The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]

Status
Not open for further replies.
The bad market has left a lot of semiconductor inventory built up.
There might be more adjustments so that old inventory is priced to move.
 
...a bunch of graphs and links...

I don't see how any of your stuff negates any of my stuff. I can show benchmarks where the Q9xxx series use less power than the Phenom II. Nobody here cares about IGP speeds. "Award winning" chipsets mean nothing if they aren't rock-stable. And you were never able to refute this:
They (AMD) can't compete with this kind (i7) of horsepower at any level, which is why we aren't using them in our replacement SQL clusters. And this is where they will get hurt the worst, because servers was where their margins were being made. Consumer desktop space is pretty low margin in the midrange; the TOP is where where the pure profit comes in. And without a top option? You're hosed.


When horsepower counts, AMD is losing. You can "qualify" your remarks with power consumption, but when we need 2x more AMD servers to get the same amount of computing power, that means they're losing the argument. That's 2x more servers that have individual parts that can die, That's 2x more rack space. That's 2x more cabling. That's 2x more lease paperwork. That's 2x more support contracts for if that box needs maintenance. That's 2x more monitoring overhead that we need to account for. And cost? Well, perhaps AMD is cheaper on a per-processor basis, but the whole server is what we're buying -- and when we need 2x the servers, you can be sure that our lease cost didn't go down.

You obviously know nothing of high-end datacenter work, but for those of us who do, we need as much power in a small box as possible. AMD has entirely lost that fight to Nehalem, and there's no amount of game benchmarks that are going to prove otherwise.
 
Well AMD did worse than expected

http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/090122/20090122006129.html?.v=1

The traditional "one off" charge makes yet another appearance ..it seems to occur every quarter....

Total sales are way down, and so are margins. Total sales doesn't necessarily surprise me; they generated so much hype around Phenom II that everyone decided to wait for it to come out. But the gross margins makes me wonder about Phenom's silicon cost at this point. Just new process headaches, or indicative of the massive die size versus the cost segment they've aimed for?
 
I don't understand this ATI write-off.. they already have done this several times to the tune of billions of dollars. I would think it's been written down to the point that what they paid for ATI, minus the previous write-downs, would be more than a fair price, with hindsight. The GPU department has been doing very well for a over a year now.
Is it something to do with the selling of that mobile unit? Or is there some tax advantage to making a big loss even bigger with this crap?
 
AMD purchased ATI for $5.4 Billion in July 2006 when AMD's market cap was over $10billion. AMD's market cap has been continuously dropping down to $1.2billion right now. If you keep the original purchase figure that ATI is worth about 1/2 the AMD portion, then they continuously have to devalue (write-off) the ATI purchase as their combined stock tanks.
 
I'm no expert on the financial stuff etc, but could someone write in as-simple-as-possible terms how much profit/loss did AMD CPU-department, and how much prfot/loss did AMD GPU-department do during Q4?
 
I'm no expert on the financial stuff etc, but could someone write in as-simple-as-possible terms how much profit/loss did AMD CPU-department, and how much prfot/loss did AMD GPU-department do during Q4?
According to the conference call GPG lost $10 million. You can find a transcript at Seeking Alpha. A lot of the info is in the
press release.
 
According to the conference call GPG lost $10 million. You can find a transcript at Seeking Alpha. A lot of the info is in the
press release.

Well I've seen all those numbers, but like I said, I'm not expert on these so I have no bloody idea of it all really, only division specific info i see there is revenue for computing solutions and graphics, but that doesn't tell anything, does it? ( I mean, isn't it what's coming in, and expenses aren't counted to that at all? )
 
Well I've seen all those numbers, but like I said, I'm not expert on these so I have no bloody idea of it all really, only division specific info i see there is revenue for computing solutions and graphics, but that doesn't tell anything, does it? ( I mean, isn't it what's coming in, and expenses aren't counted to that at all? )

Is this what you want? Look at page 3.



http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/DownloadableAssets/Q408Financials.pdf

Graphics did 270 million in revenue for the quarter and lost $10 million.

CPUs did 873 million in revenue for the quarter and lost $431 million!!!!! Staggering.

So for every $1 they sold in CPUs they lost about .50

How do you lose money on the GPU end???


I guess if the banks and Arabians are dumb enough to give them money at least they are keeping people employed.

BK in 2009.

AMD better hope Dubai has A LOT of faith in them.
 
Graphics did 270 million in revenue for the quarter and lost $10 million.

CPUs did 873 million in revenue for the quarter and lost $431 million!!!!! Staggering.

So for every $1 they sold in CPUs they lost about .50

How do you lose money on the GPU end???

The GPU business in general suffered from relatively low demand, partly caused by old inventory in the channel and flat growth in the industry on the whole. It should be possible to turn this around with ATI's current lineup, which is looking unexpectedly strong.

But they really gotta stop lowballing on the pricing. Sure, redefining the price level of the high end down a few hundred bucks wins one the hearts of consumers, but what good is that if you won't be around to capitalise on it? Their pricing level is just irresponsible and I suspect they've similarly sold themselves short to get their console design wins.
 
It'll be interesting how Nvidia's Q4 numbers shape up for it's GPU segment.

I'm expecting revenue to still be higher than ATI's $270 million, but expect loses to be far greater than ATI's $10 million.

Then again, Nvidia isn't burdened by AMD's underperforming CPU division.

Yes, I know ATI is owned by AMD. But it's more amusing to think of ATI being burdened by AMD rather than the other way around. :)

Regards,
SB
 
It'll be interesting how Nvidia's Q4 numbers shape up for it's GPU segment.

I'm expecting revenue to still be higher than ATI's $270 million, but expect loses to be far greater than ATI's $10 million.

Then again, Nvidia isn't burdened by AMD's underperforming CPU division.

Yes, I know ATI is owned by AMD. But it's more amusing to think of ATI being burdened by AMD rather than the other way around. :)

Regards,
SB

It would appear they will have a loss for the first time in a long time, but dont be surprised if they turn a profit either.
 
It would appear they will have a loss for the first time in a long time, but dont be surprised if they turn a profit either.

I wouldn't be surprised, I will say it's against the law of physics:D. BTW, they turned up a loss in Q2.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's not as bad as the TLB bug. DDR3 is still not used as much and they can use ddr2 now and fix it in the meantime. But still, 2 cpu launches, both have very public bugs at the start. It's the last thing AMD wants now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top