tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post3245963153742179327..comments2023-10-26T15:06:30.940+00:00Comments on AIMeD Corporation: Wait no moreRoborat, Ph.Dhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04845879517177508741noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-20836610940712548192009-01-22T22:50:00.000+00:002009-01-22T22:50:00.000+00:00What I'd like to see are the marketshare reports f...What I'd like to see are the marketshare reports for DT, mobile and server. I suspect AMD lost share in each segment. <BR/><BR/>I had thought AMD's revised guidance said something like 20% down - turns out it was more like 33% down.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-30511724694084967632009-01-22T22:38:00.000+00:002009-01-22T22:38:00.000+00:00A Nonny MooseFor the year ended December 27, 2008,...<B>A Nonny Moose</B><BR/><BR/><I>For the year ended December 27, 2008, AMD achieved revenue of $5.808 billion. Fiscal 2008 net loss was $3.098 billion. AMD reported revenue of $5.858 billion and a net loss of $3.379 billion for fiscal 2007.</I><BR/><BR/>So AMD lost a staggering $6.5 billion dollars over two years. About half of that was non-cash goodwill impairment, but still...<BR/><BR/>I'm sure there'll be a lot of reading between the lines for the earnings call that's in progress.Axelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15126742407361053721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-66063352208889060852009-01-22T21:30:00.000+00:002009-01-22T21:30:00.000+00:00AMD's Q4 results are out:AMD AMD today reported fo...AMD's Q4 results are out:<BR/><BR/><I>AMD AMD today reported fourth quarter 2008 revenue from continuing operations1 of $1.162 billion. Fourth quarter 2008 revenue decreased 35 percent compared to the third quarter of 2008 and 33 percent compared to the fourth quarter of 2007. Fourth quarter 2008 revenue was down 28 percent sequentially, excluding third quarter 2008 process technology license revenue of $191 million. <BR/><BR/>In the fourth quarter of 2008, AMD reported a net loss of $1.424 billion, or $2.34 per share. For continuing operations, fourth quarter 2008 loss was $1.414 billion, or $2.32 per share, and the operating loss was $1.274 billion. The results for continuing operations include an unfavorable impact of $996 million, or $1.64 per share as described in the table below. Loss from discontinued operations was $10 million, or $0.02 a share. <BR/><BR/>For the year ended December 27, 2008, AMD achieved revenue of $5.808 billion. Fiscal 2008 net loss was $3.098 billion. AMD reported revenue of $5.858 billion and a net loss of $3.379 billion for fiscal 2007. </I><BR/><BR/>From http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/ticker/article.aspx?symbol=US:AMD&feed=BW&date=20090122&id=9538124<BR/><BR/>Looks like much worse performance than the estimated 54 cents per share loss the street expected..Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-40528344660335965082009-01-22T19:02:00.000+00:002009-01-22T19:02:00.000+00:00but when you're cutting wages and holding off on f...<I>but when you're cutting wages and holding off on financial perks</I><BR/><BR/>On the positive (?) side, they probably don't have huge concerns with people jumping ship as there is no place to jump to in this economy (unless it is someone with real solid credentials).<BR/><BR/>Also the salary cuts are highest at the higher levels which are positions that are harder to move from in this type of an economy. As long as they minimize the mid/low level engineering loss, it's probably not too bad (the people DOING stuff as opposed to the people MANAGING STUFF)<BR/><BR/>That said things have to be pretty bad as they have done a few rounds of cuts (and probably realize they can't cut anymore people without having some "real" impacts). But it's no like they really have any other options at this point <BR/><BR/>And the spinoff of the foundry in this environment is actually not a good thing! This will require extra resources to coordinate between 2 companies when in effect the 2 companies are only doing one thing (producing chips for AMD). They have no external customers until ~2010 (and even then that will be minimal volumes), so now you have just effectively added headcount, or taken from elsewhere, to manage communication/logistics between the companies. And for those that consider this to be minimal - keep in mind you now will have 2 CEO's, 2 sets of VP's, 2 boards...and all those 20% cuts end up meaningless as you probably have 2X'd the # of really senior management between the 2 companies.<BR/><BR/>I don't think people understand until ~2011 (or later...when non-AMD orders become significant revenue for the foundry) this is really one company posing as 2 companies. If one fails they both fail. If AMD fails, the foundry loses its entire customer base and has no fab utilization. If the foundry fails, AMD has nowhere to produce chips (they are not allowed to outsource more than 20% of CPU production per the licensing agreement). The spinoff only "helps" when the foundry can stand on its own (or at least get substantial revenue from elsewhere); and for the next 2 years it is merely a business unit for AMD under the guise of a new company.<BR/><BR/>Also I don't read much into the Intel plant closings... but normally these people would have been re-deployed elsewhere in the company. In this environment (and considering Intel has been cutting headcount over the last 2 years) I would suspect the # of redeployment positions will be minimal. The plant closing seem like an excuse to reduce headcount - I suspect it will have minimal impact on Intel's manufacturing capacity. <BR/><BR/>To me the stock dividend is a key flag - if Intel cuts/lowers this then that is a sign that things are truly brutal. And I'm a bit confused how Nvidia has 3X the market cap of AMD (surely this is a debt thing). Sure Nvidia is competing against a weaker company in graphics, but soon Intel will be joining the fray and Nvidia will be in a worse position than AMD.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-29798246164558836372009-01-22T15:50:00.000+00:002009-01-22T15:50:00.000+00:00Joe Citarella has picked up where Ed Stroligo left...Joe Citarella has picked up where Ed Stroligo left off, his latest look at AMD and Intel is decidely glum on AMD. I think his analogy (<I>"AMD is cutting into muscle"</I>) is apt, if it's true that they're going as far as to cut wages across the board and even <I>"suspending some contributions to employee's retirement accounts."</I><BR/><BR/>Intel's actions and outlook for Q1 indicate that they're looking at a bad quarter and a down year. AMD's actions indicate that they're in desperate straits. You can talk about how great it is that they spun off their foundry business (um, lol?) but when you're cutting wages and holding off on financial perks, you are no longer concerned with remaining healthy, you're trying to stave off starvation by eating yourself.Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-78438024121787498352009-01-22T14:30:00.000+00:002009-01-22T14:30:00.000+00:00Look at what Fuddie is reporting now.http://www.fu...Look at what Fuddie is reporting now.<BR/><BR/>http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11617&Itemid=1<BR/><BR/>If anyone thought 4Q 2008 was bad for AMD, 1Q 2009 will be murder. Duelies in 3Q 2009? They can't give away $110 quads. Who's gonna eat these things?<BR/><BR/>SPARKSSPARKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05535419513995195852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-33299031534249017742009-01-22T14:13:00.000+00:002009-01-22T14:13:00.000+00:00Let's hope they can all return to work when the ec...Let's hope they can all return to work when the ecomomy turns around.<BR/><BR/>Good luck all.<BR/><BR/>SPARKSSPARKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05535419513995195852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-19851098726664747252009-01-22T14:00:00.000+00:002009-01-22T14:00:00.000+00:00A Nonny Moose said... I thought the Malaysia locat...<I>A Nonny Moose said...<BR/> I thought the Malaysia location was a packaging plant.</I><BR/><BR/>Not really, besides assembly and test, Intel Malaysia also has Si design center, failure analysis, tool design, packaging, regional IT, marketing and a bit over everything, except Fab. in this event, 2 of the assembly and test plants of Intel Penang will be shut down.pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-77112960703450520842009-01-22T13:54:00.000+00:002009-01-22T13:54:00.000+00:00Blogger InTheKnow said... Things are getting u...<I>Blogger InTheKnow said...<BR/><BR/> Things are getting ugly for Intel. It looks like they have just announced layoffs of 5-6K employees. The details are here. </I><BR/><BR/>yes and no. the number given are those that affected, not the number of layoffs. anyway, quite some % of those would be really laid off if not able/willing to redeploy.pointerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17388854963223201475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-62493568869161875402009-01-22T13:52:00.000+00:002009-01-22T13:52:00.000+00:00Things are getting ugly for Intel. It looks like t...<I>Things are getting ugly for Intel. It looks like they have just announced layoffs of 5-6K employees. </I><BR/><BR/>According to the article Intel is closing some 5 plants around the world - anybody have an idea what these are? I thought the Malaysia location was a packaging plant.<BR/><BR/>Anyway Intel should probably close some of those old fabs, or else sell them to the Foundry :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-53158640865420830742009-01-22T11:40:00.000+00:002009-01-22T11:40:00.000+00:00Keep in mind that this is a group that, for the mo...Keep in mind that this is a group that, for the most part, believe that AMD is the one putting pricing pressure on Intel, and not the other way around.Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-47108688228927852772009-01-22T06:55:00.000+00:002009-01-22T06:55:00.000+00:00Things are getting ugly for Intel. It looks like ...Things are getting ugly for Intel. It looks like they have just announced layoffs of 5-6K employees. The details are <A HREF="http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_11517047?" REL="nofollow"> here</A>. This after vigorously claiming they weren't planning any layoffs just last month. <BR/><BR/>I can't tell you how bad I feel for the poor sod's that are being shown the door in this economy. <BR/><BR/>The scary thing is, I don't think we have hit bottom yet. <BR/><BR/>The only amusing thing I have seen regarding this news is some poor myopic soul over at amdzone that thinks that Intel's problems stem from the recent price war with AMD. He even seems to insinuate that somehow Intel caused the crash. I'd love to see the logic behind that one.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-69016311833293736092009-01-22T05:36:00.000+00:002009-01-22T05:36:00.000+00:00Third, higher than 3 GHz!?! to go up against what,...<I>Third, higher than 3 GHz!?! to go up against what, An E8600, perhaps? </I><BR/><BR/>I chuckled at this one because I'm running an "old" dual core 6700 (65nm, one of the very early steppings) at over 3GHz, while I undervolt it! This thing is several years old and AMD is getting around to releasing something that may get close to it later this year? In fairness it will use less power at stock (though with my undervolting the old 65nm part will probably give this newfangled 45nm AMD technology a run for its money). <BR/><BR/>Sign me up! Gots to gets me one of these!<BR/><BR/>BTW sparks - dual core will not be dead in 2010.... there will be very little need for quads in the corporate space, so unless these are somehow forced onto corporate America (which is unlikely in the near term economic environment)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-76078875876846476802009-01-22T03:16:00.000+00:002009-01-22T03:16:00.000+00:00Man you said it.From Fuddie..."AMD is finally gett...Man you said it.<BR/><BR/>From Fuddie...<BR/><BR/>"AMD is finally getting ready to launch some competitive dual-cores..........."<BR/><BR/>".............it should ship in very early Q3 2009" <BR/><BR/>"..........but at this point AMD doesn’t want to reveal its highest 45nm dual-core clock. If it wants to fight Intel it will have to go much higher than 3GHz."<BR/><BR/>Fuddie amazes me. He swallows/reports this "scoop" as if it's some great break though. On closer examination what it reveals is a sorry state of affairs for the Scrappy Little Company.<BR/><BR/>First, he says AMD is "getting ready" in 9 months. Hey, GURU can beat the shit out of me for being a newbie, but I do know a little something (as I'm sleeping at the wheel), 9 months (3 Quarters) is friggin enernity in this business! <BR/><BR/>Second, isn't bringing out a dual core solution in 3Q 2009 kind of late to the party when quads are getting as cheap as dualies? Ok, I'm a performance slut, but at these prices I don'i even think about duelies anymore. The movement towards programers compiling multitreaded applications/programs has gone into full swing, not to mention nine months from now. So are the OS's. I see this as a monumental back track.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Third, higher than 3 GHz!?! to go up against what, An E8600, perhaps? That is one chip I would HATE to tangle with now, or nine months from now. Guys have been blasting along with this thing at 4.5+. (remember GIANT) Does anyone at AMD think can do this, and what speed?<BR/><BR/>Fourth, what in hell are they going to charge for these things when they're releasing/selling quads at $235? Again, too many SKU's and very little range in price.<BR/><BR/>Finally, isn't this something that should have been done two years ago. They should wake up and smell the coffee. Intel has a lock on the dual core market, and AMD simply miissed the boat. When (if) AMD does release these things, the dual core market shall have passed into history.<BR/><BR/>Fuddie thinks this is all marvelous, I see a dual core solution dead by 2010. (Personally I see it dead now, I'm spoiled) It's all a wasted effort, too little and too late.<BR/><BR/>SPARKSSPARKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05535419513995195852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-65961837228236406582009-01-21T20:32:00.000+00:002009-01-21T20:32:00.000+00:00You want the reasons for AMD's world of hurt?h...You want the reasons for AMD's world of hurt?<BR/><BR/>http://www.fudzilla.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=11606&Itemid=1<BR/><BR/>What was on the original roadmaps for Q4'07 (dual core K10's), now might actually make it out Q3'09! AMD has spent 2 years battling clock and power issues and decided to do this internal battle on quads instead of what would likely have been much easier in dual cores. This at a time when desktop quads was still a niche market, and not a budget market (i.e. the people buying quads were willing to spend the money for performance and were not looking for performance per watt per dollar per IGP trying to play FPS)<BR/><BR/>So AMD spent (/will spend) nearly an extra 2 years servicing the highest volume desktop market by simply cutting prices on K8... not exactly a "strategic plan". And now that they are getting around to cranking out some duallies, the migration to quad is much further along and the impact of a fast dual core will be much less. Oh and notebooks have overtaken desktops. <BR/><BR/>The other huge reason for there troubles is the notebook sector. Next thing you know AMD will be going after the netbook segment :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-25901678885284198852009-01-21T20:04:00.000+00:002009-01-21T20:04:00.000+00:00So doesn't that mean those blood sucking leaches a...<I>So doesn't that mean those blood sucking leaches at AMD were gouging us for their processors? :)</I><BR/><BR/>It means in the wannabe financial analyst/market analyst world there are apparently only quad desktops!<BR/>Desktops are now <50% of CPU's (with revenue declining). Now take that <50%, and ask how much of that is quad desktop? It really doesn't matter how much they charge. <BR/><BR/>The other thing - DEMENTIA is probably only considering the production cost (fab and assembly costs) and comparing that to price. He is ignoring all the other expenses... salary, taxes, sales/marketing, distribution, debt payments, payouts to NY politicians. Ultimately you need NET PROFIT (not just operating profit).<BR/><BR/>The bottom line - he doesn't have a clue how profitable these are for AMD, nor do I know (though I don't pretend to). There is just no public data (yield, wafer cost, packaging cost, bin splits) to understand the profitability of a specific product segment and what the true cost of a specific product is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-47088386197527344822009-01-21T15:01:00.000+00:002009-01-21T15:01:00.000+00:00So let's see if I've got this right. AMD dropped ...So let's see if I've got this right. AMD dropped their price by about $40 on the PhII. But there are no issues with AMD selling the PhII at a profit. So doesn't that mean those blood sucking leaches at AMD were gouging us for their processors? :)InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-48216501946144030532009-01-21T13:36:00.000+00:002009-01-21T13:36:00.000+00:00sparks: "Now this was in response to INTC's cuts. ...<B>sparks:</B> <I>"Now this was in response to INTC's cuts. I wonder what the master finacier 'Dementia' feels about those profitable AMD chips now?"</I><BR/><BR/>Unless I am mistaken, his comment about profitability was made after he learned of the price cuts.Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-64617617830737656212009-01-20T23:14:00.000+00:002009-01-20T23:14:00.000+00:00"AMD reduced their pricing late yesterday on the P..."AMD reduced their pricing late yesterday on the Phenom II X4 940 from $275 to $235 and the 920 model from $235 to $195."<BR/><BR/>Now this was in response to INTC's cuts. I wonder what the master finacier 'Dementia' feels about those profitable AMD chips now?<BR/><BR/>The perfect storm gets WORST!<BR/><BR/>'Avast! Man the life boats. Leave the deck chairs, take the cannolies!'<BR/><BR/>SPARKSSPARKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05535419513995195852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-85317619611097629402009-01-20T22:43:00.000+00:002009-01-20T22:43:00.000+00:00Anonymous AMD buyer/seller. I must give you credit...Anonymous AMD buyer/seller. I must give you credit for an excellent, well timed turnover. AMD is back down to $2.00. You bought at 2 and sold at ~2.75. Well done, know when to get in, know when to get out. Brilliant, ya got some set of calzones there papa, much bigger than mine.<BR/><BR/>SPARKSSPARKShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05535419513995195852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-30754547644384601312009-01-20T15:03:00.000+00:002009-01-20T15:03:00.000+00:00It is rubbish comments like this that drive me nut...It is rubbish comments like this that drive me nuts about Scientia's posts. <BR/><I>There actually is no problem with the current prices for PII in terms of profitability.</I><BR/><BR/>The only way you can make a statement like this is if you know AMD's costs. So either he works for AMD's accounting department, he is a high level AMD executive, or he is just full of it. I'll let you decide which.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-14696020258857620152009-01-20T14:05:00.000+00:002009-01-20T14:05:00.000+00:00ITK: "But the pricing criteria he pretended to lif...<B>ITK:</B> <I>"But the pricing criteria he pretended to lift from Anandtech was strictly CPU pricing. That is until it didn't suit where he was going with his post."</I><BR/><BR/>That post confuses me somewhat. His point seems to be that Anand was being critical of AMD's CPU pricing, but decided to overlook similar pricing from Intel.<BR/><BR/>Yet the quotes he provides indicate that Anand's criticism was that AMD's <I>cheapest</I> dual-core at the time was costlier than Intel's. Today, Intel does have CPUs in the $300-500 (and much higher) price range, but they also have dual/quad core CPUs in the low price ranges as well.<BR/><BR/>If the Intel 9650 was their lowest-priced quad-core, I can understand calling out Anand. Or if Anand was wrong about AMD's CPU pricing (ie, if they had a lower-priced dual-core at the time and he missed or ignored it for any reason). But if his point is that Anand treated them differently, his post doesn't make sense. Anand treated them differently because the circumstances were different.<BR/><BR/>Are people really reading that blog post and not recognizing his mistake? Because it's pretty obvious, unless there is something that I am missing?Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-65063237342551620092009-01-20T13:25:00.000+00:002009-01-20T13:25:00.000+00:00Axel: "AMD needs to drop Phenom II prices by rough...<B>Axel:</B> <I>"AMD needs to drop Phenom II prices by roughly $70 to remain competitive and to keep Scientia's latest article remotely relevant. Currently, Core 2 Quad is easily the better value."</I><BR/><BR/>They appear to have cut them by $40. I am sure that scientia can still find a way to justify his Phenom II purchase, and the Phenom II is still a very good deal at the new prices. The problem for AMD is that they're forced to slash prices shortly after they released their newest CPUs, in order to keep up with Intel's midrange offerings.Tonushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01082528970434639776noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-14271969543317584382009-01-20T05:48:00.000+00:002009-01-20T05:48:00.000+00:00Tonus - thanks for the link.The pricing is a bit "...Tonus - thanks for the link.<BR/><BR/>The pricing is a bit "curious", a 65Watt, 2.83GHz C2Q is $53 MORE than a 3.0GHz, 95 Watt part? It is also $103 more than the 2.83, 95 Watt part - it makes sense that it is more, but a 40% premium for it?<BR/><BR/>This makes me thinking this is a binning thing (and not a major stepping revision) and I'd bet the 65Watt'ers are in short supply. I still think you'd be better off buying a 3.0GHz part and undervolting it... save $50 and probably end up near the same power consumption at a slightly higher clock (especially if you factor idle time in).<BR/><BR/>I'm looking at upgrading a dual core to quad (Gigabyte P35 board), so the cuts are coming at a good time for me! Debating between the 9550 and 9400 (not sure how big a deal the extra 6MB makes)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2602471396566186819.post-48752083456527910862009-01-20T03:29:00.000+00:002009-01-20T03:29:00.000+00:00Sci has trouble scraping up $500 every 3 years for...<I>Sci has trouble scraping up $500 every 3 years for a new computer </I><BR/><BR/>The thing I found amusing was how motherboard costs and the "high" cost of DDR3 were brought into the picture to quickly discard the i920. <BR/><BR/>Sure, I will concede that these are legitimate costs and you can make use them as part of the argumnet. But the pricing criteria he pretended to lift from Anandtech was <B>strictly CPU pricing</B>. That is until it didn't suit where he was going with his post. <BR/><BR/>At the very least he should have subtracted the additional cost of the motherboard and memory of the "acceptable" systems back out of the equation. Then he could pretend it was a CPU cost and that he was making an apples-to-apples comparison. But he didn't even try. <BR/><BR/>Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. <BR/><BR/>I won't even get into the slight-of-hand regarding cache size. <BR/><BR/>I suppose I should post a thank you for providing me a chuckle, but I'm sure he would ban it as offensive.InTheKnowhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16869163385384973596noreply@blogger.com