AMD Back in Black After Inking Lucrative Console Gaming Contracts

14

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

John Pombrio

AMD is competing in too many markets and does not have the resources to do it. They need to stick to a line where they can dominate and let the rest slide. Like SONY, too many divisions are not profitable and should be spun off or closed.

avatar

hypersonic

Couldn't disagree more.
Most companies don't sit on the toilet seat wondering why they didn't try. Company expansion is an ebb & flow process generating development, jobs & generally benefiting all and that's the way I like it.
Intel's monopoly on CPU's are horrendously expensive. Company diversification means not all their eggs are in the one basket, besides theirs money to be made in other markets !

avatar

wumpus

Not that they might need to do so to survive, but it doesn't look possible. First, *all* of the x86 microprocessor lines are locked together. Spin one off, and it is dead (Intel and AMD have AMD64 licenses. Sell it off and you have to beg Intel's permission to compete with them). The product line that they have that makes the most sense (don't expect the market to agree with me) is the ALU line, which requires both the AMD64 license and the graphics line. Also, the thing that is keeping them in the black (console chips) only exists due to their ability to put CPUs and GPUs on the same chip (it didn't really have to be AMD64, just out-of-order and have decent power/area and power/watt).

You could break the system up into AMD64 and graphics lines (the graphics line would have all of Nvidia's problems, with even more due to lack of planning and less supercomputer inroads), but I just don't see that happening.

Then there's always the issue that it looks like one of the things they spun off early (mobile graphics chips) might be worth more than the rest of AMD combined. This will make further sell offs hard to sell.

avatar

Xenite

Which would be an epic disaster for consumers. You have any idea how enthusiast pc's would be destroyed if Intel was the only choice? Prices would skyrocket, not to mention Intel would love to go to socketless mobo's. AMD keeps them honest.

avatar

Innomasta

Their graphics line is probably their best bet in that regard

avatar

Innomasta

Everyone loves an underdog :P

avatar

AFDozerman

Great. Now take that, put it straight into R&D and start competing again. Steamroller and Excavator had better kick ass. The R9 390x had better, too. We need AMD to bring balance back to the industry.

avatar

Shalbatana

Good for them. Like Gordon says, never count them out.

On a side note, after reading this, I think we as PC users should look at the current state of the new consoles, and steambox, tablets, etc. and start predicting the fall of the console gaming system. (because they're not necessary as isolated systems anymore, not because of AMD)

Then all the console gamers could say, "Well the HTPC is really just the console re-invented, so it's not dying, it's just changing".

Time to turn the tables!

avatar

jgottberg

Ignorance must truly be bliss.

avatar

lordfirefox

For you? Maybe.

avatar

Jieddo

Two lucrative contracts and they only pulled in $48 million in revenue? Intel just posted a $3 billion quarterly net revenue.

avatar

borkbork

lol, Intel has always been the giant there. It'd take a lot more than a couple contracts to get those two on equal footing (financially) =P

avatar

Chronologist

Amd posted 1.46 billion in revenue, and 48 million in profit. Intel posted 3billion in revenue

avatar

Dant2142

No, it was 3 billion in profit. Intel had 13.5 billion in revenue! =D

(Source: Los Angeles Times; IDK if putting URLs here would be allowed)