AMD Puts Positive Spin on Q1 Revenue Results
AMD Puts Positive Spin on Q1 Revenue Results
Posted 04/22/2009 at 7:20am
| by Paul Lilly
4
Comments
Print
Having completed its metamorphosis into separate design and manufacturing firms, AMD probably feels as though a major weight has been lifted from its shoulders. However, the company still has some financial ground to make up. On the bright side, AMD's first quarter revenue of $1.77 billion remained flat (rather than tumbling backwards) compared to the fourth quarter of 2008. However, it also represents a decrease of 21 percent compared to the first quarter of 2008.
"AMD’s sequential microprocessor unit and revenue growth in difficult economic conditions demonstrate we can grow in an environment where customers are looking for maximum value," said Dirk Meyer, AMD president and CEO. "We delivered on a number of important priorities in the first quarter. We launched GLOBALFOUNDRIES, maintained our cadence of new product and platform introductions, and made solid progress on our restructuring activities. The result is a more nimble AMD, capable of achieving long-term success based on our strengths designing and integrating industry-leading computing and graphics technologies."
Despite turning in a $416 million first quarter loss, Meyer said AMD is "well positioned" as people have become more discerning for paying only what they need. Moving forward, the chip maker plans to switch over completely to 45nm this quarter and expects a positive cash flow for the second half of 2009.
Image Credit: AMD
More like this
arkarkwin
April 22, 2009 at 11:16am
I agree with the guy that post above or below me ( anyway this forum put it). I got i7 920 with 6 GB of ram from dell for about 1500$ with 24" monitor included. I feel that I am future proof for at least 1 to 2 year. By the time intel release new 32 bit processor, I bet i7 940 will be cheap enough for me. AMD at least need to show PC enthusiasts and gamers that it top flag ship chipset can beat i7 920 or at least level it out. I am not impress by it ability to catch up with old intel quadcores. That was last two year intel flag ship, I don't see any point in spending my money for Yesterday technology to play today game. AMD pahtom II may be cheap but it is not so cheap when you compare it to i7 920. But of course, with i7 920, you gonna need to buy new mobo and DDR 3 memory. But if you are going to spend your money at all, don't you think you should be spending for a technology that gonna last longer ? specially with this economy.
HokieTechie
April 22, 2009 at 10:29am
In response to the previous comment, I would point out that the vast majority of computer purchasers (consumer or business) aren't doing things that are "CPU Bound." They're running plain old Microsoft Office, Web Browsing, and maybe a little bit of streaming multimedia, and the sum of their "experience" has alot more to do with network speed, RAM capacity, RAM bandwidth, and disk drive speed than it has to do with Instructions Per Second. They seldom run close to 100% of their CPU for any significant length of time.
For this type of customer, there's no "future proof" from just a fast processor. By the time you hit the wall on the latest release of Microsoft Bloatware, you have enough slow components in the system that the whole thing will need replacement anyway. This is also why just a CPU upgrade is seldom an effective fix for an old, slow PC, even if there's a significantly faster part that can fit in the existing motherboard.
If you are buying 1,000 desktops for Microsoft Office, the extra $300 for cpu cycles that will never be called upon is a giant waste of money.
Cache
April 22, 2009 at 11:21am
The biggest problem being that AMD's commercial side was hit far harder than the consumer side. Your argument boils down to the corporations; most are not buying into AMD at this time.
Consumers who are looking at desktops (I won't even delve into Intel's dominance with the Atom processor) are looking far more at Intel's new I7 series than with AMD's Phenom II (which honestly sounds like it was an alternate name for a Star Wars prequel than anything else). Commercially, of course, Intel still dominates, even in this very anemic tech market.
Cache
April 22, 2009 at 7:59am
The fundimental problem with AMD's view of the PC marketplace is that it has never been 'paying for what you need', it's been about 'what you get for the money'. If I can buy an I7 system for just a couple hundred more dollars, but it represents a better value in the long run, I'll spend the money. AMD's work to put out a chip that only barely outperforms Intels aging Core2 lineup does not represent value to me.
It's great if you are stuck on a narrow budget, but most of us are not building a new PC every 6 weeks, so we'll spend more money on components that have their 'A' game on, and have a good upgrade future. Does anyone really think selling out for the lowest common denominator has a rock-solid future? AMD had a good game once, now they are little more than the KMart of CPU's. If I'm spending a thousand dollars anyways on a computer, I'd just as soon have a CPU that is looking forward rather than keeps the pace with what came out last year.
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
We introduce Intel's latest class of tablet killers and review 4 of the first Ultra...
Where have all the memorable videogame enemies gone?
This month's issue
Feature
11 Hardware Hacks
Feature
Overclock Your CPU
How-To
Supercharge Your Smartphone
Build It
A Powerful $830 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Multi-Monitor Usage On The Rise http://t.co/eWfJfCEG9 hours 55 min ago
- maximumpc: Windows 8 Consumer Preview Coming On February 29 http://t.co/3Nd04FdR15 hours 43 min ago
- maximumpc: Can RIM *ever* catch a break? Not today! App World numbers not as great as previously reported http://t.co/3ERRhr311 day 11 hours ago
