AMD reached its lowest share price for more than four years last week and, as a result, its market value dropped to around US$5 billion – that's $400 million less than it paid for ATI in July 2006.
Intel, AMD’s major competitor in the CPU business, has been on a roll for the past 18 months and is now worth around US$162 billion, which makes the chip giant more than 32 times the size of AMD in monetary terms.
Even worse for AMD is that its partner-cum-archrival, Nvidia, has a market cap of around $19 billion, which makes it almost four times as valuable as the struggling platform company.
It’s fair to say things haven’t been going well for AMD since the middle of last year, as its two major rivals launched products that remain largely uncontested even today. Neither the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 nor the GeForce 8800 GTX have been truly surpassed in terms of performance yet and it’s not going to happen until next year.
View: Bit-tech.net
Intel, AMD’s major competitor in the CPU business, has been on a roll for the past 18 months and is now worth around US$162 billion, which makes the chip giant more than 32 times the size of AMD in monetary terms.
Even worse for AMD is that its partner-cum-archrival, Nvidia, has a market cap of around $19 billion, which makes it almost four times as valuable as the struggling platform company.
It’s fair to say things haven’t been going well for AMD since the middle of last year, as its two major rivals launched products that remain largely uncontested even today. Neither the Core 2 Extreme QX6700 nor the GeForce 8800 GTX have been truly surpassed in terms of performance yet and it’s not going to happen until next year.
View: Bit-tech.net
Pain for AMD is bad news for everyone, for the market needs competition. Right now, Intel has the best chips because they've been able to efficiently roll out both new processes and architectures. AMD needs to stay caught up if it wants to present serious competition.
I've never bought a non-Intel CPU...
486DX2
Pentium 166
Pentium III 500
...
Celeron M 1.7 GHz
Core 2 Quad Q6600
Neways, the great Core 2 is thanks to teh AMD pwnage that happened to the Pentium 4.
Support the underdog! Competition keeps prices low!
AMD being in a bad state right now is AMD's fault though.
Then when the Slot A Athlons came out, I bought one of those - problem was motherboard support was a bit poor and it was a generally rocky time to be an AMD owner. Things started to mature well a few years ago and now the products are as reliable as they've ever been.
For everyones sake, you need to hope they keep their heads above water. The products coming from AMD are the only reasons Intel had to get themselves back to the drawing board to produce the excellent processors they've created in the past few years.. if AMD end up bumming out of the market or something, Intel will be under no pressure to innovate and we'll be back where we were with the supersized, power inefficient intel chips of yester year!
AMD being in a bad state right now is AMD's fault though.
Intel never said they couldn't do it, they said that the average consumer didn't need it - there is a HUGE difference. Intel wanted to keep 64bit for the highend, high margin business. AMD demonstrated that the consumer did actually benefit, and in alot of cases, it addresses issues within x86 - so if you dropped the issue of 64bit, it was still a good move.
As long as it's not a Santa Clara company to buy them out!
Although, I think AMD need to be very careful from now on, they can't afford to make any mistakes (literally). I don't think they will be able to carry on much more if this Christmas brings no cash.
By expanding the enthusiast market you spread the company by word of mouth and stores will be more likely to push AMD systems as more and more people hear that they are the thing to have. AMD never has seemed to be big on advertising like Intel is so it's next best bet is to expand by being on the top of their game and building a following that way. As it is, I think average joes are more likely to go Intel if they don't know an awefull lot or care much about what the different brand CPU's will do for them.
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
agreed!
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
Yeah, especially since they were already at that time having new problems keeping up. Maybe they wished to branch off to new markets to make them less vulnerable to failures in the specific markets they're in, but at the same time it's no doubt a risk.
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
I tend to disagree. The problem is that they've got too much capital tied up in fabs which would be of better use retiring debt and improving their product line up.
The idea behind purchasing ATI was a good idea, but purchasing of ATI was stupid. AMD need and end to end offering to large OEM vendors where they can offer the complete system to OEM vendors. They would have been better off IMHO to purchase something like Matrox or a lower cost one, and work up there. Look at Intel, their GPU's aren't performance setters but the are cheap, and available to OEMs in a complete package.
As for Fabs, outsource it to TSMC and UMC - they seem to be able to do the job for Nvidia and Ati quite nicely.
I think buying ATI was one of their biggest mistakes... they should of used that money to increase their fab's abilities
I tend to disagree. The problem is that they've got too much capital tied up in fabs which would be of better use retiring debt and improving their product line up.
The idea behind purchasing ATI was a good idea, but purchasing of ATI was stupid. AMD need and end to end offering to large OEM vendors where they can offer the complete system to OEM vendors. They would have been better off IMHO to purchase something like Matrox or a lower cost one, and work up there. Look at Intel, their GPU's aren't performance setters but the are cheap, and available to OEMs in a complete package.
As for Fabs, outsource it to TSMC and UMC - they seem to be able to do the job for Nvidia and Ati quite nicely.
It was never a good idea for AMD to buy ATI, like already mentioned, AMD was already strugling and ATI wasn't doing much better, all AMD did was bail out ATI and increase the chances of AMD going belly up.
in theory only, in practicality it will be a failure
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution.
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution.
the GPUs will not be like a geforce 8800GTX thats for damn sure
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities
There's a lot more to the GPU market than just high end GPUs like the 8800 GTX. Even if the CPU/GPU solution is a completely integrated one, it will offer some performance benefits over current integrated solutions, which is where a lot of the low-end hardware is at these days. Sure, it's not going to crush an 8800 GTX, but I don't think that's what AMD will be going for with their first generation of these systems and just because it doesn't crush an 8800 GTX doesn't mean it's a failure. Now if it doesn't make them any money - then it's a failure.
I'm curious why you think that. There are certainly performance benefits to merging the two (or at least merging very specific parts) and it seems likely that the semiconductor industry is going to move in this direction anyways (that is, the multi-core general purpose architecture will evolve into multi-core specific purpose one, and even (eventually, possibly) a more dynamic, reconfigurable solution.
the GPUs will not be like a geforce 8800GTX thats for damn sure
its going to be a lot like a ****ty integrated card
if it will replace the GPUs of today, then yes of course it will be a failure
not to mention that i would also have to get a new cpu if i wanted to change my graphics capabilities
I don't think you've understood or read up about what the fusion based processor is aiming to be and do, it's very much far from anything like the idea you have of them being some "crap onboard video".
I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $
And so you picked Intel.
And so you picked Intel.
IF AMD had stayed competitive, odds were pretty good I'd have picked one instead.
I'll only buy from whoever gives me the most bang for my $
a) Amd needed to buy a graphics card company. In many ways nvidia would have been better.
Putting a graphics core into a cpu makes alot of sense:
low power needed for standard applications - when you need gaming performance switch to dedicated gpus.
Altering the gpu slightly to do more general maths but yet keep up the gflops you have a supercomputer on a chip.
Add a couple of these on a chip - say 1tflop per (2 gpu cores and 4 cpu cores) per socket. Now start to do 4 or 8 sockets, you have a small super computer in 4u case.
hint: ati was needed for not just laptops but high end super computing.
b) management restructure. Typically a merger of this kind takes 12 to 18 months to complete and ususally damages product output. A know fact.
c) AMD messed up the K8 launch - it took half a year before the consumer got althon 64 and then it was only 10 to 15% faster than the p4's at the time. Its a shame amd does mess up launches but they do.
d) I had hoped amd would be on track for 2007 to equal or smash the intel architecture but I think it won't be to shanghai comes out that intel will have issues again.
e) we have had to have 3 to 4 iterations of intel architecture before intel caught up .
f) Nvidia, has major sli issues. Remember the gx2, quad sli, tri sli. oh and multi monitor in sli. NVTV. the list goes on. All failures.
g) the misinformation about the 939 socket and am2. Yes there had to be a socket change, mainly cos of memory. the controller in the a64 got upgraded to dd2. 1Gb of ddr is £31 ish and 1gb of dd2 is about £11 to £14ish.
f) intel has to change chipsets every time they raise their fsb 800fsb, 1066fsb, 1333fsb 1600fsb. A new chipset per new cpu generation.
Also ati is now catching up to nvidia very quickly. Hopefully the amd side will catch up as well.
Crossfire?
They are? How so?
Crossfire?
Errrm the original crossfire with cables was kinda pants. At least ati is publicly showing the scaleing of crosfire x.
Remember that nvidia goes and offers x,y and features and half of them break or are completely none function. Tri sli is a complete joke, release December and gets canned in january .
They are? How so?
The 3800 series is in the right direction.
Yep. The Catalyst Control Center was why I too moved from ATi to Nvidia. It's a big pile of crap.
Yep. The Catalyst Control Center was why I too moved from ATi to Nvidia. It's a big pile of crap.
Indeed. Can't say too much about the CCC other than I've seen it in action on my friend's PC, and at the time my Radeon 9200 was, and still is, incompatible with it. But Nvidia has done some work on their new control panel, cleaning it up from a XP-style Control Panel to one with just a navigation pane. It now beats the old classic control panel in terms of usability and functionality (well, minus moving Performance to nTune) and it runs just as fast as a normal Win32 application.
Its the only panel I know that focuses around making your experience worse.
So their struggling we've heard it before no need to keep beating on a dead horse week after week.
"What's your
Rockefellercarbon footprint?""What's your
Rockefellercarbon footprint?"Disk speed? Don't worry about that as soon everyone will be using SSDs, which are much faster and much more stable than the HDDs we're used to.
DS= crap/ Wii= Fun for a few games. I don't get what everyone is saying about the 360 crashing and all. I have never experienced anything like that and neither have any of my friends.
Ummm, no.
A base line quad core say for £60/$120 would send shockwaves in the intel camp, just like the dual cores did.
We can only hope
It is no surprise that when i made my new computer i avoided both AMD AND ATi. AMD needs to get their shat together. Their products aren't as good as the competition, and their drivers aren't for sure.
Stupid AMD.
Yeah, I don't see how AMD could just die off. Even if they were to fail, someone would buy them.
But another thing to consider is the shrinking desktop PC market. There isn't anything driving people to upgrade. Vista was supposed to lead to a new golden age of ripping people off on expensive hardware, instead consumers have learned to avoid the useless upgrade trap. People see they can use their $500 laptop for most of their tasks.
It's ironic that Microsoft is killing it's own Windows market by promoting the Xbox.
AMD stepped in and bought ATi because they were struggling now AMD is but chances are they'll pull through it fine. we all need the competition, intel and their garbage business tactics should never be given whole rule over a market considering they are already flooding consumers of all markets it doesn't matter if it performs best or not.
Also this 3xxx series are the newest from ATi. Wait for nVidia's 9xxx.
Also this 3xxx series are the newest from ATi. Wait for nVidia's 9xxx.
The 3xxx series isn't their newest. ATI is getting ready to release R700-based cards in spring 2008 that use a completely new multi-core architecture using some of the core interconnect tech from the Phenom.
Intel has always killed AMD in the processor area. And whenever AMD comes out with a "better processor" than Intel, it is simply because Intel lets them; If they don't, the lawyers will start yelling "monopoly" and all that BS.
The Athlons never destroyed the Pentium 4 until they turned 64-bit. The Athlon XP line was pretty neck and neck with the Netburst P4's, basically at that point AMD's were great for gaming and P4's were good for multitasking. They both overclocked seriously well (who remembers the 2500+ Mobile Barton and the 2.4C?)
I admit I'm an Intel & Nvidia fan but there's only ONE reason behind why I think their technology is fantastic, and that's because they HAD to make it so because of AMD and ATI's competition that would have otherwise buried them in their shared fields.
AMD is good for AMD and Intel fans alike - for AMD fans it provides quality yet cheap products, and for Intel fans it provides competition, hence keeping Intel's prices down. Do I really have to explain that if AMD goes down then Intel are free to charge whatever prices they like, because there's not going to be any competition? The same goes with nVidia. Your post was made without any thought whatsoever.
Last edited by Digix on 10 Dec 2007 - 21:43
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink.
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink.
heh, interesting since phenom 9600 can compile faster under solaris then OC'd Q6600 from personal experience, don't forget sun's big supporter of AMD. personally either, i've never had issues with ati and/or amd over last 5-10 years with linux and windows.
I do hope they crash and burn so your beloved intel can rip you off real good.
as if they give a rats ass about you?
Compared to the fact that AMD/ATI couldn't even be stuffed providing decent drivers for *NIX operating systems such as Linux/*BSD and Solaris. Why should I care about them. ATI/AMD shat in their bed, now they'll have to put up with the stink.
heh, interesting since phenom 9600 can compile faster under solaris then OC'd Q6600 from personal experience, don't forget sun's big supporter of AMD. personally either, i've never had issues with ati and/or amd over last 5-10 years with linux and windows.
Who gives a crap about the CPU, I'm talking about AMD's crap support for *NIX by way of the lack of drivers.
Agreed... this is why I purchase Nvidia GPU's... while my mainstream gaming rig has Windows, my old cards get retired to Linux or FreeBSD boxes most of the time. I want hardware acceleration for my investment, ATI does not offer, I do not buy.
AMD do need to bring out an Intel killer again as it's been a while. I am planning to upgrade to Intel next time as they are definitely ahead at the moment.
ATI's cards have never worked for me, ever. I have a laptop and if I could afford it I'd send it back just to remove the POS ATI video card in it for an nVidia.
REALLY now...
and with apple using intel chips and intel getting into more and more markets amd is going down just like via and other asian cpu makers
AMD has done the market a lot of good. If AMD disappears I hope someone steps up and take their place. Without competition prices will go up and innovation will go down.
AMD has done the market a lot of good. If AMD disappears I hope someone steps up and take their place. Without competition prices will go up and innovation will go down.
Yes, VIA has a few x86 CPUs out there. I've seen them in "low-end" laptops and desktop setups.
Every time I hear or see the word "Cyrix", I get chills. I HATE CYRIX. My aunt bought an old Cyrix 486 back in the day. It gave her many problems. She dumped it, and went to Intel.
While I love AMD, I have 4 Intel computers (ranging from a P2 laptop to a C2D desktop), one AMD shuttle desktop, and one G3 iMac. The AMD still has life left in her. It's got a 3000 Athlon XP with 1.5 gig RAM. It's still works for many things. As far as my gaming computers.... it's Intel. I just wish that the Phenom processors were at least par with what Intel had to offer. Hey, at least they're cheap! My point is, buy what ever you can afford at the time, and buy what gives you the best performance/price ratio.
Right now, performance/price is about the same as Intel's.... so people go with the name that has been advertised the most.
p.s. i know pc stuff drops fairly quick in price but NOT that quick.... cause i got a AMD Athlon 3500+ CPU back in march 2006 and a couple months later or so the core 2 duo's came out and then WHAM 100 dollar price drop ALL AT ONCE
I have an ATI card but I couldn't help make a quote.
The Intel fanboys think this is all funny, but wait to see their faces if AMD went out of business and Intel skyrockets their prices just like they did before AMD came along.
My Amd laptop runs very well with the ATI chipset and GPU. It's no 6800GT/K8T800pro like my desktop, but it does very nicely all the same. I've always liked AMD and Nvidia, not really a fan of ATI but they are coming along well.
What exactly did they think would happen when they bought ATI???
Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!
Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.