AMD Loses $1.2 Billion and Its CEO 373
Barence writes to mention that after seeing almost $1.2 billion in second quarter losses, AMD's CEO has resigned. Stepping up to fill his shoes will be Dirk Meyer, previous company president and COO. "Only two years ago, the company held a processor performance lead and was making serious inroads into Intel's market. However, AMD failed to keep pace with Intel's Core technology, and it once again surrendered its performance crown at the dawn of the multicore era. Those problems were exacerbated by the bungled launch of the Barcelona processors, which prompted Ruiz to make a frank public apology last December."
The beginning of the end for AMD (Score:0, Interesting)
Bummer. There was a time when I would choose AMD every time over Intel just for sheer "stick it to the man" value. The fact is though that Intel dualies outperform their AMD counterparts in nearly every way. I guess when a mediocre CPU manufacturer merges with a mediocre GPU manufacturer this is what you get.
Can't (Score:1, Interesting)
You can't have a price performance edge as you put it and cutting edge tech. You have to get $$$ for R&D and to get it, you build it into your prices - like Intel does. That's why Intel's price/performance isn't as good as AMD's.
If AMD followed your advice, their prices would increase and their price/performance will match Intel's or worse - especially if they keep all their R&D here in the US.
Enough time to turn around? (Score:4, Interesting)
As it stands, it's pretty dire. The question is, can AMD turn around and match the 45nm process with a decent design before the Nehalem generation? I wonder that explicitly because the last bragging point they have is their interprocessor architecture and memory controller, which Nehalem matches. If Intel releases that and the rest of AMD's tech remains as disadvantaged as it is, watch for some of the 4-socket and above space that AMD still has some sway in move to Intel.
Re:Don't invest in AMD... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's up to the shareholders to hold the company to the fire. I have no idea why every shareholder of every company out there isn't forcing the companies to put in performance clawbacks. Imagine if a CEO were faced with the possibility of having to return their bonuses, and maybe even a portion of their salaries, if the company did a nosedive like AMD has. But since shareholders are either too stupid or too frightened to start pushing their weight around, this CEO bonus crapola continues. Oh well, I'm not investing in AMD, so if they want to pay a fucking retard millions to screw their share value, then my hats off to them.
Re:Get 'em while they're cheap (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Enough time to turn around? (Score:4, Interesting)
My feeling at this point is that AMD is hosed. About the only thing we can hope for is that regulators block Intel from buying them when it finally becomes clear that the show is over. Any other big multigazillion dollar companies with a few billion to spend who want a chip manufacturer? I'd say IBM, but their interests seem to be elsewhere.
Re:Buying ATI = idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
But more importantly, lots and lots and lots of money. Intel had the financial wiggle-room to come back from some rather colossal errors over the last decade. AMD simply did not. It could stay competitive providing it had a focused plan, but the ATI deal was precisely what AMD could not afford.
old CEO was from Motorola (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be interesting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Though I doubt it would ever happen.
IBM buys AMD, uses circumstances to:
-Advance the fab capabilities of AMD generally (hopefully invest to actually keep up with Intel instead of lagging by a year or so)
-Release a Cell processor variant, replacing the PPC core with an x86 core.
It seems far fetched, but at the same time, the #1 supercomputer is already an AMD/Cell hybrid (two Cell processor packages for every AMD package). However, I wouldn't anticipate that core being any more performance than the PPC core, just a different instruction set. It *could* really cause some grief for intel if it caught on though. The ability to run Windows and games like normal (maybe with a penalty), but SPU enabled software could really make for some amazing media manipulation and incredible games.
Re:Don't invest in AMD... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Buying ATI = idiocy (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd hesitate to call that luck, let alone "really, really, really lucky". It sounds like terrific teamwork by engineering, production and management.
I'd agree 100%. Intel's R&D group in Israel pulled off a small miracle with their work, and should be highly commended for it. However, from what is publicly known, it seems as if it were almost a sort of "skunk works" project, largely independent of the main R&D efforts of the company. I don't think that there was terribly much being expected from them, and the fact that they were able to deliver an extremely viable product was a fortunate coincidence.
Intel's main R&D efforts were terribly misguided. It was common knowledge that RAMBUS Itanium, and the P4 line all had serious limitations, and yet Intel continued pushing forward with these products.
As always, luck is simply hard work (Score:3, Interesting)
The real deal is that Intel had some time ago cut back on R&D spending, and AMD made them pay for it.
Intel realized this, increased R&D spending, and voila - "luck" magically happened.
Do you think a company with tight R&D funding would have been having ANYONE look at older processors for potential? That's not luck, that's willingness to fund even avenues that might not seem like they have potential.
Re:That would be interesting.. (Score:5, Interesting)
If the fab tech is the biggest issue, TSMC or Chartered would be a natural match. They do contract chip fab for everything from DRAM to CPUs, including the XBox CPUs and some AMD CPUs (Chartered) and some of AMD's ATI GPUs and chipsets (TSMC).
It'd make sense that if you're keeping your equipment busy making stuff for a customer, you'd want to keep that revenue. The best way to ensure that is to start making the same products for yourself.
Re:i hope they keep up (Score:3, Interesting)
Long live Transmeta.
Re:i hope they keep up (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:For me, it's all about the graphics. (Score:3, Interesting)
The hardware is low-end (and low power, which is good).
Are you sure about the power? I got their new atom board with Intel graphics and everything minus processor and peripherals draws about 25 watts. I'm assuming their graphics is drawing most of this power. If not, Intel have some pretty inefficient other chips on there.
With a 4w processor I didn't expect 30w just to turn it on with no drives or peripherals.
Incidentally, that mobo (BOXD945GCLF) is really poor compared to any of the many AMD systems I've made, built from cheapest mobos even. It draws an excessive amount of power, the bios is slow and buggy, has flaky rgb output, etc. Hoping AMD gets its act together again...
Re:Fix it! (Score:2, Interesting)
>I fell in love with AMD many years ago.
The 386DX40 was what made it possible for me to have a home computer again (I'd started in the 1970s with various 8-bit things, but by the mid 1980s, and until 1991 or so, I could not afford any kind of new computer). I really loved my AMD 386. The "performance to application" ratio was better than it's ever been since. I'm saying that even today with my quad-core desktop and dual-core laptop, the equipment is only marginally suited to the task I use it for. But in 1991-1992, the performance was actually *there*, and the problems were in the area of storage capacity and data transfer rates. Not saying I'd go back, or anything. Just that AMD made it possible for me to continue the hobby at the threshold where it became a career.
Re:i hope they keep up (Score:1, Interesting)
Good luck finding an ARM mainboard that could be even remotely on par performance-wise to the typical PC from 5 years ago. ARM is for cellphones, handhelds, embedded controllers and small/slow stuff. It's aimed to low power consumption at any cost, and sucks badly at everything else. Even networking stuff sucks on the ARM due to cache limitations, that's why you find MIPSes on routers, even the cheapest ones, rather than ARMs.
Now, if only Apple didn't do the wrong thing by abandoning the PPC years ago...
Re:i hope they keep up (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly, and the cellphone market dwarfs the PC market -- and the gulf is only going to get larger in the long run.
EU Antitrust Charges. Don't blame the Victim. (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank heavens for representative government that works better than our own [slashdot.org]. The EU has been watching Intel for more than 8 years and already has outstanding charges that Intel thwarted AMD sales by selling at a loss. We've all seen how they crushed OLPC. Good for the EU for doing something, we can only hope it's not too little too late given worsening economic conditions.
The story's "AMD sucks" slant is puzzling. Advantages come and go, but AMD has almost always been better for number crunching since 2000. They also have had significantly better interconnects and architecture for multi core processors. It's like blaming the victim.
Another factor in this sad story is the Vista failure [slashdot.org] which has hurt all hardware sales. In the last year or so, we've seen spectacular bargains like $500 and less dual core laptops on clearance and the collapse of CompUSA and other big box stores. AMD will suffer more in this downturn because it comes as they were gaining share.
Re:Stocks fall (Score:3, Interesting)
I very much DO understand what I am talking about by making that kind of statement. Negative profits, massive debt.......AMD loses more per share than many companies make, and they haven't made profit in a long time.
No apparently you don't understand. In most cases debt financing of a company is cheaper than equity financing. With AMD trying to get back on its feet after the ATI debacle, lower Cost of Capital is the best approach. Their Debt to Equity ratio is also skewed due the drop in their stock price. If you actually looked at their financial statements, $920 million of the loss was from divesture of their Handheld and DTV product businesses. Between the R770 taking the lead in the graphics division with extremely competitive pricing aimed at quick market and deep market penetration and the overall server market constantly moving towards better power efficiency and integrated systems, AMD is fine and on track towards a recovery between Q3 and Q4.
There is still Via (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's all about the architecture (Score:3, Interesting)
You probably mean one - pentium-m. Core and core 2 is direct spinoffs of it, atom is a beefed up/scaled down modern pentium III.
Re:i hope they keep up (Score:3, Interesting)
Mod Twitter's comment UP. (Score:3, Interesting)
However, he should not be moderated down when he makes very sensible comments. If Intel is making money because of anti-competitive prices [theinquirer.net], then Intel should be sued by the EU, as the story says.
The biggest reason why AMD [google.com] and Nvidia [google.com] are near year-to-date lows is because of competition expected from new GPU products from Intel.
Re:The beginning of the end for AMD (Score:1, Interesting)
I just got a 4850 a couple of weeks ago (my last 3 or so gen of cards were from Nvidia).
As long as AMD/ATI is willing to open source the drivers and are reasonably priced, I (and so my clients as well) will support them.
In another couple of hours, I will be getting a 4870 for a friend of mine.
I am doing my part to keep a company which seems to be giving me what I need alive.
Are you?
Re:Stocks fall (Score:3, Interesting)
No, you made a mistake here. The only thing that matters to stock is the POSSIBILITY of profit. Say you have a company that had a fenomenal loss this quarter, but are completely sure it will have tremendous success next one. You would buy it, and so would everyone that knew, driving the price up. Stock market is an exercise of futurology. I would go as far as say that what matters to stock is profit based on stock market itself, not the company.
Think SCO here. Would you buy their stock when they claimed they owned Linux? As a short term investment, it looked like a good-buy. The price went up, due solely to the percetion of the market that it might own something from Linux or IBM. And SCO bussiness wasnt bringing them any revenue by then.