• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Big AMD losses

Associate
Joined
10 Mar 2006
Posts
495
I know it's been said before, but seriously, how long can AMD carry on like this? It's not like they have the same financial muscle as Intel to see them through lean periods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7353865.stm

Apologies cos I know this kind of story has been posted before.

Edit - but seriously, £180m in one quarter? A year and a half of that and you're stuck for a billion quid.
 
Last edited:
I have always prefered intel.

But i do hope AMD turn it around. Constant competition is the best scenario for consumers. It promotes technological advances and price wars :)

Don't want intel having a monopoly!
 
I must admit, I do prefer AMD, they were the chips I used in my first custom built PC's, and then again with the first AMD64 bit chips

Its only the sheer gap in performance these days thats meant I've gone over to Intel

I'd love for them to pull it back though, I'd be quick to jump ship once again
 
i prefer amd/ati, ive only ever had 2 intel systems and they was ok but personly amd/ati as better support..

im sure amd will pull it back.. they've done a good job with the new b3 phenoms. the 9850 is on per with intel Q6600.. also it can easyly clock to 3-3.20ghz..
 
i prefer amd/ati, ive only ever had 2 intel systems and they was ok but personly amd/ati as better support..

im sure amd will pull it back.. they've done a good job with the new b3 phenoms. the 9850 is on per with intel Q6600.. also it can easyly clock to 3-3.20ghz..

It really isn't on par though is it

The difference between the two is still there in most applications
 
and then again with the first AMD64 bit chips

Then again, Intel invented the X86 instruction set, then intel added 32bit extensions, Intel also responsible for the X86 implementations of SIMD instructions first under MMX and later with SSE/2/3/4.

If intel hadnt been trying to push its Merced processor, it would have made the 64bit X86's before AMD, but Intel's management were being very stubborn at the time.

Full marks for AMD for having the forsight to implement 64bit extensions, but for the large part, the change from 32bit to 64bit wasnt much different to the move from 16bit to 32bit... Glad AMD decided to add extra 64bit registers though, rather than just extend the standard 16/32bit registers to 64bit. X86 was always a little short on general purpose registers.

I've always prefered intel (Although I never bothered buying a Prescott), but absolutly respect AMD for the work they have made, and without AMD nobody would be there to keep intel on their toes. So for sure I hope that AMD manage to improve their finances :)

Phenom bearly keeps up with Q6600 at any given clock rate, there are a few exceptions where the native quad does better, but overall Intel still has the performance, and to be honest, why compare with the Q6600, thats a Kentsfield, Penryn parts are overall slightly faster, and with their higher FSB, and larger cache suffer less on highly multithreaded applications than Kentsfield.

To be honest, I was hoping that Phenom was going to stomp all over Core 2 in performance, as Core2 has been in retail for almost 2 years now. Sure AMD have some more designs coming along, but Intel's Nehelem will be released this year as well, at least for the enthusiasts market, and that processor will remove a lot of Intels "legacy" bottlenecks, like the FSB, and lack of integrated memory controller. (Although intel proved with Core2 that with good design, memory bandwidth isnt always a performance issue).
 
Last edited:
For overall snappiness of response the AMD X2's were always my favourites.

Like has been said though: gaming/encoding performance is so much better with core architecture that it's a no brainer at the moment.

Ultimately though, AMD and NVIDIA would be my preffered combo. :)

gt
 
I know it's been said before, but seriously, how long can AMD carry on like this? It's not like they have the same financial muscle as Intel to see them through lean periods.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7353865.stm

Apologies cos I know this kind of story has been posted before.

Edit - but seriously, £180m in one quarter? A year and a half of that and you're stuck for a billion quid.

NIce for not knowing much about business. 1billion debt is NOTHING to companies AMD's size, and wouldn't be a blip on a company Intel's size.


Their chip making fab's alone are worth multiple billions. THe turnover on chips made in a year while controlling roughly 20% of the market is huge and ATi are making big gains 3.1% up this year is a big step and they also make a lot of money.

Debt is a problem in this game when debt starts to rival company value, thats when support is lost and companies fold.

Arsenal took on a £300million debt to build a new stadium, we now have to pay of almost £2 million a month, but make say £3million a month more than we used to. So even though we're in debt, and even though we pay off 2 mil a month, the profits are up 1million.

AMD are sitting on an approved application to build a new fab that will be worth several hundred million, once built they can either slowly pay off debt with increased chip sales with increased production, or they could sell the fab and make a several hundred million profit.

This is how companies work. AMD in no debt, which would mean NO reinvestment, tiny R&D budget, no expansion might not be in debt, but they would in 2 years have no chips that were capable of 10% of what intel can produce and would also cost twice as much as intel's chips so they would go under instantly with 3-4 fab's of old tech no one wants that are next to worthless bar their land value. Chips that are worth nothing, no good technologys to sell to anyone, no patents anyone wants to buy a licence for. They would go completely under.

By aquiring debt to compete in the silicon world they actually keep their business value and make lots of money for lots of people.

America and the UK is in trillions of pounds of debt, but they are worth so much more than that, it doesn't matter.


debt does not equal being in trouble, or failure, never has, never will.
 
"NIce for not knowing much about business. 1billion debt is NOTHING to companies AMD's size, and wouldn't be a blip on a company Intel's size."

That'd be true a couple of years ago, they're now worth around 3 billion (think the figure was 3.85 last time I checked), so, yeah, I'd say it's something. Intel's Core along with AMD's poor timing buying ATi all came together and really ate into AMD's cash reserves over the last couple of years...
 
AMD aren't idiots. They are a massive corporation. They wouldn't buy ATi when they couldn't afford it, that's idiocy. AMD's CPUs and GPUs are slightly behind the competition but are certainly no slouch performance wise.

I suspect AMD have a plan tbh.
 
AMD is deep in the red at the moment. Wish them the best.

Cradit crunch, US recession, and european economic slowdown in general is here to last and as a result people stopped spending.
 
Even if AMD didn't buy ATI how long it would take for Intel to catch them up and AMD would be in trouble again no as soon as now but in the near future. If AMD manages to pull this off and doesn't go bankrupt then the least of what the company would offer is competition which alone ain't a bad thing.
I am an optimist and i strongly believe that AMD can do the same damage to Intel as they did with the K8. At the moment Intel seems invinsible but let's not forget that nobody expected AMD to pull off what they did some years ago. It seems to me that the company that will not seriously foul up with a transision into a smaller scale(what happent with AMD on the transision to 65nm) will lead the industry. Intel seems like they are doing good with their upcoming 32nm technology at the end of 2009 and AMD is working with IBM now on 45nm and 32nm which is a good thing.
As said the new B3 shows promise of things to come from AMD, shame that i bought the Q6600 a few days before the B3 arrived.
 
"NIce for not knowing much about business. 1billion debt is NOTHING to companies AMD's size, and wouldn't be a blip on a company Intel's size."

That'd be true a couple of years ago, they're now worth around 3 billion (think the figure was 3.85 last time I checked), so, yeah, I'd say it's something. Intel's Core along with AMD's poor timing buying ATi all came together and really ate into AMD's cash reserves over the last couple of years...

yes, thats an incredibly short sighted well publicised and completely incorrect opinion. ATi is actually improving by the day, its latest set of products has completely turned the company around. They were losing market share and value when AMD bought them, they are going the opposite way now. THey would cost significantly more for AMD to buy them today, they bought a company before an incredibly competitive cheap set of products came out and subsequently they've made a decent profit by means of buying a company at a lower point and now its at a higher point.

Also ALL of INTELS and AMD's plans revolve around on die intergrated gpu within 1-2 years, ALL of their chips will support them and therefore AMD HAD to get into the gfx market.

So either they did it now, after ATi's market share has turned from loss, to gain with Nvidia weakening. Or they buy them today, or in a year, for a heck of a lot more cash. Brilliant planning that would be.

Also simply by merging the overal financial power of both companies together is larger. 2 companies worth 1 billion each, banks might give them a 100mil loan, a single 2 billion pound company , they woudl loan them 500mil, as the company is stronger as a whole and the opportunities to make, for instance an incredibly powerful very cheap incredibly low power highly spec'd 780g platform that Intel and AMD have simply nothing to come close to at the moment, again another massive step.

AMD can now provide bulk pricing on whole setups for laptop makers with 780g setups, where as before they couldn't, and an Intel centrino setup was an easier all in one solution.

Everyone seems to think because AMD came up with one significantly better chip that if they can't do that again they'll fold. They've ALWAYS been in massive debt, they've almost always been behind on performance. Thats what happens when you're 1/10th the size and have 1/100th of the R&D budget. Thousands of companies survive worldwide in the same situation.

180million loss still is nothing on a 4billion pound company. Because future earnings from the company are set to be in the 100's of billions, maybe over the next 5, 10 or 50 years. Banks have never been in business for short term gains. Banks LOVE companies in debt paying interest rather than just storing money, it gets banks more money. Banks love AMD, AMD generates their debt holders hundreds of millions of pounds a year while AMD grow and expand, gain market share, increase turnover and will eventually get to a point they pay off lots of their loans.

This is why I laugh at these threads, who exactly is losing by AMD being in loss? their own board are making 1 million a year each instead of 20million each, no one else loses money, banks make money on debt so they love it. The staff are all paid, the jobs created by new fabs make governments money. The competition means all buyers of both AMD and Intel chips get better value for money and even Intel like AMD as firstly, they use half of AMD's patents, and secondly, at the moment they make Intel look better.
 
Although the outlook may look bleak, isn't the graphics division, whilst not there in pure power, not doing too badly in the mid to upper mid market?
 
A lot of people here are saying that AMD are a huge company and they can take the loses- they aren't and they can't for much longer. AMD are high profile, but are small fish and that's the problem. They don't have the sales to cover the massive R&D cost's that it takes to design a chip. AFAIK AMD+ATI are worth less now than what ATI cost AMD- that's how bad the market views AMD. It's over for AMD, sad but true.
 
I know very little on how such large scale companies such Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) work. Though, I have always been very curious and quite simply confused when some people simply say that a very large company is simply going to disappear due to the news that is being published.

How can we as consumers possibly say that a company such as AMD will be dying out from the information that we are given because surely their must be a lot more background work and countless things that go on behind the scenes that we don't know about and simply never will. :)
 
Last edited:
People seem to be missing the point that, yes, they are in debt... BUT, they made a profit and are in less debt than before and are on the rise. I'd be worried if they were still making a loss, but they aren't. They are recovering their losses. No worries.
 
nice to read so many intelligent posts

i would just like to add amd suck bone!

Thanks for your personal insight there, great contribution :rolleyes:

Anyway on topic, I find there's nothing wrong with my AMD system for what it's needed for. So what it may not get to 3.8GHz Oc'd and be as good as Intel systems, but hey we learn from mistakes we made (well I did when I purchased all the parts years ago).
But it certainly doesn't stop me from buying AMD in the future.

Am i worried AMD/ATi will disappear? No they'll be around for years to come, Firegod said they've made a profit and they are slowly getting back on track. The graphics section of the company I'd assume is gaining market share and thus bringing in needed finances.

Plus I'd hate to have a monopoly situation with just intel.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom