What mb and cooler will you use for the 9370?
Toyota has far, far higher margins than AMD.
Excuse me, but where did I say that I was talking about their margins as a percentage?You post so much uninformed baloney that I wonder why I haven't added you to my block list yet.
AMD may be suffering heavy operating losses, but their gross margins are still in the vicinity of 40%. Toyota's have never exceeded 20%.
So I guess my question is, if AM3+ gets phased out, will it get a replacement, or will everything just be FM based.
I still have my old 965BE, and its ok for the time being. But next year will be new CPU/Mobo time. And there is zero point in me having an APU when I use a discreet card. Just seems like an APU is a waste for a gaming rig. Was hoping steamroller would come to AM3+ as well. But sounding like it won't.
So I guess my question is, if AM3+ gets phased out, will it get a replacement, or will everything just be FM based.
I still have my old 965BE, and its ok for the time being. But next year will be new CPU/Mobo time. And there is zero point in me having an APU when I use a discreet card. Just seems like an APU is a waste for a gaming rig. Was hoping steamroller would come to AM3+ as well. But sounding like it won't.
Profit margins are, not net margins.
I'm not a business school grad but that's not what I had learned and not what wikipedia, investopedia, and the motley fool wiki say . . .
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/n/net_margin.asp
http://wiki.fool.com/Net_margin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profit_margin
Is there something I'm missing?
Not at all. Margins are always a percentage. When you want to talk about how much is left after COGS, you talk about gross *profits*.
Also it doesn't make sense to talk about gross margins in two different sectors like cars and MPUs. What you account and how you account for spending is totally different between the two. Toyota has only 20% gross margins but OPEX is fairly low, while AMD is quite the opposite. If you want to compare two companies from two different sectors, metrics like ROA, ROE or ROI are much more suitable to that end than gross margins or gross profits.
I bet a lot of the opex of amd and Intel is more capex in nature. Tax maneuvers clouding the real picture perhaps?
Nope. When you build CAPEX you have a direct starting point for valuation, once you need to sell that asset the value of the sum of the parts will have at least some relation to acquisition costs and the market is reasonably liquid.
With R&D, you can't expect that with the same confidence degree. What you invest may or may not generate cash, and the amount may not have any relationship to the investment size, and the market for that asset will be anything but liquid. It is the intrinsic risk of the R&D activity that makes that expenditure be classified as an expense and not as an investment.
But doesn that mean that when you develop a new node you can classify a lot of the r&d expenses eg. Leveling a machine or setting a new system for temperature controlling as expenses or investments as you prefer? What is intrinsic risk here?
There isn't any, and that's why you don't put equipments and whatever facilities you build/retrofit for R&D in the OPEX line. A machine is a machine regardless of the use you make of it and you can sell it for someone interested on it, even at a discount. Same with facilities, and because of that they go straight to the property/plant/equipment line.
What goes to R&D OPEX is the depreciation/amortization/write off of the asset, employee compensation and whatever materials consumed in the R&D process, because this is where the risk is. Instead of using that asset to produce something you can sell you are experimenting with stuff you don't know about and that may or may not someday yield some cash, and the benefits may or may not be something you can sell. It's the uncertainity of any returns in the future that makes R&D an expense, and does not constitute an asset like build a building would.
Much of the work for integrating the tools and machines you buy from outside is highly risky because you dont know the outcome and especially how much the project will cost. It practicalle separates you from the competitors as everyone and his brother can go and buy the latest lithography machine from Nikon.
I mean the understanding of what is r&d is oldstyle and the tax authorities have no chance to evaluate the reasoning when its unclear even for those working with it.
Think about AMD and Bulldozer. AMD spend years with huge negative cash flows, but as most of the R&D was deemed OPEX it also got huge losses in the balance sheet and because of that had to pay 0 corporate income tax in the last few years. When Bulldozer fizzled the impact was 0, because everything was already off balance sheet.
But, what if you deemed Bulldozer R&D an asset? AMD would have experienced a huge cash outflow (because regardless of how you treat the expenditure it still happens), but that would be aggravated by the corporate income tax they would have to pay. And what would happen once Bulldozer fizzled? AMD would have to write off the value of the Bulldozer IP from their portfolio, and only then they would not have to pay income taxes (varies from country to country, in a few they would have to depreciate the asset at normal rates without any tax benefits), and that would make the company's situation far worse.
So in the end, while there are clear cases of abuses of the system like the "me too" drug companies, the system as it is today gives more comfort to companies willing to invest in R&D.
SUNNYVALE, CA -- (Marketwired) -- 09/09/13 -- AMD today disclosed its roadmap for the fast-growing embedded computing market
"Hierofalcon" CPU SoC "Hierofalcon" is the first 64-bit ARM-basedplatform from AMD targeting embedded data center applications,communications infrastructure and industrial solutions. It willinclude up to eight ARM Cortex(TM)-A57 CPUs expected to run up to 2.0GHz
"Hierofalcon" is expected to be sampling in the second quarter of2014 with production in the second half of the year
With "Bald Eagle," AMD continues to build onits heritage as a leading provider of x86 solutions for the embeddedmarket. "Bald Eagle" is the next generation high-performancex86-based embedded processor available as both an APU and CPUfeaturing up to four new "Steamroller" CPU cores within a 35W TDP
APU SoC "Steppe Eagle" will further extend theperformance and low-power range of the current award-winning AMDEmbedded G-Series APU SoC platform with an enhanced "Jaguar" CPU corearchitecture and AMD Graphics Core Next GPU architecture that includenew features for increased CPU and GPU frequency. Designed forlow-power embedded applications, "Steppe Eagle" is designed to offerincreased performance-per-watt both at a lower TDP than the currentAMD Embedded G-Series APU SoC, as well as extending the high-endperformance above 2 GHz
one more tidbit from fudzilla
"AMD has mentioned Steppe Eagle APU that is a dual to quad core SoC set to replace Jaguar. This is a 5W to 25W TPD product based on an enhanced Jaguar core and Radeon 8000 graphics"
http://fudzilla.com/home/item/32439-amds-first-arm-part-is-for-networks
http://www.marketwire.com/press-release/amd-details-embedded-product-roadmap-nyse-amd-1828672.htmSteppe Eagle" will further extend the performance and low-power range of the current award-winning AMD Embedded G-Series APU SoC platform with an enhanced "Jaguar" CPU core architecture and AMD Graphics Core Next GPU architecture that include new features for increased CPU and GPU frequency.