AMD's Troubles and Why Qualcomm Should Buy

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.
AMD being bought out by either Samsung, Qualcomm or IBM would be a reasonable move, though I don't see Qualcomm being able to make AMD competitive again. Samsung and IBM both have the financial capability to pull it off, as well as the willingness to blow through R&D funds for the sake of innovation. IBM has, what's probably the mother of all R&D departments with the knowledge and experience to challenge Intel on any level. Samsung seems to have similar trends to AMD's though with great products followed by mediocre products and back... With IBM's R&D department backing them....AMD could return to their former greatness and potentially take serious market share from Intel.
 
[citation][nom]silky salamandr[/nom]Will people stop saying this. There has been no official word on this alledged "bulldozer".[/citation]

Ummm...where have you been? Processors based on "Bulldozer" are already scheduled for release in the first half of this year....believe Zambezi is the first one coming for the consumer market.
 
I think Crytek should merge with Futuremark. Then their engine will fulfill its purpose... So what's going on with AMD, lol?
 
[citation][nom]007Style[/nom]I used to work in the Power Design Division of IBM - what ananke said is wrong. IBM has a lot of manufacturing capability located in East Fishkill NY and Burlington VT. IBM is a leader in process fabrication techniques (as showcased by the number of patents filed each year) and manufactures all the PS3, Wii, Xbox chips in the same plant that currently produces Power7 / mainframe chips. Just wanted to set the record straight.With that said, I don't think it would be in IBM's interest to pick up a company like AMD. After all, most of the revenues on the balance sheet come from software / services, not hardware.Cheers![/citation]


Thanks for the info, nice to know! My first desktop PC was an IBM PS/1, and I still have it, so good and fond memories when they were in the hardware business (although all that proprietary stuff you could buy as upgrades/add-ons was expensive). If IBM ever decided to re-enter this market though, it would be a good purchase, as AMD has a modern plaform (CPU+GPU+Chipset).

If IBM or any other company bought AMD, Intel would probably be forced by the government to allow IBM to keep the x86 license, as giving Intel the almost absolute majority of x86 producing rights (VIA is just residual right now) could pose a serious supply risk to be dependent on only one supplier, especially given that x86 is so prevalent everywhere.
 
Whether 'Bulldozer' desktop processors are a success or not, AMD is only cutting out a slice of Intel's pie. It has always been Intel's pie. Even when AMD were doing very well and seemed to be producing CPU's that were better on all accounts then Intel's processors it never became AMD's pie, it didn't take long for Intel to come back (Core2) and stamp their authority over AMD.

My next concern is that if AMD's R and D department can't compete long term with Intel on the CPU (or APU) front and is struggling to float, how long can the GPU side of things continue to challenge nVidia's crown? Again when AMD comes up with a good line of products that seem to leave nVidia standing it isn't long before nVidia rise to the challenge and again stamp authority over AMD. The gap between AMD and nVidia has been a lot closer over recent years than between AMD and Intel but I can see AMD falling further behind nVidia in the next 5+ years.
 
[citation][nom]dogman_1234[/nom]Don't call me racist, but I hope a Chinese based company does NOT buy out AMD. The last thin we need is for china to further buy us out.[/citation]
It's about racism, it's just bad global economy. But that has been the way of the world since empires began. It's nice to be on the winning side but those on the losing side always suffer... The so called first world has no actual 'right' to be successful and better off and the tide is now turning...
 
IBM doesn’t want AMD. IBM made Intel and AMD with their first "personal computer" that used the Intel cpu. But IBM didnt want to ever have to fight Intel so they made Intel get several other producers (competition). The rest have more or less died off or not wanted to do it anymore, so we have IMB in the extreme servers, Intel in low to high level servers and all PCs (Laptops), and AMD in Low mid servers, and all PCs (laptops). The SOI process was made by IBM.
 
IBM would make sense. But so would other options. I could even imagine circumstances where Microsoft would buy it, or Apple for that matter. I say circumstances where Microsoft would buy it. But I imagine that if they did, they would break the company up and shift the focus to processors for consoles and mobile things. I can't imagine Microsoft going up against Intel in the x86 market. While my idea is kind of out there, so is the rest of this speculation.
 
"AMD has attractive assets, while it isn't exactly competitive at this time anymore."

Really, not competitive? Here I was thinking that there was barely any difference at all in gaming performance between AMD and Intel's top CPUs, and that most mainstream users couldn't tell the difference between AMD and Intel in their daily email/facebook/pr0n viewing.

Well shucks, I feel like a douche for recommending AMD systems to people all these years.
 
or, sell AMD's graphics (Ati) to whoever's interested, and its CPU division to nVidia whom is needing more cpu IPs... Selling in 2 pieces probably makes more money than given in one package.
 
[citation][nom]007Style[/nom]I used to work in the Power Design Division of IBM - what ananke said is wrong. IBM has a lot of manufacturing capability located in East Fishkill NY and Burlington VT. IBM is a leader in process fabrication techniques (as showcased by the number of patents filed each year) and manufactures all the PS3, Wii, Xbox chips in the same plant that currently produces Power7 / mainframe chips. Just wanted to set the record straight.With that said, I don't think it would be in IBM's interest to pick up a company like AMD. After all, most of the revenues on the balance sheet come from software / services, not hardware.Cheers![/citation]

Interesting. I did/do work for both of those plants you have mentioned above over the past 15 years. I make the dies that are used in the probe cards that we would send over to IBM(that they would assemble and then use to test the chips). I've made some interesting things over the years for them.

I will say this, we work with many other companies besides IBM, but, IBM is the best to do work for. The engineers at IBM are smart and are willing to make changes very quickly if something is not working correctly (not like the other companies that just keep making the same mistakes over and over). IBM, from my experiences, knows how to get things done and cuts through the corporate BS to get it done. For anyone to say IBM has no manufacturing capabilities, then it is apparent they have no clue what they are talking about.
 
IBM or Samsung makes the most sense. Servers and GPUs are really only thing AMD has. Expect a Chinese firm to put in a bid, and scare the frak out of the US Gov't. China really wants high end, high volume CPUs and GPUs.
 
who thought IBM doesn't make chips? they did Mac forever with the powerPC and G series chips. With the exception of the G5 they were all solid products, and the G5 was fast... just really hot and inefficient. But when even their flop processor is that good you know they are good at manufacturing. then they have been making nintendo procs for a while now, and the xBox and PS3, as well as just about every upper end server platform and super computer out there! Sure, manufacture is not their MAIN market, but they have little need for AMD.
Microsoft does not want AMD. They do not do hardware, nor do they want to.
The suggestions in the article sound good to me, AMD is down with a little promise in the future, but without a solid leader, so it is a perfect time to be bought.

LOL, dell with their own brand of chip, *sigh* laughed almost to the point of tears!
 
I doubt Samsung would be a candidate for takeover since only a US owned company is licensed to produce X86 processors under their name. They can be manufactured in other countries obviously but Intel would sue if foreign country bought AMD & produced X86 processors as it violates X86 license agreement.
 
[citation][nom]hindsight_is_20_80[/nom]"AMD has attractive assets, while it isn't exactly competitive at this time anymore." Really, not competitive? Here I was thinking that there was barely any difference at all in gaming performance between AMD and Intel's top CPUs, and that most mainstream users couldn't tell the difference between AMD and Intel in their daily email/facebook/pr0n viewing.Well shucks, I feel like a douche for recommending AMD systems to people all these years.[/citation]
Well, yeah... you kinda should. So what if the average PC buyer these days doesn't understand or realise the difference? That is like saying that just because someone likes watching a sport but doesn't really understand all the individual technicalities of the sport that it is ok to assume that they will be happy watching amateurs instead of the professionals. The fact is that Intel CPU's are more powerful and tend to be a lot more attractive, even if there are a few scenarios where an AMD processor does the job just as well or slightly better, Intel has a better line top to bottom.
 
ibm is the best bet to buy amd. amd has been their 'little buddy' for years. they do a lot of work together. and, frankly, ibm has the know how to got beyond 20nm manufacturing but what does that matter? amd is fabless- globalfoundries and tsmc will figur it out. also, if you get digging into the cross license agreement between amd and intel, if amd get bought out, the license goes back to intel. ibm however has had a license for years and chooses not to use it.
 
[citation][nom]yyk71200[/nom]Bulldozer is about to roll out. If it is good (and it looks good on paper) and if AMD changes strategy + AMD graphics, AMD's near future may be pretty good.[/citation]

Here is the problem: K10 looked amazing on paper. Thats why paper means nothing in reality. I am sure that Prescott based NetBurst looked great too but it failed to outdo its predecessor, Northwood.

Bulldozer will be a step forward for AMD. But by how much is the question. If its enough to make them fully competitive, then I think AMD can make it alone. If its only enough to make it compete with Nehalem and not with Sandy Bridge, then AMD might need help in some way.

A buyout could help but with Qualcomm I would be worried honestly. They focus mainly on ARM chips and small simeconductor items. They might change AMD around for the worse, or worse yet change the best part of AMD right now, ATI.

I can say I would prefer AMD to be able to stand on its own and right now they are doing a good job of that after the crippleing blow that was Phenom.

Now BD just needs to be a win or it may cripple AMD again.
 
It's conventional wisdom at this point that Intel needs a viable, independent AMD in order to stay out of antitrust trouble in the US and Europe. And for once, conventional wisdom is probably right. If a Dell or an Apple were to buy AMD and then stop selling AMD chips to rival OEMs, Intel would be the only real x86 supplier left standing (ignoring VIA, which is absolutely minuscule). The moment a larger systems integrator announces a bid for AMD, Intel will have a talk with it and explain that if it purchases the chipmaker, then it will soon lose access to the x86 patents, in which case the GPU IP is all that will be left for them to develop. So unless the plan is to pair AMD's GPUs with an ARM core and use the resulting SoC to gain an edge in the ARM market, there seems to be no reason to buy the chipmaker. AMD isn't going anywhere. Intel would never allow it.
 
schizotoad: So, even if Firefox and IE are going to be bottlenecked by your internet speed rather than by any modern CPU, and even though AMDs CPUs have shown themselves to be just as good in games, you're saying that somehow Intel is still better because of synthetic benchmarks and "attractiveness", and even though there's no perceptable speedup in real life?

So what you're saying is, people are too dumb to understand the difference that they can't perceive, or that that they are too dumb to understand the difference that doesn't even exist?
 
I forgot to say that that AMD is too pricy to buy just for the GPU Ip, its a waste of resources. It would be like someone buying Samsung for their MP3 player division.
 
I love intel but we need the competition so that intel keeps forcing new wonders into our mobo each year. Also I love ati better than nvdia so what would happen to amd graphic section? I want my 7K series!
 
I am not sure why you bring browsers in to this unless that is your example of software with low CPU requirements, even then I don't get your point. As for benchmarks, of course they are synthetic, every test in the world is not an actual real life experience... that is the nature of tests, to synthesize a scenario that can be replicated over and over to gage performance. But aren't games also a synthetic test? Just because you can interact with them they are still created... and here is my main point about test with games... Games today are not written to push the boundaries of current technology to the next level. They are designed for mass sale and nearly all PC games are written from the ground up to cater for the old tech in modern consoles.
So I see you comment making as much sense as asking which car is faster, a Ford Focus or a Bugatti Veyron when the race according to the speed limits of the road and begin with a rolling start. They will be the same... but you can not argue that the Focus is as fast or as good as the Veyron... That is ridiculous. Intel processors are more powerful and are faster, fact. Just because what the user uses said processor for may not reveal the true strengths of the used processor does not mean that the processors are equal. AMD CPU's can barely keep up with the last gen of Intel's Nehalem CPU's and this next gen frankly makes AMD CPU's look pedestrian in comparison. OK, so Bulldozer APU's may claw some of this gap back but at the rate Intel has been moving forward I find it hard to see AMD keeping pace and if they could keep pace, do you really think AMD would be up for sale?
 
As long as Nvidia isn't affected negatively im not really concerned about what happens to AMD.Even if this so called "Bulldozer" Actually is released soon http://www.wowwiki.com/Soon i dont know if any guarantee can be made that AMD can pull their Domestic CPU Division out of the Rut it has been stuck in for a few years now.
 
[citation][nom]f4phantom2500[/nom]does anyone else think it'd be hilarious if bill gates bought amd just because he could?[/citation]
i'm with f4, bill gates, warren buffet and IBM make much better picks in this pure speculative nonsense of AMD being bought. anybody else would put themselves in a very very tight place that couldn't afford utter failure should they not prove capable of managing a complex operation in a volatile market.
while i do think samsung could pull it off, right now they can't afford any mistakes and tying up your $$$ by buying out a manufacturer in a minor related core business technology is ill advisable in this economy. just look what happened to AMD when they bought ATI and here they are now.
Qualcomm knew what they were doing with minimized risk and bought only what they needed, i seriously doubt they would go all in and push going for broke in their volatile market as well. they only wanted an edge and that's what they risked. it makes absolutely no sense for them to jump into an entirely unrelated market unless they have a huge game plan plotted out already to make a power PC in hand held form factor that would utilize it's core business in telecommunications and make it wildly lucrative for the telecommunications side of Qualcomms business.
as far as Dell goes i think your nuts, i see a vice versa wolfgang, it would benefit AMD far more to buy Dell and squeeze out another revenue stream from both Nvidia and Intel.
it's a good thing you're not involved with actually running a business Mr. Gruener , your business sense in this one sucks and would kill a major telecom as well as a major pc manufacturer and a chip manufacturer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom