Predict AMD's Q4 Earnings ... go on !!

[Chad Boga]

You're right there isn't doubt, but for the wrong reason. GF has been making AMD's accounts look worse than they are all year, not better. There is nothing 'sweatheart' about the deal either. AMD created this company and is giving over cutting edge tech and technicians. They aren't going to do it cheap, same as TSMC wouldn't, Chartered didn't...nobody would.

You fail to comprehend the artificial pricing that AMD is receiving from GF, that won't last forever, but in the short term yes it will allow AMD to cook the books and people like you who don't understand this, will be shocked when AMD starts paying market rates on its wafers in a few years time.

Once you grasp the idea of COST +(GF's profit) for these wafers, you will see that AMD's Cost of Goods sold will increase dramatically, and likely by more than they save from not having to spend on Fab R&D.

2) Yes and most companies that aren't monopolies are the same. Maybe you want to check back 6-9 months and see who else was making a loss, because it sure as hell wasn't just AMD.

Where did I ever say or imply that it was just AMD?

Your reading comprehension is such a joke. :lol:

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Long term, selling GF may be bad, short term, its good for AMD

 

[jennyh]

They could sit it out, but they won't. Basically speaking they will get ~ $2bn cash, stop paying wages for 3000 foundry people (did you forget that Chad), clear all their debt and start from scratch.

This might happen a lot sooner than most expected.

 

[Chad Boga]

They could sit it out, but they won't. Basically speaking they will get ~ $2bn cash, stop paying wages for 3000 foundry people (did you forget that Chad)

Of course not.

But you seem to have forgotten that Global Floundries will have to charge AMD an amount appropriate to cover those costs, because they are now incurring them.

AMD is like a cash strapped fellow who drives to work everyday and decides he will sell his car and just use that money to catch cabs to work.

In the short term this allows the cash strapped fellow to pay off his credit card, but what then?

He/AMD will be able to get away with that for a while, but eventually that money runs out due to the fact you are now also paying for the other party's profit share.

There is no free lunch here Jenny, no matter how hard you wish for it to be so.

 

[jennyh]

Nobody said it was a free lunch.

GF have a bunch of customers, and a bunch of fabs. Each customer pays money per wafer, which in turn helps GF to make a profit etc. Now you have to be a certain size for the fab business to work, that much is clear - that is why only TSMC and UMC were ever able to make any cash at all.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/14/47784/globalfoundrieschartered-foundry-combo-takes-no.-2-slot.htm

GF are already #2, having taken over UMC on revenues. How can that be so? Simple, AMD are already paying GF for wafers, and the Chartered revenues too. Now AMD may be getting a preferential rate, but in no way will the removal of that preferential rate cost them more than the drain of running the fabs did.

If it did, they wouldn't sell.

GF *can* run many fabs profitably, because they have many customers, just like TSMC.

The difference here is, GF needs AMD because AMD will be the company who pushes them further. GF needs AMD to be successful, and AMD will always be the #1 customer.

 

[Chad Boga]

Nobody said it was a free lunch.

GF have a bunch of customers, and a bunch of fabs. Each customer pays money per wafer, which in turn helps GF to make a profit etc. Now you have to be a certain size for the fab business to work, that much is clear - that is why only TSMC and UMC were ever able to make any cash at all.

http://www.electronicsweekly.com/Articles/2010/01/14/47784/globalfoundrieschartered-foundry-combo-takes-no.-2-slot.htm

GF are already #2, having taken over UMC on revenues. How can that be so? Simple, AMD are already paying GF for wafers, and the Chartered revenues too. Now AMD may be getting a preferential rate, but in no way will the removal of that preferential rate cost them more than the drain of running the fabs did.

If it did, they wouldn't sell.

GF *can* run many fabs profitably, because they have many customers, just like TSMC.

The difference here is, GF needs AMD because AMD will be the company who pushes them further. GF needs AMD to be successful, and AMD will always be the #1 customer.

Jenny there is a lot wrong with what you have just written, but I need to go out for a while now, so I will come back later to school you, again. 😀

 

[jennyh]

Btw - think what happened before for AMD. When they were past a process, they just sold off the equipment. While that recouped a bit of cash, it is obviously more profitable to use that equipment (otherwise nobody would buy it, right?).

STM will use the 45nm equipment that AMD are moving on from, helping GF make more cash than AMD would ever have been able to from that equipment.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Yea, poor Qualcomm, theyre suffering so bad without fabs.
This is more traditional than fact for cpus and fabs together.
Whats going to hurt here is, Intel doesnt have the monies ATIC does, and if future processes get expensive, its INTEL having to incur those costs, not AMD etc.
ATIC wants another top fab built, intheir backyard, so, you dont go building brand new fabs to make them produce old tech, period.
That being the case, theyre challenging every fab out there for cutting edge, and itll only get worse, as Intel has their chips , but ATIC has oil. If we transition as some gave claimed, and we start seing jumps in other things along with traditional things, cutting edge runs to the forefront. Will Intel have the money to keep up?

Ill remind everyone , GF doesnt just get its profits from AMD, as theyll be dispersed, whereas all of Intels costs run straight into their products.
If ATIC catches and surpasses Intel, it could really cause problems for them, and ATIC/GF wont take second best, not with the money theyre sitting on, so Intel may lose some of their people to them down the road, if needed

 

[jennyh]

Chips are the new oil. That might seem a strange thing to say now but it will become very apparent over the coming years.

This is why ATIC are getting involved now. They are in this for the long haul, no question.

 

[Hellboy]

Chips are the new oil. That might seem a strange thing to say now but it will become very apparent over the coming years.

This is why ATIC are getting involved now. They are in this for the long haul, no question.

Well atleast you can be congratulated on my signature...

Well done.


And well done AMD.. It looks like its going to be a two horse race after all.

 

[spud]

Wow, so they profited. Even if it was due to the Intel settlement that still means...

Means....

Means...

That I was....

And that JennyH was....

And that all that JennyH bashing I did....

And my signature....


GOSH FREAKING DARN IT.


Here it goes...

I, TechnologyCoordinator was wrong. JennyH, was right. I TechnologyCoordinator hereby formally and publically put my foot in my mouth.

JennyH, you were right. Please accept my sincere and humble apology.

Technically both of you were wrong as well since neither stated legal settlement would put them in the black or not.

Word, Playa.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Long term, selling GF may be bad, short term, its good for AMD

IIRC you were predicting AMD would be raking in the dough with their GF stake in a few years ...

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Anandtech has a fairly simple analysis of the Q4 results, which I agree with because basically it agrees with what I said above 😀. Anyway, Q4 would have been a loss of 64M without the Intel settlement, and all of 2009 would have been 938M loss without the Intel settlement.

That's using Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, rather than creative Bob-The_Rivet "let's hide the sausage" accounting procedures 😛.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Yea, poor Qualcomm, theyre suffering so bad without fabs.
This is more traditional than fact for cpus and fabs together.
Whats going to hurt here is, Intel doesnt have the monies ATIC does

And neither does ATIC if we are to believe that the UAE lost some $125B in 2009, as I linked to in another thread .

My take on the fab vs. fabless model is - AMD was forced to sell off in order to survive. Whether that was a smart move or not, time will, but AMD had no choice in the matter.

In contrast, Intel sees fit to continue with being the world-leading fab company, despite the Jenny-alleged handicap of having inferior engineers who paint Picassos instead of working on the next node apparently .

Given the relative historical (or even hysterical) success of Intel vs. AMD, I think even a handicapped engineer would bet on Intel's being right

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

Thats like Intels paying AMD, whats 125 billion to them? As I said at the time, theyd just pay out to get the cities buildings paid for. So yea, that, and the fact that they could just buy control for GF and leave AMD as partners in the non voting sense, I could be right 3 times over.
But either way, I feel sorry for Intel as theres simply no way they can compete against this, and actually, pushing AMD out, as some here are happy about, only hastens ATICs ability to ovetake Intel thru heavy investment, which AMD obviously cant keep their end up.
So, some may just get what thyre wishing for, but Im thinking it wont be what they want
And if you think Im kidding, they dumped over 30 billion on those buildings, as a stop gap measure, whens the last time Intel dropped 30 billion for just 1 thing? Besides buying out AMD, investing over 7 billion in GF, buying chartered and whatever ever else theyre playing with.
Smile all you want, but Im sure Intels taking a more serious POV

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Profits on the ground
Profits on the ground
Lookin' like the fool with your profits on the ground!

- Popular hit with the new Arabian Idol show 😀..

 

[jennyh]

Anandtech has a fairly simple analysis of the Q4 results, which I agree with because basically it agrees with what I said above 😀. Anyway, Q4 would have been a loss of 64M without the Intel settlement, and all of 2009 would have been 938M loss without the Intel settlement.

That's using Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures, rather than creative Bob-The_Rivet "let's hide the sausage" accounting procedures 😛.

Amusing that you dismiss the intel settlement cash so readily while extolling the virtues of GAAP immediately afterward. 😀

Simple fact is, AMD lost a lot more than $1.25bn because of intels behaviour, over many years.

 

[jennyh]

And neither does ATIC if we are to believe that the UAE lost some $125B in 2009, as I linked to in another thread .

My take on the fab vs. fabless model is - AMD was forced to sell off in order to survive. Whether that was a smart move or not, time will, but AMD had no choice in the matter.

In contrast, Intel sees fit to continue with being the world-leading fab company, despite the Jenny-alleged handicap of having inferior engineers who paint Picassos instead of working on the next node apparently .

Given the relative historical (or even hysterical) success of Intel vs. AMD, I think even a handicapped engineer would bet on Intel's being right

How do you explain it? AMD led for a good 4-5 years, maybe longer. For sure intel weren't making $billions every quarter back then, just $hundreds of millions.

Intel have always been a far larger company, spending far more on R&D on their own x86 technology. Yet the got themselves into a situation where they were so far behind AMD they had to basically, cheat their way back - and only now are starting to pay for it (apart from the Dell $billions ofc).

How do you explain it? It's simple, AMD have better engineers.

 

[jennyh]

Well atleast you can be congratulated on my signature...

Well done.


And well done AMD.. It looks like its going to be a two horse race after all.

Thanks hellboy. 😀

 

[fazers_on_stun]

Amusing that you dismiss the intel settlement cash so readily while extolling the virtues of GAAP immediately afterward. 😀

Simple fact is, AMD lost a lot more than $1.25bn because of intels behaviour, over many years.

No, I wasn't saying the Intel settlement was non-GAAP, I was saying that without the Intel settlement, the non-GAAP method showed AMD making a small profit. As was Anandtech. IOW, factoring out the Intel settlement, the accepted practice shows a loss whereas the non-accepted practice shows a profit. Since Bob the Riveter is CFO (Chief Fudge Officer), all shady accounting practices can be attributed to him 😀.

 

[fazers_on_stun]

How do you explain it? AMD led for a good 4-5 years, maybe longer. For sure intel weren't making $billions every quarter back then, just $hundreds of millions.

Intel have always been a far larger company, spending far more on R&D on their own x86 technology. Yet the got themselves into a situation where they were so far behind AMD they had to basically, cheat their way back - and only now are starting to pay for it (apart from the Dell $billions ofc).

How do you explain it? It's simple, AMD have better engineers.

Easy - Intel simply went down the wrong track in pursuing Netburst. Obviously they thought clocks would go much higher and that the penalty for mispredictions would be much lower. Didn't turn out that way, but that doesn't make them stupid. Apparently there were signs early on that it was the next step in evolving CPU technology. Just think how expensive it would be 10 years later if Intel hadn't done the R&D back then, and shown it was a fruitless branch evolution-wise.

When you operate at the leading edge of technology, it's expensive and prone to make mistakes. And Intel seems to have learned from those mistakes. That's a sign of intelligence, doncha think?? 😀

And as I have said many times before, Intel can probably pay better and thus attract the better engineers. Unfortunately, engineers are much like other people and tend to go where they are best paid, all other things being equal..

 

[jennyh]

Easy - Intel simply went down the wrong track in pursuing Netburst. Obviously they thought clocks would go much higher and that the penalty for mispredictions would be much lower. Didn't turn out that way, but that doesn't make them stupid. Apparently there were signs early on that it was the next step in evolving CPU technology. Just think how expensive it would be 10 years later if Intel hadn't done the R&D back then, and shown it was a fruitless branch evolution-wise.

LOL. (sorry lol).

When you operate at the leading edge of technology, it's expensive and prone to make mistakes. And Intel seems to have learned from those mistakes. That's a sign of intelligence, doncha think?? 😀

Learning from mistakes? That can be pre-programmed too, doesn't necessarily equate to intelligence. 😛

And as I have said many times before, Intel can probably pay better and thus attract the better engineers. Unfortunately, engineers are much like other people and tend to go where they are best paid, all other things being equal..

Many of the engineers at each company will have been there for a long time, a lot of stuff gets passed down just like in every other job.

As for intel paying better, I really doubt it. Pay one better and you have to pay the rest better else they get pissed off and start handing out secrets like some two-bit Taiwanese operation. 😀

 

[verndewd]

Hilarious. You know what AMD-64 is right? You realise that intel licence a bunch of AMD's patents back? 😗

Any somewhat educated engineer can evolve a risc derivative. and if you want me to dig on that I may find some info to back up the ikling that I seem to remember AMD actually buying the IP that started their 64 process. I could be wrong it was a while ago, point is your god is no god even in the smallest sense.

 

[verndewd]

Give enough paint to enough monkeys and they might end up making a Picasso.

You mention 10k engineers, which will 'dwarf' the entire AMD staff, but you can't figure out that this same dwarfed staff has led in tech against them in the recent past, isn't that far behind right now, and beats them soundly in graphics? How did that happen if they didn't have superior engineers?.

You know the Dell billions, the dodgy compiler, all the behind-the-scenes stuff that intel have been dragged through courts the world over for?

If they had better engineers they wouldnt have had to do that would they?

Is this really so hard to figure out? Intels inferior engineers is the reason why intel have to behave they way they do, it's the reason why they have always behaved that way. The problem now is, intel have such a commanding monetary lead that even these inferior engineers can hardly fail to stay ahead. Even with garbage like Larrabee wasting $billions.

Have you any idea just how much further advanced we'd be if AMD engineers had that sort of money thrown at them? Do you even realise that *this* is why the FTC are after intel - for harming progress?

repeated revisions dont back up your flawed assertions. The SEC and ftc are not after Intel AMD brought up a suit Intel settled both parties dropped charges.

pretty much every fanatical point you bring up can be easilly swept aside. If AMD is so gawddamed brilliant why havent they ruled the roost continuously? Thats not a logic you can defend in fact its not rational at all.

Intel could have kept revising and kept revising as AMD has since socket 754 (or whatever) but they opted for a strategy that paid off huge they can virtualize threads and have a higher IPC and a faster ballisticity because of design that AMD couldnt do without a crosslicence rehash.

If thats superior to you , Kmart must be your ideal as a macys superior.

 

[verndewd]

Hilarious. You know what AMD-64 is right? You realise that intel licence a bunch of AMD's patents back? 😗

whats hilarious is that it took two responses for my one comment

IIRC you were predicting AMD would be raking in the dough with their GF stake in a few years ...

AMD is just offloading the debt burden for the most part. First time in a very long time they have been fabless. sanders said real men own fabs, nw his pet is fabless and Intel has production capibiities that make AMD look like freescale,,,, oh wait same diff. both are IP companies now. lets see if AMD goes the freescale route some more and just licenses IP and doesnt produce a product per se. Then they can eventually scale back to one engineer and when he dies designing his last outdated chip it will be done.