AMD Quarterly Report Discussion Thread

[jhu]

You can, undoubtly, i made some good money on AMD a decade ago...

Since, i abandonned the US market because i live in the Eurozone and i dont want to bother with the $/€ parity, but i m still trading such a dreadfull stock in the EU and it works very well.

Such stocks require a dynamic management if you want to hold a long term position so you have to sell and buy back to take advantage of the volatility that otherwise will kill you.

If he wants to hold his position he has to be here every day , sell if the trend is bear, and then buy back a biggest quantity of stocks for the same amount of $ , if the trend is bullish he has to try to sell at the higher points and buy back on recoveries, that s the only way to win with very volatile stocks, of course a step further would be to not only sell but to short sell on the same row before buying back twice and be long again, but i wont advise one to do such an agressive strategy if he has not a formal training and accurate knowledge of decision tools.

Jeebus. Might as well trade bitcoins instead. At least there's no tax on the transactions (or at least you can get away with not paying any).

 

[positivedoppler]

I wonder how much of the Intel Contra revenue is killing AMD's low end market share along with Nvidia's mobile ambition. Why design with kabini/mullin etc when Intel is giving away the Bay for free.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I wonder how much of the Intel Contra revenue is killing AMD's low end market share along with Nvidia's mobile ambition. Why design with kabini/mullin etc when Intel is giving away the Bay for free.

Bay Trail-M/D are not covered by the contra-revenue program. Intel is making fat margins on these things.

 

[Phynaz]

I wonder how much of the Intel Contra revenue is killing AMD's low end market share along with Nvidia's mobile ambition. Why design with kabini/mullin etc when Intel is giving away the Bay for free.

What CPU does AMD have in the phone market?

 

[AtenRa]

Intel's Contra Revenue has a big impact in AMDs Mullins Low Power APUs.

 

[dahorns]

Intel's Contra Revenue has a big impact in AMDs Mullins Low Power APUs.

How so? As far as I know AMD has no presence in tablets or phones, the only devices for which Bay Trail contra revenue applies.

 

[witeken]

I wonder how much of the Intel Contra revenue is killing AMD's low end market share along with Nvidia's mobile ambition. Why design with kabini/mullin etc when Intel is giving away the Bay for free.

They don't give their chips away for free. OEMs still have to pay the silicon.

 

[AtenRa]

How so? As far as I know AMD has no presence in tablets or phones, the only devices for which Bay Trail contra revenue applies.

And that is because of the Contra revenue. You dont actually believe AMD will give 4.5W TDP Mullins for free to have 40M Tablets within 12 months.

So when an OEM has to choose between BayTrail-T and Mullins for a new Tablet they choose BayTrail-T no matter if Mullins was 20x better.

 

[dahorns]

And that is because of the Contra revenue. You dont actually believe AMD will give 4.5W TDP Mullins for free to have 40M Tablets within 12 months.

So when an OEM has to choose between BayTrail-T and Mullins for a new Tablet they choose BayTrail-T no matter if Mullins was 20x better.

So, you are assuming that absent Bay Trail, Mullins would magically gain mobile share from the ARM camp? Wouldn't AMD have had the exact same problem Bay Trail has in comparison the ARM offerings--i.e., a higher bill of materials?

 

[AtenRa]

So, you are assuming that absent Bay Trail, Mullins would magically gain mobile share from the ARM camp? Wouldn't AMD have had the exact same problem Bay Trail has in comparison the ARM offerings--i.e., a higher bill of materials?

You are HP or any other OEM, you are thinking of producing a new 8" Windows based Tablet. There are only two chooses, BayTrail-T and Mullins.
You get Contra Revenue with BayTrail-T but not with Mullins, what do you choose ??? :whiste:

 

[dahorns]

You are HP or any other OEM, you are thinking of producing a new 8" Windows based Tablet. There are only two chooses, BayTrail-T and Mullins.
You get Contra Revenue with BayTrail-T but not with Mullins, what do you choose ??? :whiste:

Prior to the announcement of contra-revenue, the Windows-based tablets were limited to Windows RT sporting ARM processors.

It seems then that the OEMs were not going to produce x86 Windows tablets at all unless the costs were at least comparable to the ARM offerings.

Further, I'm simply not aware of any evidence that any OEM was ever looking to AMD for tablet solutions.

 

[AtenRa]

Prior to the announcement of contra-revenue, the Windows-based tablets were limited to Windows RT sporting ARM processors.

It seems then that the OEMs were not going to produce x86 Windows tablets at all unless the costs were at least comparable to the ARM offerings.

Further, I'm simply not aware of any evidence that any OEM was ever looking to AMD for tablet solutions.

First off all, Microsoft announced that Sub 9" Tablets will get windows for Free in February 2014. So, you can have a nice 8" Windows Tablet at almost the same or close to the same price as the Android Tablets. That opens the road for every x86 SoC in to the Tablet space and the opportunity for Windows to compete against Android.

So now that AMD has a very competitive 4.5W TDP SoC that is perfect for Tablets with higher iGPU performance than its Competitor, no OEM will ever have a look at it because of the Intel Contra Revenue.

AMD can compete in performance but they cannot give Mullins for free. Simple as that.

 

[witeken]

Intel doesn't give Atom away for free, please don't spread such FUD.

 

[AtenRa]

Intel doesn't give Atom away for free, please don't spread such FUD.

They sold ~10M SoCs with 51M Revenue, do the math

 

[witeken]

They sold ~10M SoCs with 51M Revenue, do the math

Intel apparently wanted their chips to be more price competitive with ARM, since the ASP is ~6X lower than Q1's ASP of $31.2. But not free.

 

[Erenhardt]

Intel doesn't give Atom away for free, please don't spread such FUD.

They sold ~10M SoCs with 51M Revenue, do the math

Well then... Witeken is partially right. No one wants them for free so intel is paying OEMs to take their chips, but that is nothing to write home about I guess...

 

[AtenRa]

My bad, they are selling them for $5, you are right they are not giving them for free

 

[Erenhardt]

Ohh.. I thought its contra revenue you are talking about and those are going for -5$. My bad. But then, I just made a 10$ mistake only...

Anyway, that is going offtopic. To take it back on rails, how does the +5$ per BT compares to console SOC? How much AMD is making on consoles wins? Is it really not worth the hassle like nv said some time ago?

 

[frozentundra123456]

It is "worth the hassle" if you cpu business is in the toilet and consoles are your only reliable source of revenue.

 

[USER8000]

It is "worth the hassle" if you cpu business is in the toilet and consoles are your only reliable source of revenue.

Why should it be a hassle when all the dev costs are paid for by the companies wanting the chips,and a lot of the other fixed costs are not there too?? Even at their peak AMD was a fraction of Intel's size,so all this indignation from hardware enthusiasts on forums always makes me s******. I am surprised they even competed for so long.

Also,using your logic Intel should not bother with getting into tablets and phones since they are loosing loads of money too for the last few years in those areas,and other companies are actually turning actual profits in the area(even the small Chinese companies with tiny margins),since their tablet and phone CPU business "is in the toilet" ,and they should stick to the other areas where the "hassle" is worth it.

The only companies wanting desperately to push X86 into tablets and phones are Intel and AMD(and probably hardware enthusiasts on forums since they use X86 CPUs in their PCs and there is an E-PEEN thing going on there) - the rest of the world honestly does not care.

In fact this X86 centric behaviour is relatively recent. Even Intel with Itanium and its XScale was hedging its bets for years.

If Intel and AMD had just kept their ARM core development going,it would not have surprised me if one of them(probably Intel),would have been making decent money in the segment instead of companies like Qualcomm who benefited from them selling off the relevant parts of their companies.

They both got late to the party,from not anticipating the trends properly,sold the wrong parts of the companies at the wrong time, and now are trying to try and cover the hole in their product lineups.

In both cases,its always "next year" when finally they will break into the market and make a profit.

 

[positivedoppler]

Ohh.. I thought its contra revenue you are talking about and those are going for -5$. My bad. But then, I just made a 10$ mistake only...

Anyway, that is going offtopic. To take it back on rails, how does the +5$ per BT compares to console SOC? How much AMD is making on consoles wins? Is it really not worth the hassle like nv said some time ago?

I think many of the estimate has AMD charging $100 to $115 per console chip with a profit of about $15.

Didn't AMD and Intel settle in their law suit a long time ago that has Intel not being allowed to offer rebates like this?

 

[positivedoppler]

And I apologize for not having a better understanding in Law, but when Intel sales BT for $5 a pop, isn't that dumping?

 

[USER8000]

And I apologize for not having a better understanding in Law, but when Intel sales BT for $5 a pop, isn't that dumping?

Well no since it is not free.

 

[mrmt]

Why should it be a hassle when all the dev costs are paid for by the companies wanting the chips,and a lot of the other fixed costs are not there too?? Even at their peak AMD was a fraction of Intel's size,so all this indignation from hardware enthusiasts on forums always makes me s******. I am surprised they even competed for so long.

Because that takes focus off their main projects.

Also,using your logic Intel should not bother with getting into tablets and phones since they are loosing loads of money too for the last few years in those areas,and other companies are actually turning actual profits in the area(even the small Chinese companies with tiny margins),since their tablet and phone CPU business "is in the toilet" ,and they should stick to the other areas where the "hassle" is worth it.

The TAM for the mobile phone market and tablet market is far bigger than the TAM for console chips. Also the average margins there is significantly larger.

 

[USER8000]

Because that takes focus off their main projects.

But it also means certain R and D can be covered by paying customers too. Considering how long the consoles were in development it is interesting to see how much of GCN and Jaguar/Puma core development was subsidised by Sony and Microsoft indirectly. For example the PS4 GPU is not GCN MK1 for example.

The TAM for the mobile phone market and tablet market is far bigger than the TAM for console chips. Also the average margins there is significantly larger.

Yet billions in direct and indirect losses each year for Atom. Why "bother with the hassle" then? Just give up and concentrate on other areas(yes,you might sense the sarcasm in my posts now).

It makes me wonder even if they did manage to turn some sort of profit next year for the Atom segment of the company,how long it would take for them to make enough money to cover the losses they have made for years with Atom in the first place. Atom has been out for 6 and a half years - how much money has Intel actually made on it?

Its always next year. You might as well be Waiting for Godet.Its a good thing Intel has some,entrenched markets were they can make decent money in. AMD,is well the small fry in comparison,so they need to find what areas they can find a niche in,so it might not be such great news for enthusiasts on forums TBH.

The worse thing is if Intel has spent the kind of money on ARM core development,that they have on Atom in the last six and a half years, they would be ahead of everyone else in the segment,and things like the iPhone and iPad would have been Intel powered,and they probably would have not need all this subsidisation in the first place.