AMD Looking For New CEO as Dirk Meyer Resigns

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I think you're forgetting that AMD is almost never on schedule for their new products. If they are quoting Q3 2011 for a CPU you can bet that it'll be at least 6 months late to market.

The motherboard manufacturers don't want to anger Intel, or risk losing profits on the recovery, to dedicate manufacturing resources to AMD based motherboards. This is their weakness, and always has been. Just having the chipset ready is not enough, it has to be on at least 25 motherboards (in inventory) by the official release date, otherwise the CPU can be ready and it won't even mater.

I don't think they ever have been, not even for the Athlon 64's (Socket 940 to start with, then Socket 939. Think about that long and hard, then recall the Opteron's preceded them).

It was just a label & shell stamp change really.

This has negative flow on effects to their 'channel partners' (so to speak). Such as HP/Compaq.

Every minute they spend 'getting it right' is an extra minute Intel (with twice the market share) has to improve their line up.
 
I just have to ask: do they teach people Business-Speak as a second language or something?

"Objective goals strategic, initiative leadership growth achieve!" said the CEO.
"Market, significant superiority?" asked the CIO.
"Litigation," he replied, "financial accelerate!"

I see this kind of gobbledy-beloved patriot masquerading as communication more and more from businesses, and not just internally but to the public.
 
I would rather support the underdog and keep the competition going than risk intel becoming a monopoly and charging more than they already do.

Its not like AMD's high end processors cant play any game out there anyways.
 
So long as AMD's processors remain competitive and profitable at OEM and retail enthusiasts need not worry.

Personally, I have one of each (Athlon 64 X2 4600+, and Intel Core 2 Duo E6600), both are 2.4GHz processors, both are dual core, both sport AMD64/EM64T (Intel 64) extensions.

The AMD processor is 90nm though (I suspect), while the Intel one was 65nm (and thus cost half as much to produce).


As for CPU's on the 28nm node, I wouldn't count on it. They'll wait until 22nm to transition from 32nm fabrication, it wouldn't be cost effective otherwise. 28nm isn't really geared towards processor fabrication.
 
Nothing personal but it's a good move by AMD, thanx to this chap they moved out of a bad time and hopefully thanx to a newer guy/gal, they'll gain a higher market share with a whole new bunch of mind blowing processors..... and tech....
So life goes on.... it's called progress and growth....
For the now retired CEO, shit happens..... but he'll get a really great job too... so it's not all that bad.....
 
[citation][nom]cp8427[/nom]I'm not liking this news. Methinks I'll have to pass on Bulldozer... I'm an AMD fan, but stuff like this kinda implies something must have gone wrong.[/citation]

So you don't consider bulldozer anymore just because Dirk got fired? Some AMD fan you are. Me think you bit stoopid.
 
I hope he finds a job somewhere else. To compete with Intel(many times their size by the way) speaks of incredible leadership skills. Many of the people on this forum don't like AMD. I don't know why(except on the performance front).Imagine if only Intel was there,we'd be forced to buy their products no matter what their prices or capabilities are. The same goes for AMD if Intel wasn't around.
 
I still can't understand the people bashing AMD for market share. For their size, they may not be David to Intel's Goliath, but they're sure punching above their weight. They do have lower margins that Intel, though.

I'd say having a Steam share of 27% for CPUs is damned good, especially considering most enthusiasts are quite knowledgable about the CPU and GPU(s) sitting inside their rigs. Can you imagine how different that Steam figure might have been had Intel not bought the entire market out from under AMD? We may have had Bulldozer by now; at the very least AMD may only be half a generation behind and there probably wouldn't even be a GlobalFoundries. For those of you rejoicing in AMD's difficulties, try to remember that you wouldn't have Sandy Bridge now if Intel didn't have any competition. What would be the point?

Bulldozer might fail. It might succeed. It's still going to be a significant jump over K10.5 (how can it not be?) and AMD aren't about to charge the earth for it, so let's wait and see what the true reason was for Dirk's departure.
 
[citation][nom]keplenk[/nom]This could either be a good or bad start for AMD this 2011.[/citation]

I have every belief your insightful prediction will be correct as stated...
 
AMD has been focusing on the desktop and server markets. But the emerging mobile, netbooks, tablets, smartphones markets, which show tremendous growth potential were left out. AMD is always doing catch up with the other players.
 
[citation][nom]willard[/nom]Why is it that people are so attached to AMD?[/citation]
People remember, how hard was Intel pwning customers, before real competition has started.

With weaker AMD, I hope you enjoy Intel killing any kind of overclocking on all but "special" CPUs with K in their names.

Current AMD processors are a generation and a half behind current Intel processors.
Click to expand...
That's lie. Intel has no good offering if you spend about 100$ on CPU. On top of it, Intel's mobos cost more and you have to change them nearly every time, you upgrade your CPU, unlike with AMD, which even has dual socket CPUs.

If you play games (majority of users, that care about PC performance at all, do) you are better off investing in a better graphic card.

 
I read comments on several forums about AMD's change in command and here on Tom's Hw I found most pertinent opinions.I'm glad some of you tried to grasp the full, complex picture . That's only thing I want to add: Hate Intel's way of doing business and appreciate their engineers, sorry for AMD because they missed the portable and netbook trend.Good luck in the future AMD!
 
99% of the ignorant comments made at Tom's wouldn't be so bad if they weren't trying to sound off like they are facts. Too bad I just couldn't skip to the "smart" ones...
 
The fact that AMD can produce a comparable product given that their R&D budget is infinitesimally smaller then intel speaks volumes, yes i am rooting for AMD and yes i do know intel products are superior, but given the size of the companies, intels CPU development seems almost pedestrian, sandy bridge is a nice product, but the difference in performance is not insurmountable, it is an incremental boost from the previous architecture, i guess some believe that kind of performance boost is miraculous and can not be beaten

personally AMD only needs to come close, there is nothing i do that is that time/performance critical that would require the extra outlay that comes with an intel system

in reality a change at the top rarely ever directly affects the performance of a company, but then again i believe most of upper management are dead weight.....
 
@ haricotvert

I don't believe you ranted. You backed up your argument with a logical approach and sound reasoning. Not to mention, you came from that industry adding validity from your direct exposure to the decisions and directions made by management. It was a breath of fresh air for me to finally read an intelligent comment.

Just as you pointed out, I am a purchaser of AMD/ATI hardware because of its price/performance ratio as compared to Intel. If Intel had better price/performance than AMD at the time I made my systems, then they would have reaped the profits of my purchases. I don't require XX more FPS at a premium cost, as most of the world doesn't, and only a fraction gamers can. As a side note, I have also made/purchased Intel systems for family members because they have an interest to see them perpetuate (stock), even though typical AMD equivalent equipped machines come a few dollars cheaper.

As would be most any business major's answer, it isn't Mr. Meyer's job to provide you with the best processor to beat Intel (many out there would like to see this be the case). There are strategic positions, targets, demographics, etc., to which AMD processors are placed. There is a need for cars that are efficient on fuel (like the new GM Volt), and there is need for gas guzzling supercars (like any model Ferrari), albeit small. A CEO has one main responsibility, and it is that he/she makes money for its shareholders. More than likely, Mr. Meyer was hired to shape the business as the Board of Directors advised, and has done. The Board would have also realized and given a time frame for Meyers to make the business end profitable, irrespective of onetime events (such as the payoff from Intel a couple years back). I feel bad that events in the overall economy prevented sustained profitability, and ultimately his job. It is my hope that AMD becomes and sustains profitability to continue to add competition for all consumers to enjoy lower costing products.

{Added 1/12/2011}
A member of the Board of Directors explains the resignation and provides additional reasoining (to improve shareholder revenue) in the following internet article:
http://www.eweekeurope.co.uk/news/amd-board-forces-chief-executive-meyer-resignation-17737
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom