chunkymonster :
Are these the same analysts that are predicting the US economy is going to collapse due to mortgage foreclosures and defaulting sub-prime loans?
The only credible statements are the comments about AMD paying too much for ATI and assuming too much debt from the acquisition. Talk about an 800lb gorilla!
The Board trimming the management tree of a few dead branches would not be a total surprise, either.
A few more note worthy quotes...
Some observers of the personal computer industry say Wall Street's vote of no-confidence is an overreaction.
AMD has several strengths: the largest and strongest engineering team in its history, a productive research partnership with IBM Corp. and some promising new graphics chips. In addition, the company has a plethora of new computer processor chips, and graphics chips for desktop and notebook computers as well as servers, the powerful machines that run business Web sites and other operations.
"Rumors of AMD's death are greatly exaggerated," said analyst Nathan Brookwood
"AMD is not in terminal decline," said analyst Ashok Kumar of CRT Capital Holdings LLC. "They will fix it and turn the ship around. The (personal computer) market needs a credible second source, and AMD is that."
"The (computer makers) don't want to go back to the days when they gave Intel a license to print money," Kumar said.
I wouldnt say, in the case of AMD, the analysts vote of no confidence is an over reaction. Even discounting all the fanboy hype, which artificially exagerated expectations (even where AMD itself wasnt hyping) AMD still had more than enough notable failures that I find myself wondering why the analysts and stock ratings didnt fall sooner.
I cant speak for you, or anyone else, but I know I view QFX as a knee jerk reaction rather than a pre-planned product. Had it worked, who would have cared? But it didnt, and not ony didnt it not work, but it failed spectacularly....so much so, I still find myself wondering, did AMD really misread the enthusiast segment that much, and honestly beleive people would buy into the 'more expensive, lower performing sockets are better' schtick??
And QFX's still birth wasnt the first of AMDs failures during this time frame. Killing 939 was. Given the circumstances, 939s premature demise, however unpalatable, is perfectly and easily understandable....they really didnt have much choice, so they did what they had to, but none the less they shafted people in the process.
AM2 was overhyped by the fanboys, but even so, it was and still is a strong perfromer, yes, not as fast as C2D, but it still rules the value segment, and is a strong contender in midrange. Its only failure (if you could call it a failure) is that the SOI process was just too limited to give the same clockspeeds as C2D.
Brisbane, on the otherhand is a failure....of sorts. Not the Uarch, but the increased limitations of SOI @ 65nm. AMD has yet to resolve those issues and match K8 @ 90nm, but there is the benefit of 65nm, obviously,....greater # of dies per wafer...kind of a net sum zero tradeoff in that respect, but it certainly wasnt the C2D killer the fanboys hyped it to be, nor do I suspect, was it what AMD hoped it would be or projected it to be.
K10-----nuff said.
That leaves the ATI purchase. I didnt like it then, and Im still not sure if I do, but I do understand it, and IMO still think it was a good idea. Yes, it hurt them financially, but, long term, not buying it could have hurt them even worse. ATI was like a tetnus or hepetitus shot. You dont want it, it sucks getting it, but long term, its a good thing in your best interests. Not getting the shots leaves you in a far worse situation long term. In the case of ATI, not getting it would have left AMD in a far worse situation IRT platforms....and Im not refering to spider, which really isnt a money maker, but to enterprise systems, where they could have been selling dozens, hundreds, even thousands of platforms per contract.
So, AMD killed 939 early POing everyone who bought them, lost some performance early on with AM2, then couldnt deliver to the channel, bought ATI (who had their own problems with the 2900s) spewed QFX onto the market where it promptly failed, had SOI @ 65nm problems with Brisbane, problems which still, to this very moment plague them, and then.....then there was K10. Intel had netburst....a mighty big failure, and one that lasted a long while, but they corrected with C2D. AMD has had several failures and net sum zero gains, where they kept promising success.
How many times must the little boy cry wolf before you dont even bother opening the door for him anymore? IMO, everyone who knows anything at all about CPUs was waiting for K10 to set right all the wrongs AMD had endured....but it didnt. Perhaps K10s shortcomings could have been overlooked had its problems not been so pronounced, but with the exception of being a native quad, it missed every mark it aimed for.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram