AMD announces quarterly loss of $197 million, its fourth straight loss
45 replies, posted
[QUOTE]On Thursday, the ever-struggling AMD announced its fourth straight quarterly loss—at $197 million—putting total losses for the first nine months of 2015 at $557 million.
Over the last 17 years, the company has sustained a total net loss of nearly $8 billion.[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/10/amd-announces-quarterly-loss-of-197-million-its-fourth-straight-loss/"]Ars Technica[/URL]
Not sure how long they're gonna be able to keep this up, something's gonna have to give. Perhaps they spin off part of the company, perhaps they back out of their major loss making divisions (x64), perhaps they take a large investment from another company or even get bought out. Zen is over a year away, and am not sure if it will be enough to pull them out of a decade of anemic performance.
Not ATI, Please don't die.
RIP AMD
I don't support or buy from these guys, I have no customer loyalty to them but I really don't want Nvidia and Intel to have a perfect monopoly.
They'll get a $320m cash infusion by the sale of some facilities, along with a 1700 less people to pay, so next quarter might end up in the black. After that it's probably back to red numbers, but the losses might end up slightly smaller. As they don't have a lot of cash, they'll probably sell more of their assets until Zen can turn a big profit. If it doesn't it's completely game over.
They've already spun off parts of ATI back into a discrete business, which means they're shopping it around.
Not a good sign at all.
[QUOTE=Rossy167;48914117]I don't support or buy from these guys, I have no customer loyalty to them but I really don't want Nvidia and Intel to have a perfect monopoly.[/QUOTE]
Haven't Intel and Nvidia been left in deep shit in the past for anti-competitive behaviour? I'm aware of Intel bribing PC distributors not to use AMD processors whilst Nvidia seem to have a habit of paying developers to 'optimise' their games for Nvidia GPUs whilst AMD cards are shit out of luck.
The "deep shit" for nVidia was price fixing with ATI, so not even relevant.
Secondly nVidia will send you a damn specialist and target taped-out cards for optimization, AMD will send you a white paper pdf, small wonder nvidia gets more incentive hits than AMD.
AMD last chance is Zen. IF that fails, the CPU department will likely go out of business or be bought by another company. OR they get a cash infusion from Intel of all people because if AMD go out of business or are bought out, AMD loses their instruction license. That is tied to Intel's instruction license(so Intel cannot make their CPU's anymore).
Not to mention that a monopoly would be very bad.
[QUOTE=Valiantttt;48914221]AMD last chance is Zen. IF that fails, the CPU department will likely go out of business or be bought by another company. OR they get a cash infusion from Intel of all people because if AMD go out of business or are bought out, AMD loses their instruction license. That is tied to Intel's instruction license(so Intel cannot make their CPU's anymore).
Not to mention that a monopoly would be very bad.[/QUOTE]
That's not true as far as I know. AMD's only relation with Intel over their instruction set license is that Intel owns the rights to the x64/86 platform, and as such AMD can't send chips to fab without that agreement. Since Intel owns the rights, they can produce the chips no matter what, even if AMD went under.
Intel will give them cash if they are at risk of going under (as they have done before) because if AMD goes under then Intel will be at risk of investigation as they will have a practical monopoly on the x86 market.
Honestly, AMD is a headache for the entire industry, sure, Intel isn't a saint, but they're a far cry from most other corporations, and they try not to be huge dickbags. AMD's decline is no fault but their own and even if it is bad for the whole tech industry if they go under, it's really not surprising given that I don't see how you can produce almost a strictly inferior product for years and not expect to lose out on your income.
[QUOTE=27X;48914188]They've already spun off parts of ATI back into a discrete business, which means they're shopping it around.
Not a good sign at all.[/QUOTE]
Not really... I probably can't say more.
AMD's still alive and kicking though. It's not doomsday...
[QUOTE=Angus725;48915189]Not really... I probably can't say more.
AMD's still alive and kicking though. It's not doomsday...[/QUOTE]
They have divisions that are doing well and obviously bring new competitive products to the table fairly regularly, namely their graphics division. More the issue is that they have been losing a lot of money and more notably market share and mind-share in the x86 CPU market, and the losses stemming from the part of the company have pretty much erased the positive performance of their GPUs (though there are issues there too such as sliding market share to nvidia). There is not a single competitive offering that they have in the biggest growth market in personal computers in years, low power laptops and tablets, and that is a huge issue for them. When/if Zen releases they need to be on top of releasing a laptop ultrabook part and fast.
Apple, Microsoft, Lenovo... they could buy it with ease.
Don't worry, [upcoming CPU] will be the turning point for AMD
If AMDs cpu division were to shut down for any reason, ARM cpu's are making enough advances recently that there will be companies trying to push ARM on the desktop hard enough to make the x86 license a (long term) non issue for anti competition. HP already employs ARM processors in a few server products, and if they started pushing Windows 10 ARM desktops at a workstation class performance level, with enough software support anybody who doesnt need "legacy" software support wouldnt really need to spend alot of time on the choice between x86 or ARM.
[QUOTE=Zombii;48914559]That's not true as far as I know. AMD's only relation with Intel over their instruction set license is that Intel owns the rights to the x64/86 platform, and as such AMD can't send chips to fab without that agreement. Since Intel owns the rights, they can produce the chips no matter what, even if AMD went under.
Intel will give them cash if they are at risk of going under (as they have done before) because if AMD goes under then Intel will be at risk of investigation as they will have a practical monopoly on the x86 market.
Honestly, AMD is a headache for the entire industry, sure, Intel isn't a saint, but they're a far cry from most other corporations, and they try not to be huge dickbags. AMD's decline is no fault but their own and even if it is bad for the whole tech industry if they go under, it's really not surprising given that I don't see how you can produce almost a strictly inferior product for years and not expect to lose out on your income.[/QUOTE]
They may not perform as well as intel, but the trade off is they're so much cheaper that you could take the money you saved and also get a video card. They're great for budget PC's. Would be a shame to see them go, because the way the world is going, no one's going to have a lot of spare cash. A fucking 10 pack of razors is $42 here, and everything's like that. Nothing is cheap anymore, and PC's/laptops are increasingly necessary
[QUOTE=ArcticRevrus;48915518]If AMDs cpu division were to shut down for any reason, ARM cpu's are making enough advances recently that there will be companies trying to push ARM on the desktop hard enough to make the x86 license a (long term) non issue for anti competition. HP already employs ARM processors in a few server products, and if they started pushing Windows 10 ARM desktops at a workstation class performance level, with enough software support anybody who doesnt need "legacy" software support wouldnt really need to spend alot of time on the choice between x86 or ARM.[/QUOTE]
ARM wins on Wattage/IPS which makes it great for some server use-cases, but its going to take a while before they can beat Intel in performance.
You can't just replace your workstation with 4 arm machines, you need to be competitive in per-box and per-core performance, for workstations and desktops.
They get pretty close, but you need to somewhat surpase it before an "emulation" layer will be realistic.
[QUOTE=smurfy;48915481]Don't worry, [upcoming CPU] will be the turning point for AMD[/QUOTE]
Redacted. Probably not supposed to say.
Well i'm sure the rebranded 290X sold as the 390X was not going to resolve this issue
You'd think making the gpu for all the consoles would be somewhat lucrative but then they may just be horribly missmanaged
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48915968]Well i'm sure the rebranded 290X sold as the 390X was not going to resolve this issue[/QUOTE]
But more VRAM... :(
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sableye;48915986]You'd think making the gpu for all the consoles would be somewhat lucrative but then they may just be horribly missmanaged[/QUOTE]
If AMD made that much $ off consoles, they'd be much more expensive.
[QUOTE=Cold;48915815]ARM wins on Wattage/IPS which makes it great for some server use-cases, but its going to take a while before they can beat Intel in performance.
You can't just replace your workstation with 4 arm machines, you need to be competitive in per-box and per-core performance, for workstations and desktops.
They get pretty close, but you need to somewhat surpase it before an "emulation" layer will be realistic.[/QUOTE]
Emulation is not in any way what I'm talking about. People with no need for legacy application support do not need any sort of special support software. What i am saying is that currently there isn't really a market for ARM devices to hit workstation performance, so nobody is really trying to push a SKU that tries. With AMD out of the game and no new x86 licenses coming out, that incentive would definitely be there. And we aren't really *that* far away as it is.
[QUOTE=Angus725;48915994]But more VRAM... :(
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
If AMD made that much $ off consoles, they'd be much more expensive.[/QUOTE]
I think their execution of the 300 series of the R9 platform was very sloppy, very deceptive and not very good at all. Why not just sell a higher VRAM 290X? The fury is nice, but for the price point.. big fucking deal, i'll go with an nvidia card for that price. I'd also get better drivers, and a card that doesn't run so hot.
I like all the ATi/AMD GPUs i have owned in my life. The 9200, 9800SE, x1650, 5770, 6990, 7870... all fantastic cards. But sometimes I questioned my buying habits. I have tried to be supportive of AMD throughout all my builds... but I have lost hope. The 8xxx is 3 years old. The 900 series chipset is 4 years. The 9xxx series was a utility companies nightmare.
They poured so much crap into these APUs, and sure they may be nice but for this level.. I'll retire my 1090 and go to a i5/7 6 gen and a 970 or 980. Im tired of AMDs shit.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48916222]I think their execution of the 300 series of the R9 platform was very sloppy, very deceptive and not very good at all. Why not just sell a higher VRAM 290X? The fury is nice, but for the price point.. big fucking deal, i'll go with an nvidia card for that price. I'd also get better drivers, [B]and a card that doesn't run so hot. [/B]
I like all the ATi/AMD GPUs i have owned in my life. The 9200, 9800SE, x1650, 5770, 6990, 7870... all fantastic cards. But sometimes I questioned my buying habits. I have tried to be supportive of AMD throughout all my builds... but I have lost hope. The 8xxx is 3 years old. The 900 series chipset is 4 years. The 9xxx series was a utility companies nightmare.
They poured so much crap into these APUs, and sure they may be nice but for this level.. I'll retire my 1090 and go to a i5/7 6 gen and a 970 or 980. Im tired of AMDs shit.[/QUOTE]
I agree the 300 series was just a bad idea, but you obviously haven't read a single Fury review. None of the cards go above 75C, and the Fury X obviously stays very cool with its watercooler.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;48916316]I agree the 300 series was just a bad idea, but you obviously haven't read a single Fury review. None of the cards go above 75C, and the Fury X obviously [B]stays very cool with its watercooler.[/B][/QUOTE]
One would certainly will hope a watercooler does keep a unit chilled.
The 300 series does run rather hot compared to their competition, and for the price points I don't know how I feel about AMD's plan. I was mostly upset by their rebranded 290x stunt, pretty much out of nvidias playbook.
Seriously, the 980Ti is a better card than the Fury X, and its cheaper. I do like the idea of HBM... I just think its implementation was lackluster.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48916407]One would certainly will hope a watercooler does keep a unit chilled.
The 300 series does run rather hot compared to their competition, and for the price points I don't know how I feel about AMD's plan.
[/QUOTE]
As a purely consumer opinion I have an R9 390 that I bought recently and when I did research the Nvidia equivalent about the same price point I swayed when I saw it was [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzqsT1nzSkw]worse from footage like this. [/url] In this Crysis 3 video the GTX 970 frequently drops to 50 or 40 FPS whereas the R9 390 rarely ever has FPS drops below 58 and when it does drop it recovers very quickly.
Frankly, I'll never buy from Nvidia while AMD still breathes. I've never been dissapointed in a purchase from them and I'm paying less for more performance.
One of their biggest cockups was betting it all that APUs were gonna be the big thing, and then it turned out that they didn't have an APU sku that was any good in laptops or ultramobiles and tablets, the only growth market in computing devices atm. Meanwhile Intel came from behind on their integrated GPU performance, and now intel Iris pro integrated is faster than the fastest APU part available (although it does cost more), and generally I would say that the graphics edge amd parts had 3 years ago is all but gone now. They still have the same shitty CPU cores however, rendering intel parts more practical for nearly everything.
Edit:
As far as AMD GPUs running hot, they do exhaust *a lot* of thermal energy compared to Nvidia parts. You can put out a lot of heat from the GPU but as long as you wick it from the die fast enough it will "run cool", hence the use of water coolers on all top end amd parts lately.
[QUOTE=Richard Simmons;48916407]One would certainly will hope a watercooler does keep a unit chilled.
The 300 series does run rather hot compared to their competition, and for the price points I don't know how I feel about AMD's plan. I was mostly upset by their rebranded 290x stunt, pretty much out of nvidias playbook.
Seriously, the 980Ti is a better card than the Fury X, and its cheaper. I do like the idea of HBM... I just think its implementation was lackluster.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that's why I said it stays very cool with its water cooler. The Fury X sits at 65C (41.5dB idle, 43dB load), with the 980 TI (37.8dB idle, 51.8dB load) at 83C (going by Anandtech). Now why did you say all the Fury cards run hot when none of them do? Actually this was one reason AMD was able to attain so much better power/performance compared to the 2/3xx series.
Just going by Newegg, the 980 Ti and the Fury X are basically the same price.
I can't disagree with performance, of course.
[editline]16th October 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=nintenman1;48916662]One of their biggest cockups was betting it all that APUs were gonna be the big thing, and then it turned out that they didn't have an APU sku that was any good in laptops or ultramobiles and tablets, the only growth market in computing devices atm. Meanwhile Intel came from behind on their integrated GPU performance, and now intel Iris pro integrated is faster than the fastest APU part available (although it does cost more), and generally I would say that the graphics edge amd parts had 3 years ago is all but gone now.[/QUOTE]
While Intel's GPUs are now pretty fast, saying there's a difference in price is an understatement. Doesn't change that no one wants to make an AMD laptop (although a few with Carrizo have popped up).
And the market slides one step closer to the Nvidia monopoly.
If Nvidia got a monopoly, PC gaming would crash, make no doubt about it. They would try to take to much and put in to little, and in the end PC's will become unaffordable again and consoles will look like the better option.
Woo-hoo!
(that is, a woo-hoo for being able to buy loads of shares a bit before Zen comes out because investors are panicking and AMD is dirt cheap)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.