from that thread.
Last edited:
My reply was to a poster discussing Q2-1012 results. I have Q1-2013 results as well.
http://www.ibtimes.com/amd-market-share-rises-intel-revenue-grows-197098
Once again: Please don't try to kill the messenger if you don't like the message...
EDIT: That is from 2007. My mistake
Last edited:
- Status
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 + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter