AMD Hires Bank to Explore Options

There's not many companies out there right now that are in the financial, structural, position to buy out AMD. In fact there are not many who would need AMD, Intel just needs AMD's GPU dept. IMHO. Honestly I think Apple could buy them and it would make perfect sense. Apple is starting to want to develop things in house, Apple wants an SOC that is highly efficient, specifically in the graphics dept. where they seem to care the most about. Apple already seems to want to switch away from Intel, buying AMD is the perfect chance, they get a GPU dept. that has been really well performing product wise IMO and some APU know how. Plus Apple has the cash to buy with out batting an eye.
 
Ashbringer said:
Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU, while the K5 was dirt cheap.

When the K6-2 was introduced, they brought 3DNow which gave it good competition again Intel chips. Given the application made good use of 3DNow.

If history isn't a good enough reason, then basic economics will do. If Intel is the only X86 chip you can get, then they can gouge the prices. Who's to stop them? They're run by good samaritan's?

AMD did good with the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64, but after that it all went down hill. The Bulldozer chip killed them, but it's not like they can't recover. Just hope that Apple or Microsoft doesn't end up buying them up. If they do, I hope Nvidia makes a desktop Tegra chip and motherboards.
Click to expand...

Because that was over a decade ago. Intel's pricing scheme has been pretty stable for the last what? 10 years? Also processor performance isn't making fast leaps in performance like they did back then. Where they'd throw out one proc, only to release another one 6 months later that was 80% faster.

The only people Intel has to fear, is Intel. With the sheer specs of current PCs, it makes it unnecessary to upgrade every 6-7 months, nor every 1-2 years. Increased prices would simply extend out those times. Definitely not something Intel is going to want.

Even now, I'm struggling to justify upgrading, when my Core 2 Quad is plenty fast enough.
 
We all knew this was going to happen.

We've stopped buying AMD cpu's a handful of years ago, most of us anyways. As far as their video cards go, I'm sure people will think not once or twice, but three times before buying that brand.

Personally, I'm looking to sell my 7970's as soon as Nvidia announces their next gen video card.

I'm ok with there only being Intel and Nvidia in the high-end segment in the future.

I just hope the people at AMD can weather the storm that's descending upon them in more ways than one.
 
///AMG said:
Apple wants an SOC that is highly efficient, specifically in the graphics dept. where they seem to care the most about.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't going to get that with AMD. Unless Apple has a x86 tablet prototype sitting in the back to go against Intel Atom based tablets, which I highly doubt they do.
 
very sad news if AMD disappears from the general PC/enthusiast market.
those that think the status quo will be maintained with just intel CPU's & chipsets on the market are kidding themselves.

intel will certainly take the opportunity to exploit the situation in the absence of a competitor.
i hope the news is a ploy on AMD's behalf to increase their share price in the short term to give them some breathing room (unlikely).

if AMD is sold whole or in parts, i couldn't think of suitors worse that MS or Apple.

best case scenario if rumours are true, is a merger that gives AMD a cash injection while maintaining a certain level of autonomy. not sure how that would play out with the various IPs that may come into question tho.
 
In all seriousness, I really, REALLY want AMD (along with Intel and Nvidia) to survive this. Because, you know... Other than sentimental value, there is also them being the RGB combo.
 
Ashbringer said:
Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU, while the K5 was dirt cheap.

When the K6-2 was introduced, they brought 3DNow which gave it good competition again Intel chips. Given the application made good use of 3DNow.

If history isn't a good enough reason, then basic economics will do. If Intel is the only X86 chip you can get, then they can gouge the prices. Who's to stop them? They're run by good samaritan's?

AMD did good with the Athlon, Athlon XP, and Athlon 64, but after that it all went down hill. The Bulldozer chip killed them, but it's not like they can't recover. Just hope that Apple or Microsoft doesn't end up buying them up. If they do, I hope Nvidia makes a desktop Tegra chip and motherboards.
Click to expand...

You are assuming Intel didn't learn a lesson from those days. I worked for Intel back then but they had different management thinking in those days. Grove was the hardcore driver when I first hired in (his motto was "Only the paranoid survive") ... then he was replaced by Barrett who was the technical wonk (he drove for copy exactly methodologies and Intel's role in the Internet bubble) ... now they are under Otellini (a former marketing and sales guy) ... it was under Otellini's watch they abandoned their previous P4/P5/P6 progression for the Core technology, that they got Apple to switch to Intel, and that they implemented the Tick Tock strategy ...

Otellini is not going to bring down the wrath of all the financially hungry governments by engaging in behaviors that will catch the attention of the monopoly hunters ... also, the lesson he and Intel learned on competition is you do not leave a gap for your competitor to establish a beach head ... the only reason AMD hung on to buy NextGen (which brought them the Athalon technology that finally made them competitive) was that Intel ceded the low end market to AMD (and AMD was able to use that to later steal the high end market) ... Intel won't forget that, nor are they immune from competition with ARM nipping at the boundaries of normal desktop and laptop computing trying to find a way in to displace Intel ... with or without AMD Intel will continue to establish a market presence from the low price to the high price AND do everything they can to insure they maintain a technological lead on any potential competitors (especially ARM)

So, the TL:DR version of the above is the whether AMD stays or goes Intel will stay with the status quo, not return to their failed strategies of 10 years ago ;)
 
What is this nonsense about Intel not raising prices? They already have been.

Check entry level prices for the last few years, and you'll see prices flat line. Any company beholden to share holders does this, and it's par for the course. They are not some kind hearted old man who somehow looks at all the angles. They're a money making machine, and that is their sole priority.


Prices are stagnated because there is no competition, and will continue to be so.

But AMD just isn't big enough, and I guess it's been a long time coming. My next CPU will still be an FX 6XXXX series though.

And yea, as we learned with VIA, once AMD is done for, that's it. There is no one else ever coming to the X86 market. Intel is too far ahead, and the cost to entry barrier to high for the amount of profit to be gained. ARM is the future, unfortunately.
 
Wixard said:
What is this nonsense about Intel not raising prices? They already have been.

Check entry level prices for the last few years, and you'll see prices flat line. Any company beholden to share holders does this, and it's par for the course. They are not some kind hearted old man who somehow looks at all the angles. They're a money making machine, and that is their sole priority.


Prices are stagnated because there is no competition, and will continue to be so.

But AMD just isn't big enough, and I guess it's been a long time coming. My next CPU will still be an FX 6XXXX series though.

And yea, as we learned with VIA, once AMD is done for, that's it. There is no one else ever coming to the X86 market. Intel is too far ahead, and the cost to entry barrier to high for the amount of profit to be gained. ARM is the future, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

That's dead on if you look at the prices over the past couple of years

You might have already noticed the resulting price stagnation. We've seen it first-hand when putting together our system guides. No matter how many chips AMD throws into the ring or how often it slashes prices, Intel CPUs always seem to stay put at roughly the same price points until the next generation comes along. There are exceptions in the bargain-basement realm of sub-$100 processors, but they're few and far between.

We were interested in quantifying the phenomenon, so we called on the lovely folks at Camelegg, who provided us with a treasure trove of historical CPU pricing data. That data covers Newegg pricing for budget and mid-range CPUs across the past three years or so. We stuck the numbers into an Excel spreadsheet, worked our famous graphing magic, and unearthed clear evidence of how dire the situation has become.

In the chart below, you'll see the difference between peak and minimum prices during the first 50 weeks of availability for a broad range of AMD and Intel processors, both new and old. Why 50 weeks? That happens to be roughly the amount of time AMD's FX-series CPUs have been available, and we wanted to see how they stacked up against other offerings, historically speaking.
Click to expand...

50-weeks.png


http://techreport.com/review/23663/as-amd-struggles-intel-chip-prices-stagnate

Throughout 2010 and much of 2011, AMD had an ace in the hole in the budget game: its $100 quad-core Athlon IIs and Phenom IIs, which offered excellent performance for the money. Intel's dual-core, Core i3-500-series chips could manage superior single-threaded performance, but they weren't quite as compelling, especially in the eyes of enthusiasts. Nevertheless, Intel had no qualms about charging a premium. The Core i5-540 only slipped to $100 after its replacements in the Core i3-2100 series had already arrived.

Around the same time, AMD made the unfortunate decision to replace the Phenom II X4 840 with its A-series APUs, which were priced somewhat ambitiously. Intel prices remained stationary, and in light of the A series' somewhat underwhelming performance, we had to switch our recommendation for the system guide's budget build to the Core i3-2100.

Since then, and despite subsequent AMD price cuts, Intel has held the Core i3-2100 steady at around $120. The marginally quicker Core i3-2120 has fallen to within a few dollars of that, yet Intel seems uninterested in offering the slower model for less. Similarly, the Core i3-2105—a variant of the i3-2100 with faster integrated graphics that's a more direct competitor to AMD's offerings—remains at $135 despite AMD's continued cuts to the A series.

None of this bodes terribly well for consumers.

AMD's recent missteps have, it seems, given Intel very little incentive to cut prices—even when it doesn't always have the clear upper hand. The only way Intel offers substantially better value over time is with yearly generational refreshes, and those refreshes raise performance per dollar not by lowering prices, but by delivering higher performance for the same money. Consider that, almost two years after the release of the Core i5-2500K, Intel still doesn't offer an unlocked quad-core processor for less than $200. Meanwhile, Intel's gross margin has climbed to an eye-popping 63.4%, nearly 20 points higher than AMD's.

This, folks, is why a healthier AMD is absolutely vital to this industry. The underdog needs to score a home run (or something close to it) and upset the status quo, or else prices will continue to stagnate. In a couple of years, perhaps the pace of innovation will begin to slow, as well. Maybe AMD's new Trinity A-series and upcoming Vishera FX-series processors are the answer. Or perhaps AMD is going to need third-party help to succeed, through either an investment or a takeover. There's been talk of Qualcomm or Samsung possibly making a bid.
Click to expand...

Now you've got to fork over $200 to buy an unlocked multiplier SKU whereas all of AMD's desktop chips are unlocked.

Intel won't raise prices drastically, but they will stagnate in the performance and advancement race and keep prices roughly level -- and they have been level. If Intel believes the Atom is where the most cutthroat competition is then it'll be the desktop variants that end up being second class citizens to Intel's smartphone/tablet SoCs. It's the reason we're seeing 10% performance bumps each generation in CPU while we're getting 30%-50%+ every generation on the iGPU. Intel addresses the needs of the market first and foremost as they're a corporation out to make money. If they feel that their best option is focusing more on the Atom lines and letting their desktop/laptop lines take the back seat then that's what'll happen
 
Not happening, according to their CEO.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/11/13/3642344/amd-rory-read-sale-rumors



Rory Read said:
Team,

Within the past couple of hours, a major media outlet wrote a piece speculating about the sale of AMD. As you know, articles such as this periodically surface in the media. I want you to know exactly how we are responding to this speculative piece, as we expect some additional media outlets to inquire. Our official response is below, along with the original news article.

But let me personally reinforce to you: we are not actively pursuing the sale of AMD or any of our significant assets. It's full steam ahead with our strategy … we absolutely are on the right path.

Rory
Click to expand...
 
It is an indication that market is evolving. Consumer no longer wants to purcahse a desktop or laptop as smart phone or tablet is getting bigger and more powerful.

Even if AMD gets bought out and liquidated by an equity firm, and then Intel raises the price of desktop Celeron CPU to $500 per processor, consumer still has choice: tablet or desktop PC.

In corproate market, AMD's server division will be taken over by another company.

It is similar to Mexican drug war, when one drug lord gets killed, another one will take his place.
 
Ashbringer said:
Because we remember what Intel prices were like before AMD arose. When AMD created the K5, it was a piece of junk compared to Intel. If you think Intel out performs AMD now, the K5's were far worse back then. Then again, Intel wanted $1k for a middle of the road CPU
Click to expand...
[citation required]

These ridiculous claims are just silly. As far back as I remember (mid-to late 1980s), Intel has priced flagship processors in the $500/$800/$1000 range. The volume processors retailed around $130, which was a lot more in today's dollars. CPUs which hung around past the current gen sold for $60-$80. "Mid-range" sold anywhere from $150-$300. This is what the company I worked at sold processors to customers and integrators in quantity one. And yes, this is in the absence of competition from AMD, which was still cranking out licensed clones a generation or two out of date, along with Harris, NEC and others making low end, and highly uncompetitive processors.

As I have opined out before, there is a good (but sharply declining growth demand) for processors in the ASP range of around $70-$80 for desktop and mobile processors and close to zilch demand for $1000 desktop processors. Intel isn't stupid. The ASPs being so far below retail price, due to being sold in massive quanities to OEMs, is recognition of the price elasticity of demand.

But maybe you could explain exactly how Intel will be defying basic economics with a strategy you assign to them based on absolutely nothing approaching factual history.
 
pxc said:
[citation required]

These ridiculous claims are just silly. As far back as I remember (mid-to late 1980s), Intel has priced flagship processors in the $500/$800/$1000 range. The volume processors retailed around $130, which was a lot more in today's dollars. CPUs which hung around past the current gen sold for $60-$80. "Mid-range" sold anywhere from $150-$300. This is what the company I worked at sold processors to customers and integrators in quantity one. And yes, this is in the absence of competition from AMD, which was still cranking out licensed clones a generation or two out of date, along with Harris, NEC and others making low end, and highly uncompetitive processors.
Click to expand...
My first computer had a Pentium 90 in it, and the prices were nearly $1k in bulk.

The 60/90 MHz Pentium 735 processor is rated at 149.8 MIPS, and is priced at US$849 in 1000 unit quantities. The 66/100 MHz Pentium 815 processor is rated at 166.3 MIPS, and is priced at US$995 in 1000 unit quantities.
 
Ashbringer said:
My first computer had a Pentium 90 in it, and the prices were nearly $1k in bulk.

The 60/90 MHz Pentium 735 processor is rated at 149.8 MIPS, and is priced at US$849 in 1000 unit quantities. The 66/100 MHz Pentium 815 processor is rated at 166.3 MIPS, and is priced at US$995 in 1000 unit quantities.
Click to expand...


Market conditions were different in those days. In the 90's Intel ceded the low end (inexpensive) market to AMD. They later admitted they made a mistake doing that because it allowed AMD to stay alive and competitive until they bought NextGen. The NextGen purchase allowed AMD to develop the Athalon processor and capture much of the consumer high end from Intel (and AMD charged a pretty penny for those high end Athalons when they had the monopoly on performance).

Intel today would not cede any market to a competitor so they would release products covering the entire market spectrum from budget to enthusiast. They are also fighting with ARM for market share so they are not going to sacrifice price or performance if it allows ARM to become the new standard for desktop, mobile, and server computing (something ARM has already admitted they are trying to become). Once something crosses the Tipping Point it is too hard to undo so Intel will try and prevent that Tipping point from being reached.

The only reason that AMD has become the budget provider they are is because they don't have any choice. If they had a competitive product like the original Athalon that outperformed Intel chips they would be charging a premium for that chip. But they don't and they are unlikely to in the near future. :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
The only reason that AMD has become the budget provider they are is because they don't have any choice. If they had a competitive product like the original Athalon that outperformed Intel chips they would be charging a premium for that chip. But they don't and they are unlikely to in the near future. :cool:
Click to expand...

Would rather have AMD be more competitive with Intel then to default as the cheap alternative. That way both Intel and AMD will battle each other for price and performance supremacy.

Competition is always good for customers, cause companies are dicks when they own a segment of the market.
 
Ashbringer said:
Competition is always good for customers, cause companies are dicks when they own a segment of the market.
Click to expand...

Definitely. Competition always spurs growth and better performance.

Besides Intel, even Nvidia stepped up their game. (i.e. The release of the 12.11 Cats has pushed Nvidia driver team to ramp up since they just published a new set of betas today.)
 
Ashbringer said:
Would rather have AMD be more competitive with Intel then to default as the cheap alternative. That way both Intel and AMD will battle each other for price and performance supremacy.

Competition is always good for customers, cause companies are dicks when they own a segment of the market.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this ... AMD kind of made their own bed losing the high end and it will be hard to get it back ... they might almost be better off declaring chapter 7 and cancelling all their existing debts and just starting over with a clean slate ... if they could put some money into R&D they might become more competitive, but not while they are hanging on for their lives

I am more worried about ARM wanting to take over the desktop and mobile segment since that isn't about performance but power ... although power efficiency is certainly desirable (especially in tablets and phones) I would still like laptops and desktops (with either AMD or Intel) to push some serious pixels for gaming :)
 
Flyboat said:
It is an indication that market is evolving. Consumer no longer wants to purcahse a desktop or laptop as smart phone or tablet is getting bigger and more powerful.

Even if AMD gets bought out and liquidated by an equity firm, and then Intel raises the price of desktop Celeron CPU to $500 per processor, consumer still has choice: tablet or desktop PC.

In corproate market, AMD's server division will be taken over by another company.

It is similar to Mexican drug war, when one drug lord gets killed, another one will take his place.
Click to expand...

Except that someone doesn't have to spend billions of dollars to buy that drug lord's old position. They simply inherit that position and continue operations. That'd be like AMD's CEO stepping down. Not similiar.

In AMD's case, this is more like the drug lord deciding to sell off his organization to other competiting drug lords. Except those competing drug lords don't need any of that organization at all. They can simly let that drug lords crap wither away to nothing, then just move into that territory with their own drugs. That or they were in completely different markets and don't care. Like AMD sells cocaine, while IBM sells pot. IBM use to sell cocaine, but they failed miserably at it and sold their cocaine business to Lenovo. They want to do nothing more than just sell pot.
 
corrupted223 said:
AMD hasn't been competitive with Intel for quite a while.
Click to expand...

When Intel came out with Hyper Threading, I didn't even care what AMD put out. My old 3.06 ghz P4 HT was much better than any single core Athlon in multitasking. I could encode 4-5 videos, while playing CS:S.

My other friend was a huge AMD fan. Told him to just encode one video and then try to play any game. Ya...just not possible.

During that era, AMD was simply faster than Intel in single tasks. Their X2s were also quicker than any of the shitty P4-Ds. Course AMD's prices were ridiculous too. Their lowest model X2 was $500 at the time. I stuck with the single core P4s, cause I wasn't going to waste that much on an X2, nor was I going to even play with those P4-Ds. I ended up on a 3.4 ghz P4E, til the Core 2s came out. Glad I made that decision, cause AMD started jumping sockets like it was going out of style. While the move to Core 2, was just a firmware update and pop in the new proc.
 
What about nVidia? They always seem to be in a quarrel with Intel.
 
Well, its going to be fascinating, because it does look like ARM may just be the future competitor of intel. Which means this is going to go beyond like competing with like - it will be high stakes poker platform wars to see which technology emerges in the future.
 
According to this AMD isn't even in that much debt compared to where they were before, more than a few times. Well I mean 2 billion is a lot but not like it's any different from their normal indebtedness. Their debt is even still dropping this year too according to that chart (Is it right?). If that's the case, AMD CPU's might be shit but I don't seem them going anywhere, they jsut need to restrcuture.

However, I'm no pro in this field so I might just not know what the frack I'm talking about.
Curious still though. :D
 
AMD is still viable in budget computers. Also, in third world countries like the shithole I live in their stuff comes way more accessible than Intel parts, which are very overpriced, making AMD even more appealing around here.

Also, desktops and laptops are selling really well here. They should focus their market around these countries.
 
AMD should try to make budget computers in S.Korea. Computer parts are hella overpriced there. I remember looking for a video card in Yongsan. $400 on Newegg, $800 at Yongsan.
 
Even if AMD and Nvidia merged, they'd still have lower performing processors compared to Intel. They'll hold the discrete graphics, but Intel doesn't play in that arena.
 
I don't think intel has anything to compete with tegra. I could be wrong.

It would seem AMD and Nvidia could get the leg up on tablets, and it's not like when the athlon 64 came out, there is already market presence, and if leveraged properly it could work out well.
 
Gideon said:
I see IBM buying AMD. They have the cash and AMD has the technology they would need to compete with INTEL. It would be very cheap overall for IBM and they still produce chips, just at a low scale. They also would benefit with GPU part of AMD, and would use the fusion tech with servers in mind. I could be wrong, but that is what I see happening soon.
Click to expand...

lol IBM left hardware on purpose, why would they do a 180 and try to get back into it.
 
rudy said:
lol IBM left hardware on purpose, why would they do a 180 and try to get back into it.
Click to expand...

They still make cpu's The Power processor. They have their own fabs, they make servers, AMD is used alot in servers. They also have worked together on tech as well. X86 Liscense would not be a problem for IBM. Plus when AMD was speculated to be bought years ago IBM and Nvidia were the top runners. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-merge,1774-6.html
 
This is likely good new.

AMD saw JPMorgan screw over America and get away with it free and clear.....So they are like hay we can't win fair and square so now its time to Lie Cheat and Steal.....Ooopaa Bank Style.
 
Gideon said:
They still make cpu's The Power processor. They have their own fabs, they make servers, AMD is used alot in servers. They also have worked together on tech as well. X86 Liscense would not be a problem for IBM. Plus when AMD was speculated to be bought years ago IBM and Nvidia were the top runners. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/amd-merge,1774-6.html
Click to expand...

Exactly they were speculated by reporters who just wanted to fill up space and drive hits. reporters who ignored everything IBM has been saying / doing for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top