1. OCAU Merchandise now available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion here.
    Dismiss Notice

AMD announces $1.2-billion loss, appoints Dirk Meyer as CEO!

Discussion in 'AMD x86 CPUs and chipsets' started by DiGiTaL MoNkEY, Jul 18, 2008.

  1. DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,894
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    [​IMG]
    Hector Ruiz, Source: http://www.daylife.com/photo/03hn8wsbUO920

    http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/38457/118/

    Press Release: http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/VirtualPressRoom/0,,51_104_543~127070,00.html
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  2. figrin

    figrin Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2001
    Messages:
    2,966
    Location:
    Sydney
    And that's why we shouldn't let IT journalists report on markets ;) It 'halted' because the market was closed.
     
  3. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    150,038
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    Moved to AMD forum, more appropriate there.

    No surprises AMD are struggling a little these days.
     
  4. OP
    OP
    DiGiTaL MoNkEY

    DiGiTaL MoNkEY Inverted Monkey

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    26,894
    Location:
    Melbourne, Victoria
    Fixed the title :D

    Yep no worries. Hopefully the new CEO will bring some well needed life into the company, especially the AMD processor area. The graphics division looks like they have a money market maker in the 4-series of cards.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  5. vespas

    vespas Member

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2006
    Messages:
    302
    Location:
    Melbourne
    If it helps, I will be switching my alliance to amd/ati! I can see why they are pushing the 4xxx so cheaply after the disappointing 3xxx.
     
  6. von.Gunst

    von.Gunst Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    486
    Not only that, but it's not halted in extended-hours trading either. It's at $4.95ish now.

    Anyway, this is sad news for AMD. The company is now worth $2 billion less than what they paid for ATI (although a lot of that has since been written down). I'm not so sure any more that the little fellow's going to be making it's long-awaited comeback. I don't know if they'll go bankrupt, but languishing in mediocrity isn't great either. I've been wondering whether they've actually been overdoing the price war a little bit (especially with the new 48xx series GPUs), introducing such a high-end part for peanuts seems crazy to me. Maybe they've been fighting to hold onto market share at the expense of a little bit too much profitability. I'd much rather have slightly more expensive processors than a monopoly :(
     
  7. Reaper

    Reaper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,067
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld, Australia
    It's not peachy for nvidia either, their share prices went down the crapper too.

    I still think that video cards cost too much, people are just too used to the high prices that nvidia has set. ;)

    The problem that really faces amd is brand awareness. They need to advertise. They have a great product in comparison to intel, but noone knows about it.
     
  8. Bion1c

    Bion1c Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Melbourne
    They should've gotten rid of that guy years ago, he is an absolute muppet and has driven the company into the ground.

    I'd hate to be the new CEO. It will be a miracle if they can survive the next 2 years.. the company has been posting huge losses every quarter for a long, long time and are virtually on the verge of bankruptcy as it is. They have had to cut back so much to reduce costs, meanwhile intel is going from strength to strength.

    You can complain about intel's pricing policies all you like but the fact is that all AMD has right now is basically an athlonx2 wearing a new dress. Cmon that is so 2003... :)
     
  9. Semi-Evolved

    Semi-Evolved Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Great in what way? They've certainly got some attractive products at the bottom end, but their mid-range and high-end products are nothing special. Right now, for the most part AMDs products are slower, use more power, and have worse thermal profiles than their competition. All that they're able to compete on is price, and methinks that their sales figures are rather clearly indicating that that's not enough.
     
  10. ACodingFettish

    ACodingFettish Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,652
    Location:
    Brisbane
    there's a lot of people that don't give a flying fuck about the high-end performance.

    AMD's got some good value stuff, nothing that out performs intel's more expensive offerings but in some price points they've got some ok stuff. And their integrated graphics etc is good.
     
  11. Bion1c

    Bion1c Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Melbourne
    At what price point is that exactly? The < $20 market?

    Any C2D cpu gives a beat down to a dual core amd offering, that includes the E2XXX series. AMD can't compete in quad core price/performance either (see: Q6600 $<225).

    the only marginal areas that amd is interesting is where you can get savings based on the platform (i.e. motherboard/integrated graphics). Yay amd is so competative they look "ok" for a media box :rolleyes:

    they only way amd can move any cpus is to sell them at a loss. 'nuff said.
     
    Last edited: Jul 18, 2008
  12. phreeky82

    phreeky82 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2002
    Messages:
    9,522
    Location:
    Townsville
    As the only real competition to Intel, this is quite concerning. I've always bought AMD myself. They're not world changing products, but they've always been good to me reliability and price wise, and I'm a big fan of supporting the underdogs.

    If AMD disappear it will be a very nasty situation. Intel will have a monopoly over the market and will basically be able to charge whatever they like - this isn't just a bad thing for AMD users, but a bad thing for all computer users.
     
  13. Kabal

    Kabal Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,045
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Definitely. I used a 4850e/780G mb for my HTPC just to help out the underdog a little :)
     
  14. FearTec

    FearTec Member

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,398
    Location:
    NSW
    My soon to be born Media Center PC will be AMD, every dollar helps.

    I don't want to see Intel have the power to charge like Nvidia does now.
     
  15. Bion1c

    Bion1c Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Melbourne
    newsflash: they already have the power. and if you think they have power now, wait 12 months till nehalem is in full swing*

    *(the expensive "premium" bloomfield version anyway)
     
  16. Sub_Atomic

    Sub_Atomic Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,160
    Location:
    Gladstone, QLD
    You have an intel processor tattooed on your penis or something? Doubt you can get anymore fanboi.

    Anyways, AMD/ATI posting a loss is a bit of a downer. I've always been an AMD follower until I made the processor switch to intel. But Vid cards and all will always be ATI for me. My next upgrade will be AMD, but the bang for buck they put out for their vid cards is awesome.

    I think as was said before in this thread, they need to advertise some more maybe. Plenty of people who look for midrange-highend cards that probably have little to no idea and follow the flock so to speak.
     
  17. Reaper

    Reaper Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,067
    Location:
    Brisbane, Qld, Australia
    Great in the way that they have pioneered the direction of CPU technology. Lots of stuff that Intel hasn't even put in yet but will in the future started with amd. AMD have pushed the competition. If AMD advertised as much as Intel, they'd have all of the AMD technology in long before now, and a working stream processor video solution. They can get away with outdated technology through fame.

    Plus they are the reason you can buy ~200$ intel cpus. If not for the competition, they wouldn't even have quads, and you'd be paying $800 for a 32bit 1.6ghz dual core with 512mb shared cache, and $1200 if you wanted to run virtualisation with it.

    After my current foray back into an Intel setup after having nothing but AMD since 1999, I'm definately going back to AMD. This Intel has left me with a bad experience in its lack of features. So I'm not mincing any words here. I'm also definitly not part of the meaningless "benchmark" scene. ;)
     
  18. Bion1c

    Bion1c Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

    Not that this has any bearing on my arguments whatsoever, but until i bought an E4500 late last year, i had been on an AMD platform since the early athlon XP days. If AMD releases a competative processor, i'll buy it. AMD/Intel don't care about me, and i have no bias either way. I buy what is the best on the market (like most rational people :rolleyes:)

    I'm just stating the facts mate. If you like slow, crappy processors go ahead and buy AMD while they are still solvent.

    AMD cannot sell their processors at a profit. That is a FACT- go look at the financial report!!

    I find it hilarious you jump at the chance to defend AMD like it's your mum and then call me a fanboi.. hahahaha :thumbup:
     
  19. ACodingFettish

    ACodingFettish Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2004
    Messages:
    6,652
    Location:
    Brisbane
    so why are you so keen on bagging them out in this thread? you've made your point, thanks for your input...

    it looks like intel have adjusted their pricing on their cpus since I last looked at pricing, but when I bought my phenom it was the cheapest quad core processor you could buy, by around 70 bucks. Now they've dropped the Q6600's price (do you think that would have happened if it weren't for AMD.. nu-uh.) And their media centre offerings are better than "ok" from what I've heard.

    But thats irrelevant.. Yes, intel have faster CPU's but as mentioned, but AMD have some great tech and innovation in theirs, (intels still catching up with the onboard memory controllers...), they just need better management of their resources, better marketing (why aren't they playing the 'true quadcore' card? ) and some luck and they can claw back to at least provide good value CPU's, and help the market on a whole maintain competition.

    Besides, this threads been done quite a few times now :p (see each quarter... lol)
     
  20. Bion1c

    Bion1c Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2001
    Messages:
    1,215
    Location:
    Melbourne
    When Intel is in a position of strength they do try to seriously pull some BS. Classic case in point is the P4 architecture. The whole idea of that "more mhz = more better" was based on the idea that consumers were too dumb to figure out that (for example) a 3.2 Ghz P4 could perform worse than 2.8 Ghz athlon64. The marketing guys up front were purely selling on brand name and bigger ghz numbers - performance sucked, and it wasnt till they seriously ramped the clockspeed that things turned around. Really it was that arrogance that left things wide open for the athlon64 to shine as much as it did.

    But c'mon, the argument that intel doesn't innovate is really asinine. They invented the x86 architecture and have done MOST of the major innovations along the way. Yeah AMD have pioneered some great stuff (pushing dual core cpus, first adoption of x86 integrated memory controller, hypertransport), but intel has contributed far more since the early days of the 8086. I mean, AMD is (was?) licensing Intels IP, not the other way around..

    yes intel would charge more. you know what? so would AMD. In fact, when AMD has been in front with little competition, they have charged just as much as intel.

    Sorry what features does AMD have that intel doesn't? Aside from poor performance i mean ;)
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: