AMD: We've Received the $1.25 Billion From Intel

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]Curnel_D[/nom]Sure, the dude you're quoting is wrong, but your reasoning is just as flawed. And I'm not even going to comment on the spelling and grammer...While this was happening, AMD didnt own ATI. And Intel didnt have the C2D process yet. And despite the fact that Intel probably did flog their proccesors in an illegal way, AMD still thrived in a ton of ways until Intel came out with the C2D. In all reality, AMD probably never lost that much, and would be on the same losing end had it never happened. AMD came out way ahead in this deal, and they know it.[/citation]
... sorry... English is not my native language... and... good point!!!
 
[citation][nom]False_dmitry_ii[/nom]That's only true because they didn't get the cashflow they should and would have been getting had intel not been cheating when AMD had the far superior CPU. I looked it up and that was the case since pentium III all the way to the tail end of the pentium IV CPU's where AMD had better stuff. A good deal of that time they also had 64bit as well. Had the better performing thing been selling in computers from that era that I see now wouldn't seem like 99% intel (I still haven't actually run into an AMD one, esp store bought) and AMD would have at that point gotten plenty of funds in order to do more R&D.[/citation]
... an AMD FX-60 then was something like intel i7 today...
 
With all the debt they are saddled with, it would make more sense to pay it down- and therein allow the company to get a better credit rating down the road and possible upgrades to hold/buy, etc. Which is exactly what I think they are doing.
 
[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... an AMD FX-60 then was something like intel i7 today...[/citation]

But Intel didn't "intimidate" OEM's to buy Intel processors unless losing their discounts either.....
 
nappa: Vegeta what does your scouter say about amd's powerlevel?
Vegeta: Its over 9000!!!
Nappa: What! over 9000!

Yeah thats what intels going to be HOPEFULLY saying in a couple years. Well at least AMD has the Gpu market dominated.*chuckle* Fermi lol
 
[citation][nom]XD_dued[/nom]1.25 billion doesn't come close to covering the amount AMD could have been making from oems all this time.[/citation]
Indeed. Basically, compared to what Intel payed Dell for not using AMD CPUs it's a joke. And Dell was just one of the many.
 
[citation][nom]pullmyfinger123[/nom]It's too bad AMD didn't send me a memo about this settlement before their stock went sky high[/citation]
lol then you wouldn't be able to invest in the company at that point. Ain't laws a pain?
 
[citation][nom]DjEaZy[/nom]... an AMD FX-60 then was something like intel i7 today...[/citation]
That's almost true, but the price difference between a now i7 920 (Which is extremely overclockable), and a then anything FX series (Which was hardly overclockable) is astronomical.

For as much as we complain about Intel and their intense price gouging, AMD really milked the performance crown as well, and I'd even call it worse considering the overclocking abilities with any new Intel architecture.
 
well, well... $1,250,000,000 ...why can't someone give ME a christmas present like that?!?! heck, i'd even start believing in Santa again!
 
[citation][nom]Curnel_D[/nom]That's almost true, but the price difference between a now i7 920 (Which is extremely overclockable), and a then anything FX series (Which was hardly overclockable) is astronomical. For as much as we complain about Intel and their intense price gouging, AMD really milked the performance crown as well, and I'd even call it worse considering the overclocking abilities with any new Intel architecture.[/citation]
... maybe, but... compare the economy and market now and then... the intel extreme editions was not cheep too...
 
We still need to badger our computer-illiterate friends and family members into buying AMD. Go to BestBuy, you'll see about 5 AMD laptops, and 40 Intel laptops on display... However, you can talk these people into buying AMD, I've moved about $3000 in merchandise for AMD this holiday season... We need to take matters into our own hands, as Intel still has the OEMs by the balls...
 
[citation][nom]larrabee_core_iFail_EE[/nom]We still need to badger our computer-illiterate friends and family members into buying AMD. Go to BestBuy, you'll see about 5 AMD laptops, and 40 Intel laptops on display... However, you can talk these people into buying AMD, I've moved about $3000 in merchandise for AMD this holiday season... We need to take matters into our own hands, as Intel still has the OEMs by the balls...[/citation]
That'd be a great idea if Intel didnt have the better product. Way to go.
 
[citation][nom]kikireeki[/nom]Am I the only one with mixed feelings towards this deal? Because as far as I know, any agreement between two giants means customer rip-off!![/citation]

Actually no, this not a bad thing. Here are the implications of this:

1. $1.25 billion in cold, hard cash.
2. Intel will stop doing things that they and AMD agree they shouldn’t be doing.
3. The right to not have to produce x86 CPUs in-house. AMD can go fabless.
4. The right to have their x86 processors fabricated anywhere of AMD’s choosing.
Click to expand...

Here's the biggest thing: AMD is no longer required to produce x86 CPUs, and as of today AMD has begun immediate preparation to go fully fabless.

AMD has wanted out of the fab game for quite some time, but the cross-licensing agreement prevented that. Now AMD is free to sell off its stake of Global Foundries to Abu Dhabi’s Advanced Technology Investment Company (ATIC), who already owns the other half of GF. The result will be that ATIC will own a foundry like they’ve always wanted, and AMD will be rid of the task of operating a foundry like they’ve always wanted.

This in turn is going to have two immediate short-term benefits for AMD. The first of course is more cash; selling their share in ATIC is going to net the company a fair bit of cash and cash equivalents. The second of which is that AMD had to absorb some of GF’s losses; they would have turned a profit last quarter for example if owning part of GF didn’t cause them to take a $100mil loss. So AMD is going to have more cash on hand, and they’re going to further resolve their long-standing cash bleed. By no means does this make them rich (they still are up to their eyes in debt), but this opens up a great deal of liquidity to invest in new processor designs. After all, they’ve gone fabless, R&D is where the bulk of their investments will be.
Click to expand...

AnandTech has a way more informative and insightful article regarding this deal. Check it out here: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=3675
 
CurnelD: I assume you define better as:

*All laptops spend 95% percent of the time running at 800mhz because they'd get too hot if they ran at full speed. However, Intel are supposedly 10% faster at full speed, therefore, you need Intel.

*AMD integrated graphics wipe the floor with Intel integrated graphics, however, the first point is still more important.

*All laptops suck at hardcore computational-intensive stuff that most users just don't do, however, the first point is still more important.

*All laptops suck at gaming, but even if AMD laptops suck less at gaming, it's still not "superior" to Intel's product.
 
Amds new 8core processor will be good but now with an extra boost of pocket change 1.2BILLION!!!! they might even make it better since they can afford to
 
[citation][nom]800mhz_FTW___[/nom]CurnelD: I assume you define better as:*All laptops spend 95% percent of the time running at 800mhz because they'd get too hot if they ran at full speed. However, Intel are supposedly 10% faster at full speed, therefore, you need Intel.*AMD integrated graphics wipe the floor with Intel integrated graphics, however, the first point is still more important.*All laptops suck at hardcore computational-intensive stuff that most users just don't do, however, the first point is still more important.*All laptops suck at gaming, but even if AMD laptops suck less at gaming, it's still not "superior" to Intel's product.[/citation]
1.) Oh, you mean in a completely different method than AMD's cool and quiet? No. AMD laptops would suffer the same problems. And besides that, the main reason for the speed decrease is battery life in both types.
2.) Oh yes, because people who are actually concerned with laptop graphics are buying the cheapest possible laptops, which are generally the front lines of the IGP notebooks. Just as you say in your next point, laptops suck at hardcore computational intensive stuff and gaming. So if they're not going out of their way to get something that can put some ass behind the video, then they're not likely to care. And if they do care, both Intel and AMD have hundreds of laptop models with discrete graphics.
3.) You mean things like hmmm... HD video decoding? Flash intensive browsing? Startup? Hibernate? Shutdown? Overall feel of the UI? You're right. The benefits of a faster processor would never entice the 'average' user. Let's not mention the power users.
4.) Laptops can be quite capable at gaming. In fact, I bought a laptop that was a very capable gaming machine 3 years ago, and still holds it's own in a lot of games, and a major reason for this is because it had the first Merom Core2Duo mobile CPU in it. And funny thing, I got it for 800 bucks too. Quite affordable considering it out-gamed a desktop AMD machine a friend of mine had just built around the same time for more cash. The same idea is still true today. The Turion Architecture is woefully inadequate, while the Intel architecture still advances.

Every bit of your reasoning is unsound. Please spend more time thinking before you down-rate my comments.
 
[citation][nom]False_Dmitry_II[/nom]That's only true because they didn't get the cashflow they should and would have been getting had intel not been cheating when AMD had the far superior CPU. I looked it up and that was the case since pentium III all the way to the tail end of the pentium IV CPU's where AMD had better stuff. A good deal of that time they also had 64bit as well. Had the better performing thing been selling in computers from that era that I see now wouldn't seem like 99% intel (I still haven't actually run into an AMD one, esp store bought) and AMD would have at that point gotten plenty of funds in order to do more R&D.[/citation]

Yep. Actually, AMD had the better CPU for the entire netburst (Pentium4) line. The only time P4 was better, is for single thread jobs like Video encode/decode & Raytracing... something that most people DON'T do - especially in the past.

So Intel was making gobs of money with their $1000 Pentium EE (3.8Ghz) that was losing out to a $200 AMD 3200 (2.2Ghz) for gaming and normal computer productivity. With companies, especially Dell - NOT selling AMD systems - AMD wasn't respected to the consumer. But, AMD has had their OWN issues when dealing with OEMS which has nothing to do with Intel. Even last years $65 1.6Ghz Pentium DCs are easily faster than ANY Pentium D/4 CPU from the past.

That said... just before the release of Core2, AMD market share was finally 20%+ When you walked into an Office Depot / Office Max - out of 10 Desktop PCs, 8~9 of them were AMD.

Then Core2 Kicked AMD in the nuts and with the low pricing (far below the P4 / Pentium Ds) - intel kicked AMD some more. With that, the "intel is better" mentality kicks in... even if someone buys a Celeron or a bottom end Core2 or Pentium Dual Core (Tiny Cache version of Core2) they may think its better than AMD - period.

If AMD was making the sales and profits they deserved during the AMD XP/64/939 era, they would have had the funding to put into R&D to make a better AM2 chip. The first AMD X4 was a disaster. High priced, slower than most C2D. Intel has far deeper pockets than AMD and it shows.

AMD has caught up intel (took 3 years) in which their BEST CPU is in the area of the low end Core i7/i5 CPUs. Which isn't bad... as AMD competes extremely well against intel in the $50~150 price range. A $60 AMD X2 CPU is quite fast for t he money.

AMD has taken the intel playbook and used it to slap Nvidia in the face... that's the funny part. AMD did it good with the 4850/4870 cards which forced the GTX 260/280 prices to be cut almost in half. AMD owns the graphics market as of now, just too bad they can't make enough cards. And Nvidia has gone stupid with their renaming tactics. The GT 310 was the GT 210 - exact SAME GPU/cards! WTF! Why bother?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom