I am definitely hanging my hat on the APU adoption as I understand all too well the issues in the CPU market with a technology deficit and the challenges of dealing with an ever uber aggressive Nvidia. I am playing more of a technical bounce on the chart up through the 200 dma and then 50 dma...if so a tidy profit. However, I am looking for reasons to think more long term.
What is the general consensus on the following:
1. CPU business - perennial second fiddle to Intel because of Intel fab/R&D power?
2. Server business - same as above?
3. Discrete GPU business - is it neck and neck with Nvidia or is Nvidia considered superior in regards to efficiency and drivers? The 290 seems hot and drivers seem to be meh from the reviews.
4. Management - are they trustworthy and meeting their eps, revenue, and launch targets? Last time I was dealing with Ruiz, Orton, and Richard...the three stooges.
5. ARM - with a license to make ARM products, does AMD stand a chance or will the lion's share of business go to others?
6. Die size - is AMD still behind Intel and ever behind Nvidia? Do they have any fabs left or is it all sub'd out to Charter and others following through on the "asset light" strat from 2006?
Thanks! I am doing my due diligence on the web but would welcome any comments.
1. I don't think AMD can reasonably hope to catch up, but I would expect the gap to narrow somewhat, simply because of the law of diminishing returns. Haswell is a damn good architecture and Intel will have to fight hard for every bit of performance they want to add on top of it. Meanwhile, Piledriver is rather poor and there should be a good bit of
relatively low-hanging fruit.
2. The same rationale applies, although AMD has a couple of interesting cards to play. The first one is dense ARM servers, which apparently are getting a good bit of interest from customers, and the second one is HSA enabled APUs, which could prove very interesting to the HPC crowd. However, AMD will have to make sure the software side of things is up to the task, and that's not going to be easy.
3. It's pretty much neck and neck. If you want to really dissect things, GK110 is apparently a little more efficient in perf/W (although I think we might want to revisit that notion when the 780 Ti and custom 290X are out) but Hawaii wins in perf/mm², especially at (very) high definitions, thanks to its 64 ROPs.
But none of this really matters much, because GPUs tend to change quite a bit from generation to generation. In other words, the 20nm generation could really go either way, as could the 14nm one, etc. That said, AMD has two (closely related) good things going for it in the graphics department: GCN-based consoles and Mantle. You might add APUs, which help with market share, even though that's not necessarily a very gaming-oriented part of the market—but then again, this could change with memory stacking in the nearish future.
4. So far, they seem fairly reliable, but it's hard to tell at this point, it's still too soon.
5. Depends on what you mean by "business". AMD has a real shot in the ARM server market, which might well become very large, but it's not clear yet, and for the moment it's quite small.
As for handheld devices, I don't think that's happening. Every company in this business is finding it difficult to compete with Qualcomm, notably because of the latter's integrated modem. As far as I'm aware, AMD has no modem IP whatsoever, let alone integrated. And these days, even in tablets, integrated LTE seems to matter quite a bit. One way they
could penetrate this market is with some sort of cross-licensing agreement with Qualcomm (a company that is a founding member of the AMD-led HSA foundation), which would allow AMD to license QC's modem, while letting QC use GCN modules in tablets chips, for examples. But I'm far from convinced that this would be worth it for Qualcomm, as Adreno seems to perform just fine.
6. I'm not sure what you're asking exactly. AMD doesn't have any fabs anymore, they use GlobalFoundries and TSMC. Compared to Intel, that's definitely a disadvantage, but NVIDIA is in the same situation. If anything, AMD has the advantage of being able to use GlolbalFoundries, which NVIDIA is unwilling to do for obvious strategic reasons, and probably a few technical ones too. Then again, AMD
has to use GloFo for a given number of wafers per year, which is sometimes a (costly) problem—but probably less so now that contracts have been renegotiated and console chips are ramping up.
It does seem to me that process shrinks are bringing smaller and smaller gains with each generation, so AMD's process handicap might become less important over time.
As for homerdog's point on console chips: yes, the margins are low (mid-teens) but for this type of product, gross margins almost completely translate into operating margins, so that's not a big problem (as evidenced by AMD's return to profitability last quarter with the console ramp). Besides, margins will improve over time, especially when the chips are shrunk to 20nm (early 2015 would be my guess). Further, AMD has mentioned a few more semi-custom SoCs in the pipeline. Valve is a likely candidate for this, as Nintendo or even Apple might be.
All in all, I think AMD has a lot of potential but remains a very risky investment. If I were you, I'd wait for two important pieces of information before making a decision on going long:
a) Just how much performance does Mantle bring? The answer to this should be available within a week.
b) How good is Kaveri? This answer to this should be available within a couple of months, give or take a few weeks. Leaks might happen earlier.