How much longer can AMD hold on????

I don't know if it's just a simply case of people overlooking this or just being oblivious, but AMD is transitioning to a completely different company. They are going from just a CPU manufacturer to a platform manufacturer-basically taking the Intel model and applying it. Hence the purchase of ATi-which was the cheapest and fastest way to bring in a chipset and integrated graphics solution. Was it bad timing? Maybe, but then again maybe it was the right time. By that I mean maybe if AMD waited any longer to go to a platform model it would be too late-better to take on the losses now and be ready for the long haul than try to catch up later.

So now AMD is building it's own platform's and selling them (slowly but surely). You'll already notice AMD based notebooks with ATi graphics, and the same with desktops. THIS is where AMD will and needs to make money. They are trying to milk the two largest money makers-the consumer market and the server market. They've got a decent hold in the server market, they are just trying to build up the consumer side. If you really look at the big picture they are shifting focus away from the enthusiast market, at least for the time being. As someone alluded to earlier-we're not a large of enough market to make or break AMD. However, the other two are, and that is where they are focused at the moment.

The bottom line is the losses are growing pains. Once AMD puts a good platform together on the consumer side and sells it like mad, then all will be well. You have to remember-joe schmoe at Best Buy buying a notebook or desktop ultimately looks at the price tag. If AMD can deliver a platform at lower cost then they'll start to see a lot of revenue.
 
well amd is losing money but there new processors will be out soon and they should beat the c2d.(I hope so anyway) I agree with ClariorHincHonos because if they get good prices and get a great consumer system together they will be set with most of the market.(ie not for gamers) I believe you also have to take into account that amd is selling a lot of gpu's maby not for the pc but for console gaming. Ati graphics are in two out of three consoles (wii,360) so they are still pulling in money there. So I think if they do well in there new processors amd can bounce right back.
 
MrWizard6600 said:
Anand got to review it, in the beta bios, you were allowed to enter a max value of 511MHz FSB. Do you know what OC Anand was able to get? 511MHz FSB lol.
Click to expand...


And the above applies to the mainstream joe six pack how ? Grandma buying a Dell/HP/Gateway at Costco,etc,isnt going to oc,ever.

What good is a product that is a few % points faster,when your main competitor can slash prices to the point of driving you into oblivion ?

I dont think Intel has anything to worry about from AMD or even Nvidia,with the marketing muscle,cash,production capacity,products,and expirience they have.

Intel has been slashing prices at a near non stop pace,and still posted a very healthy profit,wheras AMD is almost giving thier chips away,and still they have mountains of inventory,and are being beaten on all fronts soundly,and decisevly.They cannot afford to even advertise thier products properly and widely.
 
Aerosparx said:
According to..?
Click to expand...
According to AMD. Read their annual report. If you can't understand the annual report, read EDN or EE Times or DigiTimes, or any of the industry mags. They've all run stories in the last year about AMD's terrible financial situation.

HiTech-Hate said:
Uhm, AMD has a very strong foothold in the solid state memory market ... they don't just make CPU's.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out several times in this thread, AMD doesn't make memory anymore. They have a minority interest in a company they sold off a couple of years ago, but they are absolutely not a player in the memory market.
HiTech-Hate said:
I don't see how it matters if Intel is beating them in the processor market right now because, as I said, AMD is making revenue in other markets. And besides, a company can sit in the red for years and years as long as they have a large enough fiscal portfolio.
Click to expand...
Intel has always beaten them in revenue. Read their balance sheet; they don't have much money left.

RamonGTP said:
Well that's good for them I suppose, but they'll need a lot more than that to keep their head above water. Afterall, they did just post a $600 million loss.
Click to expand...
A $600M loss doesn't tell the whole story. The whole story is they lost $600M on income of only $1378M in this past quarter. They lost about $1.10 per share; that's miserable performance, and unsustainable given they have only $1600M in cash or so, and not much else in viable assets.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
The bottom line is the losses are growing pains.
Click to expand...
Code: 
1Q2006: 184M
2Q2006: 88M
3Q2006: 134M
4Q2006: (574M)
1Q2007: (611M)
2Q2007: (600M)

Ever since buying ATI, they've been far more in the red then they were in the black.

Since their Net revenue is shrinking, so I'm wondering exactly what growth you're noticing.

But when do you think these "growing pains" will end? When do you expect them to "come up with" this platform you're talking about?
 
Well, ClariorHincHonos has a point. Whenever a company makes a transition like that, more often then not they will fall on hard times for a while. It just appears to be REALLY bad with AMD at the moment and the benefits of the ATI acquisition will need to be realized soon, before they go bankrupt.
 
mikeblas said:
Code: 
1Q2006: 184M
2Q2006: 88M
3Q2006: 134M
4Q2006: (574M)
1Q2007: (611M)
2Q2007: (600M)

Ever since buying ATI, they've been far more in the red then they were in the black.

Since their Net revenue is shrinking, so I'm wondering exactly what growth you're noticing.

But when do you think these "growing pains" will end? When do you expect them to "come up with" this platform you're talking about?
Click to expand...

I wasn't referring to financial growth. I was referring to the growth of services they provide-and the pains which any company will experience when they move from a smaller market to a larger one. And I'd say a good portion of the time they incur a lot of debt before they see profit. AMD just got larger-they added more employees, more projects, more R&D-it's all going to cost more. And until all of that is running like a fine tuned machine, they'll have hard times.

And as far as the platform goes-look around. AMD chipsets are all over. But these are mostly chipsets that were developed pre-acquisition. It's coming together, just isn't quite there yet. But if you take a look they are taking what they have now and coupling them for OEMs. It's starting-but not fully matured. Here's an example:

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8310008&type=product&id=1173577987807
 
I really do think it is time people start to realise that the glory days of AMD may be over. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't expect K10 in its current state to be able to challenge Intel in the high end.

Perhaps AMD would do well with budget/midrange Phenoms @ 2 - 2.5GHz into 2008, but to think it will outperform a 3.33GHz or faster Penryn is a pipedream at this stage I'm afraid. Don't forget Nehalem is slated for a 2H 08 launch as well. Intel is firing on all cylinders at the moment and AMD just doesn't quite seem to be able to keep up the pace.

Being an enthusiast, while I find this a little disappointing, as long as AMD maintains price/performance parity the consumer doesn't really lose out except at the very top end enthusiast sector, which excludes 99% of the market anyway.
 
Manny Calavera said:
Intel has been slashing prices at a near non stop pace,and still posted a very healthy profit,wheras AMD is almost giving thier chips away,and still they have mountains of inventory,and are being beaten on all fronts soundly,and decisevly.They cannot afford to even advertise thier products properly and widely.
Click to expand...


According to this:
Sales rose 13% to $1.38 billion, topping Wall Street's estimate of $1.25 billion, according to analysts polled by Thomson Financial.
Click to expand...
You said that AMD is almost giving their chips away so their chips are cheaper now than before. The only way for the sales to rise now is by selling much more chips than before and I'm sure that they managed to do this because their sales have indeed gone up so I'm not sure whether they still have mountains of inventory or not since their chips are selling quite well at a low price :rolleyes:
 
alg7_munif said:
According to this:

You said that AMD is almost giving their chips away so their chips are cheaper now than before. The only way for the sales to rise now is by selling much more chips than before and I'm sure that they managed to do this because their sales have indeed gone up so I'm not sure whether they still have mountains of inventory or not since their chips are selling quite well at a low price :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Those numbers include the revenue for ATi division afaik, meaning there is a significant decrease in revenues from CPU sales compared to Q2 2006. The X2 prices are now about 1/3 (?) of the Q2 2006 pre-C2D prices, so the number of CPUs sold may still have increased while the revenues have decreased.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
I wasn't referring to financial growth. I was referring to the growth of services they provide-and the pains which any company will experience when they move from a smaller market to a larger one.
Click to expand...
So what did you mean instead of "growth"? Did you mean "diversification"?

ClariorHincHonos said:
And I'd say a good portion of the time they incur a lot of debt before they see profit.
Click to expand...
Sure. But that doesn't mean they stop R+D spending.

ClariorHincHonos said:
AMD just got larger-they added more employees,
Click to expand...
They did? How many? Last I heard, they laid off a couple thousand. Why would they be hiring while they're hemorrhaging money?

ClariorHincHonos said:
And until all of that is running like a fine tuned machine, they'll have hard times.
Click to expand...
Right. As I asked before: when do you think they'll get it working? Do you think they can get it working, given the upper management team they have?

ClariorHincHonos said:
And as far as the platform goes-look around. AMD chipsets are all over.
Click to expand...
They're not all over. They're only in AMD-based machines, which are outsold by Intel machines by, what -- something like 5:1?
 
AMD is in a huge cash crunch right now. The purchase of ATi was clearly done at the wrong time considering that they had to borrow 2 billion from existing investors just to keep the business running.

AMD would have been better served picking up ATi after Barcelona's release in the market place.


As of right now (puts on my wizard guru hat) AMD is at a crucial turning point. If they cannot get Barcy and Phenom out before Crysis they are in a world of trouble. I think people have forgotten just how powerful perception is in the hardware community. If AMD releases a chip that is grossly underclocked lower than Intel at the start, the negative perception will be overwhelming.

A perfect example is to take a look at the HD2900XT. ATi could come out with a magic set of new drivers that could make that card be quicker than an 8800Ultra and no one would even give a rats ass. Because the damage has been done. I has been labeled the bastard late child that was riddled with problems.

Moreover I also believe people forgot just how many I.T. Administrative professional like myself are hardware junkies as well. Our perception does carry over into our professions and our buying decisions in the workplace. AMD made a name for itself by catering to the high end and locking in us enthusiasts. So much so we convinced our bosses to go Opteron instead of Xeon. Which might I add was not an easy undertaking.

Hector's biggest mistake was not catering to the high end and if Barcy is not up to snuff FROM DAY ONE, than IBM will be picking up AMD by years end. That's what the wizard guru hat on my head is telling me.
 
jon67 said:
Those numbers include the revenue for ATi division afaik, meaning there is a significant decrease in revenues from CPU sales compared to Q2 2006. The X2 prices are now about 1/3 (?) of the Q2 2006 pre-C2D prices, so the number of CPUs sold may still have increased while the revenues have decreased.
Click to expand...

Nice assumption but according to this:

Computing Solutions Net revenue:
Quarter Ended June 30, 2007: $ 1,098 Millions
Quarter Ended March 31, 2007: $ 918 Millions

Graphics Net revenue:
Quarter Ended June 30, 2007: $ 195 Millions
Quarter Ended March 31, 2007: $ 197 Millions
Click to expand...

On the other hand, let see how much AMD have spent into R&D:

Research and development:
Six Months Ended June 30, 2007: $ 907 Millions
Six Months Ended July 2, 2006: $ 543 Millions
Click to expand...

Like I said before, we have more financial and CPU engineering experts here than AMD have working with them :rolleyes:
 
alg7_munif said:
Nice assumption but according to this:



On the other hand, let see how much AMD have spent into R&D:



Like I said before, we have more financial and CPU engineering experts here than AMD have working with them :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Your research and development numbers are deceptive. You picked the 6-month numbers from 2006 and 2007. Obviously, one includes quarters after AMD acquired ATi and one does not. If you look at quarterly R & D numbers you'll see that in Q2 AMD spent 475 million while only spending 432 million in Q1. Compare this to Q2 2006 when 279 million was spent in R & D. Of course, the new numbers include GPU spending and not just CPU spending unlike the same period last year.

If we were to use 6-month figures (like the R & D figures you mentioned) and compare this year to last then we see some troubling numbers. Six month revenue this year is 2.611 billion dollars compared to the same six month revenue in 2006 at 2.548 billion dollars. Total revenue hasn't increased much despite picking up a new graphics division. You can clearly see the CPU price wars at work here. You'll also see that the cost of sales this year was 1.803 billion when compared to 1.079 billion a year ago. Of course, the big one when talking 6 month terms is net income. This year, AMD has lost 1.211 billion compared to last year when they made 274 million.

When I can view their 10-Q, I might go through and pick apart their R & D numbers to see what went to computing and what went to graphics.
 
BigDH01 said:
Your research and development numbers are deceptive. You picked the 6-month numbers from 2006 and 2007. Obviously, one includes quarters after AMD acquired ATi and one does not. If you look at quarterly R & D numbers you'll see that in Q2 AMD spent 475 million while only spending 432 million in Q1. Compare this to Q2 2006 when 279 million was spent in R & D. Of course, the new numbers include GPU spending and not just CPU spending unlike the same period last year.

If we were to use 6-month figures (like the R & D figures you mentioned) and compare this year to last then we see some troubling numbers. Six month revenue this year is 2.611 billion dollars compared to the same six month revenue in 2006 at 2.548 billion dollars. Total revenue hasn't increased much despite picking up a new graphics division. You can clearly see the CPU price wars at work here. You'll also see that the cost of sales this year was 1.803 billion when compared to 1.079 billion a year ago. Of course, the big one when talking 6 month terms is net income. This year, AMD has lost 1.211 billion compared to last year when they made 274 million.

When I can view their 10-Q, I might go through and pick apart their R & D numbers to see what went to computing and what went to graphics.
Click to expand...

You meant that AMD spent an extra $364M($907M-$543M) for their graphic R&D when their graphic sales for the same time period is only $392M($195M+$197M)? They really need experts from this forum if they really did that.....
 
alg7_munif said:
You meant that AMD spent an extra $364M($907M-$543M) for their graphic R&D when their graphic sales for the same time period is only $392M($195M+$197M)? They really need experts from this forum if they really did that.....
Click to expand...

I'm assuming that is sarcasm and, of course, it sounds foolish. I never stated AMD spent the difference entirely on GPUs, I said your statement was deceptive as it included GPU R & D money as well. That much is entirely true. If you go here you'll see that in Q3 of 2006 ATi spent ~90 million in R & D. I'm assuming that number has only increased since being purchased by AMD. Let's conservatively estimate that 100 and 110 million dollars were spent in GPU research in Q1 and Q2 2007 respectively. That means that 210 million dollars of the 364 million dollar increase in R & D yearly was due to the purchase of ATi. And that's a conservative estimate. That leaves a 154 million dollar increase over two quarters, that may have gone into CPU R & D, over the previous year. That is a substantial increase, no doubt, but not the 364 that you seem to imply. Your numbers are deceptive, not incorrect.
 
how much longer can they hold on??? I think a long time, company like AMD dont just go down over night (2 years of hardship is barely overnight form a business stand point)

Intel will need to hold the market with better cheaper CPUs for at least 10 years to close AMD down.
 
mikeblas said:
So what did you mean instead of "growth"? Did you mean "diversification"?

Sure. But that doesn't mean they stop R+D spending.

They did? How many? Last I heard, they laid off a couple thousand. Why would they be hiring while they're hemorrhaging money?

Right. As I asked before: when do you think they'll get it working? Do you think they can get it working, given the upper management team they have?

They're not all over. They're only in AMD-based machines, which are outsold by Intel machines by, what -- something like 5:1?
Click to expand...

Sure dude, diversification. Whatever. Most everyone got the point that they went from just processors to a platform. Quit nitpicking.

Don't remember saying they stopped R&D. As a matter of fact if you reread my post I think I mentioned more R&D.

Yeah, sure they laid off people. BUT, they still have more people (Company A + Company B=more employees).

Do I look like I have a crystal ball? Do I work at AMD? No. So I'm going to use logic and not try to predict when they are releasing a product. I could risk wagering a guess...but then potentially have it blow up in my face. Why don't you call and ask? You seem very concerned about it.

Dude. Did you look at the example? It's an AMD notebook with ATi graphics...which means it would also have an AMD chipset. And there are quite a few of those. Same goes for desktops.

Overall-quit nitpicking. All you seem to want to do is criticize and sling mud on what a few people are saying.
 
There is a definite reason for the R&D spending increase. I'm not at liberty to say, but you'll probably see why in the next year or so.
 
morfinx said:
There is a definite reason for the R&D spending increase. I'm not at liberty to say, but you'll probably see why in the next year or so.
Click to expand...
It wouldn't really matter. AMD marketing seems to think that just making a product will instantly make it successful, and we've seen how that has worked out. Hector and the president of marketing both need to go.
 
AMD is far from dead. They still have a competitive product in K8 despite its age. They have fairly strong position in the lower end market especially in countries with lower income standards. Also the R600 still has alot of promise if they can fix the heat, power issue (which is very possible on 65 or 55nm) and fix the AA issues.
 
ClariorHincHonos said:
Sure dude, diversification. Whatever. Most everyone got the point that they went from just processors to a platform. Quit nitpicking.
Click to expand...
I'm not nitpicking. I just can't figure out what you're talking about. AMD, as you pointed out, has made their own chipsets for years -- so that's certainly not diversification. Buying ATI is, but they're still hopelessly uncompetitive in that market.

ClariorHincHonos said:
Yeah, sure they laid off people. BUT, they still have more people (Company A + Company B=more employees).
Click to expand...
Do they? (Before you accuse me of anything instead of constructively participating in the conversation, please consider the possibility that I don't actually know and am actually asking.) They laid off more than 350 people who were redundant between AMD and ATI after the merger. Then, they laid off around 2000. Did they end up with more people net, afterwards?

ClariorHincHonos said:
Do I look like I have a crystal ball? Do I work at AMD? No. So I'm going to use logic and not try to predict when they are releasing a product. I could risk wagering a guess...but then potentially have it blow up in my face. Why don't you call and ask? You seem very concerned about it.
Click to expand...
You said that it was coming, and I was wondering when you thought it would be. I wasn't going to FAX you a contract so that I could hold you to your guess. I was just asking when you thought it was going to happen.

Why is it that you have such a chip on your shoulder?

ClariorHincHonos said:
Dude. Did you look at the example? It's an AMD notebook with ATi graphics...which means it would also have an AMD chipset. And there are quite a few of those. Same goes for desktops.
Click to expand...
Yes, I did. There have been AMD machines with AMD chipsets for years, as you pointed out yourself. Now that AMD and ATI have merged and machines can also have AMD graphics subsystems doesn't seem that interesting at all. I honestly can't figure out why you think it is, as Intel will still have much higher revenue and this doesn't substantially increase their sales. Having AMD-branded graphics chips doesn't give them a great competitive advantage, either.

ClariorHincHonos said:
Overall-quit nitpicking. All you seem to want to do is criticize and sling mud on what a few people are saying.
Click to expand...
All I'm doing is sharing my observations and asking you questions about the observations you've shared. If I can't figure out what you're talking about (after all, "growth" and "diversification" are very different things), then my only recourse is to ask for clarification. If you can't bother to be clear, why bother writing?
 
lixuelai said:
AMD is far from dead. They still have a competitive product in K8 despite its age. They have fairly strong position in the lower end market especially in countries with lower income standards. Also the R600 still has alot of promise if they can fix the heat, power issue (which is very possible on 65 or 55nm) and fix the AA issues.
Click to expand...

The K8 is only competitive if you're comparing it's high end to Intel's lower end CPU's... Nothing more. The R600 has other problems besides heat... Performance and power consumption to name a couple.
 
mikeblas said:
I'm not nitpicking. I just can't figure out what you're talking about. AMD, as you pointed out, has made their own chipsets for years -- so that's certainly not diversification. Buying ATI is, but they're still hopelessly uncompetitive in that market.

Do they? (Before you accuse me of anything instead of constructively participating in the conversation, please consider the possibility that I don't actually know and am actually asking.) They laid off more than 350 people who were redundant between AMD and ATI after the merger. Then, they laid off around 2000. Did they end up with more people net, afterwards?

You said that it was coming, and I was wondering when you thought it would be. I wasn't going to FAX you a contract so that I could hold you to your guess. I was just asking when you thought it was going to happen.

Why is it that you have such a chip on your shoulder?

Yes, I did. There have been AMD machines with AMD chipsets for years, as you pointed out yourself. Now that AMD and ATI have merged and machines can also have AMD graphics subsystems doesn't seem that interesting at all. I honestly can't figure out why you think it is, as Intel will still have much higher revenue and this doesn't substantially increase their sales. Having AMD-branded graphics chips doesn't give them a great competitive advantage, either.

All I'm doing is sharing my observations and asking you questions about the observations you've shared. If I can't figure out what you're talking about (after all, "growth" and "diversification" are very different things), then my only recourse is to ask for clarification. If you can't bother to be clear, why bother writing?
Click to expand...

Ok, I never once said they've been making chipsets for years. In fact I'm pretty sure they haven't made chipsets in a very long time, and the time they did was a failure, or at least didn't go well. As far as I know VIA, nVidia, ATi, and other companies made AMD chipsets, while AMD just provided the processor. So the AMD chipset and integrated graphics solution is a NEW concept. As I stated-AMD went from primarily being a processor company to a platform company.

As far as cutting employees-all I see is a plan to restructure (which only mentioned limiting the new hires) , the cutting of 4-500, and the cut of 2000 many years ago. Is this 2000 person cut proposed? Either way I doubt that AMD has a lower number of employees than it did before the acquisition. It seems nearly impossible to integrate two large companies such as these and not have a larger number of staff.

As far as a platform coming-690 is kind of one...but I doubt it was developed post acquisition. I remember reading something about an AMD reference motherboard when Kyle took the Barcelona pics-which would indicate a possible new chipset/platform, so we might see one then. Any old ATi chipset and AMD processor combo sold now is essentially a frankensteined "platform". They weren't developed together but it still all falls under AMD.

In summary-AMD did not previously have an active chipset of it's own design. This is why they bought ATi. The coupling of ATi chipsets, to include integrated graphics (which is typically part of the chipset anyway), and an AMD processor, is essentially an AMD platform. These platforms are now being sold, but mostly based on technologies already in existence. AMD has yet to design/release a co-designed chipset/platform since the acquisition (that I know of). I am guessing we'll see one with Barcelona. (If anyone has more info to add or can clarify, please do). I cannot find evidence of AMD recently cutting 2000 employees, only the 4-500 mentioned earlier along with reports of restructuring.

I apologize if I came off a bit harsh, but it appeared that you were being sarcastic and critical of my points, hence my response. If the things I write are not completely clear it may be because I assume a certain level of knowledge about the industry is present in these forums, but that isn't always the case. I also try to truncate as much as possible, so it's not a book. And as far as the growth thing-it can mean many things. When I was using it I was referring to the maturing and progression of AMD. They are moving forward and thus experiencing the pains of doing so. (Although some of you don't like that expression-oh well).
 
mikeblas said:
Do they? (Before you accuse me of anything instead of constructively participating in the conversation, please consider the possibility that I don't actually know and am actually asking.) They laid off more than 350 people who were redundant between AMD and ATI after the merger. Then, they laid off around 2000. Did they end up with more people net, afterwards?
Click to expand...
My understanding (as someone who works for the company), is that there are indeed more employees now.

This can be verified quickly with google, revealing that ATI employs about 3000 people. Even if that number is before the layoffs, it is still an increase.
 
jimmyb said:
My understanding (as someone who works for the company), is that there are indeed more employees now.

This can be verified quickly with google, revealing that ATI employs about 3000 people. Even if that number is before the layoffs, it is still an increase.
Click to expand...

Jimmy do you work at Markham?
 
jimmyb said:
This can be verified quickly with google, revealing that ATI employs about 3000 people. Even if that number is before the layoffs, it is still an increase.
Click to expand...
3000 people currently? Is that more or less than before? More or less than AMD? When?

ClariorHincHonos said:
In summary-AMD did not previously have an active chipset of it's own design.
Click to expand...
What's an "active" chipset?

The AMD-8000 chipset is the one I think of most often, as it's on a couple of the servers I use. The Tyan Opteron-based dual-socket K8SomethingSomething motherboards that were so popular a few years back used these. Their older chipsets weren't unpopular, and my recollection is that the similar AMD-compatible nVidia chipsets of the day weren't very-well received. Point is, they've always either made their own motherboard chipsets or contracted with other vendors (VIA or nVidia mostly, IIRC) to get it done, when their processors haven't been electrically compatible with the Intel parts.

ClariorHincHonos said:
This is why they bought ATi. The coupling of ATi chipsets, to include integrated graphics (which is typically part of the chipset anyway),
Click to expand...
What system chipsets did ATI make before?

ClariorHincHonos said:
I apologize if I came off a bit harsh,
Click to expand...
It was more than just a bit. You attacked me personally, rather than sticking to the topic of the conversation; and were completely unprovoked. I'm glad you've decided to apologize, and even happier that you've realized that your posts aren't as perfectly clear as you had assumed.
 
mikeblas said:
3000 people currently? Is that more or less than before? More or less than AMD? When?
Click to expand...

If we presume the figure to be accurate either right now, or at some point shortly before the merger, then there must have been a net increase in employees.

According to you, "They laid off more than 350 people who were redundant between AMD and ATI after the merger. Then, they laid off around 2000.".

If that number is before the layoffs, then the merger would have brought 3000 additional employees to the company, which would mean they are still up approximately 650 employees according to your numbers. If that number is after the layoffs, then the merger brought at least 3000 additional employees to the company, which is greater than the number of people let go according to you.

In either case, there are a greater number of employees working for AMD than there were before the merger.
 
AMD really hasn't made a mainstream chipset since the Socket A days, but the chipsets they did make were actually pretty darn good.

I owned both a Slot A motherboard that used AMD's 751 "Irongate" chipset, as well as many Socket A motherboards that used (and still use) AMD's 761 chipset. They've always been rock solid in terms of stability, ever since the days of Windows 2000.
 
jimmyb said:
If we presume the figure to be accurate either right now, or at some point shortly before the merger, then there must have been a net increase in employees.

According to you, "They laid off more than 350 people who were redundant between AMD and ATI after the merger. Then, they laid off around 2000.".
Click to expand...
The 2000 number isn't according to me -- it's according to the article I cited in my previous post. So you're figuring that AMD has more employees post merger because they've laid off less people than were in the company they bought?

I suppose that's accurate, but people can (and often do) leave during a buy out, and leave for other reasons besides layoffs. That attrition wouldn't be in the numbers I found. But carrying that supposition, I'd still wonder why AMD isn't laying off more people, since they're losing money in buckets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top