AMD is finished: Bank hired to explore options; sale of assets possible
216 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Slight;38443832]I'm not sure I understand the situation here. AMD's lack of participation in the mobile device market is somehow causing its PC sales to dwindle and the company to topple? Are the two markets not separate? Why does failure in one market mean the other markets fall with it? I feel like there's way more that's causing this than what the article lets on.
Is it simply the fact that they don't have the development funds to keep up with competitors like Intel anymore? If that's true, how can Nividia's GPUs compete with AMDs' if AMD is a bigger company and has its foot in more markets with likely more funds with which to invest in GPU development?[/QUOTE]
It has nothing to do with that
1. Market has shifted to favor more mobile computing over PC computing for general consumers. AMD has no stake in this, so they automatically lose profit just because of that shift. Nvidia at least has their Tegra technology, which is keeping a nice stake on the chunk of android tablets and mobile devices that use the tech.
2. AMD in the past couple of years has consistently been releasing hardware for it's main market (PC's) that has consistently been trumped by its competitors both on sales and "relevant" performance (i.e., bulldozer is excellent for rendering video at the same time as doing other stuff, but most people aren't going to be in that situation).
3. Their consoles which they make video/processor hardware for, are very old now, and they simply are not selling as much anymore on them, so they don't make nearly as much off them as they used to.
4. PC hardware as a market in general has been stagnating for enthusiasts becuase there hasn't been any real need to truely innovate on that market, due to games not really needing much top end hardware to run seeing as how old the consoles are. Seeing as there's no real need to "invent" 64bit technology and get to the next GHz threshold, there's nothing that AMD can do to really one-up the competition in any real meaningful way and also have it be relevant for consumers right now.
Nvidia and Intel are both being hit by the shift to the moble market by general consumers as well as AMD, but they are staying healthy because they've been the most popular manufacture in their primary markets (processors/video cards) in the past couple of years, in addition to them developing stuff for that mobile market to keep them afloat.
Oh great, now I bet XFX is regretting going exclusively to ATI cards.
I liked their graphics cards though.
shucks, their APUs are great for laptops. the laptop I'm on right now has a A6-3400m and a HD 6650M dedicated card and in hybrid crossfire, it destroys games
[editline]14th November 2012[/editline]
also never once have I had a severe driver problem with AMD
[QUOTE=GammaFive;38452915]Oh great, now I bet XFX is regretting going exclusively to ATI cards.
I liked their graphics cards though.[/QUOTE]
XFX cards are very well made.. I just went to 101C because I accidentally left the fan speed on 20% while gaming for about a couple hours... didn't notice it because I did not get any artifacting or warnings and it looks like I'm still okay :v:
[QUOTE=Amiga OS;38441036]Doesn't VIA manufacture really shitty X86 processors?[/QUOTE]
VIA target a bit of a different market from most if the stuff AMD makes.
Fuck, I love Intel and Nvidia but I also love AMD.
I wanna build a rig with one of those APUS, I hope they start doing better somehow.
-snip-
[QUOTE=GammaFive;38452915]Oh great, now I bet XFX is regretting going exclusively to ATI cards.
I liked their graphics cards though.[/QUOTE]
I thought they wanted to do both ATI and Nvidia but Nvidia got pissy and cut their deal?
[QUOTE=Milkdairy;38447374]IMO their GPU's have been getting more and more shit because Nvidia is constantly pushing PhysX for games, which just happens to be deliberately locked down for only Nvidia GPU's ( Even though AMD cards are capable of using PhysX)[/QUOTE]
I'm reasonably sure that Nvidia agreed to license out architecture requirements for physx, but that AMD chose to go with their own version of stuff.
I may not be correct on this though.
[QUOTE=laserguided;38440711]Every AMD card I've bought has never died, nor had any sort of malfunction apart from a stock fan making annoying grinding sounds. Drivers never let me down.[/QUOTE]
this.
meanwhile, I've gone through 3 nvidia cards
This is a sad day.
[QUOTE=QuinnithXD;38462548]This is a sad day.[/QUOTE]
No it's not. The CEO denied the sale like 2 days ago.
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;38447396]CUDA hasn't even been used extensively in more than a handful of major games.[/QUOTE]
I come from a High performance computing (research computing) background, here's my perspective on this (If anything at all even happens)
CUDA isn't designed with games in mind. In fact in terms of HPC, the current number one on the top500 supercomputer list uses Nvidia accelerators, and off the top of my head I cant recall any significant use of AMD cards in this area. Having said this, the system uses Opteron CPU's, which is interesting as in the rest of the most recent top500 Intel and IBM CPU's are in the majority, with AMD being conspicuously absent with only 17 out of the 500.
I'm one of the few people with an AMD tri-core processor and I never looked back
cue the tinfoil.
"not 'actively' perusing a sale."
[QUOTE=Arsonist;38465163]I'm one of the few people with an AMD tri-core processor and I never looked back[/QUOTE]
Isn't that just a quad core with one of the other cores disabled?
Fuck, AMD graphics cards are the only ones that properly work for me.
nVidia graphics cards always crash when I try to play TF2.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.