Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD's China Division Executive Departs Company

By - Source: Digitimes | B 29 comments

AMD has lost another key executive. The company confirmed the departure of David Tang, who was senior vice president and president of Greater China region for the company.

Spencer Pan, corporate vice president and managing director for Greater China has assumed Tang's former role.

It was unclear whether Tang left voluntarily or whether he was let go. According to Digitimes, there have been rumors of a possible exit of Tang for some time.

Given its staff departures as well as economic challenges, AMD could use a small miracle to get its business back on track. Financial securities firm Evercore Partners recently cut AMD's fourth quarter outlook from a revenue expectation of $1.15 billion to $1.13 billion and a loss of 13 cents per share. For 2013, the environment could get worse as the firm predicts $4.8 billion in revenue, down from $4.87 billion. The forecast loss is 18 cents per share.

AMD's stock stood at $2.45 per share. AMD's current market cap is $1.74 billion.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Ask a Category Expert

Create a new thread in the News comments forum about this subject

Example: Notebook, Android, SSD hard drive

This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 10 Hide
    alidan , December 24, 2012 4:31 AM
    sacreMan them days seem to be gone.. AMD why did you slack off?I mean you had intel by the balls with the 64's. Ah well. At least intel is still supplying us with more powerful CPU's despite the lack of competition.


    intel effectivly killed amd through a monopoly, and amd never really recovered.
    right now we should be seeing a 50/50 market share considering that amd was FAR out preforming intel for a while, but amd never made the money because intel said if people use amd for anything they lose the bulk discounts form them.

    hell even today, amd is a great value but they still cant get over 10% market share for some reason.
Other Comments
  • -6 Hide
    tomfreak , December 24, 2012 3:33 AM
    AMD GPU are doing pretty well, I hope the crappy CPU do not affect the GPU development.

    I hate to see the profit from GPU goes to pay CPU expenses.
  • 5 Hide
    sacre , December 24, 2012 3:58 AM
    Man them days seem to be gone.. AMD why did you slack off?

    I mean you had intel by the balls with the 64's.

    Ah well. At least intel is still supplying us with more powerful CPU's despite the lack of competition.
  • Display all 29 comments.
  • 0 Hide
    zeratul600 , December 24, 2012 4:01 AM
    so has amd stock reach rock bottom? do i buy now¿
    ?
  • -1 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 24, 2012 4:24 AM
    zeratul600so has amd stock reach rock bottom? do i buy now¿?


    Nah, keep shorting.*

    * Shorting is where you bet that the stocks will go down by borrowing the stocks, then selling them at the current price, then pay back the stocks when the prices drop.
  • 10 Hide
    alidan , December 24, 2012 4:31 AM
    sacreMan them days seem to be gone.. AMD why did you slack off?I mean you had intel by the balls with the 64's. Ah well. At least intel is still supplying us with more powerful CPU's despite the lack of competition.


    intel effectivly killed amd through a monopoly, and amd never really recovered.
    right now we should be seeing a 50/50 market share considering that amd was FAR out preforming intel for a while, but amd never made the money because intel said if people use amd for anything they lose the bulk discounts form them.

    hell even today, amd is a great value but they still cant get over 10% market share for some reason.
  • -7 Hide
    tomfreak , December 24, 2012 4:40 AM
    alidanintel effectivly killed amd through a monopoly, and amd never really recovered. right now we should be seeing a 50/50 market share considering that amd was FAR out preforming intel for a while, but amd never made the money because intel said if people use amd for anything they lose the bulk discounts form them. hell even today, amd is a great value but they still cant get over 10% market share for some reason.
    it is more like the management kill amd itself. not really Intel's fault. the guys who design the awesome Ahtlon64 are all over Apple, and other place.

    besides bulldozer should have complete with Core2 quad Q9000/Nehelem and it is delayed again and again.
  • 2 Hide
    digiex , December 24, 2012 4:41 AM
    Quote:
    AMD could use a small miracle to get its business back on track.


    So you mean it's hopeless for AMD? I pray not, maybe a miracle could happen.
  • -8 Hide
    memadmax , December 24, 2012 4:41 AM
    Intel will always produce more powerful processors because that's what keeps the ball rolling.

    I don't know why people think that Intel has or will have a monopoly on the chip market, or think thats a bad thing if they do have a monopoly, which they effectively had for a very long time by the way.

    The chip market is not like any other market, you have to continuously improve the product otherwise you peeter out and die... sorta like what happened to AMD, CYRIX, and others btw....

    Intel makes the best... thats why they are king. Sometimes they do produce a dud, but they adapt and overcome... thats what makes them great.
  • -7 Hide
    tomfreak , December 24, 2012 4:57 AM
    memadmaxIntel will always produce more powerful processors because that's what keeps the ball rolling.I don't know why people think that Intel has or will have a monopoly on the chip market, or think thats a bad thing if they do have a monopoly, which they effectively had for a very long time by the way.The chip market is not like any other market, you have to continuously improve the product otherwise you peeter out and die... sorta like what happened to AMD, CYRIX, and others btw....Intel makes the best... thats why they are king. Sometimes they do produce a dud, but they adapt and overcome... thats what makes them great.
    people are paraniod. brace urself u'll get thumb down for this.

    they fear the cheapest Pentium will sell @ i3 price or i3 selling @ i5 price, but they forgot Intel cannot be greedy & make desktop/laptop expensive when the ARM is attack its market right now.
  • 4 Hide
    wdmfiber , December 24, 2012 5:26 AM
    Bulldozer wow...
    Before it was released, I figure it was way overhyped.

    A friend of mine was debating getting an i7-980X. This was early 2011 and the CPU was used; a relative of his had it. Anyway the concern was Bulldozer would decimate everything. I was doubtful and he did end up getting it. But unbelievable, that CPU is almost 3 years old now and it still ranks near the top! Bull.... what?

    One bad product can destroy a company. I know it's not the only issue, but's frig...
    And AMD's troubles suck for the whole industry and consumers. Intel does need some competition.
  • 1 Hide
    tomfreak , December 24, 2012 5:29 AM
    hastenThats not true. The lead designer of AMD's most successful CPUs is back with the company.
    he is not part of the team who design the faildozer. Bulldozer isnt that bad had it not been delayed & if they release @ core 2 duo/nehelem transition time.
  • 5 Hide
    silverblue , December 24, 2012 10:07 AM
    Bulldozer was a complete redesign... of the previous Bulldozer design. That's the main reason it was delayed - they simply tore the plans up and started anew.

    Anyway, I think people forget that Phenom II pretty much saved AMD; its higher clocks, larger L3 cache and reduced power consumption helped alleviate some of the pain they had to ensure as a result of the overhyped, underperforming Phenom. Despite having a narrower front end than Core 2, it was still comparable.

    One thing I always found amusing was that people cursed AMD for not sticking with the K8-based architecture longer thus bypassing Bulldozer, yet there were calls for the existing architecture to be phased out as soon as possible before even Thuban was released. In the end, Bulldozer is the way AMD are going and it'll make a lot of sense eventually. It was massively overhyped (can anyone remember "50% faster than the i7-950"?) and in hindsight, it's no wonder there weren't any official previews, but it could've been worse. :) 
  • -3 Hide
    natoco , December 24, 2012 11:13 AM
    Amd's cpu's are an absolute joke, they have only just caught up with intels 2008 i7's and even then clock for clock they fail against them and the power usage is sky high. I owned a x2 4800 939 socket cpu and it was wicked back in the day but those days are over and since im a gamer i would not touch amd cpus. even if some one gave me one i would throw it back in there face and yell 'jam this peice of sh*t up ya'
  • 2 Hide
    InvalidError , December 24, 2012 12:07 PM
    natocoand even then clock for clock they fail against them

    Clock-for-clock equivalence is not important in itself since lower IPC can be compensated with higher clock.

    The real problem is that AMD's chips do not clock that much higher and do so at high TDP cost. If AMD could produce quad-core chips clocked at ~5GHz stock that could compete with the performance and TDP of a stock i5-3570 then everybody would be happy.
  • -3 Hide
    bunz_of_steel , December 24, 2012 12:20 PM
    AMD is going down because all the monies are at the top where the exec's are. Nothing new on roadmap that I read that will compete. Making a processor that is less energy efficient, performs subpar to it's competitor and making it a few bucks cheaper isn't incentive enough to invest in. I have all AMD systems and next year... gotta go with Intel so sad for AMD. They are like the zebra, prey not predator and desperately trying to stay alive.
  • 1 Hide
    azraa , December 24, 2012 1:13 PM
    Tomfreakpeople are paraniod. brace urself u'll get thumb down for this.they fear the cheapest Pentium will sell @ i3 price or i3 selling @ i5 price, but they forgot Intel cannot be greedy & make desktop/laptop expensive when the ARM is attack its market right now.


    Toootal bullsh*t dude, what the hell does ARM has to do with desktop/laptop processors?
    Jeez, seems that today anyone makes up crappy arguments for trashing AMD, when they did not that bad of a job, even with bulldozer
  • 3 Hide
    silverblue , December 24, 2012 1:37 PM
    natocoAmd's cpu's are an absolute joke, they have only just caught up with intels 2008 i7's and even then clock for clock they fail against them and the power usage is sky high. I owned a x2 4800 939 socket cpu and it was wicked back in the day but those days are over and since im a gamer i would not touch amd cpus. even if some one gave me one i would throw it back in there face and yell 'jam this peice of sh*t up ya'

    And the Nehalem i7s didn't use a lot of power? Really?
  • -2 Hide
    dormantreign , December 24, 2012 2:02 PM
    All hands, abandon ship...repeat all hands abandon ship! _ Captain Picard
  • 2 Hide
    Kami3k , December 24, 2012 3:01 PM
    sacreMan them days seem to be gone.. AMD why did you slack off?I mean you had intel by the balls with the 64's. Ah well. At least intel is still supplying us with more powerful CPU's despite the lack of competition.


    AMD never slacked off, Intel just used it's massive cash reserves, along with our broken system, to screw AMD royally in the ass.

    As much as I can approve of the technological developments Intel have done in the past years. I can't help but wonder what else would of been developed had AMD not been screwed over.
  • 2 Hide
    chiefbox , December 24, 2012 3:09 PM
    I worked there the past 9+ years (Austin and Markham/Toronto); in general, it was never an issue on the design and innovation side, but on the process and manufacturing is where AMD struggled. Intel process technology is solid and didn't get in the way.
Display more comments