I thought i read somewhere that AMD's flash memmory division was running at a loss to ?
Printable View
I thought i read somewhere that AMD's flash memmory division was running at a loss to ?
Ya, flash really crashed. Telecom equipment, cell phones, and routers make up a big part of the market for flash, and all there have been hit hard by the telecom dowturn.Quote:
Originally posted by FaTs
I thought i read somewhere that AMD's flash memmory division was running at a loss to ?
I maybe wrong, but I think the divisions numbers are only published for the FY. This will give you a idea of how it's going for....Quote:
Originally posted by FaTs
I thought i read somewhere that AMD's flash memmory division was running at a loss to ?
For the first six months of 2002, sales declined by 31 percent from the
first six months of 2001. AMD reported sales of $1,502,372,000 and a net
loss of $194,101,000, or $0.57 per share. For the first six months of 2001,
AMD reported sales of $2,174,011,000 and net income of $142,189,000, or
$0.43 per diluted share.
PC processor sales of $380 million for the quarter fell by 35 percent
compared to $588 million in the second quarter of 2001. Processor sales
declined by 44 percent from the $684 million reported in the first quarter
of 2002. Desktop unit sales were down while mobile processor unit sales
were flat.
Second quarter sales of AMD memory products were down 45 percent compared
to the second quarter of 2001, and were up nine percent from the first
quarter of 2002. Memory sales were $175 million in the second quarter
compared with $316 million in second quarter of 2001 and $160 million in
the first quarter of 2002. AMD flash memory unit shipments increased in the
second quarter of 2002 and bit shipments were a record.
Quote:
Originally posted by Swiftman
If you all didnt know, AMD makes more then just processors... even IF their processor division was doing bad they could always fall back upon their other divisions. AMD wont go out of business because of lacking CPU sales.
i've heard this before but then someone pointed out that (1) the amount of flash percentage wise to total sales isn't that much and (2) they aren't making much off of it.Quote:
Originally posted by Thermo
AMD’s cash cow has been flash memory, but those sales are off too. And as the Asians penetrate the flash market, AMD will no longer be able to rely on flash to carry its other aspirations.
EDIT: just read marv's post which confirms that.
check this out for some numbers:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/3/26256.html
the point is, amd is going through a rough patch at this point. but this does not mean it will go under.
as for the earlier question of who will go under first between ati and nvidia..... nvidia easily!!! (you can work out why ;) )
Thats what i thought.Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin
Ya, flash really crashed. Telecom equipment, cell phones, and routers make up a big part of the market for flash, and all there have been hit hard by the telecom dowturn.
steppy76 you'll find a fairly high number of low-mid range servers use server works chipsets with Intel chips.Although I cant say i know much about high end servers and what chipsets they use in there mobo's.
But from what i've seen of low end Intel server boards they seem very limited in the amount of ram they support.
It's a pitty that THAT perspective is always "AMD won't last much longer" or "AMD doesn't have enough to compete with INTEL".Quote:
Originally posted by Moridin
... and have seen enough to see things from a little different perspective, that’s all. I am certainly not infallible, and I don’t pretend to be....
Moridin, on average, when comparisons (of any sort) arise between AMD and INTEL, your perspective comes through pretty clear to me. But, you're entitled to having those opinions, of course.
In the long term, you said a few posts back, AMD is risking its existence or its position as prominent figure in the CPU industry. Well, let me add this: we'll watch the downfall of INTEL within this decade. Technology behind the CPU production process is reaching a limit, there're are quite a few different technology vectors that other companies are already investigating that will surpass the processes INTEL (and AMD) use today. Several scientists from NASA, CERN and elsewhere (eg: Charles Sheffield, Stephen Baxter, Robert Freitas JR, Robert L. Forward, Michio Kaku, John G. Cramer, etc, etc), have pointed out in essays that both the memory capacity and clock frequency of todays chipsets and CPU are a hundred thousand times less powerful than the chips the new technologies will be producing by 2010-2015.
INTEL has been around for a while. It has a tremendous merit in many of the accomplishments of computer industry, but it has become FOSSILIZED. The race/war against AMD reflects that, true innovation has stopped, regardless of the die-size shrinking process and the growing clock frequency of CPUs. There are other vectors to be followed, vectors that will be taking over the whole industry in the next 5 to 10 years, and INTEL seems to have most of its resources commited to current technology, its infrastructures and logistics.
INTEL reminds me one of those HUGE super-tankers. It takes too much space/distance to stop them or to change their course.
Chronus
This is a huge statement. Do you have any evidence to back it up? Which technologies exactly will null Intels existance?Quote:
Well, let me add this: we'll watch the downfall of INTEL within this decade.
I think a more accurate statement will be we will probably see the fall of Intel within our lifetimes. ;) No company, no matter how big will eventually fall. :DQuote:
Originally posted by elimc
This is a huge statement. Do you have any evidence to back it up? Which technologies exactly will null Intels existance?
I call it as I see it. When AMD is unfairly criticized, or Intel is unduly lauded, I comment there as well. That doesn’t happen a lot though, and when it does there are plenty of people around to jump on it making input from me unnecessary.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
It's a pitty that THAT perspective is always "AMD won't last much longer" or "AMD doesn't have enough to compete with INTEL".
Moridin, on average, when comparisons (of any sort) arise between AMD and INTEL, your perspective comes through pretty clear to me. But, you're entitled to having those opinions, of course.
There are lot’s of reasons for that, but primarily it’s because AMD markets itself directly to the enthusiast community, while Intel works much more on cooperate channels. Regardless of the reason, even vague positive rumor gets huge play, while definitive advancements from Intel are consistently downplayed.
In short, I try to promote a fair, balanced, and above all honest view of AMD and Intel, and their technology. If that means saying AMD is not all its fans think it is, and Intel isn’t as incompetent as some people would have you think then so be it. It’s unfortunate that in the current Internet environment that means supporting Intel a lot more then AMD, but that’s the way things are. If the roles were revered you would find me defending AMD more often then I do Intel, but that isn’t the case.
Perhaps it an opportune time to refresh your memory on what I have been saying over the last couple years.
http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...125&perpage=15
Here is an interesting one, I actually spend time refuting rumors of an immanent takeover of AMD. I still feel this way short term, it’s the longer term, 10+ years out I was talking about in this thread.
http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...168&perpage=15
prior to NW or Palomino release, I did some rough calculations, and they came up with the 2200 MHz NW and the AXP 2000+ in almost a dead heat. This surprised me because up to that time I thought the 2000+ would still hold the lead.
http://www.sharkyforums.com/showthre...threadid=61517
I could go on, but for the most part, when I look back at the posts I have made over the last few years, I have been critical of AMD at times, but even then it seems that if anything I was being to optimistic. If I had wanted to rag on AMD then you would here me talking a lot more about how Hammer is now 2 years late despite having been castrated of many of it’s most interesting features, or how their Athlon server chip Mustang kept getting later and later until it was finally canceled.
Perhaps another reading is in order. I questions AMD’s long-term future as an independent entity, nothing else.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
In the long term, you said a few posts back, AMD is risking its existence or its position as prominent figure in the CPU industry.
I see no real evidence that any technology is going to replace CMOS any time soon. The reason this technology has been so successful is that it is relatively easy to design, and more importantly mass produce incredibly complex CMOS devices. Alternative may or may not arrive, but currently the most promising have trouble even getting a single transistor to work. As of yet nobody has any idea how to connect these new transistors into a complex device, let alone mass-produce these devices.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
Well, let me add this: we'll watch the downfall of INTEL within this decade. Technology behind the CPU production process is reaching a limit, there're are quite a few different technology vectors that other companies are already investigating that will surpass the processes INTEL (and AMD) use today. Several scientists from NASA, CERN and elsewhere (eg: Charles Sheffield, Stephen Baxter, Robert Freitas JR, Robert L. Forward, Michio Kaku, John G. Cramer, etc, etc), have pointed out in essays that both the memory capacity and clock frequency of todays chipsets and CPU are a hundred thousand times less powerful than the chips the new technologies will be producing by 2010-2015.
INTEL has been around for a while. It has a tremendous merit in many of the accomplishments of computer industry, but it has become FOSSILIZED. The race/war against AMD reflects that, true innovation has stopped, regardless of the die-size shrinking process and the growing clock frequency of CPUs. There are other vectors to be followed, vectors that will be taking over the whole industry in the next 5 to 10 years, and INTEL seems to have most of its resources commited to current technology, its infrastructures and logistics.
The later two problems dwarf the first one, when people start making noise about how they have solved these problems then it’s time to start getting excited, not before. SO far though, the work in this direction more closely resembles science fiction then actual research.
Even if these technologies do immerge, who benefits from them is still an open question, but due to the massive amount of money they spend on R&D you can bet Intel will be participating.
Must… avoid… leaky rowboat comparison… :pQuote:
Originally posted by Chronus
INTEL reminds me one of those HUGE super-tankers. It takes too much space/distance to stop them or to change their course.
I agree, partially.
It is always fashionable to look for the end of CMOS, but at the end of the day it is cheap and a well understood material.
On the other hand, I think you'll find that AMD/Intel etc are the few companies to continue shrinking processes. I can see a whole lot of companies staying at 0.13u and above for a very long time - to use my usual example, look how long it has taken for any of the GPU companies to move to 0.13u.
0.13u and 90nm has some very horrible signal integrity and process variation issues that are making life quite difficult for designers at the moment.
IBM will as well. I’m not sure what the foundries like TSMC and UMC will do, but they are not noted for cutting edge performance. IBM, Intel and AMD may be the only three companies to develop process technology suitable for a high-end microprocessor.Quote:
Originally posted by Arcanum
I agree, partially.
It is always fashionable to look for the end of CMOS, but at the end of the day it is cheap and a well understood material.
On the other hand, I think you'll find that AMD/Intel etc are the few companies to continue shrinking processes. I can see a whole lot of companies staying at 0.13u and above for a very long time - to use my usual example, look how long it has taken for any of the GPU companies to move to 0.13u.
0.13u and 90nm has some very horrible signal integrity and process variation issues that are making life quite difficult for designers at the moment.
That’s why I have doubts about AMD’s ability to keep up in the longer term. IBM and Intel have the resources to throw at the problem, AMD doesn’t, and as you say the resources required go up significantly below .13.
AMD could continue to exist as a design only company, but those types of companies haven’t had a great history in the X86 world. Transmetta needed their ASP to be over $150 just to break even after paying IBM to fab their processors. I could be wrong I’m not convinced that business model can work for X86 processors.
(BTW, just so there is no confusion, I don’t think these things necessarily apply to embedded processors like you work on since the competitive issues are significantly different. In particular, in embedded processors (IMO :) ) complexity is punished instead of rewarded, which should help keep design costs more reasonable in that space. I.E. brute force isn’t effective.)
I think you will find that it's nearly impossible, with out support from intel new standards in the desktop market don't amount to much, you have to remember marketshare.Quote:
Originally posted by Chronus
There are other vectors to be followed, vectors that will be taking over the whole industry in the next 5 to 10 years,
Chronus
Looks like strategic partnerships, rather than self contained production, will be the answer to the massive cost of fabs and manufacturing.
Quote:
Germany's Infineon Technologies said on Tuesday it had teamed up with AMD Inc. and Taiwanese foundry UMC to develop technology to produce the small structures in next generation chips. Infineon said the development program on 65/45 nanometer manufacturing platform technologies -- would take place at United Microelectronic Corp.'s facility in Hsinchu, Taiwan, where later the chips will be produced. The first chips using structures made from the technology are likely to be produced in 2005, an Infineon spokesman said. He added that as the number of elements on a chip doubles every year, semiconductor makers are under pressure to develop new microelements to fit on chips, which are also shrinking. At the moment the size of the smallest element on a chip is 130 nm.
As of today, the market value of these companies: (http://moneycentral.msn.com)
AMD
Market Cap. USD$2.885 Bil
Intel
Market Cap. USD$119.1 Bil
Another interesting piece of financial information, the projected fiscal year 2002 estimates for growth rate:
AMD
Growth Rate FY(12/02) -1,330.56%
Intel
Growth Rate FY(12/02) 12.85%
Simple numbers that don't reveal the entire picture, but give a good idea of where the companies stand.
Certainly an interesting move, and something AMD likely must do to stay in business long term. I can’t help feeling IBM wouldn’t be a better fit though.Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
Looks like strategic partnerships, rather than self contained production, will be the answer to the massive cost of fabs and manufacturing.
Each of these three companies is likely to have its own requirements from a process. AMD produces needs high performance, with reasonable power output. UMC is a foundry wants low cost above all else. Infinion produces DRAM, which is very different again. They also produce some other types of chips, but I’m not quite sure where they fit in.
IBM would not acquire AMD for four reasons, IMHO:
- they are focusing more on services rather than products
- they would lose all Intel business
- they would be bringing in a company that is not profitable, in a sector that has had diminishing margins
- even with their might, they'd still have a difficult time against Intel
He didn't mean IBM aquiring them, he meant IBM fabbing for them.Quote:
Originally posted by isochar
IBM would not acquire AMD for four reasons, IMHO:
- they are focusing more on services rather than products
- they would lose all Intel business
- they would be bringing in a company that is not profitable, in a sector that has had diminishing margins
- even with their might, they'd still have a difficult time against Intel
Idle fabs are the devils playground.Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
He didn't mean IBM aquiring them, he meant IBM fabbing for them.
(Sorry, couldn't help myself)
I think the fit would be good either way, though admittedly being purchased by IBM works better for AMD then it does IBM.Quote:
Originally posted by Un4given
He didn't mean IBM aquiring them, he meant IBM fabbing for them.
IBM is a VERY large company that has extensive involvement in both products and services. IBM is currently doing 18.5 Billion dollars in business each quarter compared to only 6.7 Billion for Intel.Quote:
Originally posted by isochar
IBM would not acquire AMD for four reasons, IMHO:
- they are focusing more on services rather than products
- they would lose all Intel business
- they would be bringing in a company that is not profitable, in a sector that has had diminishing margins
- even with their might, they'd still have a difficult time against Intel
I’m not sure what Intel business you are referring to, but IBM and Intel look to be headed for a collision course in the mid-range server market. (I.E Unix servers). The only three players that haven’t decided to get out of designing processors for this market are Intel, IBM, and Sun.
Sun just keeps falling further and further behind and Intel is a newcomer. IMO that leaves IBM as the target to beat. But at the very least they are going head to head no matter what.
IBM also has one of the widest range of X86 server out there. Not only do they sell more traditional X86 servers, they also sell a line of X86 based NUMA servers that would mesh nicely with Hammer.
Additionally they have the best packaging technologies in the world and some of the best process technologies, and are more then capable of designing chipsets and motherboards, all of which cold be enormous benefit to AMD.
To top it off they are also a tier 1 vendor of workstations this could be an entry point for AMD into the corporate world.
The downside is that IBM no longer gives preference to its own business units. Even if they bought AMD, AMD would still get no preference for use in servers or corporate PCs. And as I said before, the benefits for IBM are much less then they would be for AMD.
The only real benefit to IBM would be increased size and capabilities in it’s processor design area, and increased utilization of it’s FAB capabilities. Consider, IBM’s Power 4 processor should have almost every conceivable advantage over Hammer, yet will likely end up with only a small performance advantage. (The Power 4 has a superior ISA, HUGE amount of cache, better compiler support, much more bandwidth, far more execution resources, a far larger transistor and Power budget, etc) Clearly AMD has some design talent that IBM could benefit from.
The economies of scale produced by having a popular consumer processor are not to be sneezed at either. AMD sells far more Athlons, then all of IBM server processors combined.
Still, I think you are probably right, and IBM has no particular desire to pick up AMD at this point, but I still think it would be a good fit with potential advantages for both companies. Besides, I just can't see today's kinder, gentler IBM wanting to take on Intel head to head.
this is a little off subject and sortof like comparing apples and oranges, but does anyone think apple is going to go under? i mean they suck for gaming and all they are living off of is the schools buying them, and the idea that an apple can do no wrong. i mean they are saying that apple doesnt have any problems and is comparing its new OS to the older windows OSs. Basically they are living off people who dont know jack about computers.:mad: i would never buy one and all the people i know think they suck. even our school (who has macs) say they suck. i just dont see them surviving very long.
People have been talking about that for years, but they seem to be holding onto their core market share of around 5%, and sell their product for a good profit. In the longer term they could have trouble, since it looks like Motorola is getting further and further away from the desktop with it’s processors.Quote:
Originally posted by n24tg
this is a little off subject and sortof like comparing apples and oranges, but does anyone think apple is going to go under? i mean they suck for gaming and all they are living off of is the schools buying them, and the idea that an apple can do no wrong. i mean they are saying that apple doesnt have any problems and is comparing its new OS to the older windows OSs. Basically they are living off people who dont know jack about computers.:mad: i would never buy one and all the people i know think they suck. even our school (who has macs) say they suck. i just dont see them surviving very long.
At some point this could be a real problem, forcing them to switch processors yet again, and there just may not be many alternative processors out there for them. I’m not sure Apple (or sun for that matter) could survive if they switched to X86. Maybe Itanium would work for them though, or maybe Apple could get IBM to produce a Power 4 (or it’s descendants) with Altivec support.
Originally posted by Moridin
No disagreement there. :)Quote:
I think the fit would be good either way, though admittedly being purchased by IBM works better for AMD then it does IBM.
Yes, but if you have been following their trends over the past decade, you would see that they have been gearing themselves for a Services-dominated model. (Much in the same way many technology companies are doing so they can stay afloat or maximize income)Quote:
IBM is a VERY large company that has extensive involvement in both products and services. IBM is currently doing 18.5 Billion dollars in business each quarter compared to only 6.7 Billion for Intel.
IBM sells businesses a complete solution, which not only includes the servers but the desktops as well. Ironically, these are being outsourced to an outside company. *cough* Services-only *cough*Quote:
I’m not sure what Intel business you are referring to, but IBM and Intel look to be headed for a collision course in the mid-range server market. (I.E Unix servers). The only three players that haven’t decided to get out of designing processors for this market are Intel, IBM, and Sun.
Definately. Unless there are some surprises, Intel and IBM will be duking it out for the server market.Quote:
Sun just keeps falling further and further behind and Intel is a newcomer. IMO that leaves IBM as the target to beat. But at the very least they are going head to head no matter what.
No doubt that all these x86 servers are Intel-only machines. IBM and other tier 1 vendors know exactly what would happen if they adopted AMD-only.Quote:
IBM also has one of the widest range of X86 server out there. Not only do they sell more traditional X86 servers, they also sell a line of X86 based NUMA servers that would mesh nicely with Hammer.
A little foresight into the future, but I really question the profitability of Hammer. These will be substantially more expensive to produce than Athlons, yet how much more will AMD be able to charge?
If Intel sees any threat from them, they just drop the Xeons' prices to a level where AMD will have no counter.
Yes, but would it benefit IBM to dedicate all that production for AMD processors/chipsets/motherboards?Quote:
Additionally they have the best packaging technologies in the world and some of the best process technologies, and are more then capable of designing chipsets and motherboards, all of which cold be enormous benefit to AMD.
That could very well change as soon as they don't have Intel-inside.Quote:
To top it off they are also a tier 1 vendor of workstations this could be an entry point for AMD into the corporate world.
My brief glance at it seems to indicate that IBMs units work independently of each other and look for the best suppliers/customers when shopping around, even if they are not from IBM.Quote:
The downside is that IBM no longer gives preference to its own business units. Even if they bought AMD, AMD would still get no preference for use in servers or corporate PCs. And as I said before, the benefits for IBM are much less then they would be for AMD.
Why not let AMD bankrupt and then steal parts of their team for a much cheaper overall cost?Quote:
The only real benefit to IBM would be increased size and capabilities in it’s processor design area, and increased utilization of it’s FAB capabilities. Consider, IBM’s Power 4 processor should have almost every conceivable advantage over Hammer, yet will likely end up with only a small performance advantage. (The Power 4 has a superior ISA, HUGE amount of cache, better compiler support, much more bandwidth, far more execution resources, a far larger transistor and Power budget, etc) Clearly AMD has some design talent that IBM could benefit from.
True. But quantity doesn't always equal a profit. I guarantee you that IBM makes a substantially larger profit off their server processors than AMD does on their desktop processors.Quote:
The economies of scale produced by having a popular consumer processor are not to be sneezed at either. AMD sells far more Athlons, then all of IBM server processors combined.
I personally see AMD having too many disadvantages at this point in time to justify anyone buying them out/taking them over.Quote:
Still, I think you are probably right, and IBM has no particular desire to pick up AMD at this point, but I still think it would be a good fit with potential advantages for both companies. Besides, I just can't see today's kinder, gentler IBM wanting to take on Intel head to head.
Well, IMHO and only IMHO, if IBM gobbled up AMD, it would be the end of sub $400 CPU’s. Or, if they held the line on price, you would only be able to run them eight hours a day.
If AMD were to be bought, it would probably be a large Asian consumer of chips. An in house chip fab and development infrastructure would be a good fit for them.
Forgot to add one thing to this comment:
Intel would have an advantage in getting vendors to use their chip. Why? Because IBM is also a vendor - Dell & Co. wouldn't want to support the competition by using the competition's chips in their own servers. This is quite similar to the problem that Pepsi had by owning Taco Bell, Pizza Hut, and KFC. Other fast food restaurants chose Coke so they wouldn't help out the competition.Quote:
Definately. Unless there are some surprises, Intel and IBM will be duking it out for the server market.