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. Semi-Evolved

    Semi-Evolved Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Messages:
    7,089
    Location:
    Brisbane
    That's one possibility of many. Perhaps they'll get split up and sold off. Perhaps they'll get bought out. Perhaps they'll sell off their money-losing sections and continue as a different sort of company. At the end of the day, the board will decide what's in the best interests of the shareholders, and that's not always going to be a continuation of the company as it currently stands. I doubt any of us have enough knowledge of those on it to know which way they'll go if the company's situation continues to deteriorate.
     
  2. me2

    me2 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,743
    Location:
    directly in front of you
    you are right about the symbolism of moving ruiz out and meyer in, as it is a clear indication that the merger of amd/ati, at the technological level, is ready to be utilised, so if you think about it, especially the write off of the goodwill for the media division, that is an indicator of the state of bulldozer

    as far as the cash on hand goes, they had a similar amount in the kitty last year and although they made a loss of $500million per quarter, they also paid off more than $2 billion in debt

    paying of that $2billion significantly reduced thier operating costs, because it freed up cash that was being used to service the debt and used it to increase manufacturing efficencies, which ultimately reduced thier operating costs even more

    though they are still in debt, they are in a much better shape now then last year, provided you discount the lack of manufacturing capacity they require to achieve economies of scale

    i think the recent announcements by tsmc regarding the need to increase prices and its delay in implementing the 40nm optical shrink of the 45nm process by 6 months is very telling about the industries lack of capacity, as is the fact that nvidia has just joined the soi consortium


    sure, if you are going to build a cheap system principally for an overclocker or a gamer who is spending thier own money you would probably suggest the intel system, as it has a greater wang factor in that regard, but i certainly wouldn't be recomending they purchase a 2400 level card for a system that is going to be used principally for gaming, unless there is a financial constraint of course...but that financial constraint is the key point in determining a recomendation

    for instance...the difference in power requirments alone, between using the onboard hybrid graphics of the amd system, as opposed to using a discrete 2400 card in the intel system, would save the user the price difference in power bills over the life of the product, you could easily argue that the discrete 2400 card will perform better, but that is a moot point unless they are purchasing the system principally for gaming or video editing etc., in which case even a discrete 2400 isn't going to make much of a difference

    once again it can not be understated most people who buy low end systems are doing so out of financial constraints, often such a system will be used for many years, being passed on to younger siblings etc., so the potential of the upgradability and the systems adaptability to its intended purpose needs to be considered.

    for many parents, when considering the intial outlay, gaming is usually only a secondary concern, at best, to weighing up the balance between affordability and intended purpose

    when it comes to the ability to upgrade, having hybrid graphics on the system gives greater options in affordability, you can incrementally upgrade the capabilities using another 2400 level card, or you can spend more and get another card from a higher level, so you have greater flexibility in upgrade options

    if however gaming is a concern, then you would be better off paying the extra and getting a mid range or higher level card, but that is only 1 option and considering under the intel system you propose you do not have the ability to use both the onboard and a discrete card simulteneously, your upgrad path is limited to only the more costly solutions

    so once again the requirments of the system and the spending capacity will effect the decision as to which option would be more affordable at not just the intial outlay, but also at further stages down the track
     
  3. bangmango

    bangmango Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    798
    Location:
    Sydney/Australia
    Good reading..^^^^^ ..on the money there..
     
  4. BlackSniper87

    BlackSniper87 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2008
    Messages:
    1,848
    Location:
    Hamilton, Brisbane
    i agree i have to give amd kudos on their 780 chipset and integrated gpu lightyears in front of intel in that department. well my problem with intel is they recken they are going to rovk the gpu industry with larrabee and they cant get integrated right so yeah i dont know if i can believe that so anyway
     
  5. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,851
    Location:
    Canberra
    Intel has got IGPs "right" as far as they're concerned. They're just aiming at a completely different target.

    Intel designs IGPs to be as cheap as possible (to manufacture), and to support features that most customers might ask for (like being able to run Vista Aero). The Intel IGPs certainly achieve this; the 780G does not.

    The 780G is undoubtedly a better product - but does that really help AMD? So far they've completely failed to educate anyone except 'enthusiasts' about the advantages of the 780G. Normal customers (who know very little about the hardware, and make up the vast majority of buyers) won't see a difference between the two - so Intel has an advantage (since their ones are just as 'attractive' and cheaper to make).

    This is true. I was thinking of it more as a basic home desktop system, where being able to play relatively high-resolution videos would be nice, but gaming isn't really an issue.

    In that case, I'd get the Intel one. Dual-core versus single-core, and the dual-core is cheaper.

    True, I hadn't thought about power consumption. I'm not actually sure how much that'll affect it (the HD 3200 is almost the same hardware as the HD 2400; they may actually have similar power requirements). However, I don't think that this would matter, for the reason mentioned above: normal customers won't notice. A customer in Harvey Norman isn't likely to ask "how much will this computer cost to run?"

    I'm not sure how much this will matter. The hybrid graphics is great, but by the time most of these systems get upgraded there won't even be HD 3xx0 series cards any more. AMD will be well into the HD 4xx0 and maybe HD 5xx0 series; and there's no guarantee that they'll still run in hybrid CrossFire with the HD 3200.

    Quite apart from that, there's the issue above: normal customers won't know or care about "hybrid CrossFire".


    Essentially, I think that the AMD system is good. However, given the choice between the AMD and Intel systems, a normal customer will always buy the Intel. This is a problem for AMD; they may have products that are technically better, but Intel is very good at providing exactly what a customer is looking for. AMD tend to provide things that customers would want if they knew about the details - but most customers don't want to know.

    This has been the case for ages. Just look at the Pentium 4. Intel knew that people would buy faster-clocked CPUs, so they made a slow CPU that had really high clock speeds. AMD had the K7 (which I would say was a better CPU overall) - but it didn't have that critical factor. If people had actually learnt about the hardware, they'd have realised that the K7 was a better CPU for less money. The vast majority of customers didn't do this and ended up with P4 Celerons instead of Athlon XPs.

    Things that a normal customer would probably look for:
    • Specifications on the box - Intel wins, since they've got "twice as many CPUs". Low-end brand name systems don't generally list any GPU specifications, so the fancy 780G will be irrelevant.
    • Brand name - nothing AMD can do about this. Intel wins.
    • Cost - Intel is marginally cheaper, and I gather that they provide major discounts to OEMs too.

    Things that they're probably not going to think about:
    • Upgrade options - people don't think that far ahead. Even if they did ask about it, the salesperson probably wouldn't demonstrate much of a difference (the big differences would require lots of explanation).
    • Power consumption - I doubt that most salespeople know how much power each PC uses. Manufacturers tend not to list that, since it makes high-end (high-profit) systems look bad.
    • Gaming - as you've said, this isn't much of an issue for a desktop system. If you asked the salesperson, they'd probably say the Intel one was better simply because it's got dedicated graphics.

    The things that people will think about are things that Intel targets. Unfortunately AMD seems to be targeting everything else (the stuff that'd be really nice, but that hardly anyone will pay attention to).
     
  6. Marlborosmoker

    Marlborosmoker Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    927
    Location:
    Sydney
    I do think you are discounting the fact that clueless people have diminished since the athlon v p4 era. They're a little bit more cluey now especially in the budget sector. The HTPC market is still in its infancy but honestly, it's the only really new market and the only one IMO that's going to see ridiculous growth in the next few years if AMD survive that long. HD HD HD is being crammed down the consumer throats. I do think that AMD is on the right track there. PC gaming I'm not sure if it's any more popular now or will be in the future - The most popular games aren't really pushing the hardware envelope (WoW, MMorpgs, valve games)Energy efficiency may not be a massive issue for your average joe but in the server market, corporate sector I think it plays a role.

    Look in all reality as long as AMD keeps pumping out competitive products they will find buyers. There's enough tech savvy people in the world capable of sustaining them. On the whole as a budget builder myself (<$300) I find the AMD offerings much better balanced.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2008
  7. te27te37ae86

    te27te37ae86 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    281
    Location:
    Sydney
    AMD announces $1.2-billion loss,appoints Dirk Meyer as CEO

    One scenario nobody has touched on,What if Intel using it's effective monopoly not only wipes out AMD/ATI but also Nvidia.
    Whilst we may be informed the majority of people worldwide who actually pay the bills aren't.
    I for one remember Intel upgrade costs in the bad old days like Paying $600.00 to upgrade from a P100 to a P133, Intel with Larabee as well may change the whole scene and not for the better.Currently I run both Intel and AMD systems.
    AMD/ATI will be next to get my money for a Video upgrade on my X38 system
    as for quad core in the future if the Phenom improves enough it will be my choice for digital processing as long as AMD/ATI can leverage a well balanced system,they do have the potential for this.
    Maybe the best hope is "Hector" for Intel CEO that would change everything
    only have to see what a bad CEO has done to Qantas to get an inkling of the "Hector Ruinous" effect on AMD,though to be fair he did precide over the ATI buy this has been good for the consumer.AMD needs to do an ATI
     
  8. SLATYE

    SLATYE SLATYE, not SLAYTE

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    26,851
    Location:
    Canberra
    This is what any company aims for. They want to become a player big enough that they essentially rule the market, but with enough competition to get around the anti-monopoly laws.

    Intel have been good recently. Their current CPUs are far better than anything AMD can come up with, but prices remain very low (I'm pretty sure that prices for "mid-range" and "high-end" CPUs are lower than they've ever been previously).

    This is partly because they're 'fighting' with the market itself. If Intel charged $500 for the cheapest Nehalem CPUs, a lot of consumers would ask themselves, "Why exactly do I need to upgrade? What benefits will it have?"

    They'd then realise that a Pentium Dual Core E2180 is more than adequate for almost everything they do, and is likely to be adequate for the next five years too. Result = no money for Intel. Essentially, Intel have to price CPUs low enough that people will still buy them even though older, cheaper CPUs would be perfectly adequate.

    Regarding a $600 upgrade from a P100 to a P133: if the P133 was a top-end CPU at the time, this isn't exactly unusual. Even when AMD and Intel have been neck-and-neck (when the A64 was released, for example) top-end CPUs have cost a fortune. The A64-FX and P4-EE both cost about a thousand dollars.
     
  9. Deanodriver

    Deanodriver Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    7,430
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The graphics/IGP division might be all that keeps bringing in cash for AMD for a while, you realise :)
     
  10. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    151,890
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    So with nVidia making big losses also, what's going on these days with these mega companies...
     
  11. bangmango

    bangmango Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2002
    Messages:
    798
    Location:
    Sydney/Australia
    Cha cha changes..Lets be realistic,this IT industries,is about ultimate losses for all,those that brought $1000+ Pentiums/AMD's... or top of the range Vidcards....notice one thing..the value mostly goes downward as soon as it leaves the box..so who ultimate wear the losses..?I often wonder about this..where does the money comes from and where it goes..lol..
    Its a bit like all that effort digging iron ore out of the ground to make all things metal,and in the end mostly turn out to be rusted junk...along the way,we get some use out of it..at what "cost"..?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: