Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

AMD dying?Worth less than it paid for ATI

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 12, 2007 11:42:01 PM

Don't much care about the rest except this quote couldn't be more true:
Quote:
To keep Intel on its toes, we need AMD to make a recovery. Otherwise Intel may enter a complacent phase again, and that wouldn't be good for those of us uber-geeks.



December 12, 2007 11:48:46 PM

I like Intel and have never owned and probably never will own an AMD system unless AMD makes a product that is considerably better than anything Intel has to offer. But, I realize that consumers NEED AMD because if they go under, guess who is going to pay ridiculous prices when it comes to CPUs, video cards, mobos, etc. There has to be competition or they will be able to rape us for every penny they can. I really hope that AMD can recover and improve to give Intel something to compete against. After all, competition is one thing that improves technology.
Related resources
December 13, 2007 12:01:55 AM

I agree also that we need AMD,at least to keep Intel in check.I look at the AMD/Intel war,like the old Chevy vs Ford war.You like one or the other,but not both.Nothing against AMD,but Ive always preferred Intel(just like Ive always driven Fords).I hope AMD will come around,so the average working class people can still afford Intels best CPU's.
December 13, 2007 12:07:43 AM

I was under the impression that this has been going on for years.
December 13, 2007 12:32:02 AM

bs6749 said:
unless AMD makes a product that is considerably better than anything Intel has to offer.

AMD's K8 WAS quite a bit better than Intel's offering at the time of release, the Pentium 4 Prescott. AMD also beat Intel to dual core.
AMD's K7 was also a competitive processor at much lower prices.

December 13, 2007 2:03:29 AM

bs6749 said:
I like Intel and have never owned and probably never will own an AMD system unless AMD makes a product that is considerably better than anything Intel has to offer.

where were you for 2-3 years???
December 13, 2007 2:12:06 AM

Read my post again. I NEVER said that AMD wasn't better than Intel at some point in time. Certainly they WERE, but NOW they are not. I was referring to what I would own in the FUTURE. I will only own Intel CPU's unless AMD comes up with something that is too good to pass up, however I don't see this happening any time in the near future. Hopefully they WILL come out with something because it will drive Intel prices down because they will have to be competitive if they want to sell their product.
December 13, 2007 3:12:43 AM

kellytm3 said:
http://hothardware.com/News/AMD_now_worth_less_than_it_... Here is a nice article for us Intel fans.


I've owned both AMD and Intel powered computers, so don't consider myself a fan of either. That said, the article should be considered very bad news for Intel fans. Right now, Intel fans are getting very powerful chips for very cheap prices. Without AMD to provide some competition, I think Intel would jack its prices through the roof and have little reason to introduce even better chips.

The same would go for fans of Nvidia cards. Nvidia has done very little over the past year since the 8800 series came out. Even the G92 cards so far haven't been all that exciting, as they still don't beat the year old 8800 GTX. If the ATI 3870 wasn't there to provide some heat on the 8800's, would Nvidia be working to give us better stuff, or keep the prices down?

I hope that AMD/ATI survives, and I know they have to offer some decent products to to that, but I really fear what might happen if the company dies.
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
December 13, 2007 3:42:30 AM

Even if AMD does end up going out they will be bought and survive. Most likely via IBM as IBM has always helped AMD out with their products.

Thats not too bad of an idea but I don't think IBM is going to be much in terms of "life" changing for AMD. Just they will have more life infused into them.

Right now even without AMD Intel is pushing to have the superior product with their tick tock strategy. AMD might only play second fiddle even as a sub of IBM or Samsung or whoever but will always be around to keep Intel in check.

But even without AMD I think Intel has changed quite a bit and will still provide a good CPU for a good price for everyone in every and not crazy prices as 45nm and 32nm will cut costs and they have become much more efficient and have more good CPUs per wafer than back in the old P1/P2II days especially since there are more per wafer.

But if AMD want to survive they have to do something I like to call walking. No more talking or paper this and paper that. In fact they need to let ATI do what they do best and focus on only GPUs and everything else be done seperately. I think they also need to oust Hector and get a real CEO who knows what he is doing.
December 13, 2007 3:58:13 AM

bs6749 said:
I like Intel and have never owned and probably never will own an AMD system unless AMD makes a product that is considerably better than anything Intel has to offer. But, I realize that consumers NEED AMD because if they go under, guess who is going to pay ridiculous prices when it comes to CPUs, video cards, mobos, etc. There has to be competition or they will be able to rape us for every penny they can. I really hope that AMD can recover and improve to give Intel something to compete against. After all, competition is one thing that improves technology.


So true....let's just hope AMD can recover.
December 13, 2007 4:28:44 AM

if AMD goes down, I'm switching over to IBM G5 or Sun Sparc . Descent Intels are too expensive for me
December 13, 2007 4:46:55 AM

sailer said:
Even the G92 cards so far haven't been all that exciting, as they still don't beat the year old 8800 GTX.


Sorry at the off-topic comment, but you have to first grant that the G92 GTS beats the GTX in half the games, as well as 3dMark06. Secondly, performance isn't the only thing to consider. The G92 beats the GTX in size, power consumption, overclockability, heat (on the GTS), and price at time of release. These are all positive as well.
December 13, 2007 5:16:26 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Even if AMD does end up going out they will be bought and survive. Most likely via IBM as IBM has always helped AMD out with their products.

Thats not too bad of an idea but I don't think IBM is going to be much in terms of "life" changing for AMD. Just they will have more life infused into them.

Right now even without AMD Intel is pushing to have the superior product with their tick tock strategy. AMD might only play second fiddle even as a sub of IBM or Samsung or whoever but will always be around to keep Intel in check.

But even without AMD I think Intel has changed quite a bit and will still provide a good CPU for a good price for everyone in every and not crazy prices as 45nm and 32nm will cut costs and they have become much more efficient and have more good CPUs per wafer than back in the old P1/P2II days especially since there are more per wafer.

But if AMD want to survive they have to do something I like to call walking. No more talking or paper this and paper that. In fact they need to let ATI do what they do best and focus on only GPUs and everything else be done seperately. I think they also need to oust Hector and get a real CEO who knows what he is doing.


The assumption that IBM or some other company will by AMD is just hot air being blown around or false hopes. No successfull company who could afford to buy AMD would. AMD isn't worth a nickel right now, they are in debt for more than what they could be liquidated for, and if you buy the company you buy the debt. It will take years for AMD to recover unless they can kill the surge Intel is having which is not going to happen. AMD cannot make enough money right now to operate a break even pace much less make enough money to pay their debts and turn a profit. Why would any company in their right mind think they could do any better with a competitor who is aggresivly firing on all 8 cylinders.

There is not enough of a profitable marketplace to allow AMD to turn things around when Intel is breathing in almost all of the available air unless they can find a niche and capitalize on it.

If you consider that AMD's recent releases are somewhat dismal failures and it will more than likely take a partial if not total redesign for them to be able to compete and turn a good profit at the same time. This could take years to overcome if ever.

All of the talk of tri core processors and continuing mass production of k8 products speaks volumes of the problems AMD is having.

IBM, Samsung, Sony and so forth are in buisness to turn a profit, why would they buy a buisness which is bleeding cash and whose products are second rate in performance and yet more than likly cost half again more to produce than what it costs their main competitor?

It's not good for the economy or any industry to see a succesfull company go under and leave little or no competition. We had that for years with Bell and if something wasn't done years ago to break up Ma Bell we might still all be using a rotary phone. So lets all hope that AMD can tighten their belt and suck it up. I am afraid that they may have to do somthing first which all drug addicts need to do before they can turn things around and that is first admit you have a problem, denial and pride has brought more companies down than the mistakes they may make.


a b à CPUs
December 13, 2007 9:39:05 AM

intelamduser said:

IBM, Samsung, Sony and so forth are in buisness to turn a profit, why would they buy a buisness which is bleeding cash and whose products are second rate in performance and yet more than likly cost half again more to produce than what it costs their main competitor?


I think Sony are in enough trouble with the PS3 and handing over production of The Cell to buy AMD!
December 13, 2007 2:00:48 PM

I hate to pile the bad news but Dirk Meyer all but confirmed in the analyst meeting that there is a STOP SHIP when he said all Barcelona and Phenom chips will be delayed till Q1 2008.
December 13, 2007 2:20:17 PM

sirrobin4ever said:
AMD's K8 WAS quite a bit better than Intel's offering at the time of release, the Pentium 4 Prescott. AMD also beat Intel to dual core.
AMD's K7 was also a competitive processor at much lower prices.


No, they did not beat Intel to dual core. The Smithfield-based Pentium Extreme Edition 840 was the first x86 dual core, beating the launch of AMD's dual core Opteron by a week. Also, the regular Pentium D series launch a couple weeks before AMD's X2 line. The only AMD first in the race to dual core was that it was first to make a dual core for the server space, as Intel didn't specifically make a Xeon smithfield processor until November 2005.
December 13, 2007 2:40:48 PM

mi1ez said:
I think Sony are in enough trouble with the PS3 and handing over production of The Cell to buy AMD!

Let's have one company suffering severely against it's competition buy another company that shares an even worse fate. :lol: 
December 13, 2007 3:17:13 PM

If AMD was really in such bad shape as people say. Then AMD will be gone already.
December 13, 2007 3:33:47 PM

enewmen said:
If AMD was really in such bad shape as people say. Then AMD will be gone already.
Not so. Barring any Enron like back-room shenanigans, corporations the size of AMD rarely melt down overnight, but sink slowly (at least for a while).
December 13, 2007 3:51:56 PM

I think AMD might actually show profit in Q1 2008.

None of the current figures take into account any of the 3800 series from ATI which are selling like hot cakes. The manufacturing costs on these are bugger all they must be making huge profits on them.

They also don't include the rise in Xbox 360 and Wii sales for which ATI gets good royalties.

Phenom isn't selling because its rubbish which AMD have now admitted. However the chipsets seem to be selling because they aren’t a bad upgrade for existing Athlon owners looking for quad Xfire, increased memory speed and the latest features.

Even though OEM's won't have many 3800 series cards in there systems yet a lot of the 2600, 2400 and so on will be. And seeing as this is the busiest time of the year revenue at the very least should increase.

I know most of these should show on the Q4 2007 accounts but I think they will disappear under a sea of recalls and stop ships. But these specific successes should continue through Q1 if not increase.

And who knows they might even be selling Phenom’s by then. Even more ridiculous I know they may actually sell Phenom's that work!!!
December 13, 2007 4:34:18 PM

nukchebi0 said:
Sorry at the off-topic comment, but you have to first grant that the G92 GTS beats the GTX in half the games, as well as 3dMark06. Secondly, performance isn't the only thing to consider. The G92 beats the GTX in size, power consumption, overclockability, heat (on the GTS), and price at time of release. These are all positive as well.


I don't mean to imply that the 92 series doesn't have its good points, power consumption, heat, etc, but only that so far its not all that exciting to me. From the last I read, the 8800 GT does not beat the 8800 GTX in games, though it comes close, and the 8800 GTS 512 beats the GTX in some games, but not all. Therefore, at the moment, I see no compelling reason to dump a year old 8800 GTX for a new 8800 GTS 512. Coming developements in the next months could well change that opinion, but that will be seen when it happens.

@Grippas- I don't think that AMD will show a profit in Q1 08. From last I read, Hector Ruiz himself is not predicting a profit until Q3 08.
December 13, 2007 5:04:00 PM

I think IBM is just waiting until AMD is on it's last legs. The stock continues to drop every day with no end in sight. IBM has the technology to make 32nm and with AMD and ATI technologies and even architechtures that are in developement like Bulldozer (integrated CPU and GPU effectively eliminiating a complete bridge) the combination of these innovations plus IBM's 32nm process could bring AMD in a leapfrog position.

I would say that if IBM bought AMD they would have a huge advantage in both the RISC and x86 market.

Just a prediction. Buckle up boys...if this one comes to table we will be working and playing on some amazing machines come 2009....maybe even Q4 2008!!!

Cheers!
December 13, 2007 5:26:52 PM

heh i still build AMD systems for people who want a cheap decent computer....i mean hell with AMD you can buy a decent computer for like 500 bucks now..


Mind you Both of my rigs that i have built for my own gaming has been Intel, but if AMD goes under its bad news for everyone...same with ATI and Nvida...but if anything ATI is keeping AMD alive in some cases due to the face there midrange and what not :\

December 13, 2007 5:29:23 PM

kansur0 said:
I think IBM is just waiting until AMD is on it's last legs. The stock continues to drop every day with no end in sight. IBM has the technology to make 32nm and with AMD and ATI technologies and even architechtures that are in developement like Bulldozer (integrated CPU and GPU effectively eliminiating a complete bridge) the combination of these innovations plus IBM's 32nm process could bring AMD in a leapfrog position.

I would say that if IBM bought AMD they would have a huge advantage in both the RISC and x86 market.

Just a prediction. Buckle up boys...if this one comes to table we will be working and playing on some amazing machines come 2009....maybe even Q4 2008!!!

Cheers!


If IBM bought AMD there would be no x86 processors being made from AMD, licence is void and rest assured Intel would take their sweet time in penning up a new deal.
December 13, 2007 6:25:03 PM

Simply put.If AMD goes under,everyone,including INTEL fans,will be paying large dollars for processors we pay very little for now.Once a company manages to get a monopoly on a product,they tend to increase prices to increase profit.This will happen right away with a small jump in price,then as the months go on and newer stuff comes out,we'll see the price of CPUs go up even more.Next thing you know we're paying top dollar for a mainstream processor.Now some will say that INTEL doesn't need to increase prices,and they're right,it doesn't.But for some reason rich people want more money.It doesn't matter that they are billionaires,they want more.This is called greed.There are a lot of greedy people in this world,and you can bet there are quite a few who sit on INTELs board.Not to mention share holders.Everyone wants to get rich quick,and to most,the cost of getting rich is irrelevent.Now although AMD is not INTELs only competition in the CPU field,it's the only one who can give INTEL a serious run for its money.Let's bow our heads and pray to the processor gods that AMD makes it out of its slump so that the 99% majority will be able to game for years to come.

Dahak

M2N32-SLI DELUXE WE
X2 5600+ STOCK (2.8GHZ)
2X1GIG DDR2 800 IN DC MODE
TOUGHPOWER 850WATT PSU
EVGA 8800GT SUPERCLOCKED
SMILIDON RAIDMAX GAMING CASE
ACER 22IN WS LCD 1680X1050
250GIG HD/320GIG HD
G5 GAMING MOUSE
LOGITECH Z-5500 5.1 SURROUND SYSTEM
500WATS CONTINUOUS,1000 PEAK
WIN XP MCE SP2
3DMARK 05 15,686

December 13, 2007 6:34:00 PM

spud said:
If IBM bought AMD there would be no x86 processors being made from AMD, licence is void and rest assured Intel would take their sweet time in penning up a new deal.


Yep. This delay would put any design/mfg advantage an AMD-IBM/Samsung/Whomever buyout might bring to the table at a significant market disadvantage. By the time new cross-licensing agreements are in place, the interuption to revenue would likely be disastrous, and likely a generation more behind. Unless the fire-sale was really cheap...
December 13, 2007 6:56:44 PM

bs6749 said:
I like Intel and have never owned and probably never will own an AMD system unless AMD makes a product that is considerably better than anything Intel has to offer. But, I realize that consumers NEED AMD because if they go under, guess who is going to pay ridiculous prices when it comes to CPUs, video cards, mobos, etc. There has to be competition or they will be able to rape us for every penny they can. I really hope that AMD can recover and improve to give Intel something to compete against. After all, competition is one thing that improves technology.



Where were you two years ago?
December 13, 2007 6:58:45 PM

joefriday said:
No, they did not beat Intel to dual core. The Smithfield-based Pentium Extreme Edition 840 was the first x86 dual core, beating the launch of AMD's dual core Opteron by a week. Also, the regular Pentium D series launch a couple weeks before AMD's X2 line. The only AMD first in the race to dual core was that it was first to make a dual core for the server space, as Intel didn't specifically make a Xeon smithfield processor until November 2005.


He should have said first dual core SERVER chip.
December 13, 2007 7:00:44 PM

You know with Intel releasing their own discrete graphics chip, why can't Nvidia buy AMD/ATI?
December 13, 2007 7:09:53 PM

it all comes down to how cheaply amd can pump out quads and tri-cores and still turn a profit. If they can pump out 2.0 GHz quads for $87 each then obviously they're going to be competitive even if they cant match intel for top end performance.
December 13, 2007 7:12:19 PM

bfellow said:
You know with Intel releasing their own discrete graphics chip, why can't Nvidia buy AMD/ATI?



You CANNOT purchase your way to a majority in the market. That's why Intel can't buy nVidia or ATi.
December 13, 2007 7:22:05 PM

BaronMatrix said:
You CANNOT purchase your way to a majority in the market. That's why Intel can't buy nVidia or ATi.


I agree with Baron, hopefully this wouldn't be allowed to happen, it would be a nightmare.
December 13, 2007 7:30:46 PM

if AMD can buy ATi, why can't Intel buy Nvidia?
December 13, 2007 7:32:20 PM

Intel already competes against Nvidia, where AMD didn't have any graphics part. Intel would be swallowing up a huge part of a market it competes in.
December 13, 2007 7:39:35 PM

BaronMatrix said:
You CANNOT purchase your way to a majority in the market. That's why Intel can't buy nVidia or ATi.


I am saying nVidia purchasing AMD.

Therefore, it would be Nvidia vs. Intel.
December 13, 2007 8:01:55 PM

AMD is in a slump yet far from gone or going.They have too many strong products here and on there way.Should the tri-core ,790fx (SB700),hybrid Xfire,R700,and 780g doesnt work then they cook.Phenom in its stage now was/is a bad idea to release now.
December 13, 2007 8:24:20 PM

AMD's fabs are worth more than the company is to anyone who needs 3 cutting edge fabs, not to mention the IP the company has. If AMD can't recover financially, IBM has a lot invested in AMD's fabs and the tech they share. I can certainly see samsung interested in putting in an offer, but IBM has a lot to lose if AMD dies.
December 13, 2007 8:52:39 PM

As stated above ANYONE buying out AMD nullifies the x86 cross-licensing agreement that Intel has with AMD. Intel will certainly renegotiate the license, as it would be in their best interest to do so, but they won't make it easy on the company that would buy them out, or cheap.

AMD needs to get it's own act together. To do that they need to get rid of that bald a$$hat CEO they have for starters....
December 13, 2007 9:11:12 PM

bfellow said:
I am saying nVidia purchasing AMD.

Therefore, it would be Nvidia vs. Intel.


nVidia would then own AMD and ATI and have a monopoly on discrete graphics, NOT GOOD!
December 14, 2007 12:18:54 PM

No they wouldn't. Since Intel is entering the discrete graphics business, it would make sense.

Let's say if Intel releases a discrete graphics card which I'll call the T800 for a new Intel chipset that lets call the P00. Since Intel doesn't do SLI, they release their version of SLI/Crossfire which I'll call Elmer.

If the T800 competes with NvidiAti's 9800GXTX-SLIFIRE ready than it should be a good thing.

I wouldn't mind seeing a 8800 GTX SLIFIRED with a 3870.
December 15, 2007 1:01:34 AM

BaronMatrix said:
Where were you two years ago?


Read above, I already explained. Long story short: I never said AMD wasn't better at times than Intel. I was referring to future builds.
a b à CPUs
December 15, 2007 7:31:00 AM

Hopefully they will survive.
December 15, 2007 9:01:22 AM

AMD cant just be bought by ANY company.
IBM is the only company on this planet that can buy AMD while keeping AMDs business running.
ONLY AMD ITSELF was allowed to make x86 processors, noone else, so when AMD is bought by a non-processor-company, theyre out of the game.
December 15, 2007 4:28:32 PM

Market worth of a company is after debts have been subtracted. A company entirely consisting of a $1 billion fab constructed out of a $1 billion loan is worth $0 on the books. That's why AMD's market valuation did not increase after the $5 billion purchase of ATI. ATI was not given for free; in fact, overpaying for ATI could cost AMD considerable worth in the coming quarters as that gets realized by goodwill write-offs.
December 15, 2007 4:55:22 PM

bfellow said:
No they wouldn't. Since Intel is entering the discrete graphics business, it would make sense.


I disagree. Intel currently sells ZERO discrete graphics cards while AMD(aTI) and nVidia sell 98%. If the same company owned both nVidia and aTI it would be a monopoly of the discrete graphics card market and would be very horrible. Intel would be a great candidate for making an entry into the market, but I it would be hell for them to face a monopoly.
December 15, 2007 6:07:36 PM

What if Samsung purchased AMD/ATI.That would be interesting,maybe?It would be great if the CPU war got heated up again.Also,does anyone have a link/breakdown of the upcoming Intel Yorkfield/Wolfdale cpu prices,and corresponding release dates,and a price and release date on the new Nvidia 700 series motherboards?
May 2, 2008 2:48:25 PM

Really a combined nvidia/amd/ati woudl be required to even havea chance against intel.

IN all honesty though, IBM needs to buy out AMD, Imagine having a powerhouse like IBM pushing out cpu's again using Amd's technology. Let's also not forget they won't be dependent upon those cpu's to survive. So a price war could go on where the only company severely hurt would be intel. Sort of like what Intel has been doing to amd all these years. Cut the margin so low, that you make little on each chip, but you seel so manyits ok. Amd on the other hand can't even pay its bills.

Don't know if that would be legal but considering Intel's market share in both graphics and cpu's. Yes, intel's market share is extremely high in graphics as well. Just not high end 3d like you think of ati or nvidia.

May 2, 2008 9:35:26 PM

cranbers said:
Really a combined nvidia/amd/ati woudl be required to even havea chance against intel.

IN all honesty though, IBM needs to buy out AMD, Imagine having a powerhouse like IBM pushing out cpu's again using Amd's technology. Let's also not forget they won't be dependent upon those cpu's to survive. So a price war could go on where the only company severely hurt would be intel. Sort of like what Intel has been doing to amd all these years. Cut the margin so low, that you make little on each chip, but you seel so manyits ok. Amd on the other hand can't even pay its bills.

Don't know if that would be legal but considering Intel's market share in both graphics and cpu's. Yes, intel's market share is extremely high in graphics as well. Just not high end 3d like you think of ati or nvidia.


You may want to check the date of the post previous to your own. This thread has been dead for months. Also some of your comments don't make sense. Since when has Intel been undercutting AMD on price? Traditionally AMD has been less expensive than Intel. Since the release of Core2 it has been AMD that has been forced to sell at reduced margin in order to compete, not Intel.
!