• highlandcynic

    Sorry this seems like AMD are indulging in fluff.


  • nobody_special

    Nice article Rick. Thanks


  • ee92

    nice article, for the most part.

    However as usual you spin things to make AMD sound like some bunch of victimized Boy Scouts, which they most certainly are not.

    Statements like this are pure fluff.

    “AMD’s goals have always been the most admirable for the customer.”

    AMD is in this business to make money, just like everyone else. That is what their goal has always been.

    Ruiz wasn’t a boyscout when he worked for Motorola and he is not one today either. Why he’s still got a job at AMD is beyond me. I have convinced myself that AMD stockholders are a bunch of sheep because none of them seem to be outraged at what Ruiz has done to their company.

    I started my career at one of the big 3 semiconductor companies, Texas Instruments, and when we screwed up things the stockholders came unglued. When are the AMD fans going to quit making excuses for them and start holding them accountable for their screw ups?

    No lawsuit or any amount of Barcelona popularity is going to fix AMD’s FUNDAMENTAL issue.

    THAT ISSUE IS: AMD can not make/sell their silicon as cheap as Intel can. There in lies their problem, currently their profit margin is a NEGATIVE 49% and Barcelona is the biggest silicon die they have ever made (i.e. it’s not cheap to make). Until AMD fixes their manufacturing problem they are going to be operating at a loss.

    Had AMD spent the $5B+ that they spent on ATI on new fabs instead they maybe they wouldn’t be in the mess they are today.

    Next week AMD post it’s latest earnings, it should be interesting, especially if they loose another $1/2B or more which I think is very likely.

  • RickGeek

    ee92, that statement I made is a correct one.  AMD’s goals have always been the most admirable for the customer.  But, the part I think might’ve been missed was the fact that AMD is that way because it’s the best chance they have to make money.

  • pezonator

    ee92, so lets hope AMD die a horrible death and all that will be left is Intel, which means high prices and no innovation?

    You might have been in the business and know what’s going on, but there’s no doubt that AMD needs to stay in the industry or else we’re screwed.

    I really hope Barcelona is something big

  • capitalist

    The ATI acquisition was hardly a mistake.  CPU’s and GPU’s are merging.  Any CPU or GPU company which fails to produce both will not be in business long term. 

    AMD may or may not survive as an independent company.  Even if they are acquired, however, they will probably stay in the x86 business.  If they hadn’t bought ATI, they almost certainly wouldn’t.

    AMD will bring Fusion to market before Intel produces its CPU/GPU product.  This is the only reason AMD has a chance of survival. 

  • RickGeek

    capitalist, couldn’t AMD and ATI have worked together for such technology?  AMD could’ve spent that $5.4 billion on another 300 mm fab, and part of another one.  They could’ve ramped up manufacturing capacity and simply worked with ATI in a partnership, like the way Intel appears to be doing with Nvidia.

  • ee92


    you are wrong.. the shift in x86 market share is proof enough.

    If AMD was doing a superior job of taking care of the customers that they would be gaining market share and not loosing it, which they absolutely are.

    The hard data means far more then your (or mine) bias personal opinions. The free market is casting it’s votes with real purchases and AMD is loosing that contest.

    The customers are speaking load and clear, it just hard for someone drunk on the AMD marketing Koolaid to see that.

    common sense says that if AMD was taking better care of their customers then Intel was, then they would be increasing market share and not loosing it.

    you keep telling yourself fairy tails, and I’ll keep pointing to real measurable data that says otherwise.

  • ee92


    I still am in this business, I’ve been designing ASIC’s and FPGA’s for almost 15 years, I do it every day.

    I do hope AMD ceases to exist and somone more capable of producing silicon (IBM, TI, Samsung, etc) buys the CPU group and starts putting those designers superior designs on a semiconductor process that is worthy of them.

    Biuld Barcelona on an Intel/Samsung/TSMC semiconductor process and it would go much faster, put off less heat, and cost less money to produce.  Every designer at AMD knows that just as well as I do.

    Do you think they are not tired of being hamstrung by AMD’s lagging silicon technology.  Many of their innovatios are because they knew they couldn’t go as fast as Intel.

    Every CPU designer at AMD would rather be biulding their designs in a better semiconductor process.  They’d be idiots not to.

     If these guys are going to get back to an evenly matched game of leapfrog, AMD has to get their silicon up to snuff.  Given the kind of money they are hemoraging right now they can’t afford to do that.  Maybe before they blew $5B+, on ATI, but not now.

    AMD going broke does not mean an end to the competition in the x86 space. That group is good enough that someone is going to pay good money for them.

    If I were working as an AMD designer, I’d want someone with better silicon to buy me. 

    Then we’ll have some real competition, not  the flash in the pan success that AMD had a few years ago that they are still trying to trade on.  But many decades worth. 

  • sean_langley

    ee92 said: "I do hope AMD ceases to exist"

    I (kind of) hope AMD goes away as well, for a number of different reasons none of which has any thing to do with what I think of AMD technology, or what I think of Intel (whom I have a very low opinion on, but their chips are fast).  But one reason that is climbing the charts these days is that I hope that the kind of CPU zealotry that is being posted on this site might go away.  That said the mindless zealots are still around and they will just continue on being mindless. 

  • capitalist

    RickGeek:  All alliances are temporary.  If AMD and ATI had formed an alliance, neither would completely trust the other, because at the end of the day each company will do what is best for its own shareholders.  AMD would have been foolish to make its core product dependent on another company — especially one such as ATI which could easily have been purchased by a current or future competitor.

    AMD had to have a GPU, and Nvidia was too expensive. 

    Even if AMD is acquired, Fusion will still be released, and CPU/GPU integration will take place a few years sooner than it otherwise would.  Once it does, Nvidia will have to admit that it needs a CPU.  With any luck, we’ll end up with three strong players in the x86 industry.

    Perhaps we’ll be reading AMD’s obituary soon.  Or perhaps not.  If so, it will surely mention CPU/GPU integration as one of the ways AMD moved the industry forward over the years.  There will be many other examples as well. 

  • asdfasdfasd

    To think Fusion is anything special is silly….It is only when AMD talks about something that people jump. A similar product was on the long term vision with Intel as well for a similar time period.

    Integration is good, but again it is not total integration of the GPU /CPU that will control any market. Most will be crap GPU offerings with decent CPU’s. The combination will have limitations due to memory limits or will hog RAM by turning a large chunk of the system RAM into GPU only RAM (not a great idea for those needing large amounts of RAM for software needs)…

    AMD and Intel have moved the industry and both cannot be forgotten…It is only FANBOYS that talk of only AMD being the innovation and forward looking company when Intels contributions in both design and silicon tech are unparalleled.

    As for alliances being temporary, this is semi true. What is best for the shareholder for both companies was AMD not buying ATI (just look at the stock prices todate and before as well as cash on hand). AMD cannot for the life of itself release a product on time and with any benefit that isnt already covered by Intel…Nvidia is always a step ahead of ATI offerings and yes even with the DX10 drivers issues as of late ATI/AMD GPUs fell way way flat after being delayed to work to the next stepping.

    O well morons make drastic moves because they assume they have to, morons take on a larger company that has more cash and room to fight toe to toe when they themselves have no cash and cannot afford to lower PM’s, morons hype up paper releases and listen to a very very poor management, and finally morons cant sell solid tech that is better then the shit Intel had at the time. It is sad when AMD cannot market itself better during the netburst era but jump to grab so much when they are obviously being crushed up and down the market by solid tech from Intel. O well buy the cheapest and best products that allow one to upgrade (happens to be Intel), If you want to keep AMD a float and making subpar products released way behind schedule go for it. One thing that we all have is free will to spend our money as we see fit.

  • capitalist

    asdf:  Intel doesn’t even have a discrete GPU yet.  They’ll get there, but tocay they aren’t a factor in the discrete graphics market.  They won’t have an integrated CPU/GPU in the same timeframe as Fusion.

    Crap GPU offerings?  Integrated CPU/GPU’s will not be an extension of the integrated chipset market.  They won’t replace discrete graphic cards, but they’ll definitely shrink the market, because they’ll be fine for casual gamers. 

    Asdf, it really isn’t ethical to try to influence the stock market by posting on news sites. 

    It would be interesting if posters’ market positions were listed next to their name.  Perhaps Geek.com could add a field in the profile for us to disclose our market positions.  I think I’ll submit that suggestion. 

  • GonjLipl

    "The little green chipmaking giant that almost was truly that, is letting ZDNet and the world know that Barcelona was not their own cleverly crafted solution. It was, in fact, a response to real needs which exist in the world. AMD analyzed the customer’s desires, longing and general concerns and then built a chip to address them."

    Why does that make me want to throw up? Because everyone wants the same two things: higher performance less power. That is a given they are making it sound like they built the processor to a customer’s specs. So for all the companies that AMD didn’t call up and ask what you want buy Intel because their processor it built for everyone.

    Now some questions for AMD because their customers had request Barcelona.

    AMD’s customers must have wanted the chip to be late
    (Also note Gary Bixler AMD’s american director of marketing wont give a soild launch date for Barcelona thats from a interview that took place on the 16th of July. Launch is in august that is only 14 days away)

    AMD’s customers must have only wanted one speed grade not several to pick from to decide if they want power saving or higher performance

    AMD’s customers must have wanted to be lied to on simulated benchmarks at 2.6Ghz when they can not even produce 2.0Ghz benchmarks after being called out on them.

    No it was built to make them a profit and now it doesn’t look like it will do that on its own merits it is time to spin up the PR machine that’s the truth.

  • asdfasdfasd


    Intel is a huge force on the integrated graphics devision one that ATI use to own before they decided that a discrete GPU market would make them more money (and it did not).

    Intel will have something around the same time frame trust me.

    My market position is usually NO TECH STOCKS…

    I own no Intel, no AMD, no Nvidia, and no ATI nor have I at any point.

    Tech stocks are usually some of the worse stocks to be involved in, most do not pay dividends and most are short term gains if any. Yes some break the mold, but most do not. Smoke stack industries are a long term survival along with the energy sector.

    My words about AMDs latest moves are not trying to pursuade anyone they are to talk about the stupid moronic moves that AMD has made under their current managment.

    Cap do you honestly think one can influence a stock price from geek.com? If so I wonder what your reason for being here is? I mean your the one suggesting something so funny that it makes one wonder. 

  • capitalist

    Asdf:  Do I think one can influence stock prices from Geek.com?  I don’t know, but people try.  I recall one poster a while back admitting that he was shorting AMD and wanted to drive down the price.  I’m sure they don’t restrict their efforts to this one site.

    If you’re asking about my investments, I buy index funds.  I don’t buy (or sell short) individual stocks. 

    If Intel expects to have an integrated CPU/GPU out within the same timeframe as AMD, there should be something solid by now.  I haven’t seen anything more than speculation.  If you do, please post it.  Otherwise I think it’s safe to assume Intel is still in the very early stages. 

  • asdfasdfasd

    Only index funds ay…buying and shorting individual funds is a very profitable method for investing if one knows what they are doing and does an hour of research or so a day. Not hard if you get up early check the stocks you own, read all info and reports by them when they come out.

    Now I know that you are just passing the responsibility to a vangaurd, etc. for your investments but I would recommend doing it your self using something like a scott trade with the $7 flat fee it is quite the deal. If not I would move away from investment firms that dont flat rate or fee, a lot of firms will move your investments a lot to drive up the fees you owe them based on nothing more then making money off you.

    O well trying to influence stock price on a forum is stupid and usually 99.9999% of the time a huge waste of time when one could instead take the time to invest wisely and make a lot more money.

  • capitalist

    I used to buy individual stocks, but I wasn’t doing consistently better than the S&P 500, and I wanted to spend the time in other ways, so I switched to index funds (mainly tracking the S&P 500, Wilshire 5000, and Russell 2000).  I wouldn’t trust an investment company to choose my investments; I don’t buy managed mutual funds.  I agree with you that many investment companies trade too much just to generate fees.  Index funds have worked pretty well for me.