They are talking "IP" in the same sense that the NVidia deal covered; patent cover to stop your ass getting sued. They didn't just shove NVidia GPUs into their chips, and they're not going to shove AMD GPUs into their chips. This is about patents, not specific designs.
Seems like a sensible move for Intel; throw AMD a lifeline to keep anti-trust off your back, stop feeding money to NVidia (who seem like the more credible rival right now), and if AMD goes belly up you can just acquire the portfolio at a knock down price.
Or so NVidia claimed. They were perfectly happy to accept console margins for two generations in a row, then when they didn't have something competitive to offer they claim they never wanted it in the first place.
Both companies wanted an integrated all-in-one chip, and they wanted a 64-bit CPU. NVidia weren't in a position to offer that so they were out.
Eh have you seen AMDs margins? The more the consoles represent of their sales the lower their margins go. I think it is safe to say Nvidia was correct in saying margins for consoles was beyond horrible. I have heard rumors margins are in the teens. You cant run a business on margins like that. As evidenced quarterly by AMD.
The consoles have more value than just the margins.
And its not as if they could compete anyways w/o a cpu to combo with.
What value would that be? Clearly it isnt monetary.
What value would that be? Clearly it isnt monetary.
Optimizations for desktop cards, VR influence, etc along with money, R&D costs paid off, etc.
Optimizations for desktop cards, VR influence, etc along with money, R&D costs paid off, etc.
So while it sounds great on paper being in consoles hasnt produced much of anything for AMD so far. Just really low margins that are killing the company.
Anyone who thinks Nvidia or Intel just shrugged off $100s of millions in revenue from console deals is crazy. Low margins are better than nothing at all. AMD had the right product at the right time. It hasn't been enough to carry the whole company financially but it's profitable.
AMD has been in consoles for a decade(Wii,Xbox 360,XBone, PS4). This has produced very little advantages when it comes to optimizations and monetary gain. Monetary is where all of these advantages need to arrive for it to be worthy.
So while it sounds great on paper being in consoles hasnt produced much of anything for AMD so far. Just really low margins that are killing the company.
Anyone who thinks Nvidia or Intel just shrugged off $100s of millions in revenue from console deals is crazy. Low margins are better than nothing at all. AMD had the right product at the right time. It hasn't been enough to carry the whole company financially but it's profitable.
How is the only currently profitable segment of AMDs business the thing that is killing the company?
How has it been profitable? AMD is losing money with margins in the low to mid 30s. Console sales were rumored to be in the teens. And no, low margins are not always better than nothing at all. Smart business maximizes margins. Gross margins are the difference between cost of goods and sale price. Intels margins are in the 60s, Nvidias in the 50s. One of the reasons Intel hasnt got into desktop discrete graphics is due to their lower margins. No way would Intel waste resources chasing a product with margins in the teens. Doesnt come out for them and it doesnt come out for AMD neither.
Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom is the only part of AMDs business that's running a profit.
The volume and profit is there. It's just not enough to carry the whole company.
How has it been profitable? AMD is losing money with margins in the low to mid 30s. Console sales were rumored to be in the teens. And no, low margins are not always better than nothing at all. Smart business maximizes margins. Gross margins are the difference between cost of goods and sale price. Intels margins are in the 60s, Nvidias in the 50s. One of the reasons Intel hasnt got into desktop discrete graphics is due to their lower margins. No way would Intel waste resources chasing a product with margins in the teens. Doesnt come out for them and it doesnt come out for AMD neither.
These are all great points, though AMD missed the largest benefit. They really should have demanded a "Powered by AMD" sticker or logo on each and every console sold. That sort of mind share would have paid off over time.
Great point I however don't think Sony or MS would have ever allowed that.
If there is gonna be a big shiny logo on the consoles it will be there own.
FYI, this "Bloomberg report" is not on their website. Pump and dump?
Intel can't buy AMD, feds won't allow it as it would be a clear violation of monopoly laws.
Eh have you seen AMDs margins? The more the consoles represent of their sales the lower their margins go. I think it is safe to say Nvidia was correct in saying margins for consoles was beyond horrible. I have heard rumors margins are in the teens. You cant run a business on margins like that. As evidenced quarterly by AMD.
AMD has been in consoles for a decade(Wii,Xbox 360,XBone, PS4). This has produced very little advantages when it comes to optimizations and monetary gain. Monetary is where all of these advantages need to arrive for it to be worthy.
So while it sounds great on paper being in consoles hasnt produced much of anything for AMD so far. Just really low margins that are killing the company.
What do you think this is, the 80's?