Too bad AMD has $500mil more in cash than Nvidia at the end of '07, $1.9b compared to $1.1b.
Also, Nvidia spent about 17% more in all of '07, $554m, on R&D than what AMD spent in Q4 '07, $473m.
Where do you get your data?
The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
Also, Nvidia spent about 17% more in all of '07, $554m, on R&D than what AMD spent in Q4 '07, $473m.
Where do you get your data?
Are those AMD figures for the graphics department exclusively or the entire company?
Because that huge debt they have is non-existant, right?And what AMD spends in R&D, is spent only on the graphics group...the rest of the company isn't into R&D, they don't need it:|
Entire company.
Every large company has debt...
Nvidia doesn't only do R&D on GPUs...
What is your point?
My point is he was either sorely misinformed or just making stuff up.
I don't think spreading BS is very helpful to others reading this thread.
Then since AMD is addressing primarily the CPU market and NVIDIA is not, any of your comparisons are useless; unless of course you have specific numbers for AMD that are exclusively for their graphics department.
FFS man, FFS. Every large company has debt that is perilously nearing a value equal to its current marked capitalization?Every large company bleeds money at the rate AMD is bleeding(even with what seems to be recent improvements)?
nVidia doesn't only do R&D on GPUs...so basically you're saying that the requirements for doing R&D on something like, dunno, the APX2500 are similar to what it cost AMD to develop Phenom/Deneb/Fusion etc.?What you didn't get(big surprise there) is that nV's primary focus is GPUs. Thus, let's say their R&D budget is 80% dedicated to doing GPU research. Do you even assume that it's the same split for AMD?Unless they've ceased being a CPU company, that's doubtful. I'd guess that the bulk of their R&D is still geared at doing CPU research, ignoring the fact that plans are to cut R&D expenses.
Yes.
Primarily, yes.
Does that mean they decreased R&D for GPUs? No.
When AMD bought ATi, I compared ATi's R&D to the increase that happened in Q1 '07 to AMD, ATi definitely saw an increase of funding.
No idea at what you are trying to get at in the first paragraph.
No, I'm not. What I am saying is that while it isn't easily comparable that doesn't mean that I'm not right...
As per your other arguments I point to my response to Ail.
AMD plans to cut AMD somewhat slightly and slowly.
This makes sense due to how "inefficient," though that isn't the perfect word, AMD as become. Plus with their current business model of becoming asset light, these plans all go hand-in-hand.
Now can we try and get back ontopic. No point in derailing this thread any further.
And I'm sayint that whilst it isn't easily comparable you're wrong. Tut tut:|
HuH?
I never said anything about operating expense other than that I have looked at them, since I read through every 10Q/K when it comes out for Intel, AMD and Nvidia.
ATi was using less than $100m in R&D back in '06, per quater.
AMD had a 67-70% growth rate for R&D from '06 to '07, 1H and 1Q respectively.
Basically AMD spent $200m more on R&D per quarter in '07 than '06.
Care to explain?
Huh? Why are you looking there? That is part of your problem...
SEC Filings is what you should be looking at.
Actually, upon a second look, you just shouldn't be looking at that first page, you should be looking at the financial documents, Statement of Cash Flows, Balance Sheet and Income Statement.
And yes Nvidia does have debt, Liabilities = debt.
In Q3 '07, the most recent SEC Filing for Nvidia, Nvidia has ~$1b in Liabilities.
Yep, obviously they don't have any debt...
I don't and can't know from any financial numbers that are for such a large company that addresses as many markets.
I'm not going to debate any weird equasions. The thing is that word on the street has it that RV770 didn't exactly need a lot of R&D resources rather the contrary.
It might very well be true that AMD might have devoted more resources for R&D for its graphics department than ATI used to use, there's just no chance in hell that especially you can know for what exactly it is for since IHVs work on multiple projects in parallel.
Arguing about such details sounds childish at least to me; if the rumours are right or wrong is something that we'll found out I guess in a couple a months and trust me a chip that had devoted a shitload of R&D vs. one that had one mediocre portions of it shows immediately.
What are you arguing about again exactly?
Ail- I agree completely and I thought that was clear with my last sentence...
I was arguing because I was trying to correct a false statement and common misconception and proceed to get my head ripped off for being able to read and understand SEC filings.
I guess I should stop sharing my knowledge here since it obviously doesn't fly...
I was arguing because I was trying to correct a false statement and common misconception and proceed to get my head ripped off for being able to read and understand SEC filings.
I guess I should stop sharing my knowledge here since it obviously doesn't fly...
It ends up in a dead end though and you can see it yourself. Assume R&D expenses for graphics at AMD are at X for timeframe Y, how can anyone truly know (apart from some AMD employees) what the resources are devoted for? One quick example would be future Fusion which sounds to me like AMD's reaction to Larabee, which as far as I can tell NV has nothing equivalent in its roadmap.
You're of course right that you're calling for the concentration to fall back on RV770. So what do all so far indications point at in terms of R&D resources for that one? No wait don't answer that one as it looks equally irrelevant to me. Better question would be if the result can compete effectively against what NV is planning. My first quick answer would be yes; the "buts" we'll find out in due time I guess.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
And yes Nvidia does have debt, Liabilities = debt.
In Q3 '07, the most recent SEC Filing for Nvidia, Nvidia has ~$1b in Liabilities.
Yep, obviously they don't have any debt...
Liabilities "can" include debt. But Liabilities does not "equal" debt. Debt is money owed to creditors.
A liability can be as simple as something you purchased 1 year ago that has depreciated substantially.
A liability could also be assets that are selling for less that it cost to produce them.
A liability could also be a division of the a company that is operating at a loss.
For example Microsofts gaming division has been operating at a loss for quite a while due to the investment in the Xbox. That division was a liability for the company.
However, MSFT doesn't have debt in that it does not owe money to creditors that it must pay back on a monthy/quarterly/yearly basis.
I'm sure Nvidia is in a similar situation.
AMD howevr has quite a bit of debt. So while liability might be potetially equal between Nvidia and AMD (I have no clue whether it is since I don't follow either company all that closely) AMD is in a far more perilous position because they must continue to pay their creditors or hope their creditors are willing to continue funding them in hopes of future payoff. If at some point they lose investor/creditor confidence completely, they go bankrupt.
Nvidia on the other hand always has the optioin of just divesting themselves of their Liabilities and taking it as a loss.
Regards,
SB
Not in accounting. A liability could be an unpaid electric bill or payments owed to suppliers. These are normal costs in running a business. Debt refers to money borrowed, bonds issued etc.
We don't know where they spent that money in R&D, it could be purely graphics, it could be improvement to the k10 core, it could be for k11, it could be for fusion, or any of the combination. (remember all the respins for k10, thats not cheap).
Huh? Why are you looking there? That is part of your problem...
SEC Filings is what you should be looking at.
Actually, upon a second look, you just shouldn't be looking at that first page, you should be looking at the financial documents, Statement of Cash Flows, Balance Sheet and Income Statement.
And yes Nvidia does have debt, Liabilities = debt.
In Q3 '07, the most recent SEC Filing for Nvidia, Nvidia has ~$1b in Liabilities.
Yep, obviously they don't have any debt...
you aren't reading them right
(as others of said as well)To top it off: those who can read SEC filings would understand that the $554M was for 2006. The number for 2007 is $692M.
- Status
