1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News AMD hit by $180 million loss in Q1 2015

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 20 Apr 2015.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    12,818
    Likes Received:
    2,036
  2. Hustler

    Hustler Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    8 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    33
    So I'm guessing the only possible reason for not launching the 390 cards by now is because there is too much stock of the old stuff left on their retail partners shelves?

    Otherwise I would have thought they'd have been desperate to get the new cards out earlier given how far Nvidia has pulled ahead.
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,396
    Likes Received:
    334
    Reading between the lines it seems they're saying things are getting bad so we need to show profitability soon before the rats start leaving the sinking ship.

    Again reading between the lines it seems she is saying they need to dump the old stock that's been sitting on the shelves and get something out that people are actually going to buy, at least in larger numbers than previous products.
     
  4. V3ctor

    V3ctor Tech addict...

    Joined:
    10 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    583
    Likes Received:
    2
    Honestly, I hope they spin-off AMD's graphics division... at least save something...
    I hope this GPU save them a little longer, I don't know if the cpu's division is thinking of launching something...
     
  5. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Dead man walking is a term id use. Replace man with company and you have AMD. The consoles are not a long term profit solution and those who said they would be need laughing at for it. Nvidia proved with the previous ones it's good for 1 year then you need to support the tech for the next 8-10 years till that product goes EOL. ( nvidia did say they lost cash on the console deals)

    R300 series has been delayed as AMD can't afford to take huge loses on current partner inventory. The gpu side of the business is now loosing money which it never did in the past. And the cpu side was last relivent in the core 2 duo era of cpu.

    They need major investment from a company who wants there patents for use in mobile ( Apple / Samsung ) who may also keep the gpu side of the business running. The rest of the business is not going to be worth anyone's time.

    AMD have been restructuring for at least the last 5-6 years, whatever message she spouts the facts are difficult to shake. Profitability the very thing a company needs is none existent.

    There biggest mistake was there withdrawal from Dell / Lenovo and company's like them. 10 million CPUs sold a quarter even at minimal profit is still money in the bank.
     
  6. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    and if AMD go under NVidia will be broken up and likely intel as well.
     
  7. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    And that's a bad thing how?
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,396
    Likes Received:
    334
    They did?

    I only ask as when I tried finding out how much Nvidia made from previous gen consoles the best guesstimate i could find said they made around $400M on the Xbox, and $500M from the PS3.

    Granted that's not a lot in the grand scheme of things for Nvidia but for a company losing money that's better than a kick in the butt, no?

    I've not delved much deeper but if you've got a linky I would be interested in reading it. :geek:
     
  9. xaser04

    xaser04 Ba Ba Ba BANANA!

    Joined:
    27 Jun 2008
    Posts:
    2,093
    Likes Received:
    133
    They could call the new brand, ooo I don't know, ATI perhaps?

    Seperate the decent GPU brand from the lackluster (in enthusiasts eyes) CPU brand.
     
    Last edited: 20 Apr 2015
  10. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,700
    Likes Received:
    99
    Was on there financials corky one of there things said it was costing them $75 mil supporting the older fab process for each year the PS3 and Xbox 360 remain been sold. There's no dout the royalties are good but from what was said it was break even at best for one console and loosing on the other.

    I'll try and refind it but this was 2013 or so the time when AMD got the deals. Could just be a cover story for nvidia saying they lost this much you never know.

    Either way 500mil over 10 years is still only 12.5mil a quarter which when your loosing 200mil+ is chump change.

    The fact AMDs results also show signifant down swings year on year in the business area where the console deals where first put also suggests the fact it's good 1 year lump sum.
     
  11. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    I reckon you've got it there myself. A sort of "We didn't get it, but we didn't really want it anyway, (so ner)" answer.

    Think about it: If really was losing them so much money, why would they even bid for the next gen console business? When asked to tender an offer surely they would have just said, "Thanks, but no thanks".

    Xbox 360 & PS3 both shipped 80m+ units each, so if they did lose money on all that, they must have had the worst business plan in the world. I just find that really hard to believe - whatever they've made the paperwork say...
     
  12. grimerking

    grimerking Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    434
    Likes Received:
    1
    IMHO the merger with ATI was the source of the problems at AMD. Until then, they were the market leader - 1st to market with 64 bit processor, 1st to market with true dual core CPU (P4 dual core was two crappy P4s on one chip), ATI were releasing the best GPUs. Then they merged and the horror began. AMD have never recovered.
     
  13. TimB

    TimB New Member

    Joined:
    19 Sep 2006
    Posts:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    The reason they were the first is because Intel got compliant and stopped innovating. The end started when Intel finally got serious about competing with them, dumped a ton of cash into R&D, and came out with the Core 2 Duo. AMD has never been able to catch up since.

    Now AMD is falling behind in the GPU market because the GPU portion of the company has been the only thing turning a profit and supporting the rest of the company. That doesn't leave a lot for R&D, so now they are falling behind. Just look at the 290 series.. it was nothing more than a rebranded and tweaked 7000 series.
     
  14. TheMadDutchDude

    TheMadDutchDude The Flying Dutchman

    Joined:
    23 Aug 2013
    Posts:
    4,744
    Likes Received:
    522
    Rumour has it that the 300 series will be a rebrand of the 200 series. So it'll be three generations old with minor tweaks made to the core(s) to enhance its performance.

    AMD are a sinking ship, and it's only a matter of time before they go under. They will never catch up to Intel. Intel just have far too much money to even allow it to happen. The only reason Intel is so focused on power consumption rather than increasing its raw performance is simply because they can. Intel don't need more IPC from their current CPUs. 5% is enough to keep people happy and buying, and the power savings just add to it. I mean, a top-end AMD CPU has a 220W TDP for **** sakes, and it gets smashed into the ground by a 95w quad from Intel.

    Cue the Titanic scene...
     
  15. Harlequin

    Harlequin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Jun 2004
    Posts:
    7,071
    Likes Received:
    179
    and at that point the USA , EU and other monopolies government bodies swing into action - and the courts then break up NVidia and intel into 1/2 dozen smaller companies which are not allowed any financial connection to any other part.....
     
  16. bawjaws

    bawjaws Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    5 Dec 2010
    Posts:
    3,459
    Likes Received:
    363
    And that would be a bad thing because...?
     
  17. DbD

    DbD Member

    Joined:
    13 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    492
    Likes Received:
    10
    The only AMD is holding back the apocalypse argument is growing a bit old now. If AMD go under no government will do anything. Cpu's won't change as AMD's been irrelevant for years now - Intel no longer really care what AMD's up too. Nvidia will slow updates of their gpu's a bit as they focus more on other markets. The world will keep spinning and life will go on.

    Our best hope is someone big buys Ati and keeps that running, but tbh most of the buyers these days are interested in mobile so even if they did buy what's left of Ati they'd use it for mobile SOC not pc graphics cards.
     
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,396
    Likes Received:
    334
    Don't forget the ton of cash they paid to OEM's not make AMD systems, IIRC Intel got find over a billion $ for rigging the market.

    Why would they?

    They never bothered when Microsoft had over 90% of the market, my guess is they would say there's no monopoly as other companies make CPU/GPU even though they maybe in different markets, or not in direct competition.
     

Share This Page