AMD Reports $590 Million Loss in Q1, Still Thumbs Nose at Wall Street

18

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

Refuge88

I have always been an Intel fanboy from birth (Father and brother work there)

I have also always been a Nvidia fan.

But I love AMD for the compitition they have always been able to provide over the years making Intel work for their market share, and keeping my family busy and well employed.

But I fear for them, they seem to have already lost this round and the next one unless they can pull a magical pixidust candy farting unicorn outa their tails.

Nvidia is beating them (Not by much) with their newest card and its not even their heavy hitter, the only thing keeping ATI in the game right now is the fact that Nvidia can't produce their cards.

And Intel has them slammed in all the markets with their chips, and wiht Bulldozer being such a massive flop I fear that they will be in trouble unless they can pull a magical cepter of awesomeness out and produce a new killer chip to atleast make Intel sweat over the low to mid range markets.

I fear for them...

avatar

big_montana

The 7000 series is not a flop, and Nvidia's 680 series does not beat it by much AMD's issue with the 7000 was drivers, and since they released new drivers over the past month, owners of the 7000 series have seen a 25% increase in performance. As far as the FX processor being a massive flop, it only is if you expected a $200 part to beat out a $1000 core i7 in performance benchmarks. Was not going to happen. AMD designed Bulldozer for multi-threaded workloads, and single-threaded performance maybe wasn't at the level it should have been. It was targeted at multi-threaded performance, multimedia and gaming.

avatar

Refuge88

I never said that ATI's 7000's were a flop, just Bulldozer. ATI has got some great cards out right now, and the fact that they got them out first and are able to produce them means they win. But Nvidia is beating them (Again not by much) with a card that was intended to only be a mid range performance card. Until Nvidia can begin to put out product I chalk the win up to ATI. But that is subject to change on a whim, esspecially when the real Kepler is released.

As far as what Bulldozer, I can't call it anything more than a flop. The price is great, but for gaming the i5 is still king for price/perf. If you want Multithreaded the 2700k still knocks bulldozer around. The fact is you don't need the $1000 bleeding edge from Intel to slap around bulldozer.

There is no other way to say it than they lost. I want them to win, I really do. Intel could go for losing a round for the sake of compitition. But unless I were a fanboy of AMD I wouldn't see any reason to buy one of their CPU's.

Except for their ATI line, they are doing very well and I can acctually buy one.

avatar

warptek2010

Where AMD doesn't flop at all in my opinion is strength of platform. Their Vision platform is pretty solid. Combine any of the Bulldozer parts with pretty much any 990 series chip set based MB and any one of their HD68xx - HD 7xxx video cards and you have yourself a pretty strong computer able to handle most home computer tasks with ease. That is of course if benchmark comparisons are not your only deciding factor as they seem to be for most here.
Also, I take issue with NVidia releasing cards that now take up not 2 but 3 slots! I thought these things were supposed to get smaller over time not more massive. In the video card segment, space, power requirement, heat and noise are the major deciding factors. With what I've seen so far, Nvidia has taken a step backwards imo.

avatar

JohnP

Paul, one thing you did not mention was that AMD's graphics division revenue was flat from last quarter and DOWN 7% from a year ago. This is AFTER they released their new 7970 family of GPUs. I guess these high end GPUs are not very profitable for their companies...

avatar

warptek2010

John, why don't u go work for Intel and/or Nvidia already and be done with it.

avatar

JohnP

I have FOUR AMD video cards in my house versus ONE NVidia card. The only things about AMD that I do not like is that they have a hard time being competitive in their business these days and that the company can no longer make money at it. If you cannot make a profit in your core businesses, why are you in that business and why should I buy your products? I had NO complaints with AMD years ago when they were a well run and innovative company. They have simply lost their way.
In the meantime, I NEVER SAID that NVidia was any better at making money with their latest graphics cards than AMD is. NVidia should have never released their Kepler cards until they were able to adequately stock the damn things.

avatar

biggiebob12345

So are they now selling at a loss with the recent price drop?

avatar

JohnP

The amount of money that high end graphics cards make for their companies is probably a pretty damn small piece of the income pie. If the sales of 7970 cards is as much as 1% of AMDs business, I would be very surprised. The price is immaterial really as it is all marketing for their lower end cards (which make all the money.)

avatar

Supall

Quite the contrary. Its known that they were selling them at a premium, but I think those who are going to get 7000 series cards (and were waiting) are going to get them this summer, since I'm certain the recent price drops were not counted in this report and NVidia hasn't released their 670s yet to compete with AMD's mid-range cards.

avatar

wolfing

if they're hoping for Windows 8 to help demand, I have bad news for them...
(Fast-forward 1 year)
"AMD reports 590 million loss. Experts attribute this to the low sales of Windows 8".

avatar

OCFRED

Agreed, yet this is a PC forum bud; besides there are plenty of us Linux users buying hardware too.

avatar

azuza001

As a long time AMD Fan (ah, overclocking barton 2500+'s to 3200+'s, those were the days) I can say that I wish AMD would be able to pull something out of it's hat to give us SOME sort of competition against Intel. However I just don't see that happening anymore. AMD would really need another game-changing Athlon-64 move to get back to the mid-top range market on processors but they are more focused on their lower end APU's at this point which as a gamer and PC builder don't interest me in the least.

I'm glad their purchase of ATI has been able to keep them going and I'm glad they are still a player, but bulldozer was such a sad thing that its jaded even this AMD Fan's heart to the point that I can't even see past the Sandy Bridge G850 for a new processor. There really is little reason to go AMD anymore. :(

avatar

Supall

Take heart. AMD hasn't completely disappeared and there is still their Piledriver CPU that we can hope will improve on the Bulldozer platform. Not to mention that AMD's APUs have been a success last year and their Trinity APUs are being eyed by many manufacturers. We can expect them to do better this year and hopefully chip away at the integrated graphics market share.

avatar

vrmlbasic

Hopefully software will catch up and we'll get a scheduler in an OS which realizes that Bulldozer is different and plays to its strengths so we can see Bulldozer's true potential.

It does bewilder me how Bulldozer was in development for years and none of the OS companies provisioned their software for it. I'm not sure if AMD or Microsoft/all the arbitrary Linux guys are more at fault.

All I know is that, for once, something is effed in the tech world and we can state that it isn't Apple's fault. ;)

avatar

THE_REAL_MAVERICK

I like AMD especially since they keep competition going between Intel and Nvidia. If they really want to become a top dog company again, they have to start getting the CPU's back to the top of the charts. Lets face it, they havn't been up there in years. Yes, their price/performance is great, but their top end CPU's just can't compete. Their GPU's can though. The 7xxx line was a winner, although there are gonna be some price wars now that Nvidia came out with the 680. Lets just hope that AMD is turning things around and can come out swinging because it is better for the consumer if there is competition going on. No matter if your the green team, intel lover or AMD fan, you should always vote to have competition (unless you want to pay $1000 for a GTX560.

avatar

Danthrax66

AMD actually loses to Intel at every price point right now... In fact the i3 dual cores are better than the 8 core AMDs in some benchmarks.

avatar

big_montana

AMD designed Bulldozer for multi-threaded workloads, and single-threaded performance maybe wasn't at the level it should have been. It was targeted at multi-threaded performance, multimedia and gaming. Not a flop at all, unless you expected a $200 proc to beat out a $1000 proc in performance benchmarks. Also, AMD's Trinity has discrete level graphics, whreas Intel is still playing catchup in that arena. They have yet to make an integrated graphic solution that is even remotely s good as anything that AMD or Nvidia produces. AMD just conducted a blind test putting Trinity up against Sandybridge. 80 percent of them thought the Trinity notebook showed better performance. The difference between Ivy Bridge and Trinity is simple: if you go with Ivy Bridge but then want the same graphical experience that Trinity offers out of the box, then you'll need to add discrete graphics to be on that same level.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.