AMD Announces Net Loss in the Third Quarter

Status
Not open for further replies.

formin

Distinguished
Mar 7, 2009
114
0
18,680
0
the ground intel gained is the ground amd lost
its a very exciting and epic battle that is driving technology forward so fast
Both sides have shown great stuff in the past, cant wait to see whats in the future
 
G

Guest

Guest
They are really getting dragged down with AMD's failures to create truly competitive cpus. Could be a really bumpy road till Bulldozer/Fusion; and a massive downhill slide if they don't get out a massive per core performance increase to match Sandybridge. At least HD6000 is looking promising.
 

ares1214

Splendid
Dec 15, 2009
4,471
1
22,960
90
Once they pay off debt, as most of this is probably interest, they should be fine. They have actually made a decent bit of money this year, both in GPU and CPU. ATi division has been very succesful lately, and should really help bring AMD out of the depression that was phenom and 2008-2009.
 

IzzyCraft

Distinguished
Nov 20, 2008
1,438
0
19,290
2
Hopefully this doesn't become the norm for AMD :D

Look up the past 2 3 years of AMD o=o
 

ohim

Distinguished
Feb 10, 2009
1,195
0
19,360
26
[citation][nom]ehanger[/nom]Not surprised, AMD makes slower CPU's than intel[/citation]
Not surprised that AMD has losses becase ppl like you think AMD makes slower CPU`s ... take AMD at the same price and tell me what`s the difference.
 

chrisv815

Distinguished
Sep 2, 2006
50
0
18,630
0
So sad. especially since I still own some AMD stock. I had to dump the AMD procs this year after years of loyalty (I still remember arguing with people how much better DDR was than RAMBUS or whatever intel failed with) When they stopped making any mobos that do SLI. I refuse to use their crossfire, and trying to ram it down my throat cost them the chip platform.
 

K2N hater

Distinguished
Sep 15, 2009
617
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]They are really getting dragged down with AMD's failures to create truly competitive cpus. Could be a really bumpy road till Bulldozer/Fusion; and a massive downhill slide if they don't get out a massive per core performance increase to match Sandybridge. At least HD6000 is looking promising.[/citation]
What makes AMD processors slower than Intel's is the manufacturing process, not the projects. Intel could have dropped their prices aggressively to take AMD out of business but then AMD would have been acquired by IBM = big trouble.
 

Lunatic Magnet

Distinguished
Jan 27, 2009
25
0
18,530
0
The last time I upgraded, 64 x2 6400 era, the price to performance ratio was still in AMDs favor. While Intel's top performers go well beyond AMD's, it's just not worth the extra money. I would rather put that money into a better video card or faster hard drive.
 

fazers_on_stun

Splendid
Aug 31, 2006
4,743
0
22,860
42
According to The Inquirer:

With a resurgent Intel grabbing mind share among the world's x64 server makers this year and very likely a few handfuls of market share, too, AMD's been in a tough spot.

If the company's third quarter numbers are any indication of performance, though, AMD's getting some traction with its Opteron 6100s and is looking forward to a ramp on its Opteron 4100s

Given the aggressiveness of the Intel launches in March - the six-core Westmere-EP Xeon 5600s for two-socket machines and the eight-core Nehalem-EX Xeon 7500s for larger servers - and the enthusiasm with which server makers adopted and pushed boxes based on these chips, just holding steady is winning for AMD at this point.

And with the company losing server market share in the second quarter and probably slipping again in the third quarter when all the market data is fudged up, AMD is looking to grab that share back starting in the fourth quarter.

AMD's twelve-core Magny-Cours Opteron 6100s came out swinging in March for two-socket and four-socket boxes, with very aggressive price/performance compared to the Xeon 5600s and Xeon 7500s, but server makers took their sweet time getting systems out the door.

There are a lot of reasons for this, but mainly it came down to Intel not requiring a chipset or socket change with the Xeon 5600s, which just plugged into the same Xeon 5500 servers. It was easier to put a refreshed Xeon 5600 box into the field than it was to design a new Opteron 6100 machine with AMD's own chipsets, which were not socket compatible with the prior Opteron 2400 or 8400 processors.

In that time, IBM has grown tepid with Opteron-based machines, and only sells one box. Oracle has killed off Sun's Opteron-based servers and is now only selling Xeon-based machines in the Sun Fire line. Fujitsu, meanwhile, has stopped developing new Opteron machines.
Since server is the most profitable side of AMD's CPU business, flat or losing marketshare is not good for the bottom line..
 

atawhai007

Distinguished
Aug 4, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
Can you imagine how much more expensive intel products would be if AMD wasn't around, I hate to think, and why are their cpu's on average so much more expensive especially seeing how much profit they make per quarter, are they price gouging or what?
 

eyemaster

Distinguished
Apr 28, 2009
750
0
18,980
0
If AMD is always in the red, how can they stay in business? I don't understand. I love their products and keep buying from them, but how are they still alive?
 

jerreece

Splendid
[citation][nom]chickenhoagie[/nom]AMD lost revenue because they price their products RIGHT..attah way AMD, i'll donate to you before any other company[/citation]

If what you say is true, then AMD will be out of business VERY quickly. And in that case, it'll be because they DID NOT price their products "right".

You need to understand business and economics more before you make a statement like this.
 

jellico

Distinguished
Apr 17, 2009
622
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]TheRockMonsi[/nom]Hope this doesn't eventually lead them to being bought out by somebody, like the rumors that recently rose up.[/citation]
You know, stock traders live and die by the quarterly reports. Companies, on the other hand, are in it for the long haul. A bad quarter or two is pretty much normal business in the current economic climate. There was another story here on TH about increasing demand for PCs (even Apples). This will probably translate into a better report for the next quarter.
 

TheKurrgan

Distinguished
Sep 16, 2008
220
0
18,690
1
Frankly what has probably cost AMD the most is not the desktop / enthusiast market, but the mobile market. With all the netbooks sold powered by intel, and most laptops sporting intel CPU's, this represents a huge amount of revenue going intels way. The high end / performance spec is not where either of the companies money is made. Laptops / Netbooks are huge, and in that arena, intel hands AMD their own ass, in performance and market share.
 

Dirtman73

Distinguished
Sep 11, 2009
382
0
18,790
1
[citation][nom]jerreece[/nom]If what you say is true, then AMD will be out of business VERY quickly. And in that case, it'll be because they DID NOT price their products "right".You need to understand business and economics more before you make a statement like this.[/citation]

And I suppose you are Tom's go-to man for all questions business and economic, right?

Chickenhoagie's point is that AMD prices its products at a sane level. AMD is losing money because it doesn't see the point of ripping consumers off. Intel, on the other hand, knows that many people will pay whatever it costs to get a negligible % increase in performance. Therefore Intel charges whatever it wants. Pretty simple.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS