AMD - Dissapointed but not in trouble says meyer, but the future is looking better.

something_totally_different · 13 Dec 2007 at 19:43

AMD acknowledges quad-core woes; Promises rebound; Highlights roadmap

AMD chief operating officer Dirk Meyer acknowledged Thursday that the launch of its quad-core Opteron chips, formerly known as Barcelona, has been a disappointment. But he also urged customers and investors not to overlook AMD’s promise and accomplishments.

Meyer, speaking at its annual financial analyst conference in New York, was up front about the Barcelona problems, which have been widely reported. SPEC invalidated CPU results for Barcelona today. “We haven’t delivered our quad core product according to plan,” said Meyer. “We’ll make good on our promise to deliver hundreds of thousands of quad core processors, but we’re disappointed.”

However, Meyer also noted that the consensus view that AMD is a troubled company is wrong. “Now is one of those times where we see things that others don’t,” said Meyer. “We’ve done a lot of things well, but one thing we haven’t.”
Overall, AMD has more positives than negatives, argued Meyer.

Meyer added that the “one thing,” also known as the Barcelona launch, is on its way to being fixed and volume shipments will launch in the first quarter. “We’re hellbent on fixing our quad core,” said Meyer.

AMD is looking to reshape the chip debate with a focus on platforms. Meyer noted that being the fastest chip isn’t the entire game. Power matters as does enabling better graphic capabilities. AMD also has products in the pipeline to address the HDTV and mobile markets. Meanwhile, AMD also has quad-core design wins.

That’s all true. In fact, the mainstream market may not really care about the gigahertz wars. “We’re going to focus on profit pools of the industry. compelling performance and value for mainstream markets,” said Meyer.

But the big issue remains execution and after the Barcelona launch AMD is in the penalty box with investors and customers.

Mario Rivas, executive vice president of AMD’s computing products group, added that quad-core execution “was our number one challenge.” “We are not happy with our performance. We let down our customers. And that must not continue. We will fix it,” said Rivas.

Once the quad-core issues are rectified, AMD is focusing on its roadmap, which targets numerous market niches. Here’s a look on what’s on tap for server/workstations.

As you can see, AMD is planning to go beyond quad-core in 2009. More to follow later.

somehow I don't feel quite as dreary now when i look at that shiny green logo.

dr. sarf · 13 Dec 2007 at 19:50

It'll be good to see where AMD go from here, and I'll be watching them closely. After 8 years loyal usage, I've become an Intel customer for the 1st time since they just have the edge in the market at the moment.

I don't think AMD are down and out - you can't be ahead of the game 100% of the time, and their time to lead the way will no doubt come around again, then everyone will go AMD and talk about underperforming Intels and whether that company will go bust etc.

something_totally_different · 13 Dec 2007 at 20:10

dr. sarf said:
you can't be ahead of the game 100% of the time, and their time to lead the way will no doubt come around again,

the problem is AMD were never ahead of the game until 2002. so who knows if their time will come again.

CossackNoodle · 13 Dec 2007 at 20:23

i think intel only stepped up their game because amd was starting to eat into their share hopefully amd can keep up and be competitive

sammie377 · 13 Dec 2007 at 21:01

It will be nice to see AMD come back, I'm on Intel for now but have always had AMD before, I would certainly buy AMD if they make the best speed per £ again.

mrthingyx · 13 Dec 2007 at 23:14

For some reason, this chap just sounds more... intelligent than Mr. Ruiz. Not being disparaging at all, but at least this guy is coming reasonably close to calling a spade a spade.

oweneades · 13 Dec 2007 at 23:17

I do think that apart from the woeful release of the Phenom cpu AMD / ATI really hit the sweet spot with their new 38xx line.

I will say however that the 29xx line should never have existed and they should have just come straight out with the 38xx lineup. (albeit named as the 2900 is that makes sense)

something_totally_different · 13 Dec 2007 at 23:40

mrthingyx said:
For some reason, this chap just sounds more... intelligent than Mr. Ruiz. Not being disparaging at all, but at least this guy is coming reasonably close to calling a spade a spade.

my thoughts exactly, consumers and investors respond much better to honesty than they do to unexpected disappointments.

oweneades said:
I do think that apart from the woeful release of the Phenom cpu AMD / ATI really hit the sweet spot with their new 38xx line.

I will say however that the 29xx line should never have existed and they should have just come straight out with the 38xx lineup. (albeit named as the 2900 is that makes sense)

yup, it was another X1800XT all over again. an entire line replaced in less than 10 weeks.

Trunks9486 · 14 Dec 2007 at 14:56

At least X1800XT was competitve though ~_^

something_totally_different · 14 Dec 2007 at 18:03

Trunks9486 said:
At least X1800XT was competitve though ~_^

the phenom cpu`s are competitive, they are 13.4% slower than core2 and 13.6% cheaper if you buy them from the right places. unfortunately there seems to be some minor price hiking going on at the larger sellers with regards to phenom cpu`s which makes them look uncompetitive when they are not in the slightest providing they are sold at the proper rrp.

FrankJH · 14 Dec 2007 at 18:28

You can only support an MD who calls it like it actually is - good on AMD.

Ok so they made a mitake and were late to market, but hopefully things are in place to continue to grow and develop as they have in the past.

Im sure the circle will come around again and Intel will be on the back foot

Lightnix · 14 Dec 2007 at 20:14

Hopefully future revisions of Phenom will yield higher so they can be sold cheaper and faster. That'd be nice. If Phenom 9500 was around the £120 mark people'd be jumping all over them and AMD knows that; maybe the new steppings will yield better and AMD'll be back on the price/performance CPU waggon.

I don't suppose they had the chance to come out with 38xx earlier as ramping up a new production process takes a matter of months. I guess they could've skimped and gone 65nm like the 26/2400 series.

MumboJumbo · 14 Dec 2007 at 23:02

FrankJH said:
You can only support an MD who calls it like it actually is - good on AMD.

Ok so they made a mitake and were late to market, but hopefully things are in place to continue to grow and develop as they have in the past.

Im sure the circle will come around again and Intel will be on the back foot

made a mistake? How can you launch a quad core which doesn't work properly. how the hell did i get past testing? How comes it took them twice as long as intel? How comes the 2900 totaly sucked at everything they said it would accell in. They have some serious issues with their testing team.

something_totally_different · 15 Dec 2007 at 00:13

8igdave said:
made a mistake? How can you launch a quad core which doesn't work properly. how the hell did i get past testing? How comes it took them twice as long as intel? How comes the 2900 totaly sucked at everything they said it would accell in. They have some serious issues with their testing team.

the 2900 range i cant speak for but as for the rest i can say this. dont be so daft!

8igdave said:
made a mistake? How can you launch a quad core which doesn't work properly. how the hell did i get past testing?

it got past testing because the error in question is a totally obscure one and as NO ONE has any experience with a 3 tier quad core architecture, not even intel, it was an unexpected side effect of an ambitious but overcomplicated project.

8igdave said:
How comes it took them twice as long as intel?

judging from your post count you have been here long enough to know the answer to that question so stop a moment and engage the grey matter. Intel has ten times the budget of AMD and was working on multiple architectures which they combined to form the conroe architecture. AMD can only work on one at a time.

as for you question what you should have been asking was how the bloody hell a company like AMD who is ten times smaller than Intel managed to build and market a better chip than intel for 3 years running. and more importantly, ask yourself why AMD`s market share barely grew.

Tute · 15 Dec 2007 at 00:29

The 2900XT was late but certainly didn't "suck". Although I do think the 3800 series should have been the 2900 series and the 2900 series the 2800 series, as they're essentially the same card.

I do worry about performance increases though. With AMD/ATi targeting mainstream, who's there to push performance at the top?

something_totally_different · 15 Dec 2007 at 02:09

Tute said:
The 2900XT was late but certainly didn't "suck". Although I do think the 3800 series should have been the 2900 series and the 2900 series the 2800 series, as they're essentially the same card.

I do worry about performance increases though. With AMD/ATi targeting mainstream, who's there to push performance at the top?

i think the point is that if you do like AMD/ATi have done and build a scalable mainstreme architecture thats affordable (i.e. the 38XX range) then you no longer need to go for the high end as every time the competition comes out with a new high end card you simply drop in an affordable new 38XX component and bang, your up at the high end without having to do a major upgrade or shell out too much cash

Gashman · 15 Dec 2007 at 18:17

yeah even when intel released core 2 AMD was still perfectly competative in the mainstream, for example their 4400+ X2 was equal to the E6300 it was priced similarly to, so all the AMD doomers are talking from there rear ends

Columbo · 15 Dec 2007 at 19:24

Yup be great see them make a comeback. I dont really mind which company I use as long as I'm getting the best performance for my hard earned moola!!

morguk · 15 Dec 2007 at 21:07

Why dont/cant AMD just lower there price to £120 for the 9500 phenom? I know they would have less profit, but they would have more customers and offer and excellent bang for buck CPU.

mrthingyx · 15 Dec 2007 at 22:05

Their RRP is about £130. but retailers are doing the whole "early adopter" thing. Nothing to do with AMD/Intel.