AMD Announces Net Loss in the Third Quarter

[Parsian]

me bought AMD CPU and AMD GPU and will do so as long as they work for the benefit of the customer

 

[Reynod]

The clearing ofthe Senior Notes is the main reason for the slight loss and a good sign that they are moving forward.

Dealing with the senior Notes issue is the most pressing issue for the company as they are performing as well as can be expected giving the market and their current offerings.

A result much better than many expected.

They are now in a stronger position.

 

[Pijoto]

[citation][nom]nevertell[/nom]I am not the one to blame, I bought an amd motherboard and a cpu[/citation]

Neither am I; bought AMD mobo, cpu, and Radeon GPU! I agree that AMD has dropped the ball hugely on the Laptop/Netbook scene, it's a shame that AMD has practically nothing to compete with Intel here....

 

[reprotected]

So Fermi isn't helping them at all? Nvidia released the GTX 480, 470, 465, 450 and the 430 when all it did was lower the net loss for them. Nvidia needs to release more crappier video cards and make their GTX 460 $300 to encourage AMD's sales.
They should also get rid of the Quadro series, they are seriously threatening AMD off of the GPU market for professionals. And why not Intel help by releasing Pentium 5

 

[jasonpwns]

[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]

Whatever, my AMD Athlon II x4 does what it needs to and runs most of my games on max while the graphics card is the bottleneck in others. (8800GT) so therefore I don't get where their processors aren't "quality" enough. You don't need 1000 cores anyways it is all about the ghz

 

[f-14]

if amd stop making anything less then 3ghz and makes their fsb the same for their chipsets they'd be fine, but throw in the lack of sli and you have not only halved your market but shaved another 1/4 off. it appears they have spent most of their budget on salvaging ATI just to get it profitable where it is today. it will be a great gamble if it pays off with a multicore gpu die or a multi core cpu with gpu die.but right now it's killing their cpu sales to keep starting out new generations at a slower ghz speed then where last generation left off. wouldn't all they need to do right now is bump the fsb past intel or even just match it? how expensive and hard would that be?

 

[iam2thecrowe]

rather than making so many low end graphics cards and cpu's, they need to make a choice and chose a couple products to fill the sweet spots. There is no point making GFX cards that are ALMOST good enough for gaming, they wont sell. The 5770 is the sweet spot at the moment and 5670 for low power, anything less than that is useless for gaming so they only really need 1 lower card than that for HTPC/low profile. Less GPU's/CPUS and more of a difference between them. That way they can produce more of 1 line of product making the cost per unit less which will make them able to drop prices and/or make more profit. Thats what I would like to see...

 

[Marco925]

[citation][nom]masterasia[/nom]Intel FTW! Come on...thumbs down me.[/citation]
Fine then, i will.

 

[lashton]

[citation][nom]rmmil978[/nom]If Bulldozer isn't a champion CPU, I think AMD's days are numbered.[/citation]
like your attitude, how can you comment on a CPU that will rip sandy bridge a new asshole!

 

[daggs]

[citation][nom]kitekrazy1963[/nom]Maybe they need to manufacturer fewer cpu models. Choosing an AMD processor is more confusing than buying Intel.[/citation]
are you serious? looking at the new desktop core amd has two models, athlon II and and phenom II, intel has 4, I3,I5,I7 and I9.
amd has a simple core numeration, X2,X3,X4 and X6. intel has the following #C/(2*#)T the average joe doesn't know if he get # core or 2*# cores... not to mention this pseudo core issue which I won't even start talking on it.

 

[dEAne]

Well they still can manage that.

 

[BulkZerker]

just an FYI


AMD is actually just selling out all their old stock and getting ready for th emigration to BullDozer / Bobcat / Fusion Of course they're gonna loose money it's like the day after christmas sale at walmart / cosco.

They aren't trying to make money here, they just want all this "crap" out of the road for the new stuff that needs the room.

Also AMD's GPU release is just as planned. Though the name scheme leaked seems to be all sorts of Typo'd and FUBAR.

ME? I'm still happy as hell I bought my Phenom II X4. Unlike the core i chips I would have chosen in the price range this left me with enough money left over to afford a water cooling loop. I dunno how Intel guys can be comfortable knowing their $800 Hex core is sitting there running 4+ GHz and has temps in the 70*c range. I know that's within the "limits" but that can't be good for long (6 months later cpu starts corrupting data) term usage.

 

[cinergy]

[citation][nom]formin[/nom]the ground intel gained is the ground amd lostits a very exciting and epic battle that is driving technology forward so fastBoth sides have shown great stuff in the past, cant wait to see whats in the future[/citation]

What battle are you talking about? It's a slaughter and I don't really enjoy watching it.

 

[ta152h]

[citation][nom]f-14[/nom]if amd stop making anything less then 3ghz and makes their fsb the same for their chipsets they'd be fine, but throw in the lack of sli and you have not only halved your market but shaved another 1/4 off. it appears they have spent most of their budget on salvaging ATI just to get it profitable where it is today. it will be a great gamble if it pays off with a multicore gpu die or a multi core cpu with gpu die.but right now it's killing their cpu sales to keep starting out new generations at a slower ghz speed then where last generation left off. wouldn't all they need to do right now is bump the fsb past intel or even just match it? how expensive and hard would that be?[/citation]

Essentially impossible. Since the 66 Mhz 486 days, it wasn't feasible to run the memory bus at the same speed as the processor (except for the Pentium 60 and 66, but that ended it). It would have been too expensive for motherboard makers to do this at the time. What you're asking for would make AMD based solutions extremely expensive, even if it were possible, which I doubt.

The Bulldozer should run at high clock speeds - definitely higher than current AMD products and almost certainly higher than Sandy Bridge. This is not to imply it will do more work on single threaded apps, just that AMD went for a higher clock speed design, rather than higher IPC.

 

[tmc]

Both companies LOST revenue in 2010 due to very stingy price cuts in their newest product lines. That conservative streak has come back to bite both companies in the ass. Since AMD had the weaker market share to begin with it hurt AMD MORE than intel. It also is very telling in the slowdown of new products and their subsequent adoption by consumers. Innovation on the cpu front (based upon actual chip release//retail product and mass production) is at a snails pace compared with decades past. Both companies will have to endure competition from portable devices well into the future as these devices become capable of a desktop and/or laptop's core functions at substantial price/power savings & energy efficiency.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

[citation][nom]reynod[/nom]The clearing ofthe Senior Notes is the main reason for the slight loss and a good sign that they are moving forward.Dealing with the senior Notes issue is the most pressing issue for the company as they are performing as well as can be expected giving the market and their current offerings.A result much better than many expected.They are now in a stronger position.[/citation]

According to an AMD press release, they cleared $800M of 6% senior notes due in 2015 partly by selling $500M in senior notes at a higher interest rate - almost 8% - due in 2020. So no they aren't clear of the senior notes just yet - they need another $1.25B "donation" from Intel .

 

[insanet]

i have to buy a cpu for my little brother, and i have to say regardless of my feeling towards amd, i can not justify $260 at microcenter for the 1090t when the i5 760 for $170 has better perfomance in most benchmarks. amd has to stop competing directly with intel until it regains some strength.

 

[Bungwa]

All these Nay sayers thinking that AMD days are numbered. AMD has been around a long time. They were here way before they took the crown(for a few years anyway)with the Athlon CPU. They have lived through much worst times than what they are experiencing now. Hell, they didn't make a dime for the first few years of their existence, but yet they are still here. They will survive.

 

[kogashuko]

They really need to do something about their video cards. Especially their piss poor drivers. I have had multiple problems with there 10series drivers and they will not fix the simplest of problems. In fact while trying to fix them they cause more. When you post in their forums or write them they dont answer and their fanboys try to ridicule you. Meanwhile I have a HD media pc that powers every flat panel in my house that can suddenly no longer play any HD without studdering. Oh and did I mention the overscan now resets itself randomly so the picture it does have keeps getting smaller.

This is so bad that I might not ever buy their processors again either.

 

[chickenhoagie]

[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]
exaggeration, exaggeration..do you really think im commenting to diagnose how the market works? I made the comment because I know AMD prices right, therefore they don't make as much as compared to Intel, who overprices everything and in turn makes a bigger profit because half the world doesn't understand that AMD performs just as well for less.

 

[dragonsqrrl]

[citation][nom]Daggs[/nom]are you serious? looking at the new desktop core amd has two models, athlon II and and phenom II, intel has 4, I3,I5,I7 and I9.[/citation]
...I'm not aware of a Core i9.

 

[Thor]

When AMD will be competitive against Intel?
The answer is like to hope win at lotery.

Maybe AMD is dead finally...

 

[JumpingJack]

"Both companies LOST revenue in 2010 due to very stingy price cuts in their newest product lines. " ...

Are you serious? Intel posted record revenue in Q1 for a Q1, record all time revenue in Q2, and surpassed that again with record all time revenue in Q3. AMD reported record all time revenue in Q2 of 2010. Where did they lose revenue?

Of course they would have had 'more' revenue if they charged more, but then any quarter or year AMD and Intel will have 'lost' revenue because they were so stingy they did not charge more for their processors.

What is more interesting is that ASPs were basically flat (AMD's was slightly down), where Intel's revenues improved QoQ whereas AMD's fell QoQ, translation -- AMD lost more market share to Intel most likely.

 

[Guest]

Don't blame me guys, I bought an AMD CPU with coupled with an ATI graphics card this quarter, epic price/performance ratio. Suck it Intel.

 

[ghnader hsmithot]

I hope Nvidia enters cpu market quick..if not,they can team up with AMD and crush intel.HA!