Analysts Claim AMD Will Be Bankrupt by 2020

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Most people don't even know or care what processor is in the computer they buy, and those that do know what a 4790K are will be influenced by benchmarks/$ ratios.

Do you think the average person knows or cares that their console is AMD powered? They could give two shits. They just check performance reviews, and see how it works for themselves.

Likewise, if they are shopping for a HP Stream or Dell Optiplex or Cyberpower Whateverdafugs, they will just check the reviews for that system, and the reviewers will hopefully compare the performance to similar $ offerings with a nice graph with lines and then decide accordingly.
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,024
Doesn't matter how much great stuff they have 'coming out', the issue is no one is buying.

I've said before you can have all the great chips in the world but if the OEMs are not putting them in anything the masses want then its useless.

The OEMs no longer want or need AMD. Why bother switching to AMD if it's chips catch up to Intel when you can just carry on offering Intel. After all the buying public have gotten use to just buying Intel over the past 10 years.

The public know Intel too. Why would they change unless AMD offer their top ZEN chips for less than $100. That ain't going to help.

It's too late. Once the consoles come to an end that's it.

Plus Zen will still come up 20% short of the current mid range i5 next year.

I dunno the high end chips out now hit i5 speeds and zen is to gain 40% over bulldozer that should put them within 20% of all of intel's offerings across the boards... where amd should excell and only if the rumor I herd is right is the zen apu if the do put hbm on the apu and that gets marketed to the all in one pre-built and laptops then we could see a flood of red to wash over the blue. That is if they can undercut intel's illegal business practices with oems. Seriously amd filed lawsuits in 09 and 12 vs intel for the back door deals intel is using to keep amd out of the market. Intel also lost those and had to pay some hefty fines. And sign some deals.
 

Pieter3dnow

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
6,784
In the fast-growing mobile microprocessor segment, which is proven by the intensively
competitive landscape and by companies continually trying to enter this market. Both AMD
and Intel are looking to enter this market, but competitor Nvidia already has its popular Tegra
line of mobile processors. I

Aah Nvidia Tegra , how is that working out for Nvidia exactly?
Does it have 99% marketshare now ?

For instance, Intel has had a
monopoly for nearly 3 years on an advanced manufacturing technology called “FINFET” and
the company has used this manufacturing edge to dominate the PC and server markets and try
to build a presence in tablets and smartphones
5
Yeah Intel has had a lead yet ARM is pretty big so much for not reading the market correctly if anything this shows Intel is a failure more then anything else ....
AMD plans to ignite growth by departing from its core PC business – given the failure of its
fast-follower, budget-pricing strategy – and avoiding fierce rivalry with Intel. With the PC
market likely to be in long-term decline and AMD’s lack of commitment, we see its market
share further deteriorating. Essentially, AMD is engaged in a relentless diversification drive,
pursuing “growth markets” without being able to create a stronghold in a specific one – apart
from the semi-custom business in gaming, which will be addressed later. We concede that it is
rapidly expanding its addressable market, around $80bn in 2014 and estimated $100bn
exposure by 20181

. Yet AMD’s ability to capitalize it is grossly overestimated.
Wait not going head to head with another company that has deeper pockets for R&D over a significant number is bad? Where the fuck did these assholes go to school? The last sentence is puzzling , how much percentage do you need to be able to capitalize ?

Oppenheimers Global opportunities Fund defends AMD’s growth prospects based on the
belief that the company possesses a technology edge based on its proven superiority in GPU
technology. Yet their assertion that GPU has the potential to displace CPU for many
consumer electronics products is utterly misleading. A rigorous study11
rebutted the hype
surrounding GPU’s performance miracle, which found that these processing units are much
closer in performance than previously suggested. Therefore the simplistic conclusion tat GPU
is an all-purpose, superior product is fundamentally flawed fad.

Yeah because when it comes down to raw calculating power GPU is at 8 terraflops? and a cpu does not get anywhere near? This report keeps doing this.

It is annoying as hell contradiction filled with misleading and gross over stating of minor things.

outright lies upon the comments of Tony Tamashi:
Realistically, AMD should only expect razor-thin margins, as console manufacturers, having
sold their products at a loss in the past, will opt for the most cost-effective option given the
weight of chips in the costs of production.

The conclusion to this is from this quote:
“We didn't want to do the business at the price those guys [Sony] were willing to
pay. […] Having been through the original Xbox and PS3, we understand the
economics of [console development] and the trade-offs.”

Why does a serious financial report state posturing and reports it as fact while in retrospect there is _no_ competing product from Intel or Nvidia that can match what is currently in both consoles. To put it in perspective if Sony and MS were happy with Nvidia why the hell would they break away from them ?

At the end it is rather sad that people write a report mixed up with wrong assumptions confuse markets and ignore that AMD has made a lot of headway since they went for other revenue streams.
 

daglesj

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
5,681
I dunno the high end chips out now hit i5 speeds and zen is to gain 40% over bulldozer that should put them within 20% of all of intel's offerings across the boards... where amd should excell and only if the rumor I herd is right is the zen apu if the do put hbm on the apu and that gets marketed to the all in one pre-built and laptops then we could see a flood of red to wash over the blue. That is if they can undercut intel's illegal business practices with oems. Seriously amd filed lawsuits in 09 and 12 vs intel for the back door deals intel is using to keep amd out of the market. Intel also lost those and had to pay some hefty fines. And sign some deals.

I predict this time next year when you walk into any computer warehouse type store you'll still see 40 Intel boxes for sale and maybe 1 or 2 token AMD boxes.

Same for 18 months time and two years...
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,024
I predict this time next year when you walk into any computer warehouse type store you'll still see 40 Intel boxes for sale and maybe 1 or 2 token AMD boxes.

Same for 18 months time and two years...

Next year that is the situation they have been in for the past year and a half.

my prediction is we will see a resurgence first for carrizo you will likely see 3 refreshed models in B&m stores the lowest end e1 or e2 or a4 and a8 and a6 versions you won't see an a10 most likely. But this is at launch here in june we will see the latest budget books from hp coiled up at best buy or walmart.

In 2016 if carrizo doesn't fair well and intel does not slip amd will need some big catch to pull oems in to put an amd based model out there zen will need some really fast low end apu to get this back forget a new e series apu they will need the a6 and a8 zen to stomp i3 and i5 apu at a cheaper price.
 

Coaxial

Gawd
Joined
Oct 8, 2008
Messages
990
Will they go bankrupt? Maybe. Will they go under? Highly unlikely. Competition is needed...and I'm not saying that for the benefit of the consumer, I say that for the benefit of Intel. You think they want a Microsoft-style Monopoly court case? Nope. It's much cheaper for them in the long run to bail out AMD (in the sake of the future of technology or insert other marketing reason here) with just enough money to keep them around and pump out inferior products. This way if and when AMD does eventually go bankrupt a second time, Intel can easily make the argument they did all they could and never pushed for a monopoly.

Business in America.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,186
Horseshit.

I guess I just must be pretty lucky that on my four PCs, (2 AMD, 2 Intel), all four of the Radeons have had zero driver issues and zero difficulty in game performance. In one case, for nearly six years. I purchased an MSI R9 290 about 2 months back. Trust me, if I had a history of suffering with bad AMD drivers over the years, I wouldn't have spent the best part of $300 for it.

Can't prove it, but I'd bet a dollar that half the loons that whine about bad AMD video drivers haven't owned an ATI or AMD card since the Rage Fury Pro, or whatever the hell it was called back in 1939. Some haven't ever owned one.

I owned 7970s and while single card performance was acceptable their crossfire profiles were garbage. Games ran smoother with a single nvidia card.

That might be different now though as I haven't owned one since then.
 

PersonalJ

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
1,795
I dunno the high end chips out now hit i5 speeds and zen is to gain 40% over bulldozer that should put them within 20% of all of intel's offerings across the boards... where amd should excell and only if the rumor I herd is right is the zen apu if the do put hbm on the apu and that gets marketed to the all in one pre-built and laptops then we could see a flood of red to wash over the blue. That is if they can undercut intel's illegal business practices with oems. Seriously amd filed lawsuits in 09 and 12 vs intel for the back door deals intel is using to keep amd out of the market. Intel also lost those and had to pay some hefty fines. And sign some deals.

The high end stuff from AMD is competitive with Intel's low end offerings. AMD cannot compete with Intel's R&D, they are only competitive with ARM on price. AMD also cannot compete with Nvidia, AMD has a bit more revenue than AMD but nearly all of Nvidia's R&D spending is on GPUs. AMD's R&D spending is split between CPU and GPUs, they can't compete in either market which is why their market share is so small. AMD also have practically nothing in the tablet/smartphone market which is actually growing and absolutely nothing in x86 servers.
 

Revdarian

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
2,616
I owned 7970s and while single card performance was acceptable their crossfire profiles were garbage. Games ran smoother with a single nvidia card.

That might be different now though as I haven't owned one since then.

In the newest series AMD's multicard setups are relatively smoother even though they don't use bridges, you can read about it here in Hardocp and all.
 

{NG}Fidel

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
6,284
I love the posters saying 799 for an amd card is too much whole supporting the titan x. If the peromance is their then what's the problem?
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
I owned 7970s and while single card performance was acceptable their crossfire profiles were garbage. Games ran smoother with a single nvidia card.

That might be different now though as I haven't owned one since then.
If you're talking about the lack of frame pacing, they fixed that ages ago in drivers, about two years ago if memory serves after the debacle with the 7990 launch. Just look at all the 295x2 reviews; smooth as butter. It mostly scales very well too, but I've seen some game launches where crossfire isn't recognized at all, but that's an exception rather than a rule and is usually addressed shortly.

Multi-GPU setups are far more common and so expected now.
 

next-Jin

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 29, 2006
Messages
7,186
If you're talking about the lack of frame pacing, they fixed that ages ago in drivers, about two years ago if memory serves after the debacle with the 7990 launch. Just look at all the 295x2 reviews; smooth as butter. It mostly scales very well too, but I've seen some game launches where crossfire isn't recognized at all, but that's an exception rather than a rule and is usually addressed shortly.

Multi-GPU setups are far more common and so expected now.

Yea I'd expect improvements I was just commenting to the other poster that they have had driver issues far more recently than he stated
 

jimmyb

2[H]4U
Joined
May 24, 2006
Messages
3,165
I worked as an integrated circuit designer at AMD for several years. My designs have gone into all the current gen console graphics and APUs, as well as a variety of their product lines.

It was well known in industry that margins on the console chips were not very good compared to discrete products. They are greater than zero, but many companies in this industry (and supposedly nvidia) are looking for higher margin business plans, which is apparently a big part of why AMD go the contracts.

I can't back anything I've said with links to hard numbers, but that is my insider perspective.
 

heatlesssun

Extremely [H]
Joined
Nov 5, 2005
Messages
44,154
It was well known in industry that margins on the console chips were not very good compared to discrete products. They are greater than zero, but many companies in this industry (and supposedly nvidia) are looking for higher margin business plans, which is apparently a big part of why AMD go the contracts.

Also the volume of console parts is pretty low compared to PCs.
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,024
Also the volume of console parts is pretty low compared to PCs.

With pc sales decline I would say more console chips were sold but that is now shtinking.

of the markets that have steady turnover amd has almost no market share...

they need to do
tablets/phones, workstations, budget notebooks basicly things the unwashed masses buy every year or two.
 

Croaker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
216
Also the volume of console parts is pretty low compared to PCs.

But a couple hundred chips over 6 years isn't exactly peanuts either.

FYI on the Nvidia question a few brought up they pissed off Sony and Microsoft. Both consoles they refused to share savings over time on manufacturing costs. Pretty much knew they had them over a barrel and ran with it. Also on both the bus back down to system ram was one sixth the bus up. Doing cup based post-processing was a stone cold bitch. Talking from experience on both.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
It was well known in industry that margins on the console chips were not very good compared to discrete products. They are greater than zero, but many companies in this industry (and supposedly nvidia) are looking for higher margin business plans, which is apparently a big part of why AMD go the contracts.
The market will dictate the margins, not the customer though, that's economics 101. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo can't just NOT have a console, and they don't have the experience to go it alone... so they HAD to bid it out, and its a big part of their business.

If NVIDIA, IBM, Intel, and others weren't competing with AMD as you seem to suggest, then the margins AMD enjoy would have been TREMENDOUS as a no-bid contract winner where they would have by default gotten whatever they first asked for. We can't know either way, but the common sense logic is sound... no competition = big margins, lots of competition = small margins, so its one way or the other.

Margins would only remain low if there was healthy competition between the companies, meaning in the past competitors like NVIDIA must have been offering really great deals for margins to have been so small when it won the PS3 for example. What they had on the table and at what pricing they had for the Xbox and PS4 we just don't know, and that's my point. Yet many here speak in absolutes about things they don't know, are unknowable, and don't support the numbers we do have.

Now its quite possible that IBM was out of the question this time around, as I know one thing that the big-3 wanted was app integration, and from what I hear its a heck of a lot easier to do that with x86, and ARM didn't have the juice to get the type of performance they wanted for next-gen consoles.

And regardless, we see in the numbers how AMD went from super red to in the green in one quarter right after the contracts were won, so even if they are low margins, clearly its a lot of revenue that helped the company as I didn't see any other major changes in that division from the two quarters prior to the quarter after. To call it anything but a win for the company, or to pretend that IBM and NVIDIA weren't gunning for it is pretty silly IMO.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
But a couple hundred chips over 6 years isn't exactly peanuts either.
Hundred? For all 3 consoles combined over the life of the products, which we hear will be even longer than ever before, aren't we talking about a couple hundred million chips?
 

Croaker

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2005
Messages
216
Hundred? For all 3 consoles combined over the life of the products, which we hear will be even longer than ever before, aren't we talking about a couple hundred million chips?

As I added in my follow up I meant a couple 100 million
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
As I added in my follow up I meant a couple 100 million
I saw that after, damn lack of edit! LOL!

I predict that AMD will not be bankrupt by 2020, and that Steve still won't have given us the ability to edit our posts on the FPN forum.
 
Joined
Oct 25, 2009
Messages
888
AMD has been riding the struggle bus for years now. They've gotten quite adept at surviving though. AMD was amazing in the 2000 to 2005 time rage. The first Athlons, then Athlon 64s and X2 chips were incredible and they had the performance crown. But, at the same time, there wasn't a single model of Dell the average consumer could buy with AMD chips because of Intel's ability to leverage companies into exclusivity agreements, like Dell. By the time Intel and Dell were taken to court over that, Intel already had the Core 2 line out, AMD released the Phenom series to great disappointment from the enthusiast crowd, and the rest was history.

That was ten years ago now. Even then AMD wasn't exactly sitting well. I mean, the first company to offer Athlon 64 PCs was eMachines. Not HP, not Dell, not Gateway, but the ultimate budget brand at the time. Maybe things would have been different had competition not been what it was. It's just a rotten shame that even in their best days most consumers had never heard of them. That said, I don't expect them to disappear. They're far too tenacious and have been clawing back what they lost. While I hope the new architecture plays out well, I'm just very skeptical it will meet the performance claims given just how much over-inflation they've done over the years.
 

PRIME1

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
3,942
The Altman Z-Score, a number calculated from various items on a company's balance sheet, is a useful way to determine whether a company is at risk of going bankrupt. A Z-Score below 1.81 means that the company is likely headed toward bankruptcy within the next few years.

n 2010, AMD's Z-Score indicated that it was distressed, but barely so. Since then, the Z-Score has plummeted, turning negative in 2014


http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...is-advanced-micro-devices-inc-to-bankrup.aspx

Odds are they won't even make it until 2019 when $600,000,000 in debt comes due. Although at the rate they are bleeding money I would not be surprised to see them go bankrupt in the next year or two.

Despite the consoles they lost over $100 million just last quarter. This quarter looks to be even worse with no new products on the shelf. The facts don't lie.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Unlike Circuit City though, remember that Intel has to have a x86 competitor. GM declared bankruptcy too, but GM is certainly still around and their profits topped estimates.

If the shit hits the fan, they would get a cash influx from somewhere, ala MS with Intel footing the bill or the government or a Chinese company, somebody would fork cash over.

Same as Fiat buying Chrysler, there will be an investor to funnel funds in and perhaps a bit of restructuring. If you're a top end exec at AMD you might worry if you become redundant, but its unlikely AMD would go away.

Neither NVIDIA nor Intel (especially after being busted in multiple lawsuits for interfering with the free market against AMD) can allow AMD to go under and face anti-monopoly legislation against them which would break up their own companies.

And really the other question is why are there only two major processor and GPU manufacturers in the first place? Why aren't there three or four?
 

PRIME1

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
3,942
And really the other question is why are there only two major processor and GPU manufacturers in the first place? Why aren't there three or four?

Because there's not enough money in it. It takes billions in R&D and the market won't support enough companies to do that.

AMD can go bankrupt and be dissolved. Intel can claim it faces competition from ARM and much like sound cards I doubt anyone in government will care if there is one less video card maker.

As much as we fight about it here, no one on Capitol Hill is concerned about the PC gaming market.
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,958
Shoot, they pulled out of the Enterprise market completely awhile back. That was huge. Intel rakes in GOBS of cash from its XEON sales. They are a monopoly there.
 

jfolds

Weaksauce
Joined
Nov 22, 2005
Messages
83
well they havent beaten an intel cpu since the 486 dx2/100mhz..

so i dont know how they are still in business today...

i dont even know how they keep failing so badly... they have been building cpu's long enough they should know how to make faster ones..
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,024
well they havent beaten an intel cpu since the 486 dx2/100mhz..

so i dont know how they are still in business today...

i dont even know how they keep failing so badly... they have been building cpu's long enough they should know how to make faster ones..

You must be high.

Amd dominated intel through the pentium 3 and 4 years it was not until intel released the core line intel pulled back into the lead. Then they never got it back. Zen is crucial it needs to bring all of amd back in line with intel's offerings at launch the next move is to push ahead of intel then maintain.
 

Hornet

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 4, 2005
Messages
6,625
You must be high.

Amd dominated intel through the pentium 3 and 4 years it was not until intel released the core line intel pulled back into the lead. Then they never got it back. Zen is crucial it needs to bring all of amd back in line with intel's offerings at launch the next move is to push ahead of intel then maintain.

I really doubt any of that can happen. Can you imagine the resources it would take to magically catch up with Intel, let alone pushing ahead and maintaining a leading position. AMD doesn't have that kind of money.

And even if AMD can do that, the consumer desktop market is not going to save them. It's impossible for AMD to gain billions of revenue to be invested into R&D to do all that. Desktop market is not growing, while the cost of R&D continue to grows.

I believe this is why AMD dropped out of the performance race with Intel some time ago. They know they cannot afford to compete with Intel in the performance segment where the return is small while R&D cost continues to increase. I highly doubt anything has changed sinced AMD made that decision.
 

Lunas

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 22, 2001
Messages
10,024
I really doubt any of that can happen. Can you imagine the resources it would take to magically catch up with Intel, let alone pushing ahead and maintaining a leading position. AMD doesn't have that kind of money.

And even if AMD can do that, the consumer desktop market is not going to save them. It's impossible for AMD to gain billions of revenue to be invested into R&D to do all that. Desktop market is not growing, while the cost of R&D continue to grows.

I believe this is why AMD dropped out of the performance race with Intel some time ago. They know they cannot afford to compete with Intel in the performance segment where the return is small while R&D cost continues to increase. I highly doubt anything has changed sinced AMD made that decision.

There is no other way for them with just cpu or apu or gpu they need a steady market to grow in. That is portable soc, workstations, specialty pc for rendering or content creation, budget systems that people replace on a yearly basis like really cheap all in one or laptops.

the enthusiasts don't make enough of a market share to save them.

spinning off global foundries was the worst idea they ever had.
 

Brahmzy

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Messages
4,958
Zen will flop. Too much ground to cover. Even though Intel has sat on their laurels for years, their CPUs are so far ahead it's ridiculous. They need an O'bailout.
 

jbltecnicspro

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 18, 2006
Messages
8,254
Zen will flop. Too much ground to cover. Even though Intel has sat on their laurels for years, their CPUs are so far ahead it's ridiculous. They need an O'bailout.

I'm going to hold off judgment until they actually come out. But yes, their track record isn't promising. However... If they've truly learned from their Bulldozer mistake, then I think they can be alright. I mean - lots of armchair quarterbacks around these parts seem to know why Bulldozer isn't as good as Intel. So if they understand what's going on, surely a CPU manufacturer understands too, right? :)
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
One of the top selling processors on Amazon and Microcenter is the FX-8350, which isn't that powerful, but most people don't need a 4790K for $300+.

The FX8350 you can pickup everyday at MC for example with a motherboard for $159.98, and overclock it to 4.5Ghz.

You could get a Intel Core i3-4150 + motherboard combo for that, but in apps that are properly multithreaded (which isn't Windows 10 supposed to help with that, along with the core parking issue?), the 8-core FX kicks its butt.

It has about twice the Geekbench and passmark scores anyway, albeit at far greater power usage.
 

Nimisys

Fully [H]
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
21,014
Zen will flop. Too much ground to cover. Even though Intel has sat on their laurels for years, their CPUs are so far ahead it's ridiculous. They need an O'bailout.

People said the same thing about the original K6, K7 & K8 chips.

AMD has always been a company on the verge of collapse, but they have always provided just enough when it really mattered to stay in the game.

i hope to replace my 2600k at some point, the last two cycles (Q6600 <> 2600K) AMD has not been in the discussion. really hoping they will be the next go.
 

spine

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 4, 2003
Messages
2,699
I don't think AMD ever truly recovered from the ATI buy out. It just cost them too much, and dug too far deep into their vital research budget.

That said, you could argue that the GPU part of the business is now the only thing keeping them from bankruptcy.

I still think buying ATI was a mistake, for all concerned.


Also, it's not just Intel that's killing AMD right now, it's ARM, who've taken away a whole market from both.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
they undercut everyone so much, that they got screwed in the end, because they are making close to zero profit.
How much profit are they making per 1000 units? How much did they undercut NVIDIA by? What hardware was INTEL+NVIDIA offering to counter AMD, and what were their costs?
 

Red Falcon

[H]F Junkie
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
11,807
Now its quite possible that IBM was out of the question this time around, as I know one thing that the big-3 wanted was app integration, and from what I hear its a heck of a lot easier to do that with x86, and ARM didn't have the juice to get the type of performance they wanted for next-gen consoles.

Actually, IBM manufactures the "Espresso" PowerPC CPU in the Wii U, so they are still part of the game this generation.
AMD only manufactures the GPU in the Wii U.
 

Ducman69

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
10,542
Actually, IBM manufactures the "Espresso" PowerPC CPU in the Wii U, so they are still part of the game this generation.
AMD only manufactures the GPU in the Wii U.
Oh, I thought it was a AMD base unit and IBM little tablet.
 
Top