AMD Reports 2012 Loss of $1.18 Billion, While IBM Profits

Page 2 - 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.
[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Not in the same markets they don't, so they are not competitors...It's like saying sales of bicycles are competitors to cars because they both go on the road...If anything they are collaboraters for consoles, as AMD do the graphics and IBM do the CPU[/citation]

A more apt comparison is comparing GM to Lamborghini. AMD and IBM are competitors, but much less so than AMD and Intel. AMD makes processors in the wide sphere of the market, while IBM limits to commercial markets and embedded systems. The same can be said of Texas Instruments, or Qualcomm, or ARM - they're all CPU competitors. One does better usually means it took some sales from another's sector. Doesn't mean that they're competing at the level of Intel and AMD though, the same way GM and Lamborghini are technically competitors, even though no one considering a Lambo is looking anywhere in GM's general direction.
 
[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Good news for AMD is winning both Sony&M$ as a supplier of console chips.[/citation]

They sell a few of thoes now don't they? What do they get 1¢ per console?
 
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]soon... AMD will be up for grabs, just like what happened in THQ.IMO, it ise better for AMD to being sell of to financial strong guy than getting more lay off shrinking to Cyrix size.[/citation]
]
Keep in mind that Intel lost more pound for pound than AMD. If anyone is in trouble, it's Intel.

AMD: 17%
Intel: 27%

Massive performance delta, especially considering how massive Intel is than AMD. That's tens of Billions of dollars.
 
[citation][nom]dozerman[/nom]]Keep in mind that Intel lost more pound for pound than AMD. If anyone is in trouble, it's Intel.AMD: 17%Intel: 27%Massive performance delta, especially considering how massive Intel is than AMD. That's tens of Billions of dollars.[/citation]

At least Intel has some funds to back them up. AMD, no.
 
AMD and IBM are competitors. AMD now supplies console chips that IBM once supplied to the likes of MS, Sony, etc. The thing is, I doubt they get much for the chips they are selling MS and Sony. My guess is MS and Sony are using AMD because they agrees to sell them chips for very cheap. Intel used to supply MS, but they don't anymore and really don't care. IBM used to supply MS, Sony, and Nintendo... in the near future just Nintendo and their profits won't be crying over it. It no doubt helps AMD, but at such low margins, it isn't going to keep them afloat. They need to win in the ultramobile sector and the high profit server sector.
 
[citation][nom]johnners2981[/nom]I imagine AMD will do quite well when the next generation of consoles come out as it looks like they're going to supply the gpu and cpu for microsoft and sony[/citation]
With AMD's modular design, they could be custom-ordered APUs rather than the conventional CPU+GPU combo... sort of an A10 on steroids except with the CPU downclocked by 50% but twice as many cores. If those APUs were made on the same TSMC process GPUs are made from, that could explain the low CPU clock rates - the process is tuned for massively parallel chips operating at 0.8-1.5GHz.

Much cheaper to buff the CPU and IGP in the APU and give it a quad-channel/256bits RAM interface than have two chips with interconnect and their own 128+256bits DRAM banks. Since both Sony and Microsoft will likely sell over 15M consoles each, the 30M$ it might cost AMD to put this together would be very well worth it: the extra design cost there would be recovered manyfolds by simply not having to package the CPU and GPU on separate dies with separate BGAs, not having to design separate VRMs for the CPU, GPU, interconnect, etc. and much simpler PCB design.
 
[citation][nom]dozerman[/nom]]Keep in mind that Intel lost more pound for pound than AMD. If anyone is in trouble, it's Intel.AMD: 17%Intel: 27%Massive performance delta, especially considering how massive Intel is than AMD. That's tens of Billions of dollars.[/citation]Intel is Cash heavy, AMD is not. Intel probably have enough to maintain that -27% lost MUCH longer than AMD totally go under.

I dont think I want AMD go under, getting sell off to someone now is the best choice. I was hoping Microsoft to invest in them to protect their Xbox business. *a poor choice I know, but it is so far one of the best I can think of. Microsoft is one of the few out there has the biggest benefit from getting AMD. I dont see Samsung getting it since Samsung is all about mobile phones.
 
Please, They 1.2 billion cash on hand. they had a stock earning of 14 cents a share.
They had less revenue than last year, but they still made money. Don't confuse stock market lingo for actual business info, they did not lose any money, no one is out searching for missing piles of money. I wish they were doing better, but this is a world wide recession we are in. Wall street predicted a bigger slip. Intel also issued a rev warning
 
AMD's earnings were better than expected. The stock is up over 10% this evening in after hours trading. AMD will continue to do well because of their amazing APU's.

AMD chips will be in *ALL* next gen video game systems.
AMD is making tablet APU's as well.
AMD and ARM are building ARM-based processors.
AMD's graphics cards are kicking butt, and it's only a matter of time before AMD CPU's come back too!
 
I will always buy AMD / ATI products much as I can. They always provide best value for the money. Their processors may not be the fastest thing on the planet but still good performers for what I use it for.

I've been using the Phenom II 955 BE quad processors for almost three years now and still preforms well. A few months ago I upgraded my video card to the ATI 6950 which is plenty fast for my games and got it at a good price too.

Hang in there AMD!!!!! Things will get better.
 
Unless they find a way to be profitable real soon their going down like the Titanic. The banks
aren't going to lend them anymore and they only have enough csh to last another year, so i'm going to say they have about 8 to 10 months to get back in the Green or say Goodbye!

 
I have to think that Bulldozer had at least a part to play in this unfortunate news. They have such great GPUs, especially the 7950 and 7970 it's too bad people still insist on paying more for he Nvidia parts. I think the next year is going to be much better for them, with the focus more on mobile processors and APU tech....their getting into market's Intel doesn't absolutely crush them in like they currently are in the Mid/high end desktop markets. (And he low end to a smaller degree). Come on AMD , you still have a lot of loyal fans/customers!
 
[citation][nom]LegalEyesJoe[/nom]AMD and IBM are competitors. [/citation]
Yeah, both make CPUs eh? Why not mention gazillion of other companies making CPUs then? Randomly pick, say, Samsung? Exynox is a CPU mind you.

My guess is MS and Sony are using AMD because they agrees to sell them chips for very cheap.
Click to expand...
Did you see the specs of what AMD will be supplying?
It's custom version of their APU. Which, mind you, as far as gaming goes, wipes the floor with Intel's offerings.
Even if we ignore superior GPU, even on CPU front AMD was able to beat Intel's CPUs in heavily multi-threaded apps. And next gen consoles are going to use 8 core version of it.

I can't imagine who would be able to offer product superior to one offered by AMD in this case.
 


Yeah but Islam really is the worst writer at Tom's. So I will let it slide... THIS TIME!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom