AMD's Troubles and Why Qualcomm Should Buy

[SchizoFrog]

F-14: It may make more sense from a single point of view for AMD to buy Dell but that is a hypothetical situation as Dell is way out of AMD's league... They are one of the largest companies in the world.

 

[geekapproved]

AMD isn't competitive at this time??? Really? What are they smoking?

AMD offers more performance per dollar than Nvidia and their products use less power. That's not competitive???

 

[jkflipflop98]

The author seems to be under the idea that whomever buys AMD gets an x86 license. That is not the case.

 

[kkiddu]

@f4phantom2500 Hahahahaha ! Brilliant idea.

 

[megamanx00]

I still say firing Dirk was stupid. You can't focus on getting into new markets when you're still working on keeping your core products afloat. If you can get Bulldozer to properly launch, then you can start looking at getting a fusion into tablets. I also think it would have been stupid to try and adapt a lower power Athlon II for tablets when that's more of a market for fusion products. No, Dirk new what he was doing. AMD will probably have a good year due to bulldozer, but without a good leader to continue on there may be tough times ahead.

 

[sinfulpotato]

AMD can't be bought by another company. x86 will not transfer and the governments will not allow it because then Intel would have zero competition.

AMD is here to stay whether they do well or not. They have a safety net with anti-competitive laws.

 

[rpgplayer]

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3839/intel-settles-with-the-ftc/2

"The FTC has not gone so far as to require that Intel drops these provisions, but it does weaken them. If either AMD or Via has a “change of control” (i.e. a buyout/takeover/merger/joint-venture), Intel cannot immediately take the resulting company to court to terminate the license. Intel is required to enter in to good-faith negotiations with the new company to continue x86 CPU design and can only begin court proceedings after a certain period of time. As far as we can tell this does not require that Intel extend a license to a buyer of AMD or Via, but it does require that they consider it. If Intel does not act in good-faith in these negotiations, then the FTC can sanction Intel over it."

if AMD were to get bought out, it's best bet would be with Samsung or IBM. Samsung for the process manufacturing, and IBM for the R&D and capital.

 

[nebun]

[citation][nom]GeekApproved[/nom]AMD isn't competitive at this time??? Really? What are they smoking?AMD offers more performance per dollar than Nvidia and their products use less power. That's not competitive???[/citation]
if AMD is so great how come it's up for sale? usually, companies that are doing well don't offer themselves for sale

 

[THEfog101]

^^ Win.

 

[nforce4max]

It is somewhat still hard to believe that there are individuals who could literally afford to buy these companies. There is a secret class that is well above most that you would read in the list of the richest people out there. $10billion usd/eur would be a snack to those people.

 

[enforcer22]

[citation][nom]NeBuN[/nom]if AMD is so great how come it's up for sale? usually, companies that are doing well don't offer themselves for sale[/citation]

who said amd was up for sale. even if it were since when is it so far fetched for a company to put its self up for sale after hitting it big? many people do it everyday. Make an idea make a company get it big and sell it for billions how is that odd in anyway?

[citation][nom]schizofrog[/nom]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?[/citation]

While bing right in saying none of these things makes AMD "better" then intel it also means most people other then say some informed and likely somewhat exclusively people wont even care other then enthusiasts. which last time i checked is a small handful compared to the mass. I mean because if people really did care they wouldn't be buying AMD now and wouldn't have been buying Intel during the p4 rambus days. So what if they don't have the fastest chip. it means nothing to like 90% of the people who buy computers. What does mean something to them is what AMD does right and always has. Make fast cheap processors that just work. That in the end is the only thing that actually matters to most people excluding some small minority of people. When i go buy my next cpu it wont be a intel it will be a AMD because like has been said i wont notice a damn difference either way. But it will be a 6 or 8 core for my multi tasking rear. Hell i have a what 6 year old cpu? athlon 6400+ x2? i play games at 100+ frames still and everything i do is still fast. Could be my 8 gigs of ram and enthusiast video cards i buy but hell Since the value of my pc has nothing to do with a bunch of numbers in a benchmark that doesn't mean jack anything i suppose paying 4x more for a cpu that isn't going to change my experience is just plain pointless and dumb.

 

[baseline]

kronos_cornelius 02/18/2011 10:10 PM.I have faith AMD will pull through


Going to rely on faith eh? Well if you would happen to be going off to war and you get a choice of faith or body armor I suggest taking the body armor, if you plan on coming back that is.

 

[sonofliberty08]

[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]
not the Chinese but maybe the Taiwanese company will

 

[K2N hater]

Rumors, rumors!

Intel is actually the greatest supporter of AMD. Were AMD for sale IBM would buy them without a sweat and then IBM would struggle to make AMD chips better than Intel's in every aspect so they take over the market.

In other words, AMD for sale = bad to us and doom to Intel.

 

[billcat479]

"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.


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.

No, AMD CPU's do just fine, price/performance is in amd's favor and really if your not doing anything but ripping MP3's and 4s you really do not notice any difference unless you run a benchmark program that shows some numbers but I can put them side by side running games and no one could tell which one has a intel or amd chip in them. Only the real picky price is no object people would prefer intel because if AMD does ever fold you will look back on these days with a wish I supported AMD look on your face when you see the price of a intel only cpu will cost you. And this may effect ATI/Nvidia, if AMD folds we all loose bigtiime and that alone makes AMD cpus worth their weight in gold but unlike most users I tend to be able to think in the long term view and also remember how outrageous the cost of intels 286 cpus cost. They were as expensive as a complete amd computer cost today just for the cpu.
I wouldn't mind seeing IBM keeping up the support and R&D help for AMD. I think even IBM might not like a totally controlling Intel marketplace either.
The real sad part is this whole faster illusion when you should just say it is more than fast enough for my gaming use and other computer needs.
For the end user that gets the shaft the numbers are really meaningless. It goes up with the supercomputers but for home systems saying I HAVE to have intel because they are a little faster is just plain moronic.

 

[noob2222]

Back then, it was pure arrogance that punished AMD and allowed Intel to take back the technology leadership.

Would that be Intel's arrogance in paying vensors not to sell or use AMD products for the next 4 years?

 

[feeddagoat]

TBH I can see AMD getting bought out but not because of poor products or falling into a black hole. Even before GloFo was spun off I heard rumours of the a company from the East planning a buyout AMD. With the sacking of Dirk Meyer (the only person who wouldn't sell up after all the work he put into the company) I believe a take over of sorts is on the way. Hopefully it will be an eastern company that will reunite GloFo and AMD. Who knows, money is worth more than common sense.

 

[feeddagoat]

TBH I can see AMD getting bought out but not because of poor products or falling into a black hole. Even before GloFo was spun off I heard rumours of the a company from the East planning a buyout AMD. With the sacking of Dirk Meyer (the only person who wouldn't sell up after all the work he put into the company) I believe a take over of sorts is on the way. Hopefully it will be an eastern company that will reunite GloFo and AMD. Who knows, money is worth more than common sense.

 

[captaincharisma]

[citation][nom]silky salamandr[/nom]Will people stop saying this. There has been no official word on this alledged "bulldozer".[/citation]

i think they should just rename bulldozer to AMD forever and have it be released by another company 15 years from now

 

[Guest]

AMD can't go under. If AMD is bought up then Intel takes full control of x86. Intel would then own the market and we would have a monopoly crisis on our hands. Intel strings AMD along so that they don't have to deal with this legal bullshit. Personally I prefer AMD because they are cheaper and push for a lower power consumption, whereas Intel controls the more expensive power hungry CPU. Each company just targets a different audience so that they stay out of each others hair but provide the right amount of competition needed to prevent a monopoly.
Bottom line - Intel will not let AMD go under unless they want them to.