- Jun 21, 2005
- 11,944
- 2,174
- 126
http://www.businesswire.com/po...0721006259&newsLang=en
GPU revenue is up and as usual the CPU side is down.
GPU revenue is up and as usual the CPU side is down.
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
no signs that they'll be profitable - ever.
I'm afraid they'll have to do what GM and Chrysler did after they have burnt all their cash.
Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.businesswire.com/po...0721006259&newsLang=en
GPU revenue is up and as usual the CPU side is down.
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: thilan29
http://www.businesswire.com/po...0721006259&newsLang=en
GPU revenue is up and as usual the CPU side is down.
Since its going to be asked over and over again till horses be dead, the Graphics revenue was $251m and profits were -$12m (a loss for the quarter).
Interestingly they do report/list their portion of the foundry revenue (and losses).
Financial tables here
Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm guessing Viditor will not be around for a while, with all the insisting he did that AMD wasn't on the hook for GF losses
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: Phynaz
I'm guessing Viditor will not be around for a while, with all the insisting he did that AMD wasn't on the hook for GF losses
Yeah I'm not sure how to interpret this financial reporting...are they basically reporting their % cut on GF's revenue and losses/profits on their own bottom-line EPS for AMD?
Or are they reporting investments made into GF and simultaneously reporting a writedown in the valuation of their GF asset holdings?
Its not clear to me what exactly AMD is reporting about in there "foundry" section. I'm compelled to believe it is percentage of foundry revenue (with ATIC holding the bag on the rest of it) and P/L, but so little is said about it (intentional obfuscation by AMD?) that I can only speculate at best here.
Originally posted by: nitromullet
Originally posted by: postmortemIA
no signs that they'll be profitable - ever.
I'm afraid they'll have to do what GM and Chrysler did after they have burnt all their cash.
It's an odd thing too because the performance in their CPUs and GPUs is there. This is what i think they need:
Laptop segment; They need a platform as good as Centrino, and they need to market that platform. They definitely need a netbook platform. While cheap, netbooks are selling like crazy.
Business desktop segment: Low cost/low power platform.
Enthusiast/Gamer: Gotta bury the hatchet with NVIDIA. While there is probably not much they can do in the short term with regards to performance against i7/X58, they can at least offer a lower priced, dual PCIe 16X platform that supports both SLI and Crossfire. Intel is murdering AMD in the gamer segment.
Server: Not sure here actually... I'm guessing that they are still lacking in brand recognition.
Either way, AMD offers good value products right now, and they really could be targeting a considerably more value conscious customer base, but they need to market, market, market. Most people still don't know what AMD is. People know Windows, Intel, and Apple... Whether famous or infamous, they know these three names.
Originally posted by: thilan29
They also probably don't have the R&D budget that Intel has so maybe it takes them a bit longer to come up with new architectures?
Originally posted by: Idontcare
Originally posted by: thilan29
They also probably don't have the R&D budget that Intel has so maybe it takes them a bit longer to come up with new architectures?
Try about 1/5 to 1/6 the budget and manpower.
Truthfully anyone who's held a job in a professional environment such as engineering or business management has got to be astounded that AMD even does as well as they do in terms of market timing, product performance, and financial performance when one considers Intel's teams (from development to marketing) all have about 5x (as in 500%) more resources than AMD's comparable teams.
At TI (Texas Instruments) we had about 1/2-1/3 the resources as Intel's teams (we produced our own x86 processor back in the 386 and 486 days) and it was downright moral tromping to try and remain competitive in any sense of the word in that environment faced with such resource shortfalls and gaps to the competition.
There's a reason no one willfully competes against operating monopolies, sans Apple (to MS) and AMD (to Intel).
Originally posted by: Keysplayr
All this tells me is that Intel could be doing 5x better than they are now. But, we must trickle out the technology so that we will maximize our decades of astonishing income.
Sorry to be so negative about this, but you hit a nerve in me with that 1/5 to 1/6 the budget of Intel, and doing as good as they're doing. Why can't Intel do 5 to 6 times better than they are now? My guess is they can, but won't. Too much money to suck out of the rest of the population I guess. Slow and steady now.