Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
A team of three undergraduate students at Warwick Business School are now seeking votes as part of their participation in The Economists first ever undergraduate Investment Case Study competition.
Alessandro Presa Perez, a BSc Accounting & Finance student alongside Ivan Pedretti and Toby Bardavid, both BSc Management students, are competing for the prestigious award, with $26,000 in prizes up for grabs.
The trio had two weeks to prepare a draft proposal on an intriguing business problem entitled Find a Zero: Which Billion Dollar Company Will be Bankrupt by 2020.
They forecast Advanced Micro Devices Inc. (AMD) will be the company to fail and file for bankruptcy by 2020 in their 15-minute webinar, now available on The Economists education website for viewing and submitting votes.
No.Nobody is pulling numbers out of there butt. It's all in the SEC Filings. They are bleeding money as a Corporation. The contracts you speak of are not near enough to stop the bleeding out of money AMD seems to do so well at.
If I knew the future, I'd be rich from wise stock investments, but AMD is now aiming at high end CPU market along with a promising watercooled 300 series with HBM and with DX12 (something IMO made possible thanks to their Mantle development) I think we should see some killer performance out of these setups.
And I'm sure if you could go back in time and tell a virtually bankrupt Apple that a successful MP3 player wasn't going to turn the company around, with 100% confidence, you'd do that too right? People bought Apple products because they liked their iPods, and the iPod transitioned into the iPhone successfully (which I believe the iPhone alone accounts for over half of the company's revenue).Even if all this pans out it's not nearly enough to pull AMD out of it's current situation. High-end CPUs and watercooled GPUs aren't going to turn things around unless there a tremendous market share uptick from these things which I would think is unlikely.
ammm no, they decided to use what was cheapest, this turn out to be the AMD Soc. both MS and Sony decided they would not lose money on hardware this generation, this is what happened, only AMD didnt have an option that was more valuable than this deal. it's been noted that combined the deals might be worth a total of 60 million, with is a pittiance amount in the overall scheme of things.
The Alienware Alpha is considerably smaller and more powerful than any current console, and is running an Intel processor and dedicated NVidia GPU. I have one and its great... something like that was certainly also pitched as a competitor.Nope, ARM was nowhere near powerful enough when the choice was been made. The only architecture which would work was a custom x86 SOC. That left one choice only, AMD.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. There are far, far more consumers who demand a portable MP3 player than consumers who demand a $900 piece of PC gaming hardware.And I'm sure if you could go back in time and tell a virtually bankrupt Apple that a successful MP3 player wasn't going to turn the company around, with 100% confidence, you'd do that too right?
so 5 more years of failed expectations, inferior drivers and poor performance in games
Reputation people! When AMD blew intel out of water back in the days it was the name that sold all their products. They weren't hurt bad by buying out ATI, they were burned by Bulldozer, it ruined their name and reputation.
Apple had little to no real competition with its revolutionary products. AMD has some of the fiercest competition against anything it could try to do. Not a valid comparison.
And I'm sure if you could go back in time and tell a virtually bankrupt Apple that a successful MP3 player wasn't going to turn the company around, with 100% confidence, you'd do that too right?
Okay... I hope people don't attack too ferociously, but here it goes.
I completely agree with competition being a good and necessary thing. And as a consumer, naturally the more choices and options the better.
BUT...
What would happen if in a parallel universe, Nvidia bought AMD? Wouldn't we reap the benefits of having both companies R&D engineers working together? Maybe finally get a good combo of Nvidia efficiency with AMD raw power?
Just a thought
Please post what NVidia's and AMD's bids were, and how much net profit they are making per thousand units.
Oh, what, you don't have those numbers?
AMD's gaming revenue went from a big loss to a huge profit leader for the company when they won all three contracts, and at no point were selling at a loss: http://arstechnica.com/business/201...utive-quarterly-profit-on-xbox-one-ps4-sales/
Prior to winning all three contracts, AMD was at a $422 million loss for the quarter. Immediately after they were at a $89 million profit. So that's over a $500 million positive revenue change right away.
They are expected to move 22 million more units this year, so I don't understand where people are pulling these numbers out of their butts.
No.
No you don't get to move the goal post, and yes people were demonstratively pulling bullshit out of their ass with long needle nose pliers.
Multiple people pulled out of their ass that margins are so slim on the consoles, that they are in fact LOSING money, at least initially and that the only reason they won the bid in the first place is not because they had a superior solution but that it was just sold so close to cost, which is made up fantasy with nothing to support it other than they like the sound of it. I have shown that is complete and utter nonsense, with the console sales not only stopping the large losses from the last quarter and the quarter before, but creating a positive profit the quarter immediately after.
There's nothing wrong with debate, but I wish people would stop inventing facts. In fact, 78% of all so called "facts" on the internet are made up with no source provided or available, but only 42% of people are aware of it.
If I knew the future, I'd be rich from wise stock investments, but AMD is now aiming at high end CPU market along with a promising watercooled 300 series with HBM and with DX12 (something IMO made possible thanks to their Mantle development) I think we should see some killer performance out of these setups.
They haven't?Nobody's moved the goal post.
nVidia is still answerable to market realities and shareholders. They have to grow their market and ripping off their customers isn't going to achieve any of that regardless of the competition that may or may not exist. It's not like AMD has exactly been competition to them anyway and it's not like having two major vendors presents competition in the market space.The worst that could happen is that Nvidia lost the last bit of competition and they could rip us off freely.
They go bankrupt first, shed all financial liability, shutter pension plans, then sell off their brand and patents to the highest bidder.Companies like AMD don't go bankrupt. They get sold.
If you actually saw a financial report from AMD that used the term "revenue" and you aren't just using that term yourself, that doesn't actually tell you much about the profit or health of the company.They haven't?
That's great! So please show us what NVidia and AMD's bids were, and how much profit margin AMD is making per X-units sold to each contract, and how AMD was doing so at a loss, and yet somehow managed to get the division in one quarter out of the red into the black with over a 500 million increase in revenue.
What's that? You can't, and you're talking about something different?
That's the definition of moving the goal post. You can't backup the previous statement, so you move on to something else.
2020 is a LONG way away. I figure at this rate they're much closer than that. Xen is forced to be a highly successful product. If the Radeon Rx-300 Series isn't massively successful as well the GPU division can completely tank with the Rx-400 Series being their last.
They're going to need a merger or a miracle. I'm going with the former rather than the latter.
4.5 years will FLY by. The older you get, the quicker it goes.
Yes, but look at their financials, hardly an encouraging sign. Though I hope the analysts are wrong. Another rumour was Samsung going to buy them
Mope, darling, the point was obvious.If it costs AMD to make 1 chip at $4 dollars, but they sell them at $3 dollars, even if they double their output, and reported their revenue at a 100% gain, they'd still be operating at a $2 dollar loss for every unit sale they double.
I really doubt that'll happen. AMD looks bad now, but they have a number of cool tech coming out soon. Firstly they have the Zen architecture coming out in 2016 which looks really good. It will catch AMD up with Intel in terms of performance. AMD has also partnered up with Samsung to make 14nm chips, which puts them against Intel is power. If AMD's new HBM technology works out, we might even see this tech in their APU's. Finally, AMD does plan to make their FM3+ motherboards work with both x86 and ARM cpus. Something you won't see Intel do.