John Bruno, the guy responsible for trinity.
He was not "responsible" for Trinity, let's not recycle ideas thrown out into the air in sensationalistic purposes. Which is not to say he wasn't a good guy and someone you may want to keep around.
John Bruno, the guy responsible for trinity.
Much of this has to do with losing 10 percent of the workforce. Which according to reports would save 118million dollars for AMD in 2012. In addition canceling project like witchita and Krishna would have also saved money.
In the long run I don't think think saving the money was worth it because they let go of people that were to crucial in AMD CPU division. Brad Burgess the guy responsible for Brazos and it's successor and John Bruno, the guy responsible for trinity. The cuts were too broad and AMD should have not cut guys who were responsible for many of the successes with their CPU division in the last couple years.
I've been trying to get a handle on the scope of Keller's contributions to AMD, particularly with regards to the K7 and K8.
He was employed at AMD from 98 to 99.
It sounds like he could have been involved in the bringup of K7, although the design would have probably been quite final by 98, being that it was released in 99.
It sounds like he had a role in the early parts of the K8 development cycle, but even if he were working on K8 from day one he would have been gone for the majority of its development.
His most recent experience doesn't look to turn around the weak core problem, and he'd have to contend with the fact that just as he has probably changed in over a decade, so has AMD.
Who's stupid enough to buy AMD?
Who's stupid enough to buy AMD?
Who's stupid enough to buy AMD?
How much debt do they currently have?
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that all of this is true, then it's no wonder that they're only valued as low as they are. Because not a lot of people seem to care about the compute abilities of GPUs, especially those of AMD.zorg said:The value of AMD is their GPU tech. Their GCN design is 2 or 3 years ahead the competition. Briefly: it's Larrabee done right.
If we assume, for the sake of argument, that all of this is true, then it's no wonder that they're only valued as low as they are. Because not a lot of people seem to care about the compute abilities of GPUs, especially those of AMD.
And what's the 3rd one that can do high performing GPUs besides AMD and nVidia?Actually, I'd say the largest intangible asset that AMD has is the ability to effectively design and validate x86 CPUs. There is only one other company in existence with that ability.