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.
There might be more adjustments so that old inventory is priced to move.
The AMD Execution Thread [2007 - 2017]
- Thread starter overclocked_enthusiasm
- Start date
-
- Tags
- amd
- Status
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:
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....
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 know this is a little OT but Qimonda, an Infineon-owned Dresden neighbour of AMD, has just filed for bankruptcy in a Munich, Germany court:
http://www.computerworld.com/action...rticleBasic&articleId=9126663&source=rss_news
http://www.computerworld.com/action...rticleBasic&articleId=9126663&source=rss_news
Initial design and production partner for GDDR5, as well.
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?
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.
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? )
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.
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.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
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
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.
I wouldn't be surprised, I will say it's against the law of physics
. BTW, they turned up a loss in Q2.
Last edited by a moderator:
The current stepping of the AM3 socket version of Phenom II seems to be showing a problem with 1333 Mhz DDR3 memory.
You gotta feel a bit sorry for those guys, don't you.
You gotta feel a bit sorry for those guys, don't you.
But using DDR3 was the whole point of the AM3-version, wasn't it?
I hope this can be fixed with a simple BIOS Update.
- Status
