AMD in trouble

F

foxnews

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
378
two years ago, Intel strugled but now it is succeeding. now AMD is in trouble. is Intel killing AMD that bad? what can we do to save AMD? no one want AMD to die. come one people, any idea?

but I can't give up my core 2 duo. I can't just stop buying Intel.
 
Their revenue droped alot for one quarter, its not like they are bleeding money for 4 years in a row like ford and Chrysler.
 
Right...AMD been around for a long time. I don't think a little profit loss will take them out of the picture.
 
I don't think that Intel really had a struggle, I think they are always making money...
 
I doubt very much AMD is in any trouble....A restructuring may be in order, but thats just big business....they aint goin nowhere :)

And yeah, I'm an Intel guy, but AMD is good for us....they go down, prices go up...
 
I don't feel that AMD is going to go anywhere anytime soon. It does hurt future investors from wanting to invest in their company, but than again, give it some time and that could turn around.
 
if i remember correctly Intel was founded in 1968 and one year later AMD was founded
 
foxnews said:
two years ago, Intel strugled but now it is succeeding. now AMD is in trouble. is Intel killing AMD that bad? what can we do to save AMD? no one want AMD to die. come one people, any idea?

but I can't give up my core 2 duo. I can't just stop buying Intel.
Click to expand...

lol..... when's the last time you had a CAT scan? :confused:

anywho, there's nothing we can do to 'save' AMD... it's a free market, and AMD is offering nothing but discounted crap. Someone over at XS wondered if the AMD guys spent their entire R&D budget for the past 2 years on crack and hookers :D
 
foxnews said:
two years ago, Intel strugled but now it is succeeding. now AMD is in trouble. is Intel killing AMD that bad? what can we do to save AMD? no one want AMD to die. come one people, any idea?

but I can't give up my core 2 duo. I can't just stop buying Intel.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's pull our heads together and think of ways to save AMD. Brilliant!...No.

AMD doesn't need saving because it's not dying. Sheesh. AMD needs money. If you want you can do it directly by donating it to them. Send to Attn:Hector Ruiz $USD xxBillion. Or. You can do it indirectly by buying their product from merchants. The direct way is more efficient. They might actually lose money depending on which of their product you buy.

Sure, Intel is kicking AMD's butt. Don't forget AMD's doing a good job of it all by themselves.

Their strategy has been just horrible.

1)Borrow money to buy a troubled graphics company.

2)Expand fab capacity and outsource production in the midst of a price war.

3)Stay with same old architecture, revised, and hardly improved for said price war. "Yes, Intel's better. No, we're better." Flip-flopping obstinancy.

All these things can be corrected with time.

Hey, did anyone notice QX6800 has twice the number of cores as AMD's top-end x2 6000+? Yet, the Intel chip easily beats out the AMD using half it's available cores. And yet, at full load, it consumes even less power on four than the X2 6000's two core.

AMD's priorities should be:

A) Micro-Architecture
B) Capacity
C) Marketing

in that order.
 
Ooh! I left out process technology. Yes, that should be in conjuction with capacity.
 
Bao01 said:
Yes, let's pull our heads together and think of ways to save AMD. Brilliant!...No.

AMD doesn't need saving because it's not dying. Sheesh. AMD needs money. If you want you can do it directly by donating it to them. Send to Attn:Hector Ruiz $USD xxBillion. Or. You can do it indirectly by buying their product from merchants. The direct way is more efficient. They might actually lose money depending on which of their product you buy.

Sure, Intel is kicking AMD's butt. Don't forget AMD's doing a good job of it all by themselves.

Their strategy has been just horrible.

1)Borrow money to buy a troubled graphics company.

2)Expand fab capacity and outsource production in the midst of a price war.

3)Stay with same old architecture, revised, and hardly improved for said price war. "Yes, Intel's better. No, we're better." Flip-flopping obstinancy.

All these things can be corrected with time.

Hey, did anyone notice QX6800 has twice the number of cores as AMD's top-end x2 6000+? Yet, the Intel chip easily beats out the AMD using half it's available cores. And yet, at full load, it consumes even less power on four than the X2 6000's two core.

AMD's priorities should be:

A) Micro-Architecture
B) Capacity
C) Marketing

in that order.
Click to expand...

Sheesh, thanks alot, now you've just made my day harder, always having the same question on my head.... intel or amd.. intel or amd.... I still kind of want to buy amd's cpu to help them out but also I want a high performance cpu, well I guess it wouldnt really matter if I get a amd fx since all I want is to see a great improvement from my amd 3200+(skt 939)
edit- forgot to add Im not mad at you fyi ;)
 
nvidiapwnsati said:
Sheesh, thanks alot, now you've just made my day harder, always having the same question on my head.... intel or amd.. intel or amd.... I still kind of want to buy amd's cpu to help them out but also I want a high performance cpu, well I guess it wouldnt really matter if I get a amd fx since all I want is to see a great improvement from my amd 3200+(skt 939)
edit- forgot to add Im not mad at you fyi ;)
Click to expand...

With the recent price cuts, buying an AMD CPU probably does next to nothing to help them. So don't feel too bad if you don't :).
 
For AMD and Intel standard Desktop CPU's (non-extreme/FX) are almost more for advertising than for profits.

Mobile CPU's, Server CPU's, specialized CPU's, motherboard chipsets, motherboards, and all their other miscellaneous products are for profit...

I am a perfect example of how this sort of advertising works.. I build desktops for myself and my family all the time. Up until the Core 2 Duo I bought AMD exclusively because they were better for gaming. Now that C2D's are better I buy those instead. However, in my business life I also have input on server and laptop purchasing decisions for a business with over 30,000 employees and 40,000 computers. So by getting me to prefer Intel through it's gaming prowess Intel may just have sold another 5 to 10k mobile processors and motherboard chipsets to my company.
 
Intel or Amd both go through their highs and lows. Everytime Intel has the better product, the doom and gloom starts. Amd is just fine they have new tech about out the door cpus and gpus. As for what they get for a processor its not killing them, making them is cheap, research and fab building is the major cost. The only thing that would worry me a bit is if the cpu prices remain low even after the new cpu is released. But if it is quite a bit more powerfull then they can charge alot more and get away with it.

Intel has their own problems, they are taking a brutal pace to shrinking their tech. While this helps them in costs and hopefully makes the chip less hungry and cooler. But they cant rely on just shrinking to carry them on, changing the core is often much more efficent in getting gains then just shrinking. But who knows maybe Intel is working on the Amd killer right now. But thats why no one can predict the future perfect.

Either way neither company will go away anytime soon, and even if Amd fell apart they would get a goverment assist to keep them afloat. But for now enjoy the great prices.
 
Bao01 said:
Yes, let's pull our heads together and think of ways to save AMD. Brilliant!...No.

AMD doesn't need saving because it's not dying. Sheesh. AMD needs money. If you want you can do it directly by donating it to them. Send to Attn:Hector Ruiz $USD xxBillion. Or. You can do it indirectly by buying their product from merchants. The direct way is more efficient. They might actually lose money depending on which of their product you buy.

Sure, Intel is kicking AMD's butt. Don't forget AMD's doing a good job of it all by themselves.

Their strategy has been just horrible.

1)Borrow money to buy a troubled graphics company.

2)Expand fab capacity and outsource production in the midst of a price war.

3)Stay with same old architecture, revised, and hardly improved for said price war. "Yes, Intel's better. No, we're better." Flip-flopping obstinancy.

All these things can be corrected with time.

Hey, did anyone notice QX6800 has twice the number of cores as AMD's top-end x2 6000+? Yet, the Intel chip easily beats out the AMD using half it's available cores. And yet, at full load, it consumes even less power on four than the X2 6000's two core.

AMD's priorities should be:

A) Micro-Architecture
B) Capacity
C) Marketing

in that order.
Click to expand...
1. AMD has no choice but to buy ATi because the future points to a graphics/cpu chip. IF AMD doesn't purchase a graphics company, they won't compete in the future. Intel knows it.

2. AMD has to keep expanding for the future. Right now, I believe they only have one working fab producing all their chips. They can't compete on just one fab while Intel has many fabs around the world.

3. A revised core is all AMD has right now until K8L. They are still competitive to the Core 2 Duos in terms of price/performance.

The QX6800 consumes more power than the X2 6000 at full load.

 
I think if AMD keeps dragging feet they will be in trouble. Right now I don't think they have much to worry about... they are pretty stable and are diversly invested.
 
Don't forget the fact that ATI didn't release any DX10 stuff yet, which also impact revenues.
 
alg7_munif said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14679917/

Btw, which hurts more, a same old architecture, revised, and hardly improved CPU(X2) sold at a low price or a new tech(C2D) sold at a low price?
Click to expand...

In this case, the old architecture is hurting more. AMD is lagging on Barcelona, and once they do finish it will have no immediate fab capacity to mass produce Barcelona with. Couple that with Intel's complex of fabs, and they can produce some very cheap Core 2s.
 
Normally research and development will cost more than production, that's why a new tech is normally more pricey than an old tech, the manufacturer needs to account for their development cost too. X2 is an old tech, I don't think that it will still cost AMD much to produce them, however C2D is still quite new and there are still costs that are need to be covered by Intel. Another factor that affects the price is supply and demand, if the demand for C2D is so high, Intel wouldn't introduce the price cut at all. The fact that Intel cuts the price of their CPU shows that the supply exceeded the demand for the processor. AMD would be in trouble if they couldn't sell Barcelona and Agena at a high price due to a low demand. Btw the ability to produce more chips doesn't mean that the production cost will be lower, it could be higher when you need to pay the salary of more workers, you need to maintain more equipment and the energy cost would also be higher. It will hurt you if you produce something a lot more than the demand for it because your production cost remains the same but the price of your product will drop.
 
SentToSchool said:
1. AMD has no choice but to buy ATi because the future points to a graphics/cpu chip. IF AMD doesn't purchase a graphics company, they won't compete in the future. Intel knows it.

2. AMD has to keep expanding for the future. Right now, I believe they only have one working fab producing all their chips. They can't compete on just one fab while Intel has many fabs around the world.

3. A revised core is all AMD has right now until K8L.
They are still competitive to the Core 2 Duos in terms of price/performance.

The QX6800 consumes more power than the X2 6000 at full load.
Click to expand...

1. I agree that AMD should have graphics in their portfolio, like Intel has always had. Down the road when things are more & more integrated it will NEED them. BUT AMD has enough problems being profitable & managing itself, much less taking on a large company like ATI. I think they should have waited longer & bought just the technology or just worked with ATI. (don't buy the cow, just the milk or see how much milk you can get for free)

2. Their eyes may have been too big. They may have bitten off more than they can chew. Too many fabs (capacity) coming online, right as Intel puts the shaft to them with faster, better, cooler chips, so they'll have all of these chips, but noone to buy them.

3. They're only competitive at the low end of Intel's chip line up. Their top chip barely competes with Intel's middle of line chip. THAT'S BAD.

side note: what does the 6000+ have to do with the QX6800 (dual core vs. quad core). You should be comparing AMD's non-existant FX-74's with the QX6800 (quad core vs. "quad" system). BTW, I don't know ANYONE with an FX-7x system, however I "know" (through forums) a few with QX6700's.
 
Yeah, I'm not so worried about AMD that I'm gonna go out and buy 10 processed and 10 graphics cards to boost their bottom line. I think they live.

But they are having a bit of a rough time. They obviously don't have the money that Intel does and their fabrication technology is a generation behind. And they had to buy ATI and fight another small battle with Nvidia on the graphics front, where they have also fallen behind.

A lot kinda happened at once. I imagine they'll pull through.

I do sometimes get a little worried that AMD will just say, "screw this", tuck tail, and focus on low end cheap stuff like Via did after they got whipped.
 
Ravynmagi said:
I do sometimes get a little worried that AMD will just say, "screw this", tuck tail, and focus on low end cheap stuff like Via did after they got whipped.
Click to expand...

Hey, don't knock VIA! :p My little C7 makes a great Linux server.

I actually wish AMD would throw in the towel like you said. I need some cheap upgrades for some systems here at the house and some sub-$50 X2 3600+s would be great!
 
chrisf6969 said:
1. I agree that AMD should have graphics in their portfolio, like Intel has always had. Down the road when things are more & more integrated it will NEED them. BUT AMD has enough problems being profitable & managing itself, much less taking on a large company like ATI. I think they should have waited longer & bought just the technology or just worked with ATI. (don't buy the cow, just the milk or see how much milk you can get for free)

2. Their eyes may have been too big. They may have bitten off more than they can chew. Too many fabs (capacity) coming online, right as Intel puts the shaft to them with faster, better, cooler chips, so they'll have all of these chips, but noone to buy them.

3. They're only competitive at the low end of Intel's chip line up. Their top chip barely competes with Intel's middle of line chip. THAT'S BAD.

side note: what does the 6000+ have to do with the QX6800 (dual core vs. quad core). You should be comparing AMD's non-existant FX-74's with the QX6800 (quad core vs. "quad" system). BTW, I don't know ANYONE with an FX-7x system, however I "know" (through forums) a few with QX6700's.
Click to expand...


1. ATI was prime for being bought by AMD. AMD should not have waited, or Intel or another company may have bought ATI.

2. Thats the reason for the price cuts. AMD knows its in a bad position, but its a necessary position to keep in the game in the future. Loose this battle, but keep alive for the next round.

3. No, thats also VERY good. The MAJOR sales of CPUs will be the low to mid range. You honestly don't think your average company computer/terminal is going to be the top of the line QX6800 do you?


AMD isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Sure, the FX-7* line is pure crap, but its a build up to a dual-quad core (effective 8 core) systems.

Right now i'm about to jump ship from an Opteron 165 system to a C2D (maybe C2Q) for the rest of this year. Next year? It might be AMD Barcelona...

Don't be so quick to judge a company's plan. They have been in this game a lot longer than you and I.
 
InorganicMatter said:
I actually wish AMD would throw in the towel like you said. I need some cheap upgrades for some systems here at the house and some sub-$50 X2 3600+s would be great!
Click to expand...
Why did Intel came up with C2D in the first place? I'm sure that it is because of the X2. If AMD throws in the towel, I wonder how long do we need to wait until Intel comes out with a replacement for the C2D and I wonder how much do we need to pay for it. The price cut from both AMD and Intel show that the competition is really intense now and neither of the company can afford to hold the price. Both companies won't drop the price of their product just to make the consumer happy :rolleyes:
 
alg7_munif said:
Why did Intel came up with C2D in the first place? I'm sure that it is because of the X2. If AMD throws in the towel, I wonder how long do we need to wait until Intel comes out with a replacement for the C2D and I wonder how much do we need to pay for it.
Click to expand...

The only market that matters is the low end, since that's what 99% of the population buys. I never said AMD should go extinct, I said I wish they would relegate themselves to the low-end market to drive down prices where they really matter. Neither I, nor anyone else, cares that they lowered the price of the 5000+ from $300 to $167 (or whatever it previously was). What we do care about are things like the sub $50 Semprons and soon to be sub-$100 Core 2 Solos. Super-cheap processors form the majority of the market, and are what I use for building workstations. Who puts a $250 processor in a workstation to run MS Word?! Please. I'm loving these cheap Netburst processors at work, I can build a killer multitasking workstation for an unbeatable price with these things!
 
SentToSchool said:
1. AMD has no choice but to buy ATi because the future points to a graphics/cpu chip. IF AMD doesn't purchase a graphics company, they won't compete in the future. Intel knows it.
Click to expand...

AMD had a multitude of choices among which was to grow their own graphics team or buy one. Yet, they chose the $5.4Billion route, $4.2Billion in cash. Buying a big ailing discrete graphics chip company for integrated grahics was a mistake. All they needed was IGP support for Fusion to work. Same with Intel. S3 would have been fine and AMD would have had spare change to beef them up.:p

Perhaps AMD wanted to deny Intel support from Radeon mobility graphics. IIRC, ATI had come to Intel's rescure during the chipset shortage of 2005, especially with mobile IGP.
It's not 2005 anymore. Timing is key. AMD knew of Intel's reported excess capacity and rising inventories stretching back 4 quarters before the acquisition. In fact, Intel had plans to bump chipset production. The lack of ATI presence only made it sweeter when they moved P965 into the 90nm process node, turning unwanted processor capacity into chipsets and eating up ATI's vacant marketshare. As a double-whammy, this allowed Intel to improve their processor/product mix at an unexpected pace surpassing previous guidance, the effect of which is seen in AMD's recent revenue warning...and it just gets worse.

Some say AMD should have bought NVDIA. I don't think they had the clout. But, the idea is entertaining. They'd be making money off NVDIA, Intel wouldn't benefit the least, and green + green is the color of money. Green + red makes brown which is the color of....chocolate.


SentToSchool said:
2. AMD has to keep expanding for the future. Right now, I believe they only have one working fab producing all their chips. They can't compete on just one fab while Intel has many fabs around the world.
Click to expand...

Of course they need to expand. They have two fabs, btw. Again, timing is key.

The moment a fab opens, it starts depreciating. There could've allocated money better. For example, if they had spent to get a better architecture out 3 months sooner, then get the fab capacity in line 3 months later, they'd be in fine shape. The market bears a certain supply vs pricing curve. Their excess capacity is their rising inventory. It's simple. They blew $4.2Billion in cash on an acquisition. They should have used the money to get better chips off the drawing board. Use the money to speed up the transition to 65nm and 300mm wafers. Better chips. More of them. Bigger bang for their buck.

SentToSchool said:
3. A revised core is all AMD has right now until K8L. They are still competitive to the Core 2 Duos in terms of price/performance.
Click to expand...

They are better than C2Ds, only in low end, and for another 2 weeks or so.

Intel's rumored price drops are supposed to follow last year's schedule, same weeks. AMD drops and raises prices according to inventory levels, not only spot pricing but also official price lists. Still, the issue of price/performance was decided by the market when it rejected AMD's last price points. Besides, the performance standard is quad-core not low-end dual-cores. Shoot, you couldn't find any S754 semprons for less than these x2 3600 brisbanes when AMD started selling dual cores. They are dirt cheap.[/quote]

SentToSchool said:

The QX6800 consumes more power than the X2 6000 at full load.
Click to expand...


Really? Hexus and TechReport say no.
 
alg7_munif said:
Why did Intel came up with C2D in the first place? I'm sure that it is because of the X2. If AMD throws in the towel, I wonder how long do we need to wait until Intel comes out with a replacement for the C2D and I wonder how much do we need to pay for it. The price cut from both AMD and Intel show that the competition is really intense now and neither of the company can afford to hold the price. Both companies won't drop the price of their product just to make the consumer happy :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

IIRC Core design started in early 2002 and K8 was released a year later.DC A64 X2 were released mid 2005.

I think you should reconsider your 1st sentence.
 
Bao01 said:
Really? Hexus and TechReport say no.
Click to expand...
Yea, really: http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx

While you and I can make all these assumptions, in the end, we don't work at AMD and we don't really know what exactly is going on inside the company and the industry. However, I am pretty darn sure that a major multi-billion dollar company with almost an unlimited amount of research done and a whole bunch of Ph.D guys can make better business decisions than you and I on a an internet forum.
 
They are in some sort of a trouble cause it's difficult for AMD to deliver all the CPU's promised to the market.

That's why some AMD CPU's are hard to get or too expensive.

The are building new factories now so they can crank up their production.

The have to stay alive cause it's better for us consumers and it's better for the technology push.

We all know what happened with Microsoft ...we don't want that to happen to ouer precious CPU's as well...do you?

Than we still would bug around with a 1,0 GHz or so and a half year later ...yesss a 1,1 GHz if you catch my drift!?
 
savantu said:
IIRC Core design started in early 2002 and K8 was released a year later.DC A64 X2 were released mid 2005.

I think you should reconsider your 1st sentence.
Click to expand...

Already reconsider that... Eventhough the Core design started in 2002, I'm sure that we won't get them to be as good as they are today and we also won't get any price cut if X2 does not give Intel any competiton. I highly doubt that Intel will say something like this "Since everyone is supporting us and only buying our product, why don't we just give them a much better CPU and sell it cheaper to them" :p . Btw you guys are always talking about AMD needs to expand their fab, imo producing more product when the demand is low is suicide unless you guys are thinking that people are demanding the CPUs more than what AMD can produce. I'm pretty sure that now the demand for CPUs overall is quite low and and that's why we are getting the price cut from Intel and AMD. A company that has a bigger production capacity and still has developement cost to be covered will be hurt more by a low demand imo.
 
SentToSchool said:
Yea, really: http://www.hothardware.com/viewarticle.aspx
Click to expand...

I gave you two links with two reviews. You want to give me another or just give up?

SentToSchool said:
While you and I can make all these assumptions, in the end, we don't work at AMD and we don't really know what exactly is going on inside the company and the industry.
Click to expand...

You appeal to ignorance. Fact is you don't need to know every nit-and-grit detail. Hindsight says their strategy sucked. That's why they lost so much money.

SentToSchool said:
However, I am pretty darn sure that a major multi-billion dollar company with almost an unlimited amount of research done and a whole bunch of Ph.D guys can make better business decisions than you and I on a an internet forum.
Click to expand...

You appeal to authority.

Fact is you speak for yourself, not for anyone else. Hector's the only one with a Ph.D. Having a doctorate degree doesn't impress me. I've worked with many and many can say the same.
I have some respect for Hector. He turned the company around once. It's just that being CEO and also having no term-limit to his reign as Chairman of the Board, he is in a rare position to most mightily screw things up.

The rest of them...bleh. If I were to boast, big deal.

Altogether, if they were so darn impressive, how did they manage to lose so much darn money?
 
Bao01 said:
I gave you two links with two reviews. You want to give me another or just give up?



You appeal to ignorance. Fact is you don't need to know every nit-and-grit detail. Hindsight says their strategy sucked. That's why they lost so much money.



You appeal to authority.

Fact is you speak for yourself, not for anyone else. Hector's the only one with a Ph.D. Having a doctorate degree doesn't impress me. I've worked with many and many can say the same.
I have some respect for Hector. He turned the company around once. It's just that being CEO and also having no term-limit to his reign as Chairman of the Board, he is in a rare position to most mightily screw things up.

The rest of them...bleh. If I were to boast, big deal.

Altogether, if they were so darn impressive, how did they manage to lose so much darn money?
Click to expand...

I like your analogies most impressive.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top