Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

The Nail in the Coffin

Last response: in CPUs
Share
December 10, 2008 1:36:10 PM

With Intel announcing that the development of the 32nm process is completed and chips should roll out as soon as this time next year, does this see the end of AMD? AMD will be split up into two different companies, seeing a fab-lite strategy, but will it be enough to counter the sales and popularity of Intel? AMD will roll out their 45nm process next month, but Intel has been producing their 45nm for over a year. So to say Intel is a year ahead of AMD in both design and size, the state of the future economy, and demand, will AMD survive the next generation of Intel chips which are rumored to be faster due to a refined hKmg technology. AMD is bleeding money and hasn't turned a profit for many quarters, by this time next year will there even be an AMD? Or will IBM save the day and give AMD reprieve by the middle of '09 with their 32nm process to make them competitive seeing how they are partners?

More about : nail coffin

December 10, 2008 1:55:58 PM

Rumor is... and I stress the word RUMOR... that AMD, partnered with IBM, may skip the 32nm stage altogether and move to the next smaller one.

I don't remember where I read it, but apparently IBM (in loose partnership with AMD) had developed the process for the next gen fabrication.

Can someone help me on this one... someone else must have read this too.
Related resources
December 10, 2008 2:02:00 PM

AMD will not perish. If things get THAT bad, someone will surely jump in and buy it, so it will continue. BTW, AMD has been producing 45nm for a few months now but I agree, they are about 1 year behind Intel. As long as AMD products are close performance-wise with Intel, but cheaper, they will sell. I believe this fabless/split business plan AMD is going for will work out. Can't wait to get a PHENOM II at 5Ghz on water!!! Don't care if it's 20% slower than i7. It's cheaper and it satisfy my needs.
December 10, 2008 2:23:28 PM

No Intel would love to have a monopoly on CPU's. That way they can charge as much as they want. You want the latest and greatest Quad from Intel $8,000 (if they had the monopoly). A new PC would cost as much as a new car (or close to it). AMD definetly needs to reverse the Cranio-Rectal-insertion, and get another Athlon64 on the market ASAP! Phenom II may fix many of their issues, but at least they can't do any worse (ie the TLB bug).
December 10, 2008 2:27:19 PM

Quote:
Rumor is... and I stress the word RUMOR... that AMD, partnered with IBM, may skip the 32nm stage altogether and move to the next smaller one.

Last time this rumor went around, AMD still produced 65nm parts out of the need to save costs and raise core counts because Intel was getting too far ahead before 45nm was ready (and it's barely ready today). The 65nm stuff was poorly developed. So even if this one holds true, I just don't think it'll come to fruition. They should not just trash 32nm and hope to live to 22nm. You might try that if you're ahead of the industry and temporarily troubled, not behind to start with.
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 2:39:43 PM

AMD/ATI isnt going anywhere
December 10, 2008 2:59:01 PM

In terms of monopolies, at one point Microsoft was considered a monopoly for the longest time in the nineties, and they neither raised prices to the point of insanity as some say*granted they saw no real innovation till XP*. Competition breeds lower prices this is true, but when the competition is behind in both design and money, is it really considered competition? I know AMD has a decent market share of server products, but some of that is called into question with the Nehalem arch.

At what point will AMD be taken over, who would buy it? IBM? Samsung for the out of this world pick?

This is all speculation/fun and just was wondering for an economics class. Who would most likely fail in this downturn. Looking at AMD's numbers of assets, liabilities, and revenue, it just seems eminent if things continue at the rate their going. I also have to follow up on how it will impact the marketplace and who would fill in the gap.
December 10, 2008 3:05:10 PM

Out of competition grows progress.
December 10, 2008 3:08:55 PM

Well. I don't think the US gov't would let an Asian company take over AMD. It's considered a national security thing.

And no one can fill the gap left by a world with no AMD. The x86 license is very finicky, and I don't think it can be transferred. Which means that the IP that AMD has (Arch designs) are also non-transferrable. I'd look at a different company, AMD has a LOT of odd issues.
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 3:10:00 PM

Well, the problem is that the agreements between the two companies is very complex. The main result I see is that AMD will have to reduce their research (though they still have IBM, who is doing well) rather than going bankrupt. They still have to share info every few years. I think, however, that with ATI doing quite well and the possibility of a competitive product in Phenom II, they will weather the storm fine.
December 10, 2008 3:12:26 PM

At what point will AMD be taken over, who would buy it?

Rumor is that McDonalds will buy AMD. They will then change there name to
McDammit and you will be able to purchase any new chips off the value menu :) 

Soiled
December 10, 2008 3:29:58 PM

I know that IBM has helped AMD progress their manufacturing process on multiple occasions, so if they decided to pick AMD up it could only be a good thing. With the kind of money IBM has, they could become a serious threat to Intel in the x86 market.
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 7:49:11 PM

SoiledBottom said:
At what point will AMD be taken over, who would buy it?

Rumor is that McDonalds will buy AMD. They will then change there name to
McDammit and you will be able to purchase any new chips off the value menu :) 

Soiled



ok so what if intel bought amd after all this...

I mean at least they would get some cheap floor cleaners with hector ruiz to actually get to mop up some crap instead of creating it.....
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 8:31:03 PM

If a company buys AMD then AMD's x86 license with Intel is null and void, which means the new company would have to get another one.
December 10, 2008 8:34:23 PM

IH8U said:
No Intel would love to have a monopoly on CPU's. That way they can charge as much as they want. You want the latest and greatest Quad from Intel $8,000 (if they had the monopoly). A new PC would cost as much as a new car (or close to it). AMD definetly needs to reverse the Cranio-Rectal-insertion, and get another Athlon64 on the market ASAP! Phenom II may fix many of their issues, but at least they can't do any worse (ie the TLB bug).


Oh, sure. With the global economy going down the toilet, Cruel Intel would charge 1k per ancient Core 2 Duo 1.0 Ghz plus $150 for their mainstream chipset and would sell 100 of both of them (worldwide numbers from an internal survey conducted by the own buyers [a.k.a Intel employees]).

Please, get over the Kool-Aid, dude.
December 10, 2008 8:42:51 PM

Not worth denying it, AMD suck! That's the bottom line, no use AMD fanboys crying about it

Look at Core I7 it's perfect in every way, fast reliable and doesn't overheat like the Phenom. I mean I could fry an egg on a Phenom at the Temps they operate at.
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 8:49:02 PM

IH8U said:
No Intel would love to have a monopoly on CPU's. That way they can charge as much as they want. You want the latest and greatest Quad from Intel $8,000 (if they had the monopoly). A new PC would cost as much as a new car (or close to it). AMD definetly needs to reverse the Cranio-Rectal-insertion, and get another Athlon64 on the market ASAP! Phenom II may fix many of their issues, but at least they can't do any worse (ie the TLB bug).


Ha, I can't see how any company would love to be in an illegal situation. Also, as for charging our balls for a chip, haven't they been doing that for a while now?
My thoughts are: Intel needs AMD as competition, and only AMD can do that. AMD needs investment, but I find it very unlikely for them to be bought. IBM could get in the middle, but that hasn't happened until now, and my guess is that won't happen in the near future. I think it is a matter of time until AMD finds some kind of partnership or investor, and comes up with a competitive part once again.
a b à CPUs
December 10, 2008 9:25:05 PM

techpro said:
Not worth denying it, AMD suck! That's the bottom line, no use AMD fanboys crying about it

Look at Core I7 it's perfect in every way, fast reliable and doesn't overheat like the Phenom. I mean I could fry an egg on a Phenom at the Temps they operate at.


shut up noob.

as for the topic: i really doubt AMD will ever go under. i predict they will be bought out by a company sooner or later, but never completely vanish. oh and lets not forget about the phenom 2. it just might blow your socks off you never know. i saw the corei7 benchmarks and i'm very impressed but im more anxious to see the phenom 2 then i was the corei7.
December 10, 2008 9:53:56 PM

Intel doesn't need AMD. They don't need competition. Without AMD, they have a true monopoly over the processor industry, and can dictate everything. Just like Microsoft in the nineties, prices will rise, though not stratospherically, but there will be very, very little innovation. Why spend money on research when you're the only option? There will be research, because they will need to sell chips, but the drive of the Athlon 64/64X2 vs P4/PD/C2D era will certainly not be there. It is in all of our interests that AMD survive.
December 10, 2008 9:58:27 PM

Again you guys, AMD's Athlon X2's are still popular, and the X4 9950 offers Q6600 like performance at a cheaper price, with better chipsets (for the price).

Just because AMD doesn't have the highest end stuff out there doesn't mean that they completely suck. Not everyone has $300+ to blow on a single chip.
December 10, 2008 10:08:49 PM

^True. You don't need an i7 or a high end C2D for an office build.
Cheaper AMD chips are a very good option. They will still be around.
December 11, 2008 12:01:25 AM

^True, but you also have very interesting low-end C2D for an office build or some of any other kind. In spite of AMD's IGPs being miles ahead of Intel's, it really doesn't matter in an office environment.

The problem here is only brand recognition - where AMD fails miserably due to its poor marketing division.

Proof: 90% of the PCs I saw and worked with in corporate environments were from Intel, even while AMD had *far* better offerings. Just some Sempron stuff here and there, but that's it.

People were buying Pentiums D instead of X2s in the last place I worked at, despite the price being higher for the Pentiums (and, of course, the performance being *much* higher for the X2s).

The veteran IT guy would just say "Intel is quality and reliability", no matter what, and I wouldn't be able to convince him that AMD had something far better at that moment in that price range.

Here in Brazil there are still some TV ads like "The CPU is the brain of your computer, so you can't go cheap on it. Intel offers the best intelligence for your computer. Choose Intel Inside."

Never have I seen a TV ad of any kind from AMD. People here don't even know it's a CPU brand unless they are forum members or have some friend/family member who knows better.

The only place where I can see an AMD ad is that stupid Ferrari car/uniform (which probably cost millions).

I'm yet to find a store with any advertising from AMD. It's a shame, because many people will miss the quality of many good products they make.
December 11, 2008 12:26:31 AM

This is also true, however, it doesn't stop AMD from still selling these things. All the low-mid range workstations, and low-end home computers are based on AMD's chips. Getting a X2 5000+ for $55 is fantastic, and an 6000+ for $72 is also great... and they can often beat E7200 and E7300 at $50 cheaper.

I don't care what anyone says, the 5400+ BE is pretty awesome too :) 
December 11, 2008 1:23:16 PM

Many people here in Brazil use Pentiums 4 instead of X2s or A64s. Some still buy the Pentiums nowadays, mostly because they are "helped" by stores salesmen who want to clean their stock. There are tons of ads about "Intel Inside" in almost every store I can remember of, but I have never seen an AMD ad of any kind. Such a shame, especially for people who, sometimes, would get something far better for the same money.
December 11, 2008 1:50:56 PM

I used to see quite a few AMD Live! ads around, and my local computer shop still has the "imagine the possibilities" Windows Vista/AMD Live! add up.
a b à CPUs
December 11, 2008 2:11:17 PM

IBM helping AMD make the jump to a smaller manufacturing process made a certain amount of sense in the days when IBM had a consumer presence because that investment could be more easily recouped since both the Business and Consumer sides of the house would be able to drive ongoing profits.


The issue is it is no longer the case. IBM's stated direction/vision is higher margin Corporate/B2B business in order to leverage their very powerful and VERY profitable Services arm. The consumer stuff was sold to Lenovo (and others) or scrapped. "High Volume/Low Margin" no longer exists in the House Of Big Blue.

Secondly, now that AMD are going Fabless, the actual manufacturing technology is much more (if not entirely) a function/responsibility of the company running the actual Fab. If the guys in Abu Dhabi want to pursue opportunities with a (32nm) manufacturing process. Then the guys in Adu Dhabi would be the ones to contract with the appropriate outside resources (IBM) in order to make that happen. At that point, the Fab needs to put their new manufacturing process to work in order to recoup the investment and turn a profit. Indeed, given the massive investment required, they'd be pretty dumb to retool the Fab without business already lined up.

Another consideration is that AMD have lost their former clear cut superiority in SMP environments with the launch of Core I7. This is a highly profitable and core niche - for both IBM and AMD. AMD do enjoy a considerable installed base here, and replacement cycles are well in excess of 5 years. So they're not going away any time soon. BUT, Intel now have a pretty compelling story *and* the silicon to back it up. None of the hardware makers have an exclusive contract - A quick glance at their websites will show even the most casual observer this. So it would be very very easy to start making/selling more of (I) than (A) as they go forward.



I have real life experience competing with IBM, and can say for a fact that they can and do use Hardware (and software) to drive opportunities for their Services arm. And IBM Services make the company BIG BIG money. If they can make better/faster hardware on Intel than on AMD in order to drive that cycle?? Well... It should be clear that IBM are rather... ruthless... in their pursuit of efficiencies - and therefore chargable value - they can provide to their customers. And if (HP, Sun Microsystems) appear set to come up with better machines based on Intel?? It's fair to say that IBM will do what it takes to ensure that does not happen. Rather they will drive to be First with the Most.

The bottom line is the same as it always has been: Profit.

Outside observers would be... mistaken... to perceive any past or present IBM "help" for AMD in an altruistic light.
December 11, 2008 2:51:32 PM

My post has been hidden with -7 above, now I'm not happy :(  I should consider not posting here anymore, but I'm not going to let the AMD fankids get the better of me.

AMD suck! It's not my fault Intel have a lead and crushing them, is it? AMD is a joke, while Intel have created the Core I7 that's leaps ahead of the phailure. These are facts and it's no use crying about it, marking my posts down for truth telling.

a b à CPUs
December 11, 2008 3:13:00 PM

blashyrkh said:
AMD will not perish. If things get THAT bad, someone will surely jump in and buy it.


AMD has been selling off pieces of itself for some time now, after it "subprime mortgaged" itself with the ATI acquistion at double what the deal was worth. If it does tank, I'd expect the ATI portion to be the best remaining part. And I doubt the gov't would do a bailout deal with them either.
a b à CPUs
December 11, 2008 3:23:47 PM

techpro said:
My post has been hidden with -7 above, now I'm not happy :(  I should consider not posting here anymore, but I'm not going to let the AMD fankids get the better of me.

AMD suck! It's not my fault Intel have a lead and crushing them, is it? AMD is a joke, while Intel have created the Core I7 that's leaps ahead of the phailure. These are facts and it's no use crying about it, marking my posts down for truth telling.


You were likely downrated because your post is merely your opinion, and otherwise serves no purpose. If you're gonna be a fanboy, at least bring something to the discussion, preferably some facts to bolster your position.

But you already knew all this and are just flame-baiting, right?
December 11, 2008 5:50:39 PM

techpro said:
My post has been hidden with -7 above, now I'm not happy :(  I should consider not posting here anymore, but I'm not going to let the AMD fankids get the better of me.

AMD suck! It's not my fault Intel have a lead and crushing them, is it? AMD is a joke, while Intel have created the Core I7 that's leaps ahead of the phailure. These are facts and it's no use crying about it, marking my posts down for truth telling.



December 11, 2008 9:52:26 PM

roflwtfpwned!

I currently hope that AMD Phenom II will be a great success. I like AMD better... they seem like better value.

Furthermore, I think it would be nice to have a system that contains parts from only one company.

My setup in Q3 2010 could look like:

HD5870 or HD6870, (if they get that far with releasing stuff)
6-12gb ddr3 (or 8gb or something)
Phenom 32nm? @ 3.8ghz?


I think it would be interesting to see that.

I can't wait for the new CPUs!
a b à CPUs
December 11, 2008 11:27:28 PM

vertigo_2000 said:
Rumor is... and I stress the word RUMOR... that AMD, partnered with IBM, may skip the 32nm stage altogether and move to the next smaller one.

I don't remember where I read it, but apparently IBM (in loose partnership with AMD) had developed the process for the next gen fabrication.

Can someone help me on this one... someone else must have read this too.

IBM developed a single 22nm (I think) SRAM cell, ie. nothing of any real use.
a c 131 à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2010 11:13:02 PM

Conspiracy time!:

Intel already owns AMD :o 
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
January 31, 2010 11:24:22 PM

enzo matrix said:
Conspiracy time!:

Intel already owns AMD :o 

!