Has AMD busted itself trying to beat Intel?

[duby229]

Nexgen was too long ago for me to remember, was it really that bad then? I can't imagine it getting much worse (financially) for AMD than it already is. Loads of debt, shrinking revenue, ASPs, GPMs and marketshare, being 2 quarters from running out of cash... etc etc

Shit dude, how much worse can it get?

Though I must say I do like your unwavering enthusiasm about AMDs future.

It was bad... They had just built Fab25 and they had two other Fabs that were outdated and couldnt be used. The last good product they had was the 386, and the K5 was a total dud. We complain about the AM2, but at least it is still selling decent volumes... The K5 was simply NOT selling...... It was real bad...

If it wasnt for buying Nexgen, and releasing their 6x86 and renaming it K6, they would have been gonners...

About running out of cash, you shopuld really consider reading the earning report, and listening to the conference call... They talk about that in depth... Basically they arent going to run out of money, and they still have at least another billion dollars by selling 200mm fab equipment... What your claiming is just plain FUD.

 

[Scali2]

I think some of you guys need to study the history of processors more.
I see people comparing AMD's 386 against Intels 386, for example...
Or comparing K6 against PPro, etc.
Check this out for example:
http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1362904

As you can see, Intel started making 486 in 1989, where AMD didn't release its 386 until 1991 (Intels 386 is from 1985).
Obviously the 386 was already reduced to a budget CPU for Intel by the time AMD even started selling theirs.
And although theirs was 7 MHz faster than Intels 386, it was obviously no match for the 486, which had higher clockspeed, more cache, an added FPU, and a more efficient/powerful architecture altogether.

In general AMD has either always been much later to the table than Intel with a new generation, or AMD's offerings were just lower in clockspeed etc (basically a generation behind in manufacturing).
Which meant that AMD competed okay against the budget CPUs of Intel, but could never reach the level of performance of Intel's high-end.

This didn't change until the K7. Before that, AMD simply never had any CPU that was faster than the fastest Intel offerings.
I think that having the fastest chip was a big boost for AMD's reputation and marketshare.

But even the K7 has to be placed in perspective. Technically the K7 was the answer to Intel's P2. However, the P2 already dated from 1997, and the K7 was released in 1999.
Intel had just given its P2 a refresh by adding SSE, and called it P3. It was not a new architecture however, just as P2 before it was pretty much a PPro with MMX (which dates from 1995).
The P3 didn't last very long as Intel's flagship, because in 2000, Intel already released their new architecture, namely the P4.
The P4 had some trouble with its first iteration (Willamette), but the second one (Northwood) once again convincingly outperformed the K7, and AMD had no answer until their K8.

And you know the last part... Intel came out with the Core2, and now we're waiting for AMD's K10, because once again Core2 outperforms AMD in every way.

So, to recap...
AMD started producing their own CPUs in 1991, with their 386. They usually aimed at Intel's previous generation, and never were competitive in terms of performance itself, it was all price/performance. If you wanted a fast PC, you shopped Intel, there was no alternative.
AMD finally managed to close this gap with the K7, and managed to outperform Intel. This was because of great timing, because although Intel was about to release a new architecture, it wasn't ready yet. So AMD could fight against Intels older PPro/P2/P3 architecture, and beat it on pure performance.
An added bonus was that Intel's P4-architecture didn't get off to a good start, so initially AMD could fight off the P4s aswell, with its K7 (and technically Intel could have done the same with their P3s, as many P3-overclockers will recall).
So that's 1 point to AMD.

Intel restored the usual hierarchy with the Northwood, again AMD was trailing a generation, and getting beat on pure performance, although AMD still fought well with price-performance.

Then AMD released its K8 rather quickly. This again was great timing. Intel generally uses an architecture for about 4-5 years before changing to a completely new one. This meant that the K8 had the market to itself for quite some time, and Intel had no chance with P4, they had to wait until their new architecture was ready.
Another point to AMD.

Intel has now again restored the hierarchy, Core2 reigns supreme...
However, Intel has also learnt a valuable lesson from AMD... If you stick to an architecture for 5 years, you are left to the grace of your competition for all that time. Their strategy was probably a leftover from the days before they had competition. And for the first years, AMD wasn't strong enough to take advantage (let alone the other competitors), so they just stuck with it.
But, Intel is now moving from revolutionary designs to evolutionary designs.
The Core2 is basically a result of taking the PPro architecture, and improving it in small steps every year. They first tried this out in the notebook market, with Pentium-M and later Core, but it works so well that it is now their primary strategy.

I think this time AMD is the one that needs to change its strategy. It seems that AMD assumed that Intel still used its old 5-year strategy, so AMD could come out with the Barcelona and beat the Kentsfield chip, and be on top for a few years.
However, Penryn shows that Intel is not falling for that one, and Nehalem is already underway to make sure that AMD stays down.
I don't think AMD will be scoring points this round.

In fact, I'm not sure if AMD can ever get on top again... The K7 and K8 were pretty good CPUs, but we have to be realistic... Intel could also have come up with these CPUs. They aren't that revolutionary, they are more evolutionary.
They were succesful because they were good CPUs, released at the right time (where AMD's previous CPUs were good, but always released after Intel already had its newer architecture ready).
But with Intel's new strategy, there's not a lot of time to release a CPU. Even if you do get on top, it may only be for a few months... Which I think will be what is happening now.
I think Barcelona may be a bit faster than Kentsfield, but Penryn will be released only a few months after Barcelona, so AMD will never have the time to build up sales on Barcelona... before people know Barcelona is faster, it will already be undone by Intel.
And even if Penryn fails, it's safe to assume that Intel will have another iteration ready in less than a year, which will not fail.
AMD on the other hand doesn't have a strategy of constant improvements, they still tend to stick it out for a few years with one architecture... and I don't think they have much of a choice, because they simply don't have the R&D to constantly refresh their designs like Intel is doing now.

The only thing I find sad is that this means that there will not be any revolutionary CPUs anymore. I love technology and even though the P4 was not a great CPU, I am amazed by how cleverly they designed certain things, and just how they boldly tried to go where no man has gone before.
Such revolutions may not always deliver a good CPU, but when they do, I think they can be much bigger steps than the evolutionary way.
However, Intel is a huge company, and they are still developing the Itanium alongside the x86 family. So perhaps they'll have enough resources to go ahead with the evolutionary path, and experiment with revolutions on the side.

 

[duby229]

Sorry Scali, but you just plain wrong... Up until the K7 AMD always had the more advanced process. Hell even today, by some standards AMD's process is better. Also While Intel did have the 486 on the market, AMD's 386 outperformed it. Flat out outperformed it. Then when AMD released it own 486, it simply increased the lead. That is the sole reason Intel released its PPro line, which did take the lead. If it wasnt for AMD that line would have never existed... You think that Intel; would innovate on there own?

I'm not going to go into much more of your rant, becouse it is just too biased to even thknk about.

 

[Scali2]

Erm, right...
Are you saying that AMD's 40 MHz 386, without an FPU, outperformed Intels 486DX50 and 486DX2-66?
Got any benchmarks to back that up?

Also, AMD's 386 was an EXACT copy of Intels.
In fact, AMD was one of the companies that built Intel chips. AMD simply started selling the same chip under their own name, overclocked to 40 MHz. It is 100% identical to Intels, down to the last transistor. Overclock an Intel to 40 MHz, or downclock an AMD to 33 MHz, and you get exactly the same results.

The 486DX2 is the same story, it is physically the same chip. Which performed EXACTLY the same as an equally clocked Intel in every benchmark.
AMD later made variations with higher multipliers, such as the DX5, but again, at this time Intel already had the Pentium on the market, with higher IPC and a superscalar architecture, so again it was no contest.
Only later did AMD start to really design their own architectures.

Also, what do you mean by process?
If you mean manufacturing process... well, AMD usually trails behind... When AMD was on 180 nm, Intel was on 130 nm, when AMD was on 130 nm, Intel was on 90 nm, when AMD was on 90 nm, Intel was on 65 nm, and now it looks like Intel will be on 45 nm before the end of this year, again leaving AMD one generation behind.

That is the sole reason Intel released its PPro line, which did take the lead. If it wasnt for AMD that line would have never existed... You think that Intel; would innovate on there own?

Uhhh, Pentium was already on the market when AMD started getting into 486, just look at the link I posted above.
PPro was way out of the league of AMD at the time of release. AMD was still working on its K5 architecture, which is pretty much an updated 486 architecture which fits a Socket 7.
It is not even on the same level as a Pentium, neither in clockspeed or IPC, let alone a PPro. The K7 is AMD's answer to the PPro, it's very similar in architecture, clockspeed scaling and IPC. Slightly better, then again, it was released about 4 years later, so that should come as no surprise.

And yes, Intel has always innovated on its own. It is mainly competing against itself. By far the most systems in the world have Intel processors, and Intel needs to keep people upgrading (the market is pretty much saturated). That's why they innovated before AMD started to get competitive in terms of performance (you realize that Intel has been at this x86 thing since 1978? And Intel actually *invented* the microprocessor with their 4004? And that AMD didn't get into the game until 1991? So basically everything up to and including the 486 was developed without AMD ever being in the picture at all).

Anyway, my 'rant' is just the truth, backed up by the site I linked to, and various other resources on the net (heck, you can check the dates on any processor, eg an Intel 486 will have (c) 1989 printed on it. An Am486 has (c) 1993 on it, etc... Google around for images of these processors if you don't have them yourself).
Eg:

The AMDs actually have a "Designed for Windows 95" logo on them...

This is also a nice read: http://202.120.60.18/coolenglish/docs/essay/The history of the processor.htm


I doubt you can back up anything you say, because it's simply a distorted view of reality.

 

[mikeblas]

AMD is down this year....intel will be down next year...etc etc etc. its all circular.

It is? When has Intel ever shown three losing quarters in a row, as AMD has?

Sell short on AMD.

 

[jhtrico1850]

About running out of cash, you shopuld really consider reading the earning report, and listening to the conference call... They talk about that in depth... Basically they arent going to run out of money, and they still have at least another billion dollars by selling 200mm fab equipment... What your claiming is just plain FUD.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/32901

The cash balance at the end of the quarter was $1.2 billion, approximately $600 million above our minimal acceptable levels.

Keep burning it up like the recent quarters. And you wonder why they're open to private equity?

"...selling land"

Ok, that's just plain desperation if they're going to tout that level of granularity.

"And how much you think you could get for the 200 millimeter tools?

Both of those, just in broad terms, both of those are north of $200 million each, from that perspective. "

No where near $1B.

"Hell even today, by some standards AMD's process is better."

lol

 

[quadnad]

It is? When has Intel ever shown three losing quarters in a row, as AMD has?

Sell short on AMD.

Without having a look at Intel's info, you do realize that they fired 10,000 people last year? That isn't the sign of a company working like a well-oiled machine...Not to say that Intel isn't better than ever before (maintaining a near monopoly on the market makes it difficult to fuck up), but they certainly aren't invincible.

There is no doubt that Intel has deeper pockets than AMD, but they always have. Yet, somehow, AMD still manages to produce good products. Go figure! Now I just want to hear something from the journalists who (hopefully) break the NDA this week about R600. Then get some Barcelona results too...

 

[DeeFrag]

I think to call AMD followers of Intel isn't entirely correct. I'm not a *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*! of either side, My main machine right now is an AthlonX2, my back up machine is a P4, my home laptop is a CoreDuo, and my work laptop is a PentiumM. I've also owned and AthlonXP, Celeron, Intel486, Apple2GS (lol) in the past.

Both companies make decisions of what they believe will be the next big thing. Intel went the route of longer pipelines when they went from P3 to P4, until clockspeeds scaled up, they took a big hit in performance because of this big change, but once clockspeeds got up to the mid-2GHz range, they had awesome performance. (revolutionary)

Then AMD believed 64bit processing for the mainstream was going to be the next big thing so they went that route with the Athlon64 while still supporting 32bit. (revolutionary) Software never caught up in the 64bit realm so that hasn't quite come to fruition yet. Intel continued to crank up clockspeeds with its P4 so it would outperform the Athlon64.

AMD's next gamble was on multi core processing with the X2. (revolutionary) Intel followed suit by trying it out in mobile form first with the Core Duo, learned from that exercise and developed the Core2 series which is kicking butt in the mainstream performance world.

So both sides are doing what they believe the market is heading to. Right now it looks like adding cores is the big trend. What's next, RISC processing? Bring back the PowerPC. LOL

And for a tech company, making a large acquisition and seeing red for a quarter really isn't a big deal. For a small business, as long as you keep turning a profit every month, you're doing fine. For large corporations however, if you're not growing, you're dying. And growth can be in a number of different ways, you can grow your liquid assets (raw cash), market share, or technology, since it is a tech company, which will set things up for the future.

I don't think AMD is in the coffin yet. And Intel, while being the uncontested king of the hill right now, better not sit on it's laurels because once the AMD/ATI merger starts churning out products as a single entity, they might have some major competition.

 

[bendit]

good question. amd has Almost busted itself. now it has to "reboot". It will be around, (it will raise money later this year) but it will exist in a weakend state. Advantage Intel.

 

[bendit]

Without having a look at Intel's info, you do realize that they fired 10,000 people last year? That isn't the sign of a company working like a well-oiled machine...Not to say that Intel isn't better than ever before (maintaining a near monopoly on the market makes it difficult to fuck up), but they certainly aren't invincible.

and this is Exactly what AMD should have done, that is prepare for a massive price war. instead, AMD put its foot on the gas pedal and produced a $611 m loss. Intel used foresight to manage its business. Now AMD has to restructure, but only after admitting that it laid a Gigantic earnings egg.

 

[Digital Viper-X-]

I think I'm going to start a running tally of the number of threads which start every day saying "Is AMD going to make it?" "How will AMD respond?" etc. etc.

This is ridiculous. All I see here is a bunch of people who don't have any experience working in a company like that, much less running a company of that scale. Meanwhile they're sitting here criticizing things we aren't even sure occurred. I don't have any experience either, so unless you're all CEOs of major tech companies fighting a David vs Goliath battle against a company desperately trying to maintain its monopoly, I think this "I could've done it better" mentality is silly. All I've seen so far is a bunch of fan boys complaining...

It's almost as though the Intel fans forgot about Intel sitting on the Netburst architecture for eons..

AMD will be fine, with the release of Barcelona and its derivatives along with R600 and beyond, things will change. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

QFT way too many of these threads around

 

[mikeblas]

Without having a look at Intel's info, you do realize that they fired 10,000 people last year? That isn't the sign of a company working like a well-oiled machine...

Of course it is! A company facing a changing market and competition decides to restructure and reduce redundancy. It's a heathy and correct thing to do; a company that doesn't make such adjustments when needed is the one with the problems.

Yet, somehow, AMD still manages to produce good products. Go figure!

That's the problem. AMD keeps spending on capital to make parts with newer technology, but they can't sell enough of those parts to pay for the capital investment required to produce the new parts. It's not sustainable.

 

[amoeba1126]

Companies dont fire employees just because they do bad. Lots of companies fire off employees even when they are on the price. There are lots of factors that come into play when knocking off employess. Say you get a machine that does sealing for you. The smart choice would then be to fire all the workers taht use to seal for you and hire a single worker or two to look after the machine. Say you found out that you can increase profits by firing a bunch of people while working the remaining harder to keep the same level of production. Of course a company would then work harder. Or say that in order to keep up with initial demands, you had to open up a new branch and now that the market has settled, you dont need so many things. The inevitable path is to fire everyone at that branch and liquidate its assets.

The point is, Intel is at a point right now where they can keep improving their procs while maintaining low prices and AMD no longer has the ability to keep up with a price war and technological advances Intel seems bent on having. In the past Intel had dug itself a comfotable niche and was surprised by AMD. Now Intel has a better product which a ton more improvements waiting to come out and keep AMD reeling. The main question is, will AMD just stop at Barcelona and a step before that, will they have the FUNDS to mass produce and market this new proc.

Another thing that concerns me is this, how will this decrease in funds affect ATI? Will this mean that in the near future we will only be left with Nvidia and Intel? Will Nvidia and Intel take this chance to purchase stocks from AMD/ATI and force it into a subpar company whose sole purpose is to prevent monopoly fines?

 

[Scali2]

It's almost as though the Intel fans forgot about Intel sitting on the Netburst architecture for eons..

From a technical point-of-view this may seem bad indeed...
However, Intel stuck with the Netburst because they *could*.
Intel didn't lose a lot of marketshare even though AMD had the faster and cheaper processors.
So from an economic point-of-view, Netburst wasn't all that bad.
By sticking with Netburst this long, they didn't have to throw their whole schedule around and take risks. Netburst just stayed on the market for as long as Intel originally planned.
They did make changes to their strategy, but nothing short-term. They made long-term changes, and didn't do anything until they were ready to do it.

I think this is a sharp contrast to AMD for example, which pretty much panicked when they saw Intel release their quadcore CPU, and quickly threw the QuadFather together...
Also, they were touting their 'native' architecture.
Ironically enough, AMD is now actually gearing up to use the same multi-die approach to multicore as Intel has done since day 1. So they actually admit that Intel's idea works, and works just fine. Now if Barcelona can't convincingly beat the non-native Kentsfield and Penryn, that's going to make AMD lose even more credibility.

Intel strikes me as a confident and solid corporation because they rarely make rash decisions (okay, there was the 1.13 GHz P3, and the first Extreme Edition wasn't such a good idea either, but they seemed to have learnt from this. Current Extreme Editions are very serious and solid products), and they never try to make their competition look bad. They just focus on trying to make themselves look good, by demonstrating new products, and getting their engineering samples out in the open, for big hardware reviewers to write about.
In a way they just ignore competition. And they can.

 

[SNYP40A1]

AMD is down this year....intel will be down next year...etc etc etc. its all circular.

Can you tell me *why* intel will be down next year?

 

[coldpower27]

I'm just kinda curious but isn't intel being on top a recent development? Amd has had the lead since the pentium 4's came out right? C2D is the only cpu that intel has had in a long time that has out preformed AMD in a long time right? I think I'm right but wanted to confirm it.

It depends, the Pentium 4 vs Athlon 64 was even as each was suited to different tasks, with AMD pulling ahead with the release of Athlon 64x2, and Intel pulling ahead with the release of Core 2 Duo, and Intel will remain ahead in this lead till AMD releases Agena in Q4 2007.

 

[coldpower27]

AMD has always played second fiddle to Intel. The first time they became a real competitor to Intel was with the K7, but Intel managed to hold onto the lead in the end as Intel marketed the hell out of the P4 netburst. When AMD came out with the K8, for the first time, AMD took the entire performance crown from Intel. AMD is now back where it has always been. Hopefully AMD can pull itself back up.



And I suppose in your own little world you would compare a Pentium 3 to a 80486DX4? Why don't you compare a Pentium 3 to the AMD part that was out at the same time? The Athlon K7? Not so much ownage now is there. In fact, I believe the K7 edged by the P3 in performance per clock, and in performance per $, the K7 "OWNED" the P3 completely. K7 1Ghz was like $250 and a P3 1Ghz was like $500 and the K7 was a tad faster.

The Thunderbirds were also running much hotter at the time then Intel's not to mention the crappy VIA chipset support AMD had back then, so while the CPU might have been cheaper, the platform as a whole had other issues to contend with.

As well the CPU wasn't ~$250 till Jan 8th 2001. By then Intel's price on the Pentium 3 1GHZ was $465, however there was a price drop not too long after at Jan 28th which dropped the Pentium 3 1GHZ down to $268, so that situation didn't last more then 3 weeks.

AMD and Intel Pricing in Jan 2001.
http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/CPUPricesAMD01.htm
http://www.mikeshardware.co.uk/CPUPricesIntel01.htm

And considering the brand recognition Intel commanded back then it's like comparing Sony to some no name brand like Akai, there's no contest, 1 can charge a premium simply because they have a good image.

 

[coldpower27]

QFT

I don't even care about best, just what's a good value and is fast enough to keep me happy. Thanks to the latest price cuts (early), I bought 2 new boards and CPUs, an E4300 and a X2 4400+.

-----

Depending how you look at it, AMD doing poorly might still be a good thing. You can scoop up the perfectly good CPUs they're desperate to sell at rock bottom prices.

It's a good thing for consumer in the short term, but not in the long term thinking wise, if AMD has to uncompetitive products and intel has the power to then charge as it please, we've seen this before with the initial Pentium D 8xx vs the Athlon 64x2's AMD was able to charge $500+ to $1001 initially for them.

 

[Vengance_01]

What is up with this. AMD's K8 core has reminded un-change for 4 years. Thats how good a design it was. AMD had intel down and on the ground. Now that Intel finally got there Core 2 out the roles are reversed. I am no fan boy of one or the other, I am a fan boy for the best bang for my buck. The last two years or so it was AMD, now I am using an Intel 6300, its a beast. come Mid next year who ever is on top again, thats who I will buy. Amd will bounce back. Stop starting these dumbass threads about "Ohhh AMD is dead." GRRRR!!

 

[jws2346]

386, 486, Thunderbird, Sheesh, that's all in the past, I think they were all good chips for their time. The point IMO is we need AMD to give Intel some competition. Obviously we wouldn't see these drastic price cuts from Intel and AMD if they weren't in direct competition. (price cuts and competition = good for the consumer) I just purchase the best technology at the time. (I think at the present Intel is the leader, but only temporary)

 

[coldpower27]

The reason why we get all these is AMD dead threads is because AMD's financial situation has always been precarious, and they have never been making that much money.

Intel like has been said multiple times hasn't posted a net loss in the past decade or longer, and has been making still making a large net profit for the entirety, of the NetBurst reign and decent profit for the Core 2 Duo reign, less then normal though since they are focused on regaining marketshare.

 

[Scali2]

What is up with this. AMD's K8 core has reminded un-change for 4 years. Thats how good a design it was. AMD had intel down and on the ground. Now that Intel finally got there Core 2 out the roles are reversed. I am no fan boy of one or the other, I am a fan boy for the best bang for my buck. The last two years or so it was AMD, now I am using an Intel 6300, its a beast. come Mid next year who ever is on top again, thats who I will buy. Amd will bounce back. Stop starting these dumbass threads about "Ohhh AMD is dead." GRRRR!!

The point of my post was that AMD has only 'bounced back' once. They've been on top with K7, got dethroned by P4 Northwood, then bounced back with K8, which is now again dethroned.
Considering that AMD has been at it since 1991, so roughly 16 years, being on top for about 2-3 years total, and bouncing back only once so far, I don't think there's enough of a pattern here to assume that AMD will always be on top.
It might aswell have been the exception to the rule.
Point I was also making is that AMD is still working from a ~4 year refresh cycle. As I demonstrated with the history of CPU introductions, AMD slowly gained on Intel because of the shorter cycle, and managed to eventually come out on top twice so far.
However, Intel has now changed its strategy from ~5 year refresh to ~1 year refresh. Unless AMD changes their strategy, that means Barcelona will get pounded to a slow and painful death the coming 4 years, and there may not be enough of a budget for R&D to come up with any kind of competitive CPU at all.
And even if AMD changes their strategy, it will be tough to keep competing against Intel, who used to be a sleeping giant waking up every 5 years to deal out a blow, to a wide awake giant who will pound you year after year.

To me it looks like there's no way AMD can get back on top anytime soon. They simply don't have the resources for R&D to keep refreshing their products every year, they never had, and because Intel has engaged in a pricewar, they're bleeding AMD's income dry, so R&D will suffer even more, and they'll also have a tougher time to keep investing in renewing their plants to keep up in terms of manufacturing technology.
I think there are only two ways out:
1) AMD will have to cut down its operation, so it will have less fabs and produce less CPUs, but in return it can keep those fabs more up-to-date in terms of technology. They can also keep developing CPUs at a lower rate than Intel, but at least try to peak every 4-5 years to try and get back in the performance race, knowing that it won't last that long, and will slip back to low-budget long before the next refresh.
2) AMD will have to make high-volume, low-budget chips, which are good value-for-money, but don't compete in terms of performance. Then try to compete against Intels Celerons and such, pretty much the way AMD originally started.
Then they just have to hope that Intel once again leaves a gap that they can jump into, as was the case with the K7/K8. But because of Intels new strategy, these gaps will never be as long as they were with the P4.

 

[quadnad]

From a technical point-of-view this may seem bad indeed...
However, Intel stuck with the Netburst because they *could*.
Intel didn't lose a lot of marketshare even though AMD had the faster and cheaper processors.
So from an economic point-of-view, Netburst wasn't all that bad.

Right, like I said, it's hard to suck financially when you've practically got a monopoly. Doesn't really matter if the competition has a better product if consumers aren't aware of it.

I'm confident that AMD will be able to pull themselves out of this.

 

[Scali2]

I'm confident that AMD will be able to pull themselves out of this.

As are many people on this part of the forum.
But what are you basing this on?
I also read a lot of "Barcelona has to be a killer product for AMD to succeed, so it will be".
To which I think "Yes, just like all those other companies that went bankrupt because they had to deliver that killer product".
Now I don't want to talk AMD down, I've actually used an Athlon XP for a number of years, and I'd buy their products again, if they again give me the best price/performance... But I have to be realistic... AMD is not in a healthy financial period, and the Core2 is just very, very good, and keeps getting better.
I don't think AMD will have to go bankrupt, but there's a huge difference between being bankrupt and making the fastest CPUs. I just think they'll end up making low to mid-end products in the next few years.

 

[Tutelary]

A
The thing that bothers me the most is how I read about AMD having a really amazing quarter now and then, and all the AMD exec's get shit faced and give themselves huge raises or stock options. Shouldn't that profit go to paying the bills they accumulated on all the other quarters they lost money? It's like they just don't get it.

they get it completely. They gather enough money up in the short term that they can easily retire and sit on the beach the rest of their lives. They dont care about AMD down the line.

 

[Donnie27]

Right, like I said, it's hard to suck financially when you've practically got a monopoly. Doesn't really matter if the competition has a better product if consumers aren't aware of it.

I'm confident that AMD will be able to pull themselves out of this.

Sorry but just plain wrong. If Intel couldn't build C2D, they're getting killed by now. The market determines what Intel does. All the talk of unfettered monopoly is just BS! The market should have squelched all that crap at least a year ago. AMD did have a steady market share gain after about 18 straight quarters of losses. Conroe is the only fracking thing that stopped those gains as it rightly should have. Conroe Caused AMD's current problems, not some stupid BS about a Monopoly.

AMD earned their gains made. Let me see, AMD is supposed to still be doing well in a market that down and with an inferior product, WOW, that's rich. If Barkie kicks ass, and isn't priced on the market like X2 was, then we'll see AMD strong again.

 

[quadnad]

Conroe Caused AMD's current problems, not some stupid BS about a Monopoly.

If you read my post, I was saying that it's hard to suck financially when you've practically got a monopoly. With the sheer amount of vendors pushing Intel's chips, and Intel's marketshare, even when you have a relatively inferior product (P4 and A64), you'll still sell plenty of processors (and they did with groups like Dell maintaining plenty of preferential treatment for a while; not that it's illegal or anything, but it's just one element of their ubiquity). This price war caused by Conroe has hurt both companies badly, however Intel has much deeper pockets and can therefore afford to stay in the game for much longer if this all continues.

Donnie, I feel like you read my posts, then claim the opposite on something I wasn't actually arguing about.

 

[Manny Calavera]

Like developing a CPU that was worth a damn

They should have poured that cash into ramping up the fabs.Maybe just maybe,a barky or Kuma or Agena would on my desktop right now,instead of at best 8 months away.

 

[jstnomega]

a few years ago amd were second dog but they worked hard and got on top

more like the 1996 Master's Tournament 4th round back 9, in which Norman blew a 6 stroke lead - AMD did not leap to the front - rather, Intel leapt to the rear

do not expect to see such a repeat any time soon, if ever

 

[Donnie27]

Donnie, I feel like you read my posts, then claim the opposite on something I wasn't actually arguing about.

I moved your last line to the front so I can do this a different way. Then maybe you'd where I disagree wholeheartedly with you.

If you read my post, I was saying that it's hard to suck financially when you've practically got a monopoly.

The market put Intel where it is. Intel hasn't had to put up with POS motherboards, 3rd parties supporting them as an afterthought. This one is importantly. System support. You can't support a system if you're a parts supplier like AMD use to be. Intel is and has always been a systems supplier. Do you know that in the eighties they manufactured RAM?

With the sheer amount of vendors pushing Intel's chips, and Intel's marketshare, even when you have a relatively inferior product (P4 and A64), you'll still sell plenty of processors (and they did with groups like Dell maintaining plenty of preferential treatment for a while; not that it's illegal or anything, but it's just one element of their ubiquity).

Venders aren't Pawns, they're not dumb and they're NOT Intel Fans. Several companies bit the dust trying to go AMD only when VIA motherboards stunk up the place. To this day, the Folks at Dell will tell you VIA sucks! What good is a speedy Processor if folks are calling it Crashlon because the motherboards sucked?

This price war caused by Conroe has hurt both companies badly, however Intel has much deeper pockets and can therefore afford to stay in the game for much longer if this all continues.

Intel started the price war in the 1st quarter of 2006 with the Pentium D and by the second quarter all prices were cut including Xeons. Conroe didn't launch until the 3rd quarter and AMD didn't cut prices until after Conroe. Intel fact, AMD still gained market share the 3rd quarter of last year.

There are threads here that will back me saying they would cut prices sooner than most AMD folks thought they would. Ask Visaris and Duby229? Now are you reading your own posts? If Intel were even monopoly *like, they wouldn't have to cut prices. They damned sure could have set Conroe at higher price points like AMD did with X2.

Dell STILL gets preferential treatment LOL! Dell gets cash back on every ad that you hear the Intel jingle at the end of the spot. AMD hasn't been able to do the same. Or do you know how that works? The Intel and Dell or anyone else marketing agreement is 100% legit.

Intel has Deeper pockets because they did what many in this market jumped them for doing as something stupid when they did it. They diversified. Again, short memories uh? Oh wait I remember, "If Intel would just concentrate on Processors they'd not make so many mistakes". Poor Intel, they only cleared 1.6 billion instead of 1.9, oh brother. If AMD has something worth a damned, the market will buy it and they'll gain market share=P Opteron and X2 Proved that. Anything else about monopoly and or etc....................... is just plained old BS! Again, Conroe absolutely saved Intel's ass. Without Conroe Dell might be 100% AMD

Being laid-off isn't the same thing as being fired LOL!

 

[quadnad]

The market put Intel where it is. Intel hasn't had to put up with POS motherboards, 3rd parties supporting them as an afterthought. This one is importantly. System support. You can't support a system if you're a parts supplier like AMD use to be. Intel is and has always been a systems supplier. Do you know that in the eighties they manufactured RAM?

Yeah, I know about the history of both AMD and Intel. As for the flakey mobo support, that isn't something that AMD has had to worry about essentially since the NForce 3 (754) days.

Venders aren't Pawns, they're not dumb and they're NOT Intel Fans.

I'm not saying that vendors are pawns, I'm saying that the vast majority stock Intel processors because of their stranglehold on the market. It isn't a surprise or anything; Intel has been leading the way since the introduction of microprocessors. Anyway, with Mr. Dell back at the helm, we'll see what goes on with Dell.

If Intel were even monopoly *like, they wouldn't have to cut prices. They damned sure could have set Conroe at higher price points like AMD did with X2.

The thing I'm saying is that they're practically a monopoly; they're a company trying to protect a monopoly. In my opinion, AMD has finally poked Intel in the ass, and reminded them that they're a serious player. Intel has realized this, responded with Conroe, and will continue to be aggressive. If Intel didn't lower prices, AMD would (as they have) dropped prices in order to maintain competitive with Conroe until AMD's Barcelona and its derivatives arrive.

Intel has Deeper pockets because they did what many in this market jumped them for doing as something stupid when they did it. They diversified. Again, short memories uh?

This has nothing to do with 'short memories,' it has to do with being a more established company which has led innovation during the wonder years of microprocessor development (yielding many more $$$ allowing them to do such things as researching for their own platforms). AMD has finally had the opportunity to purchase ATi, which leads them to be able to produce their own motherboards under the AMD name, which gives them the primary benefit of maintaining a closed and controlled platform. I hope this works out for them.

 

[Donnie27]

Yeah, I know about the history of both AMD and Intel. As for the flakey mobo support, that isn't something that AMD has had to worry about essentially since the NForce 3 (754) days.


I'm not saying that vendors are pawns, I'm saying that the vast majority stock Intel processors because of their stranglehold on the market. It isn't a surprise or anything; Intel has been leading the way since the introduction of microprocessors. Anyway, with Mr. Dell back at the helm, we'll see what goes on with Dell.


The thing I'm saying is that they're practically a monopoly; they're a company trying to protect a monopoly. In my opinion, AMD has finally poked Intel in the ass, and reminded them that they're a serious player. Intel has realized this, responded with Conroe, and will continue to be aggressive. If Intel didn't lower prices, AMD would (as they have) dropped prices in order to maintain competitive with Conroe until AMD's Barcelona and its derivatives arrive.


This has nothing to do with 'short memories,' it has to do with being a more established company which has led innovation during the wonder years of microprocessor development (yielding many more $$$ allowing them to do such things as researching for their own platforms). AMD has finally had the opportunity to purchase ATi, which leads them to be able to produce their own motherboards under the AMD name, which gives them the primary benefit of maintaining a closed and controlled platform. I hope this works out for them.

Alright, I stand by what I said I wish AMD luck and hope like hell Barkie kicks ass=P The market takes care of itself. If Intel didn't have anything, they'd would have a hold on the market like they do. Each time AMD had something the Market rewarded them, that's not my opinion but a fact. You're either a monopoly or you're not. It's like being pregnant LOL!

 

[mikeblas]

Without Conroe Dell might be 100% AMD

That obviously isn't true. AMD doesn't have the production capacity to keep up with Dell's demand, not to mention any other first-tier vendor.

 

[empoy]

the world needs AMD (or another x86 architecture company) to keep Intel from doing a monopoly.

 

[Scali2]

the world needs AMD (or another x86 architecture company) to keep Intel from doing a monopoly.

I keep hearing that.
But look at the history I posted a while back... AMD didn't start until 1991.
PCs have been around since 1981.
Now I've actually used computers in that time, and I never considered AMD having a big impact on things. Computers haven't evolved all that much faster since AMD started competing, and prices haven't gone down much.
The fastest CPUs are still around $1000 these days, and the cheap processors are still pretty much last generation's leftovers. You still have to lay down quite a lot of money to get an up-to-date system so you can properly run the latest OS and applications.
I've pretty much had a pattern of spending about $1000 every 3-4 years to get a complete new system, and remain up-to-date. Nothing much has changed in all these years.

If you ask me, AMD is just too small and insignificant to have much of an impact on the PC-world overall. They had their moment in the spotlight with K7 and K8, but what changed, really? The only difference was that AMD started selling expensive $1000 CPUs aswell. But below those 'extreme' processors, there have always been good performers for reasonable prices from either Intel or AMD, or both. Now their marketshare is again dropping and they're back to battling at the lower end, and are basically below my radar when I upgrade my system, as they've pretty much always been, except for that one time where I bought an Athlon instead of a Pentium 3/4.

I think ATi/NVIDIA is a much better example of how competition heats up a market... But those two companies were pretty much the same size. At AMD's best, Intel was still at least 3 times as large and powerful, and doesn't really have to pay much attention to what AMD does. Just like the example above with Dell. AMD simply doesn't have the capacity to get a Dell-exclusive contract. So why would Intel worry?
Besides, Intel still has a stranglehold on AMD with the x86-licensing. AMD will always have a weak position in terms of competition, because their products are licensed from Intel, their main competitor. It's just never going to work that way, when you have to play by the rules of your biggest competitor.

 

[osalcido]

one things for sure.. they only have $1.1 billion in cash and just posted a loss of 600$ million for ONE QUARTER. Two more quarters of this and there won't be any money left to pay Hector's Ferrari bills. if nothing changes, AMD will be out of money in 5 Months!! If barcelona/agenafx dont kick Core2's ass considerably, AMD will be done for!

 

[empoy]

If AMD is insignificant as you're painting it to be, my current employer would still be pushing Netburst architecture and would still be the same self-centered company as it was.

its good to have competition. brings out the best in Intel.

 

[Scali2]

If AMD is insignificant as you're painting it to be, my current employer would still be pushing Netburst architecture and would still be the same self-centered company as it was.

That's absolute nonsense. Netburst is actually the longest running Intel architecture ever, *despite* receiving the most heavy competition that Intel has ever faced.
It's no secret that Netburst isn't exactly Intel's most successful architecture ever. So I can draw no other conclusion than AMD in fact being insignificant in Intel's strategy. In fact, perhaps they've actually stretched the life of Netburst a bit to make sure their next CPU was ready. In no way I believe that Intel dropped Netburst before they originally planned, because it's already been running longer than anything else they've ever put out.
Intel is mostly competing against itself, as it's always been. CPUs don't exactly wear out, and the market is pretty much saturated, so you have to keep improving your CPUs significantly enough to keep the cycle of upgrades going, else you find yourself not selling any CPUs because your previous generation is still doing the job just fine, and nobody sees a reason to upgrade.
It's the only conclusion you can draw, given the fact that Intel has *always* adhered to Moore's law and has significantly improved their product before AMD even *started* making CPUs in 1991. Intel already had gone from 4004 to 80486.
And until K7, AMD never threatened Intel enough in terms of performance or marketshare... yet Intel continued to develop new processors. I'd say that the Core2 is the first architecture to possibly have had any influence by AMD at all. But even then it's hard to determine in what way... because Core2 on the other hand is an evolution of the PPro architecture which was developed long before AMD became any threat at all.

I think the influence of AMD is just way overrated by a lot of people, there's very little evidence that Intel actually bothered much.
I think the move from 5 year cycles to yearly rehash is the most significant one, but it's not of a technical nature. Also, I think this decision alone will make AMD again take a backseat and effectively undo their influence on Intel again.

 

[osalcido]

it would be kinda funny if AMD did go down the toilet....... i know i'd be laughing especially hard at all those future poofters that bought socket AM2 to upgrade to Agena

 

[sn3ak3rp1mp]

Just go to Google Finance and chart out INTC & AMD over the past five years. Volatile stock trading during quarterly earning statements always makes me laugh. I'm sure AMD will end up just fine.

From April 2002, in Q1 2006 Intel was *down* 32% and AMD was *up* 233%