AMD Is Selling Half Of It's Soul

I think every1 is missing the point, PC companies are screwed in general right now because there is no demand. When MS released Vista, PC sales were suppose to rocket - this never happened mom and pop don't feel any need/desire to upgrade and neither do sister or brother. The prices of all technology is dropping like crazy right now. 2 Gig's of ram for $65.......I mean seriously AMD is not going to be rescued by the handful of power hungry tech freaks like us even if they release an amazing product that outperforms intel by 10%, there major market comes from Dell, HP etc and right now there is just no demand..
 
1. Provide proof utilizing SEC registered statements.

2. Of the last 3 years INTC has invested an average of 14.61% of revenue on R&D. AMD 14.16. Oops.

3. With the intro of ATI AMD has nothing but an albatross which was already going to be losing profitability. Not only that but they gained a non-core division that is slipping in timetable. If AMD had better stuff than Intel, then why doesn't performance show that? Companies, especially in this environment do not care about "relationships" or any huggy feely crap, they care about profitability. When you are a CEO and you have to write the management report of your 10-K you don't write "We made great friends with AMD, we exchanged Christmas cards, and we went with an inferior product, but they are better people than Intel anyway". No, you say "We made decisions that benefit our bottom line and give returns to our investors that they deserve by choosing the best price/performance product".

4. AMD was *ALWAYS* behind the technology curve until K7 and their market share was always relatively pathetic. They won't be anywhere near 50% soon.

duby229 said:
1: Wrong AMD has historically had higher margins then Intel....

2: True Intel has a larger R&D budjet, however it is also true that AMD dedicates a MUCH larger percentage of operating income to R&D then Intel does. As such they generally have design done faster then Intel where as Intel generally has process done faster then AMD....


3: With the Purchase of ATi, AMD easily has the technology lead. Period. End of story... It'll take Intel at the very minimum 2-4 more years to catch up with AMD in some tech's longer in others.... In addition even without the ATi purchase AMD has a better memory controller, and Buss controller, as well as a better multicore solution due to the SRQ switch.. They also have the advantage of better partner relations, as well as better OEM relations, which includes third party technology AMD can rely on.... I think it is safe to say AMD doesnt have to worry about losing the technology lead anytime soon...

4: OK, then explain other historical incidents... Like the 386 gain... Or the K6 gain... Or the K7 gain.... They must mess up an awe full lot...I dont think you have a foot to stand on. I agree that the P4 was a mistake, however it was the only choice Intel had... It was initially just an engineering experiment to see how high Intel could get the PPro to clock... Itanium was supposed to get released to the desktop, and the P4 was never supposed to get released.... With the introuction of the K7, and the problems they were having with Itanium at that time Intel was forced to release it.
Click to expand...
 
LegendKiller said:
1. Provide proof utilizing SEC registered statements.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to post a spreadsheet here, but just using the last 3 years of data from each 10K ('06, '05, '04 respectively), Intel's Gross Margins were 51%, 59%, 54% versus AMD's 49%, 41%, 39%.

Intel operates at a much more efficeint margin, I'm guessing due ot the much higher volume of product, and therefore they're able to capture better economies of scale.

The net margins are even further to Intel's favor, which theoretically means they run a leaner, tighter ship, or are perhaps in a phase of capturing the benefits of R&D/infrastructure dollars from pre '04. One might argue the R&D and infrastructure burden on AMD for this period will return similarly over the next 3 years.

I know nothing about the semiconducter industry, by the way, so that last part could be totally false. First part is what it is. numebrs don't lie (although accountants do).
 
And before anyone jumps in and says "amds GM was 49% vs intels 51%...they're really damn close" you have to factor in thats based on total sales. So amds 49% of sales of$250M vs 51% of $2B. I know those 2 numbers aren't accurate, just useds them for comparison purposes since we know intel sells WAY more product.

But things aren't all doom & gloom for amd. If r600 isn't a total flop and k10 gets some decent market adoption, then they should be able to make it to the next round of cpu/gpu wars. Let's just hope they get something available soon.
 
duby229 said:
4: Yes that is true that AMD's 386 was competing against Intel's 486, and it --STILL-- managed to take share, and out perform it.
Click to expand...

Didn't we cover this already?
There is no 'AMD' 386, it's Intel's design.
It didn't outperform Intel's 386, because it was exactly the same. And it SURELY didn't outperform Intel's 486, which had an advantage in every way... Better IPC, larger cache, higher clockspeed, and an onboard FPU.
AMD's 386 was just cheap, and cheap is good.
It was nothing but an overclocked version of Intel's 386DX-33. You could just solder a faster crystal on your Intel motherboard to get an Intel 386DX-40, which would perform equal to the AMD (and in both cases you'd get trouble with certain hardware, because 40 MHz turned out too fast for the bus. Intel originally had a 486DX-50, which was later replaced by the DX2-models where the bus was only half the speed of the CPU, and the fastest bus was then 33 MHz).

Somehow it sounds like you've never actually witnessed this whole era of computing.
It was back in the days of Wolfenstein 3d and Doom. People with enough money got a 486DX50 or DX2-66, the ones with a tighter budget went for a 386DX-40. It was pretty much the Celeron/Duron of that age.
It saddens me that most people on the forum today don't even know what computing was like before AMD, or before Windows, etc.
But the least you can do is study history.
This warped vision on the history of AMD of yours is just pathetic.

I've already pointed out that you were wrong last time. You just keep using the same misinformation. Stop feeding everyone your twisted view on reality.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486:
From a hardware point of view, however, the architecture of the i486 is a vast improvement. It has an on-chip unified instruction and data cache, an optional on-chip floating-point unit (FPU) (original and DX models), and an enhanced bus interface unit. In addition, under optimal conditions, the processor core can sustain an execution rate of one instruction per clock cycle. These improvements yield a rough doubling in performance over an Intel 80386 at the same clock rate. A 386 (or 286) chip therefore has to reach 50 MHz to be comparable with low end parts in the 486 series.
Click to expand...
 
Scali2 said:
Didn't we cover this already?
There is no 'AMD' 386, it's Intel's design.
It didn't outperform Intel's 386, because it was exactly the same. And it SURELY didn't outperform Intel's 486, which had an advantage in every way... Better IPC, larger cache, higher clockspeed, and an onboard FPU.
AMD's 386 was just cheap, and cheap is good.
It was nothing but an overclocked version of Intel's 386DX-33. You could just solder a faster crystal on your Intel motherboard to get an Intel 386DX-40, which would perform equal to the AMD (and in both cases you'd get trouble with certain hardware, because 40 MHz turned out too fast for the bus. Intel originally had a 486DX-50, which was later replaced by the DX2-models where the bus was only half the speed of the CPU, and the fastest bus was then 33 MHz).

Somehow it sounds like you've never actually witnessed this whole era of computing.
It was back in the days of Wolfenstein 3d and Doom. People with enough money got a 486DX50 or DX2-66, the ones with a tighter budget went for a 386DX-40. It was pretty much the Celeron/Duron of that age.
It saddens me that most people on the forum today don't even know what computing was like before AMD, or before Windows, etc.
But the least you can do is study history.
This warped vision on the history of AMD of yours is just pathetic.

I've already pointed out that you were wrong last time. You just keep using the same misinformation. Stop feeding everyone your twisted view on reality.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_80486:
Click to expand...

My first OS was DOS 3.0... On a Compaq Deskpro.

Dont tell me about history. I was there. I remember the AMD's 386 outperforming Intel's 486.... In addition the benches still exist. All you gotta do is a simple google search.

AM386.... in google...... simple.....
 
Sure, http://www.google.com/search?q=AM386

Lots of hits, but no benchmarks.
Why don't you provide them as proof?
I've already provided a source that claims the opposite. Why don't you prove it wrong, if you can?

Also, if it is faster, explain why, because the article I linked to gives *technical* info as to why the 486 would be faster than the 386.
Given this information it's hard to believe a 386 can be faster at all.
So, give us the facts.

I did find this old dhrystone/whetstone benchmark though: http://www.alphatek.info/index.php/Benchmark_de_100_vieux_CPU,_du_386_au_Pentium

But the 386DX-40 gets beaten even by a 25 MHz 486SX, just as the article said.
Also, their 33 MHz model is *exactly* the same performance as the Intel version, just as I said.

And another one that shows the 486 being *way* faster: http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/whetstone%20results.htm
 
Scali2 said:
Sure, http://www.google.com/search?q=AM386

Lots of hits, but no benchmarks.
Why don't you provide them as proof?
I've already provided a source that claims the opposite. Why don't you prove it wrong, if you can?

Also, if it is faster, explain why, because the article I linked to gives *technical* info as to why the 486 would be faster than the 386.
Given this information it's hard to believe a 386 can be faster at all.
So, give us the facts.

I did find this old dhrystone/whetstone benchmark though: http://www.alphatek.info/index.php/Benchmark_de_100_vieux_CPU,_du_386_au_Pentium

But the 386DX-40 gets beaten even by a 25 MHz 486SX, just as the article said.
Also, their 33 MHz model is *exactly* the same performance as the Intel version, just as I said.

And another one that shows the 486 being *way* faster: http://freespace.virgin.net/roy.longbottom/whetstone results.htm
Click to expand...

It's simple. AMD can't be wrong. They have higher margins no matter what the SEC says, regardless of SarbOx controls, accounting audits, and investor reports. All of it is BS in the face of what AMD says. Profit margins lower than Intel? R&D lower on a % of revenue compared to Intel? PFFFT! ALL LIES!

Processor speed slower than Intel's? LIES! Proof? You have no proof, you only have lies! I know because Hector Ruiz told me so!


-------

You can't tell people like this guy anything. Facts mean nothing, because all of his "facts" have been refuted by me or others, and he still refuses to listen. Why? Because he is a zealot.
 
LegendKiller said:
...
You can't tell people like this guy anything. Facts mean nothing, because all of his "facts" have been refuted by me or others, and he still refuses to listen. Why? Because he is a zealot.
Click to expand...

I was starting to fear that sane people are gone forever on these forums...:)
 
LegendKiller said:
It's simple. AMD can't be wrong. They have higher margins no matter what the SEC says, regardless of SarbOx controls, accounting audits, and investor reports. All of it is BS in the face of what AMD says. Profit margins lower than Intel? R&D lower on a % of revenue compared to Intel? PFFFT! ALL LIES!

Processor speed slower than Intel's? LIES! Proof? You have no proof, you only have lies! I know because Hector Ruiz told me so!


-------

You can't tell people like this guy anything. Facts mean nothing, because all of his "facts" have been refuted by me or others, and he still refuses to listen. Why? Because he is a zealot.
Click to expand...

Dude. I've already proven my point. I've stopped responding to you. Yet here you are calling me names...

I know the word has been outlawed... But that was trolling if ever there is such a thing.
 
duby229 said:
Dude. I've already proven my point. I've stopped responding to you. Yet here you are calling me names...

I know the word has been outlawed... But that was trolling if ever there is such a thing.
Click to expand...

Trolling? Please.

You make comments without backup, without facts, without proof. You have proven no points and I have refuted every single one of yours while making valid ones of my own, without you refuting them with any proof. You make outlandish claims like "AMD has more profit margin" or "AMD invests more in R&D as a %", yet you have nothing to back it up. You then make performance claims which are shot down time and time again, yet do you ever listen? Do you ever counter with factual information? Do you ever provide any backup?

None. Nothing. Zip. Zilch. Nada.

Who is the troll? I provide analysis. I provide proof. I provide sound reasoning. Others have done the same exact thing. Yet the only counter you ever have is either a dodge or a hustle.
 
Scali2 said:
But the 386DX-40 gets beaten even by a 25 MHz 486SX, just as the article said.
Also, their 33 MHz model is *exactly* the same performance as the Intel version, just as I said.
Click to expand...

And the 486sx was the version without the onboard fpu.

Scali2 said:
It was back in the days of Wolfenstein 3d and Doom. People with enough money got a 486DX50 or DX2-66, the ones with a tighter budget went for a 386DX-40. It was pretty much the Celeron/Duron of that age.
Click to expand...

I was one of those who dumped a ton of money on the dx2-66. Man that rig was expensive, but it was fast!!! Now my calculator has more processing power and memory then that system :p
 
SpoogeMonkey said:
I was one of those who dumped a ton of money on the dx2-66. Man that rig was expensive, but it was fast!!! Now my calculator has more processing power and memory then that system :p
Click to expand...

Yea, I had a DX2-66 aswell... But I bought the AMD one when it came out... Saved me some cash :)
On the downside, it required a CPU fan, and CPU cooling technology wasn't that great back then... So 2 years later the CPU died.
 
If AMD does run into financial troubles and go bankrupt, I believe there is a good chance a company in China will pick it up. AMD's chinese market is pretty big and I think the Chinese are looking to have a lead in technology based companies in the world standing.
 
nullzero said:
If AMD does run into financial troubles and go bankrupt, I believe there is a good chance a company in China will pick it up. AMD's chinese market is pretty big and I think the Chinese are looking to have a lead in technology based companies in the world standing.
Click to expand...


Now that is something that will *never* happen. The US Government would block that so quickly as to make your head spin.
 
LegendKiller said:
Now that is something that will *never* happen. The US Government would block that so quickly as to make your head spin.
Click to expand...

And they'd do that.. How? AMD in Germany belongs to two different German companies, and the Suzhou plant is owned by a Chinese company. What are they going to do? Prevent the sale of IP?

The US government would have to buy AMD out in order to stop that from happening.

Edit: Hell. The US government would do that ... WHY?
 
mwarps said:
And they'd do that.. How? AMD in Germany belongs to two different German companies, and the Suzhou plant is owned by a Chinese company. What are they going to do? Prevent the sale of IP?

The US government would have to buy AMD out in order to stop that from happening.

Edit: Hell. The US government would do that ... WHY?
Click to expand...

The IP, R&D, the fact that a major semiconductor company would be just "given" to them. There are numerous reasons. Germans are a much different from Chinese in many people's eyes.

If AMD went bankrupt there'd be many offers on the table, the government would just block the sale to China and let the next highest bidder take it.
 
LegendKiller said:
The IP, R&D, the fact that a major semiconductor company would be just "given" to them. There are numerous reasons. Germans are a much different from Chinese in many people's eyes.

If AMD went bankrupt there'd be many offers on the table, the government would just block the sale to China and let the next highest bidder take it.
Click to expand...

Dont be so sure of that, unless we see an increase in protectionism going on in the U.S. but from the looks of that its highly unlikely... The U.S. is selling off most of its infrastructure like bridges etc. to foriegn investors. I know the Chinese would do whatever it takes to get its hands on AMD before other countries, they have a massive pile of USD reserves just waiting to splurge on something. China could buyout a bankrupt AMD easily http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort.../100024842/index.htm?section=money_topstories
 
nullzero said:
Dont be so sure of that, unless we see an increase in protectionism going on in the U.S. but from the looks of that its highly unlikely... The U.S. is selling off most of its infrastructure like bridges etc. to foriegn investors. I know the Chinese would do whatever it takes to get its hands on AMD before other countries, they have a massive pile of USD reserves just waiting to splurge on something. China could buyout a bankrupt AMD easily http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fort.../100024842/index.htm?section=money_topstories
Click to expand...

Again, it requires several layers of approval FOR a company to be bought. They could buy all of AMD shares right now in one massive buyout and be done with it, since AMD's entire net worth is a pimple on an elephant's ass compared to China's reserves. Just look at what happened with the Dubai fiasco. And it's not selling off "most" of its infrastructure, no more so than we sold off "most" of our landmarks to the Japanese in the 80s.
 
LegendKiller said:
Now that is something that will *never* happen. The US Government would block that so quickly as to make your head spin.
Click to expand...

Nope, the Germans and Saxonia GmbH wouldn't go for it :) AMD. They don't just owe money for the ATI acquisition but are still paying back the German and the EU. AMD doesn't even own itself LOL!;)
 
LegendKiller said:
The IP, R&D, the fact that a major semiconductor company would be just "given" to them. There are numerous reasons. Germans are a much different from Chinese in many people's eyes.

If AMD went bankrupt there'd be many offers on the table, the government would just block the sale to China and let the next highest bidder take it.
Click to expand...

The US government hasn't done anything similar to that since ... The railroad buyouts.
Not only that, but hostile takeovers happen without any "approval". I'm not really sure what sort of standing the US government would have at all to approve anything of this nature, since the company is already split up, and the companies doing the buying are outside of US jurisdiction. .. Seems pretty farfetched to me that anything of the sort would be prevented by the government.
 
mwarps said:
The US government hasn't done anything similar to that since ... The railroad buyouts.
Not only that, but hostile takeovers happen without any "approval". I'm not really sure what sort of standing the US government would have at all to approve anything of this nature, since the company is already split up, and the companies doing the buying are outside of US jurisdiction. .. Seems pretty farfetched to me that anything of the sort would be prevented by the government.
Click to expand...

Unocal
Dubai ports



http://www.cfr.org/publication/10092/foreign_ownership_of_us_infrastructure.html#2


Has foreign investment aroused security concerns in the past?

Yes. Ever since the Industrial Revolution in the nineteenth century, the United States has relied on at least some level of foreign investment. Over the years, there were several instances where this threatened national security. In 1915, when a German diplomat accidentally left his briefcase on a train platform, U.S. officials discovered that German investments in the United States were helping to build up the German war-fighting capacity. When the United States entered the First World War, President Wilson seized these assets. In 1927, Congress cited security concerns when it banned foreign ownership of radio broadcasting capabilities.

More recently, concerns raised by U.S. officials blocked the attempted 1987 acquisition of Fairchild Semiconductor Corp., a high-technology manufacturing company, by Japan's Fujitsu, Ltd. In 2005, congressional uproar prevented the Chinese company CNOOC from purchasing the U.S. energy firm Unocal.
Click to expand...



Do you seriously think we'd allow a communist state, potential military rival, and potential war opposition own the 2nd largest CPU maker in the world? Yeah, that'll never happen.
 
duby229 said:
Bring it to the desktop then. That's all I got to say about that... Until then....
Click to expand...

It's on the way the new upcoming E6850 will be based on newer steppings of Conroe, that can maintain the 65W TDP even at 3.0GHZ.

Just like how Intel is improving Kentsfield Q6600 to 95W TDP with the new G0 Stepping.
 
LegendKiller said:
Yeah, that'll never happen.
Click to expand...

I would say highly unlikely. I wouldn't say never, given that the political climate is ever-changing.
 
AMD just needs a bunch of cash until it can get Barcelona out the door and it's FABs running like mad. It's got the big OEMs, it's starting to get the FAB strength, all it needs now is to get a competitive product out the door and it's golden. It's lack of FABs really hurt AMD in the K8 years, and they're hoping not to have a repeat of that. Basically every thing's panning out for AMD, they just need to hang in there. Hence the borrowing of money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top