Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Solved

AMD Beats the Street; Reports 128 Million Dollar Loss for Q3 2009

Last response: in CPUs
Share
October 15, 2009 9:30:40 PM

Despite what JennyH said in another thread, AMD posted a loss of $128 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197097+...

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(Business Wire)--
AMD1 (NYSE:AMD) today reported revenue for the third quarter of 2009 of $1.396
billion. Third quarter 2009 revenue increased 18 percent compared to the second
quarter of 2009 and decreased 22 percent compared to the third quarter of 2008.

In the third quarter of 2009, AMD reported a net loss attributable to AMD common
stockholders of $128 million, or $0.18 per share, which includes a net favorable
impact of $54 million, or $0.08 per share, primarily from a $66 million gain
from the repurchase of debt as described in the table below2. AMD`s operating
loss was $77 million.

In the second quarter of 2009, AMD had revenue of $1.184 billion, a net loss
attributable to AMD common stockholders of $330 million and an operating loss of
$249 million. In the third quarter of 2008, AMD had revenue from continuing
operations of $1.797 billion, a net loss attributable to AMD common stockholders
of $134 million and an operating income of $122 million.


While this may sound like bad news, it's actually good news. AMD beat analysts' expectations and is getting closer to the black.

Will Q4 be their quarter? I still don't think so, but it looks distantly possible now.
October 15, 2009 9:43:32 PM

yeah, well with Core i7 CPU's and motherboard costing 12 milion each of course things are going well...

I wouldn't buy intel i7 or i5 simply because of the excessive cost of both the motherboard and CPU.

Right now the Phenom II X4 955 Black overclocked to 3.8Ghz look like the best bang for the buck option.
m
0
l
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 10:03:49 PM

i5 sounded like a great deal until the recent news about the defective sockets hit.
i5 outperformed the Phenom II's at a similar cost
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/268319-28-overclockin...

Right now I would only go the i7/x58 or Phenom II/AM3 or AM2+ route.
Too bad about the P55/1156 platform.Hopefully that will be fixed soon otherwise it will scare people off that platform.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 10:10:17 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Despite what JennyH said in another thread, AMD posted a loss of $128 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197097+...

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(Business Wire)--
AMD1 (NYSE:AMD) today reported revenue for the third quarter of 2009 of $1.396
billion. Third quarter 2009 revenue increased 18 percent compared to the second
quarter of 2009 and decreased 22 percent compared to the third quarter of 2008.

In the third quarter of 2009, AMD reported a net loss attributable to AMD common
stockholders of $128 million, or $0.18 per share, which includes a net favorable
impact of $54 million, or $0.08 per share, primarily from a $66 million gain
from the repurchase of debt as described in the table below2. AMD`s operating
loss was $77 million.

In the second quarter of 2009, AMD had revenue of $1.184 billion, a net loss
attributable to AMD common stockholders of $330 million and an operating loss of
$249 million. In the third quarter of 2008, AMD had revenue from continuing
operations of $1.797 billion, a net loss attributable to AMD common stockholders
of $134 million and an operating income of $122 million.


While this may sound like bad news, it's actually good news. AMD beat analysts' expectations and is getting closer to the black.

Will Q4 be their quarter? I still don't think so, but it looks distantly possible now.


Just to clarify - amd made a profit on their 'products', ie everything they sold. That part of the business is profitable again, and that's what really counts.

AMD didn't just beat analysts predictions, they were more than twice as good as what was being predicted. -18c a share was better than every single one of the analysts were predicting. The best prediction was -21c, AMD beat them all.

They can hardly fail to not post a small but noticable profit in Q4. ATI have hundreds of millions to make on graphics next quarter, that alone should be enough to push the entire company into a profit of $200m-ish.
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 10:18:16 PM

jj463rd said:
i5 sounded like a great deal until the recent news about the defective sockets hit.
i5 outperformed the Phenom II's at a similar cost
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/268319-28-overclockin...

Right now I would only go the i7/x58 or Phenom II/AM3 or AM2+ route.
Too bad about the P55/1156 platform.Hopefully that will be fixed soon otherwise it will scare people off that platform.



http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272065-33-gamers-only... !!!!
>.>

I don't think i5 can outperform phenom II 955 if the phenom outperforms a i7...
don't forget the limited Dual GPU because of dual x8
And the fact that this socket won't have 6 cores while AM3 will have BOTH 6 AND 8 cores, one for 2010, the other for 2011.

I ALWAYS SAID THAT LGA1156 WAS EVILLL!!! >=D
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 10:20:02 PM

Quote:
Right now I have an AMD PII X4 810 in my HTPC (which is overkill) and an intel i7 920 in my gaming PC.

The basic math of what I paid for MB+RAM+CPU for each:
Intel: $300+$130+$320 = $750
AMD: $200+$110+$180 = $490

The thing is, I'm happy I bought the i7 for my gaming rig. That's the computer I use to do a lot of DVD ripping, and my i7 system is over 2x faster than my AMD system in that task. Another reason I'll continue to be happy is the i9... which should I choose to upgrade my CPU in a year or more, I won't have to buy a new MB because of a socket change. The AM3 socket... who knows? AM3 has been out for much longer than 1366, so whatever new hotness AMD is working on, there's a good chance their move to a new socket and I'd have to upgrade with a whole new MB.

The only reason I considered spending over a grand (total) on a new intel computer was because I expect the thing to last me at least 3 full and happy years before I have to think about upgrading the CPU and MB again. RAM you can add in. GPUs can be switched out any time. You can always add more Hard Drives. But once your MB doesn't support the new chips, you gotta spend another $200+ on top of that CPU price, with the chance of having to buy new RAM as well.

...

My last gaming computer base was a AMD 939 socket SLI board, with an Athlon 3200+, later upgraded to a Dual Core Opteron 165. It lasted me 3 years before it become horribly CPU bottlenecked in games and I went to the i7.




http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15619/35/
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15567/35/

Nop, AM3 is fully alive and ready to own LGA1156, who is running straight into a dead end :) 
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 10:42:54 PM

bboynatural said:
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/272065-33-gamers-only... !!!!
>.>

I don't think i5 can outperform phenom II 955 if the phenom outperforms a i7...
don't forget the limited Dual GPU because of dual x8
And the fact that this socket won't have 6 cores while AM3 will have BOTH 6 AND 8 cores, one for 2010, the other for 2011.

I ALWAYS SAID THAT LGA1156 WAS EVILLL!!! >=D

According to the beta benchmarks at anandtech the i5 750 does indeed outperform the Phenom II X4 955 BE at stock speeds in most of the benchmarks.
http://www.anandtech.com/bench/default.aspx?p=109&p2=88

Myself I own a Phenom II X4 955 BE CPU.
However the i5 can be over clocked by over 50%.
Sadly though many of the new motherboards are apparently defective because of those Foxconn sockets.
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 10:59:20 PM

bboynatural said:
I ALWAYS SAID THAT LGA1156 WAS EVILLL!!! >=D


I don't think 1156 is evil... :) 

It caters to the mainstream market very well.

jj463rd said:
Sadly though many of the new motherboards are apparently defective because of those Foxconn sockets.


Many? I'm sure the defective Foxconn boards are floating around, but it isn't a huge epidemic. "Some" would be a better term I suppose.
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:01:19 PM

Quote:
I don't have the 1156. I have the 1366. Given that my i7 920 is 2x faster than my X4 810, in applications that I actually use... I don't see how I missed out.


Oh it's not what I meant, I was just answering to your

Quote:
Another reason I'll continue to be happy is the i9... which should I choose to upgrade my CPU in a year or more, I won't have to buy a new MB because of a socket change. The AM3 socket... who knows? AM3 has been out for much longer than 1366, so whatever new hotness AMD is working on, there's a good chance their move to a new socket and I'd have to upgrade with a whole new MB.


By saying that AM3 was alive! that i7vsphenomII955 was for jj463rd saying that i5 can outperform Phenom II 955

Also jj463rd, that benchmark doesnt look edible, not even one bit...

On medium quality, anadtech claims that Phenom II 955 can run at 51fps?? dunno what card they used tho..not a very precise benchmark..

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/phenom-x4-955,2278-...

at 1920x1200 on HIGH, here it gets a fair 71, the performance of the i5 on medium (even tho the WHOLE bench was fked, i5 performs AROUND the same as i7, and here, Phenom II 955 clearly has a leading advantage...

There was many benchmarks in the link I gave you proving that phenom II 955 performs overall better then a i7-920, I don't think theres anyway way in hell a i5 could perform better.

Also, if a possible "advantage" might exist, it would:
1) be VERY small, maybe 1 or 2 fps?
2) Gone the moment you add a second GPU and Crank the AA : SOMEHOW (because this isnt supose to be CPU wise) Intel's CPU drastically fail the AA benchmarks, often dropping by 20FPS while Phenom II955 drops (hold your breath) by 4 fps only... =/
Also no matter what the overclocking of i5 is, You provided us yourself with those overclocking peril pages...Also no 8core neither 6core for LGA1156.

This socket was uber fail to start with...
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:03:16 PM

Quote:

Of course, knowing if 1366 actually does outlast the performance peak of AM3 is in the stars. But I have a hard time being convinced that I paid extra for no good reason. Especially when I can see the performance difference clear as day between my two computers when I transcode.


No you didnt!
The thread I made CLEARLY states that this is for people who GAME ONLY (most of the gamers NEVER zip OR video encode...that is why I made that thread).
You talked about DVD ripping, thus making a i7 a way better deal, I will never deny that.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 15, 2009 11:11:01 PM

era86 said:
I don't think 1156 is evil... :) 

It caters to the mainstream market very well.



Many? I'm sure the defective Foxconn boards are floating around, but it isn't a huge epidemic. "Some" would be a better term I suppose.

No,it's not Foxconn motherboards rather it's a component (socket) soldered on many brands of motherboards. See the previous link or read here.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:11:15 PM

I don't get it... why would anyone who is a "gamer" care about the CPU choices one makes? GPU performance is what usually determines the true performance of most games anyway right?
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:14:46 PM

jj463rd said:
No,it's not Foxconn motherboards rather it's a component (socket) soldered on many brands of motherboards. See the previous link or read here.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661


Ah I see. Well my point still stands. My board has been just fine. Though, I am not an OCer so I may not see this defect manifest itself.
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:15:54 PM

Yes but to some extent comes bottlenecking from your CPU, thus making your GPU not work the way it supose to work.
One simple example is this review from Guru3D
http://www.guru3d.com/article/radeon-hd-5770-in-3way-cr...

As you see, even the intel i7 can't fully support a 3way HD5000 serie.
it cant provide it with enough horsepower, thus making a 3way Crossfire less good then a simple crossfire.

Anything under Phenom II 955 or 965 is LIKELY to bottleneck someting as high as the HD5870 on crossfire. As for 955 or 965, nobody really know until we get some real good benchmarks. Don't forget that the 955 was a big enough jump from the 940.
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:34:51 PM

But do people need 3-way crossfire for today's games? Maybe if you're running at very extreme resolutions!

And why would you want to do a 3-way configuration. By then, there should be better single GPU solutions, right? "Should" is the keyword there though :) .
m
0
l
October 15, 2009 11:46:01 PM

You don't need 3 way to encounter a bottleneck.
As you can see in this benchmark, the 3 ways is just abit stronger then the HD5870 on crossfire.
To make it more simple, the i7 was just a LITTLE close to be the cause of a bottleneck with HD5870 crossfire (aka Hd5870x2, or HD5900 seems to be the new name for dual chip..)
We still cant say 100% sure that Phenom II 955 can be the source of a bottleneck in the current generation, But id be surpised if a cpu that came 1 year after the i7 can cause a bottleneck where the i7 dont... VERY surprised, especially when that both CPU performs same when handling GPU's (phenom II 955 even performs better in most cases)
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 12:25:20 AM

.....? what was the point of this answer?
I basically said that you didn't waste your money going i7 and this is the answer I get?
Where is the trolling? Your mad because a Phenom II 955 performs the same as your super special awesome
"<Gaming PC> | Cosmos 1000 Case | Zalman 850W PSU | EVGA X58 3XSLI | i7 920 OCed to 3.3GHz Stock Voltage/Fan | 6GB OCZ Platinum 1600 | Sapphire HD5870 | 2x Samsung 2343 (2048 x 1152) + 1x Samsung 2333HD (1080p) | 4x 1TB HDs in RAID 5 | Windows 7 Build 7100" In gaming?

Once again, I am talking only gaming wise and this is why I said you didn't waste money so what the hell was the point of that reply? I didn't claim anywhere that this is my thread?
learn courtesy, it could help you in life instead of always jumping to conclusion and been mean.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 12:57:09 AM

Yes I am wasting my time, because you are obviously the idiot type and cannot take time to check how this thread moved to this topic.

Quote:
yeah, well with Core i7 CPU's and motherboard costing 12 milion each of course things are going well...

I wouldn't buy intel i7 or i5 simply because of the excessive cost of both the motherboard and CPU.

Right now the Phenom II X4 955 Black overclocked to 3.8Ghz look like the best bang for the buck option.


This is what made this thread change subject
Quote:

i5 sounded like a great deal until the recent news about the defective sockets hit.
i5 outperformed the Phenom II's at a similar cost
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/ [...] g-chipsets

Right now I would only go the i7/x58 or Phenom II/AM3 or AM2+ route.
Too bad about the P55/1156 platform.Hopefully that will be fixed soon otherwise it will scare people off that platform.


I answered to HIM who said that he would go with i7, so I don't even know why the fk did you get involved in this whole i7 thingy. Your answer was that AM3 is not a dead socket, your the one that started arguing with me over i7 vs phenom II and your clearly one big idiot.
This isnt your thread either, I have the right to talk, if your not happy, bang your head on the wall. :) 
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2009 5:10:31 AM

dark_lord69 said:
yeah, well with Core i7 CPU's and motherboard costing 12 milion each of course things are going well...

I wouldn't buy intel i7 or i5 simply because of the excessive cost of both the motherboard and CPU.

Right now the Phenom II X4 955 Black overclocked to 3.8Ghz look like the best bang for the buck option.


Really? you can get a pretty decent P55 mobo for about $134. Not much difference between it and the $200 option sans some IEEE connectors that most gamers don't use.

And DDR3 can't be the reason since its now cheap thanks to Core i7 pushing it.

I think its hard to say if you have a LGA1156 Core i7 860 vs a Phenom II X4 955. the price difference is not that great and the performance is very dependant.



Sorry but you have two things there I don't like:

1. That link about LGA1156 being dead is wrong. Thats been a planned CPU from the start. Its a low end dual core. We don't know Intels full plans for LGA 1156 yet.

2. You complain about dual x8 PCIe 2.0 when even current gen GPUs can't fully saturate dual x16 PCIe 2.0 ports. Just like a GPU at the time didn't fully saturate AGP when it was mothballed.

Now if they did, then I would understand. But until it does, x8 is fine. A lot of places have done tests and show the performance loss is minimal until you go from x16 to x4.

As for AMD, good for them beating the expectations. But lets see how they fare when those Senior Notes come due. Might take a chunk out.
m
0
l
a c 127 à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2009 5:19:01 AM

jj463rd said:
No,it's not Foxconn motherboards rather it's a component (socket) soldered on many brands of motherboards. See the previous link or read here.
http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=3661


So its in "Extreme" situations meaning people who OC CPUs beyond thier limit in negative cooling. Wont matter for most since we do simplistic OCing.

Also, this is why I use Asus mobos. A bit more expensive but have yet to have a problem with any components.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 5:41:59 AM

jimmysmitty said:
So its in "Extreme" situations meaning people who OC CPUs beyond thier limit in negative cooling. Wont matter for most since we do simplistic OCing.

Also, this is why I use Asus mobos. A bit more expensive but have yet to have a problem with any components.

I hear you.I usually use ASUS boards myself but apparently many of the P55 boards (ASUS included) are using those defective Foxconn socket parts.
http://www.xtremesystems.org/forums/showthread.php?p=40...

Also Toms Hardware has noted some other problems with these new motherboards.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/budget-p55-motherbo...

However I think that they are in the process of being fixed so I would avoid these early P55 boards until then.Myself I WANTED to build a i5-750 system I guess I'll have to wait for a while.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 5:57:53 AM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
Despite what JennyH said in another thread, AMD posted a loss of $128 million.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS197097+...

Quote:
SUNNYVALE, Calif.--(Business Wire)--
AMD1 (NYSE:AMD) today reported revenue for the third quarter of 2009 of $1.396
billion. Third quarter 2009 revenue increased 18 percent compared to the second
quarter of 2009 and decreased 22 percent compared to the third quarter of 2008.

In the third quarter of 2009, AMD reported a net loss attributable to AMD common
stockholders of $128 million, or $0.18 per share, which includes a net favorable
impact of $54 million, or $0.08 per share, primarily from a $66 million gain
from the repurchase of debt as described in the table below2. AMD`s operating
loss was $77 million.

In the second quarter of 2009, AMD had revenue of $1.184 billion, a net loss
attributable to AMD common stockholders of $330 million and an operating loss of
$249 million. In the third quarter of 2008, AMD had revenue from continuing
operations of $1.797 billion, a net loss attributable to AMD common stockholders
of $134 million and an operating income of $122 million.


While this may sound like bad news, it's actually good news. AMD beat analysts' expectations and is getting closer to the black.

Will Q4 be their quarter? I still don't think so, but it looks distantly possible now.


I think that I'll wait for the 10-q results to be posted... Non-gaap 'explanations' by AMD seem to be just a bit 'weasle-ey' if you get my meaning.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 6:00:13 AM

jimmysmitty said:
Really? you can get a pretty decent P55 mobo for about $134. Not much difference between it and the $200 option sans some IEEE connectors that most gamers don't use.

And DDR3 can't be the reason since its now cheap thanks to Core i7 pushing it.

I think its hard to say if you have a LGA1156 Core i7 860 vs a Phenom II X4 955. the price difference is not that great and the performance is very dependant.



Sorry but you have two things there I don't like:

1. That link about LGA1156 being dead is wrong. Thats been a planned CPU from the start. Its a low end dual core. We don't know Intels full plans for LGA 1156 yet.

2. You complain about dual x8 PCIe 2.0 when even current gen GPUs can't fully saturate dual x16 PCIe 2.0 ports. Just like a GPU at the time didn't fully saturate AGP when it was mothballed.

Now if they did, then I would understand. But until it does, x8 is fine. A lot of places have done tests and show the performance loss is minimal until you go from x16 to x4.

As for AMD, good for them beating the expectations. But lets see how they fare when those Senior Notes come due. Might take a chunk out.



1. This is for next year, While intel will release a less performant dual core, intel will release a 6 core. If we consider the next year, no matter what intel will release, amd will have the bulldozer 8 cores. If I remember correctly, the LGA1156 is a Quad-Core SKU and will simply never get the upgrade that AM3 or LGA1366 will have. In the end, people that want performance/buck will ditch LGA1156 for AM3 because they have cheaper CPU than the LGA1366.

2. Check this out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5850,2433...

2 HD5850 on crossfire. The cpu used was the very powerfull i7-860 instead of the i5 that most ppl will get. Lets assume the horsepower of the CPU wont be a cause of better performance.

The first chart is only interesting because it has the Bloomfield in blue, the lynnfield used here was overclocked and I would like to compare stock to stock.

Check the green lines in the second chart for L4D.
The performance on a Dual X16 is 162 on stock
The performance of dual X8 is 137 on stock.

Thats near 30 FPS you lose.
Once again you have to consider that the cpu horesepower MIGHT come into action we never know and 2
Those were 2HD5850. 2HD5870 will require FAR more power. And if we get 30fps drops with HD5850, we don't know for HD5870. Now those are the YEAR old games. Imagine with crysis 2 for example (or whatever will use the cryengine 3) In a requiring engine like cryengine, EVER fps count. So for the same $$, People will probably afford a Phenom II 955 and being 100% future proofed for Dual GPu.
Even if there is no "big" drop, 30 was enough to scare many people and i5 lost alot of popularity to the Phenom II 955 in MANY forums I went in.

Of course all of this is speculations based on a review about 2 different hardwares, not the CPU we wanted and not the "latest" gpu.

So now we have a choice between a Quad-Core Socket, versus a will be 12 core socket. (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15566/35/) Now this 12 core will be a server CPU, but we still have the 8 cores (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15939/35/) for desktop while LGA1156 will stay tweaking the 4 cores. We also have choice between a Full future proof DualX16 or a dualx8 that already showed some weakness with only 2HD5850.

All this for the same price.
The only factor left is wether you prefer intel, or AMD. =/ So no I don't think I can convince you.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 6:18:15 AM



Uh, this thread was about AMD financials. Do you have anything to contribute on that topic?

Off-topic, how many threads a day do you have to trash with your AMD fanboi FUD to satisfy your ego, or are you just going for post-count...?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 6:46:00 AM

bboynatural said:
2. Check this out:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/radeon-hd-5850,2433...

2 HD5850 on crossfire. The cpu used was the very powerfull i7-860 instead of the i5 that most ppl will get. Lets assume the horsepower of the CPU wont be a cause of better performance.

The first chart is only interesting because it has the Bloomfield in blue, the lynnfield used here was overclocked and I would like to compare stock to stock.

Check the green lines in the second chart for L4D.
The performance on a Dual X16 is 162 on stock
The performance of dual X8 is 137 on stock.

Thats near 30 FPS you lose.
Once again you have to consider that the cpu horesepower MIGHT come into action we never know and 2
Those were 2HD5850. 2HD5870 will require FAR more power. And if we get 30fps drops with HD5850, we don't know for HD5870. Now those are the YEAR old games. Imagine with crysis 2 for example (or whatever will use the cryengine 3) In a requiring engine like cryengine, EVER fps count. So for the same $$, People will probably afford a Phenom II 955 and being 100% future proofed for Dual GPu.
Even if there is no "big" drop, 30 was enough to scare many people and i5 lost alot of popularity to the Phenom II 955 in MANY forums I went in.

Of course all of this is speculations based on a review about 2 different hardwares, not the CPU we wanted and not the "latest" gpu.

So now we have a choice between a Quad-Core Socket, versus a will be 12 core socket. (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15566/35/) Now this 12 core will be a server CPU, but we still have the 8 cores (http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15939/35/) for desktop while LGA1156 will stay tweaking the 4 cores. We also have choice between a Full future proof DualX16 or a dualx8 that already showed some weakness with only 2HD5850.

All this for the same price.
The only factor left is wether you prefer intel, or AMD. =/ So no I don't think I can convince you.

Wrong on that first chart it showed the difference between 16 X 16 scaling of Bloomfield vs the 8 X 8 scaling of Lynnfield.
In the 16 X 16 CF'd scaling L4D showed 163.2 FPS with 8 X 8 scaling the FPS was 160.8 with Lynnfield.In the article it mentions that no performance drops greater than 5%.
In most circumstances it's around 2 to 3 %.

The second chart showed the difference between a stocked clocked P55 Core i7 870 and one that was overclocked to 4 Ghz which showed an increased frame rate by 23.8 frames per second from 137 FPS to 160.8 FPS

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 6:59:12 AM

By the way TC I apologize.I Didn't mean to hijack your thread.
Well I think AMD is just starting to pull the rabbit out of it's hat with their ATI graphics division (the 5800 cards).I bet selling these will greatly help.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
a b À AMD
October 16, 2009 7:22:47 AM

This is pretty amusing. All we need is that one dude. AMD for LIfe!
m
0
l
a c 172 à CPUs
October 16, 2009 8:47:54 AM

jennyh said:

AMD didn't just beat analysts predictions, they were more than twice as good as what was being predicted. -18c a share was better than every single one of the analysts were predicting. The best prediction was -21c, AMD beat them all.

This is obamaeconomics: "The rate of our loses has decreased."
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 9:20:25 AM

jsc said:
This is obamaeconomics: "The rate of our loses has decreased."


Which is supposed to bad news?


For the second 3rd quarter in a row, the analysts were way off.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 9:59:20 AM

croc said:
I think that I'll wait for the 10-q results to be posted... Non-gaap 'explanations' by AMD seem to be just a bit 'weasle-ey' if you get my meaning.


Oh come on, the figures are all there. The reason for the non-gaap is due to the way AMD attempt to seperate the product company and global foundries.

Sure it's done so that people can see that the product company is making a profit, but what business wouldn't do that? The loss is the $128m loss, it isn't going to change.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 10:53:27 AM

bboynatural said:
I don't think i5 can outperform phenom II 955 if the phenom outperforms a i7...

I ALWAYS SAID THAT LGA1156 WAS EVILLL!!! >=D

I cannot believe that there are bigger trolls than me out there…
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 1:20:29 PM

Quote:
Besides, thats chump change. Consider Bank of America lost 2.25 billion in the 3rd quarter alone.


BAC is something like 20x the size of AMD, and also hasn't posted 13 quarterly losses in a row. Even without the ATI writedowns, AMD has lost something around $4B in the last 3 years. That would be equivalent to BAC losing $80B in the same time period...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 1:30:09 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
BAC is something like 20x the size of AMD, and also hasn't posted 13 quarterly losses in a row. Even without the ATI writedowns, AMD has lost something around $4B in the last 3 years. That would be equivalent to BAC losing $80B in the same time period...


What's done is done. Barring a disaster AMD are not going bankrupt any time soon, the actual products will be break-even over the year I'm sure, which although not great is a lot better than leaking $2bn in a year.

The huge losses have been over for a good few quarters now and there is no way they will be back because they have been scaled down so much now. AMD is leaner and fitter than ever, and in a good position to make money on good products - unlike the past two years where it was basically too big and bloated to justify the market share.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 2:06:43 PM

jennyh, your conviction is admirable. it may not be realistic but it is admirable.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:03:38 PM

roofus said:
jennyh, your conviction is admirable. it may not be realistic but it is admirable.


Hmm, I thought Intel was the only one with a conviction around here :D .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:17:57 PM

jennyh said:
What's done is done. Barring a disaster AMD are not going bankrupt any time soon, the actual products will be break-even over the year I'm sure, which although not great is a lot better than leaking $2bn in a year.

The huge losses have been over for a good few quarters now and there is no way they will be back because they have been scaled down so much now. AMD is leaner and fitter than ever, and in a good position to make money on good products - unlike the past two years where it was basically too big and bloated to justify the market share.


Well I counted wrong and it was only 12 straight quarterly losses, not 13. :p 

However AMD does indeed look like it is getting healthier :) .
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:32:24 PM

roofus said:
jennyh, your conviction is admirable. it may not be realistic but it is admirable.


It's just plain fact, staring everybody right in the eyes but too few are actually looking back.

AMD are much, much leaner than they were 2 years ago. Just look at the figures too, lower cost of sales is why the recession isn't hurting so much even with revenues way down (for both intel and AMD).

There is nothing magical in AMD's Q3 results, it is just up the same as intel was but still down on Q3 2008. Had it been AMD of 2 years ago, still trying to pay for the fabs they probably would have gone under with the recession. Spinning off the foundries will be seen as a masterstroke as soon as global foundries starts paying back, and that isnt far off now.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 3:33:42 PM

selling a 1billion dalloar turtle
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:35:33 PM

fazers_on_stun said:
Well I counted wrong and it was only 12 straight quarterly losses, not 13. :p 

However AMD does indeed look like it is getting healthier :) .


AMD are healthy, in so much that they have profitable products during a recession. The debt is still an obvious burden, and global foundries could end up getting too big for them right now, but if AMD had to ditch glofo and pay off the debt they would basically be a break even company, struggling a bit in cpu's but gaining in gpu's.

That is a helluva lot better than it was 2 years ago.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:39:08 PM

It's all in the analist you read.

From marketwatch

AMD /quotes/comstock/13*!amd/quotes/nls/amd (AMD 5.72, -0.47, -7.59%) tumbled more than 5% in the opening minutes of the session. The Sunnyvale, Calif.-based chip maker posted a narrower quarterly loss on Thursday, but lingering concerns about the company's ability to compete remain.

"With the loss situation projected to continue through 2010 despite improved sales and margin estimates, we recommend investors remain on the sidelines with AMD pending evidence of significant improvement in operational performance," Thomas Weisel Partners analyst Kevin Cassidy said in a note. See story on AMD results.

While this forum is mostly gamers (many with strong convictions). High End homebuilt (AMD, or Intel) does not greatly impact overall sales. And fanboyism (either side) should not be included in financial decisions - or point of return to profit - The total picture is what is important, and AMD sill has a sizable debt to service that will impact the BOTTOM Line - what investors are concerned with.

Excuss the spell, I have to go back to work - testing a satellite instrument.

m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 3:50:23 PM

Well you can reel off all the analysts you want but I was the one who said they would post a $120m loss while they were thinking double that at best.

It's not just about investing either, there are a lot of people who got rich fast when AMD were languishing at $1.62.

$1.62 for AMD, how ludicrous does that look now? Sometimes the analysts get it wrong, and for the second year in a row they have been waaaay off AMD's 3rd quarter results. They are still predicting a loss in Q4, based on what I have absolutely no idea. It's clear to me that most of these analysts don't actually analyse much except for pie charts and diagrams. They simply do not know what AMD have coming up in Q4 and they don't realise how bad a shape Nvidia are in either.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 4:06:12 PM

who let all the noobs in?
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 4:21:05 PM

jennyh - There use to be a very good web site to look at what a given stock is REALLY worth, and in bad times that is what the stock can sink to Basicly it treated the company just like an individual. You add ALL the asset and subrtact ALL the liabilities, divide by the number of shares and that equates to the real value of a share. At the $1.62 they had one heck of a debt load. Being honest I have no idea what they are really worth. What I do know is that any stock below $5 can go either way, as many major investment firms use this point as a break point in their investment choice.

And yes many made a lot of money Betting on AMD - But that is just what it is Betting. Remember Nt (nortel, and Worldcom) Alot of people got clombered.

I learned my lesson, and limit my betting to Vagas (Blackjack and Pia-gow)
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 4:42:45 PM

There's no way Intel can beat up AMD because Intel NEEDS AMD to survive.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 4:55:21 PM

I don't understand those who revel in any company's problems. All these companies in the "Tech Industry" employ a lot of people. In economic terms and in a macro terms sense assist the larger economy as well if successful. AMD has provided great products at great value for a long time as well as Intel, both great competitors. Why would anyone get all excited about "yea, great, Amd didn't make any money such great news, one step closer to a one maker market" just silly. It's one thing to report news and another to pretend it's good news. Wouldn't everyone agree that we need AMD to make money and be successful?
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 5:28:26 PM

topper743 said:
I don't understand those who revel in any company's problems.


I don't see any of that here.

topper743 said:
It's one thing to report news and another to pretend it's good news.


No one is pretending AMD's results are good news, they actually are good news, no need to pretend. AMD did better than everyone thought they would and black ink is perhaps in sight.


AMD's stock has gone down sharply today, but that's because when Intel posted good results AMD's stock rose hoping that they would have similar results, so the stock already had good results priced into it. Also, BofA has really brought the market down today, but that only account for a small portion of AMD's stock price drop today.
m
0
l
October 16, 2009 5:50:49 PM

TechnologyCoordinator said:
I don't see any of that here.

.


Are you saying in this post or on the forum. You are deluding yourself if you dont see this going on. All the ati fanboys find anything and everything to knock on intel and nvidia and when poeple point out the shortcomings of their beloved amd it does not apply and they deny it. Heaven forbit they be objective and see the downfalls and good about each company.
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 6:50:26 PM

While AMD had a decent report for today's economy and it's future looks promising, their stock dropped quite a bit on the news, but then again, so did Intel's and everyone else's. Sad part is, basically all reports that have come out over the past week have pointed to higher Global Demand for microprocessors! What gives people?

to Intel AND AMD/ATI Fanboys... it's just a matter of time before AMD holds the CPU crown again, they did it a few years ago, and just look at what ATI has done since their 3xxx-series GPU's... There is always a balance, this time, the pendelum is working in AMD/ATI's favor...
m
0
l
a b à CPUs
October 16, 2009 8:41:20 PM

Quote:
Hmmm....4 billion lost in 3 years, ironic they barrowed 5 billion to purchase ATI 3 years ago, makes perfect sense.

Not to mention you missed the point. My point was that many, many companies are suffering with this economy right now, especially the tech industry.


You missed both points apparently.

1) The $4B loss does not include the ATI purchase writeoff. Add that in, and the total loss is well over $8B.

2) You were minimizing AMD's loss by comparing it to Bank of America's loss. If you're gonna compare, you should at least scale the losses to account for the relative difference in sizes. IOW, a $2.3B loss for BofA is relatively less than what AMD lost in Q3 - $115M vs. $128M.

Otherwise, I could use as an example the kid down the street who had a lawnmowing business and made something like $300 this past summer, after gas & repair expenses when he hit a few rocks. Despite being a one-kid operation, he made a WHOPPING $128,000,300.00 more than AMD did last summer :D .
m
0
l
!