AMD Cuts Revenue Estimate, Citing Weak PC Sales

If you actually knew how marketing execs and ceo's actually think of the buying public, then I doubt anyone here would cheer for no competition. I guess you all are jealous that Apple stuff costs so much more and want to take the same pounding as well.
 
If/when AMD dies then some other company will step up to take their place. Windows used to be dominant then iOS and Android came along. Now MS is doing everything it can to make Windows still relevant even though no one wants their phones, their tablets are the bottom table scraps, and people are buying Chrome PC's and iPads for their computing devices. Happens in every industry.

Intels competition isn't AMD, it's Samsung, Apple, ARM, and Qualcomm. All of their chips are used in billions of mobile devices. No one uses Intel CPUs.
 
Most tech stocks are getting hit due to poor PC sales. Micron got clobbered last week.
 
while amd is weaker than intel

they still have a viable product.

whether it is a profitable product is up for debate .

the challenge in my opinion that they face is creating a product that demonstrates it capable of performing and doing those tasks well enough that the consumer actually asks them selves is the intel premium worth it ?

unfortunately the market is flooded with their weaker cpus and many consumers are at a disservice when they purchase a pc with those cpus in them.

I think amd needs to simplify their cpu line up, make the consumer aware that their is a product that trounces the i3 at a cheaper price point.

bring more attention to core their i5 alternative highlighting its effectiveness and further highlighting the savings over the i5.


then begin the push back into the server market further demonstrating their technology is effective while cheaper upfront. present viable options to companies that make them way the pros and cons of amd vs intel .

as for the mobile market, aggressively pursue apple and convince them they do not need samsung or intel for that matter because in reality apple has always been about design and demonstrate how amd can be a key player in their design ideology.

Regardless this still hinges on the base principle of whether amds tech is profitable or not.

I would like to see amd become a true competitor to intel again , hopefully they have some tricks left to wow us with.
 
I wonder if ATI would've died off or not, had it not been bought by AMD. This seems like a sad scenario, because AMD is just not being able to really compete... but if ATI just died..... ugh... probably worst.
 
It is funny how Intel lays off people stating poor pc sales and a slump in their revenue, but no one is screaming they are going out of business. Amd shows a slump in revenue and they closing their doors.
The reason AMD is does not have a larger share in the gpu market is only because of the blinded people that purchase products just based on name alone. AMD has had the fastest gpus many times in the last 5 years but all you see was reasons to not purchase their products. This round they don't have the fastest, but yet everyone spouts nonsense like they haven't been competitive in the last 5 years.
 
AMD is getting hurt on multilple fronts. The PC market is contracting and shrinking transistors requires more and more funding with lower projected profit. They tried to remain competitive with their comparatively cheap low-IPC/high core count CPUs and high quality integrated GPU products, but they just aren't selling.

I don't think the company was mismanaged, its amazing they've lasted this long on a fraction of Intel's budget, the market just isn't large enough for them to keep doing what they're doing any more.
 
I'm ready for a change. I lost confidence in AMD during the period I had my 290x's. I invested in 3 yet, the performance wasn't there, lack of driver support and in general, consistency. Lack of HDMI 2.0 and DVI with the new products on top of lack of driver releases, I'm just done with AMD. I hope they get a buyer soon so they can hopefully get their act together. I wish them the best.
 
This is unlikely. Carizzo is where AMDs money projection is at right now. That's been the target for a long time. Unless Intel and various ARM manufacturers got to the OEMs and convinced them to freeze AMD out of that market, then Carizzo has a good chance of making a pretty big splash across a couple markets.

BUT, if AMD were intending to sell, they would have to have something of value to really make themselves worth purchasing. Again, Carizzo, would be what any potential buyer would get right off the bat.

I don't think AMD intends to sell. Perhaps if Carizzo doesn't take off...it's pretty guaranteed to meet specifications at this point, though. They've clearly iterated a ton at this too, because they have Carizzo-L already in their documentation and roadmap, which is essentially a fab efficiency.
 
An increase in commodity PC sales wouldn't really result in a boost for AMD anyway, they've fallen so far behind Intel at this point that the numbers of machines from the likes of Acer, Dell and Asus are all 10:1 Intel to AMD sku's.
 
Yakk said:
Have to say, AMD is looking like a prime candidate to be bought, x86 licence or not. Their evaluation is really looking cheap for any of the big boys looking to acquire some expertise and patents.
Click to expand...

Worst case scenario... x86 license will still be transferred. Intel is fucked without x64 (which AMD wholly owns and the other company can simply pull their license if Intel refuses to license x86) and with increased pressure that would come from being a de-facto monopoly (more so than they already see now)... I see it hard for Intel to get away with strongarming another company into an unfavorable licensing agreement if they didn't just withhold it completely.
 
Qualcomm products are insanely low profit margin... I don't know why people would compare their sales with Intel.
 
Rebadge after rebadge after rebadge followed by over promising and under delivering and they blame a soft market? Add in to that the fact that their CPU offerings are so mature that the AARP sends you plan literature when you buy one and, yeah, you're not going to be making much money.
 
AMD Version...
"AMD Cuts Revenue Estimate, Citing Weak PC Sales"

Real Version...
AMD Cuts Revenue Estimate, Citing Weak Product Catalogue
 
AMD fans would go and tell you that it was all part of the grand plan.
 
heatlesssun said:
I don't think even strong PC sales would have done AMD much good at this point.
Click to expand...

It would have helped but, when you cannot get you cpu;s into enough computers, it will definitely hurt the bottom line. Also, to those who think that the recent release of the 300 / fury series is the problem, most of the money would be made in PC's.
 
Chris_B said:
AMD go out of business and nvidia get to pound us all in the ass long and hard all day long. Engage your brain before spouting off crap.
Click to expand...

3Dfx interactive once ruled the roost and were dethroned. Don't think it can't happen again. Innovation is around every corner, and may come out and surprise you.
 
That's what happens when your top CPU is an underperforming 3 year old 32nm dinosaur, that uses more than twice the power of the 14nm competition.

Unfortunately, the result is Intel sitting on their butts for the past four years. No Intel, I don't want yet another quadcore with GT3 graphics! I want a hexa- or octocore with GT1. Don't tell me that would be hard to do, because more than half of the Broadwell die is graphics for crying out loud!
 
Ur_Mom said:
Which makes me wonder what Intel has behind closed doors. Yea, the longer they keep it the less it's going to make after the large R&D investment. But, they can still sell it as cutting edge even though it's been done for years. AMD comes out with Nutscraper with Ass Optimization, and Intel blows them away with i10 Core Series.
Click to expand...

Nothing. Intel laid off people due to a lack of sales this year. Some dummy told them that people don't want more performance; they want more power savings. Thus dual core Intel chips are just as fast as 8 core chips in most games. Sometimes even faster. Thus the lack of consumer interest in upgrading their computers. Remember consumers buy new chips because their desktop apps and games are running slow; not because of how fast they can process a spreadsheet.

This in turn gave AMD the right to skip generations of chips because well nothing has changed since the i7 920. Intel just got around to releasing an 8 core chip and AMD has had those for years. I guess AMD thought that we were going to buy low power stuff that actually runs slower than chips from 2011 because of power savings. Wrong!

What's the solution for both AMD and Intel? Software that demands more power for A.I.. Minesweeper / solitaire to get a high definition face lift. Games to have more elaborate battles with tens of thousands of units on the screen. Games where calculations are done of thousands of pressure points on a skeleton to determine injury points. Games where the weather has an A.I. and can change on the fly to affect the player in a negative or positive way.

When will this happen? Probably long after I'm gone and both of these behemoths are replaced by startups with a desire to innovate and get their names on a revolutionary product.
 
kashifme21 said:
Market will determine fair value. Intel has no competiton from Amd, yet u dont see them out pricing the market. In fact its intel cpus that have become comeption for intel.

Same will happen for nvidia. Good ridance Amd goes out of business.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Someone will replace them.
 
3dfx_zombie said:
That's what happens when your top CPU is an underperforming 3 year old 32nm dinosaur, that uses more than twice the power of the 14nm competition.

Unfortunately, the result is Intel sitting on their butts for the past four years. No Intel, I don't want yet another quadcore with GT3 graphics! I want a hexa- or octocore with GT1. Don't tell me that would be hard to do, because more than half of the Broadwell die is graphics for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

You're totally correct. AMD fucking up like they do, is really bad for the entire industry. Both nVidia and Intel have sat on their asses for the last 3 years, because 3 years ago is the last time AMD actually put out any worthwhile "new" products. We are in 2015, and have affordable 4k monitors, and yet you need at least 2 nVidia cards to power one if you want to play a demanding game from a year ago... And Intel have basically given up on desktop CPU's, and only care about lowering power for Apple et al. When was the last time Intel brought out a desktop CPU which was more than 5% faster than the previous model? Yeah, about 4 years ago!

I love AMD, but they are like chimps at a jello party when they get any money whatsoever.

I miss AMD from their K6/K7 days. They nearly had Intel, and would have done if they kept improving the CPU cores, and not sat on their asses and watched the profits fall while spending all the money.

AMD needs to split up, and have the old ATi brand back, and let the GFX division do its thing, if it still remembers how...
 
3dfx_zombie said:
That's what happens when your top CPU is an underperforming 3 year old 32nm dinosaur, that uses more than twice the power of the 14nm competition.

Unfortunately, the result is Intel sitting on their butts for the past four years. No Intel, I don't want yet another quadcore with GT3 graphics! I want a hexa- or octocore with GT1. Don't tell me that would be hard to do, because more than half of the Broadwell die is graphics for crying out loud!
Click to expand...

The trouble is that you and others who feel similarly are on the fringes and the collective market is comparatively small so there'd just be too few sales to justify the costs of tailoring a product that otherwise has limited appeal. Integrated graphics are the most popular thing out there in GPUs because the vast majority of sales are in the mobile segment where there's a lot of good reasons not to use a dedicated GPU (heat, battery life, cost, limited market appeal, etc). Intel takes a mobile first approach with end-user processors because that's where all the sales are at and that market demands integrated graphics. Even on Steam surveys, the largest single model (like a month or two ago) was Intel's HD 4000 and the HD 3000 was somewhere close to the top of the chart too. The fact is that Intel's graphics are market dominant so it makes like no business sense to sacrifice die area that compromises graphical performance in favor of more processor cores that won't benefit performance in most consumer computing scenarios.
 
Maybe they should update their hardware instead of just giving it a fresh coat of paint.

Until the 290x's are all sold out I don't think the 390's will do well.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The trouble is that you and others who feel similarly are on the fringes and the collective market is comparatively small so there'd just be too few sales to justify the costs of tailoring a product that otherwise has limited appeal. Integrated graphics are the most popular thing out there in GPUs because the vast majority of sales are in the mobile segment where there's a lot of good reasons not to use a dedicated GPU (heat, battery life, cost, limited market appeal, etc). Intel takes a mobile first approach with end-user processors because that's where all the sales are at and that market demands integrated graphics. Even on Steam surveys, the largest single model (like a month or two ago) was Intel's HD 4000 and the HD 3000 was somewhere close to the top of the chart too. The fact is that Intel's graphics are market dominant so it makes like no business sense to sacrifice die area that compromises graphical performance in favor of more processor cores that won't benefit performance in most consumer computing scenarios.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Thanks for posting something that makes sense here. The only people interested in dedicated CPUs and graphics are enthusiasts like us, who are a very small minority. Most have phones and use tablets now and don't even use desktops at home. Integrated graphics are the bulk of tech that is used right now. I do miss the competitive days with AMD though. What does nVidia have for consumers besides dedicated graphic cards? Their mobile chips are barely found in anything, they don't offer a desktop cpu/apu's and don't have any tech in the big 3 next gen consoles. What I find interesting is the possibility of Microsoft buying AMD and the impact it could have on Nvidia. I saw a advertisement recently on Facebook from Nvidia's page bragging that they have the best graphics for Steam machines- seriously, that is all they got now?
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
Intel takes a mobile first approach with end-user processors because that's where all the sales are at and that market demands integrated graphics. Even on Steam surveys, the largest single model (like a month or two ago) was Intel's HD 4000 and the HD 3000 was somewhere close to the top of the chart too. The fact is that Intel's graphics are market dominant so it makes like no business sense to sacrifice die area that compromises graphical performance in favor of more processor cores that won't benefit performance in most consumer computing scenarios.
Click to expand...
For mobile a strong iGPU is a good thing. But desktop CPUs don't need a strong iGPU. GT1 is more than good enough for grandma's email, and no sane desktop-gamer uses integrated graphics.

I have a feeling a lot of 2500K/3570K/4670K users would upgrade to Skylake if Intel offered an affordable hexacore. But they don't. I guess the number of us techno-geeks is so small Intel simply doesn't care.
 
Weak PC sales?!? Lisa is only smoking half the joint. If she would smoke the rest, she would realize AMD chips are not competitive in the PC market space anymore. Nobody builds PCs with AMD! All the review sites test with INTEL!

Man, she's in denial and needs to get lost. Step the fuck down, Lisa. AMD needs someone with VISON; not a corporate operations guru!
 
It's not surprising they're not selling well. They're only really competitive with Intel's chips from 5 years ago.
 
CreepyUncleGoogle said:
The trouble is that you and others who feel similarly are on the fringes and the collective market is comparatively small so there'd just be too few sales to justify the costs of tailoring a product that otherwise has limited appeal. Integrated graphics are the most popular thing out there in GPUs because the vast majority of sales are in the mobile segment where there's a lot of good reasons not to use a dedicated GPU (heat, battery life, cost, limited market appeal, etc). Intel takes a mobile first approach with end-user processors because that's where all the sales are at and that market demands integrated graphics. Even on Steam surveys, the largest single model (like a month or two ago) was Intel's HD 4000 and the HD 3000 was somewhere close to the top of the chart too. The fact is that Intel's graphics are market dominant so it makes like no business sense to sacrifice die area that compromises graphical performance in favor of more processor cores that won't benefit performance in most consumer computing scenarios.
Click to expand...

Furthering this idea, more applications are utilizing that on-die GPU. Video playback, or in marketing speak digital media consumption, is one of the biggest uses for computers today. With more of that work able to be done on the GPU, there is little need to improve the CPU performance for a lot of user applications. The lowly Pentium-branded Atom chips work perfectly fine as media consumption devices.

This is one area where AMD actually could be competitive. Their APUs may not be as power efficient as Intel's newer models, but they offer plenty of performance for the price. Where exactly can you buy an OEM machine, especially a laptop, with an AMD APU. You're practically looking for an albino unicorn. Our IT department was in awe of the only specimen we have seen recently, in the form of an employee's AMD A10-7300-based laptop, which we had to load some software on last week.

I don't know if it is a marketing failure on AMD's part, a problem in producing the necessary volume to ship OEMs to use in there products, or a continuation of the Intel conspiracy to keep AMD down, but there is a decided lack of options out there right now.
 
drescherjm said:
The 5820 is an affordable hexacore.
Click to expand...

It is for some, but then you need to factor in the platform costs: DDR4 RAM, more-expensive motherboards, dedicated GPUs, etc. Someone in the market for an i5 build is probably not going to be able to stretch their budget that far. In terms relative to high-end i7 quad-cores with similarly high-end motherboards, it isn't as much of a stretch to go up to the 5820 hexa-core.
 
MrCaffeineX said:
Furthering this idea, more applications are utilizing that on-die GPU. Video playback, or in marketing speak digital media consumption, is one of the biggest uses for computers today. With more of that work able to be done on the GPU, there is little need to improve the CPU performance for a lot of user applications. The lowly Pentium-branded Atom chips work perfectly fine as media consumption devices.

This is one area where AMD actually could be competitive. Their APUs may not be as power efficient as Intel's newer models, but they offer plenty of performance for the price. Where exactly can you buy an OEM machine, especially a laptop, with an AMD APU. You're practically looking for an albino unicorn. Our IT department was in awe of the only specimen we have seen recently, in the form of an employee's AMD A10-7300-based laptop, which we had to load some software on last week.

I don't know if it is a marketing failure on AMD's part, a problem in producing the necessary volume to ship OEMs to use in there products, or a continuation of the Intel conspiracy to keep AMD down, but there is a decided lack of options out there right now.
Click to expand...

But you said it yourself: they're not as power-efficient, and this is what loses them the product win. Most of the A10-7300 builds I have seen had to be housed in bulky 5.5 pound monsters, which are not sexy, thin high-margin parts.

They also (until Carrizo gets around) get beaten to the curb in battery life,thanks to poor idle power (compared to Haswell).

I know people bash Intel's "low-power first" strategy, but it's the only thing that's been keeping the notebook industry alive for the past 4 years. Intel noticed a trend with sexy ultra-portable devices from Apple beating the industry sales trends, while sales of high-performance non-gaming notebooks fell.

And so they pushed other OEMs to follow-suit, and pushed their processor designs to make it easier.

And while it was not sustainable forever, this managed to buy Intel 5 extra years of profitability. That is how they do business. At least they make an attempt to bolster their existing markets, and attempt to wade into new ones.
 
IMO, at this point AMD needs someone to purchase them and inject a huge amount of cash into their development to come up with a range of products that are profitable enough to turn things around.

They are facing strong competition in every segment, whether it's high performance server or low power SoC. Whichever segment they pick, they are up against huge companies with better financial capabilities to compete.
 
Diseaseboy said:
Bingo! Thanks for posting something that makes sense here. The only people interested in dedicated CPUs and graphics are enthusiasts like us, who are a very small minority. Most have phones and use tablets now and don't even use desktops at home. Integrated graphics are the bulk of tech that is used right now. I do miss the competitive days with AMD though. What does nVidia have for consumers besides dedicated graphic cards? Their mobile chips are barely found in anything, they don't offer a desktop cpu/apu's and don't have any tech in the big 3 next gen consoles. What I find interesting is the possibility of Microsoft buying AMD and the impact it could have on Nvidia. I saw a advertisement recently on Facebook from Nvidia's page bragging that they have the best graphics for Steam machines- seriously, that is all they got now?
Click to expand...

3dfx_zombie said:
For mobile a strong iGPU is a good thing. But desktop CPUs don't need a strong iGPU. GT1 is more than good enough for grandma's email, and no sane desktop-gamer uses integrated graphics.

I have a feeling a lot of 2500K/3570K/4670K users would upgrade to Skylake if Intel offered an affordable hexacore. But they don't. I guess the number of us techno-geeks is so small Intel simply doesn't care.
Click to expand...

It really is a small market segment. Desktops with dedicated GPUs are still worth lots of money, but everything we're seeing out of Intel these days indicates that its pushing very hard to fill in mobile-related checkboxes on its features lists instead of pursuing higher performance in larger form factors that are power outlet bound. Just from how the company is acting, it's easy to guess what portions of the overall computer market are larger and more lucrative.

MrCaffeineX said:
Furthering this idea, more applications are utilizing that on-die GPU. Video playback, or in marketing speak digital media consumption, is one of the biggest uses for computers today. With more of that work able to be done on the GPU, there is little need to improve the CPU performance for a lot of user applications. The lowly Pentium-branded Atom chips work perfectly fine as media consumption devices.

This is one area where AMD actually could be competitive. Their APUs may not be as power efficient as Intel's newer models, but they offer plenty of performance for the price. Where exactly can you buy an OEM machine, especially a laptop, with an AMD APU. You're practically looking for an albino unicorn. Our IT department was in awe of the only specimen we have seen recently, in the form of an employee's AMD A10-7300-based laptop, which we had to load some software on last week.

I don't know if it is a marketing failure on AMD's part, a problem in producing the necessary volume to ship OEMs to use in there products, or a continuation of the Intel conspiracy to keep AMD down, but there is a decided lack of options out there right now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, absolutely video encode is really important these days. I've seen like a few benchmarks that measure quick sync (or whatever Intel is calling their encode/decode stuff that uses their iGPU) and there isn't a lot of gain between GT2 and GT3 parts...and IIRC there's like no benefit to having the 128MB CrystalWell stuff, but the added memory is off-die anyhow.

And like you, I've seen pretty much no AMD APU-based hardware out there. I remember there were a few Llano designs, but newer APU iterations are just not available no matter where you look. Sure the APU's got more graphics power than comparable Intel parts (well, IDK if that's completely true since Broadwell came out), but it doesn't seem to be appealing enough to OEMs to offset disadvantages like more power consumption and less competitive CPU performance.
 
My last few GPUs were ATI because they had better performance for the dollar. I haven't had any driver issues in any games i've played going back as far as i can remember.

The fx series still isn't that bad when it comes to value. I used to own one, and they aren't bad processors for the money. They can compete on price.


The pc market is stagnant. No new player is going to come into and suddenly want to compete with intel or nvidia on their own turf. The economics and barrier to entry are different than they were in the 90s.

And lets say someone magically comes in and buys AMD, or moves into the pc space to compete. Assume that happens and assume they win. What then? They've won a flat market with little to no growth. And how much would it cost to win that victory? Billions.

There is a reason why nvidia and intel are branching out. Yes, intel is making profit. But the hardware gravy train in the PC space is rapidly ending. Intel has almost the entire CPU market and they still laid people off.

I'm not saying PCs are dying, i'm saying the rapid pace of hardware adoption is done. It's been done. And with that so goes the need for rapid development.

Rebrands and refreshes and single digit performance increase are the new norm. I expect intel to continue its snail like pace. Nvidia though, has its work cut out for it when it comes to competing with intels igps.

And cost? Expect that intel will cannibalize its market to keep wall street happy.

I hate to say it, but all this leave AMD in a rough place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top