AMD pumptard Jason Evancorholio breaks the bad news:
"Despite the release of AMD’s undeniably attractive liquid-cooled Radeon Fury X graphics card, completely new GPU architecture, and form-factor-slimming High-Bandwidth Memory, Nvidia still managed to increase their dominance over AMD in the 2nd quarter of 2015. In fact, Nvidia increased their lead more substantially than they did between Q4 2014 and Q1 2015, with the company now sitting at 82% desktop GPU market share, up from 77% last quarter."
Got that? AMD fanboy journalist, letting you know that nVidia made its largest single-quarter GPU market share gains in history, despite Fury, despite HBM and despite all the hype and noise out of your piehole.
No. That's his boyfriend, ruckpral. They've lived together for so long though, they share many personality traits.
IPC will be 40% higher than Kaveri according to AMD's own claims.
40% higher than Kaveri still puts it 15%-20% slower than Haswell, clock for clock.
AMD on immarture TSMC 16nm or immature GF 14nm will perform like Intel's old 22nm process in terms of efficiency.
That leaves Zen about 40% behind Broadwell and Skylake in performance, core-per-core, and about 60% behind Intel 14nm in efficiency, again core-per-core.
Much like Fury, hundreds of millions spent on R&D that falls far too short. Must be the consequence of hiring engineers off the "short bus".
Like this isn't obvious.
AMD's latest product, just barely trails the other guy's top products. AMD is unable to make very many of them though due to horrible yields, and the units being shipped barely sustain advertised spec because they are poor quality, so overclocking is not in the cards.
It's a bad chip design, with bad manufacturing, offered by a bad company. In fact, Fury is so bad that it's worse than the Radeon drivers, and that says a lot.
...rubber necking while driving past a bad auto accident in stop and go traffic.
They have AMD on the crash cart and are about to zip up the body bag. Dead at the scene.
AMD is at a 50 year low and no one on the planet will buy it. Take note. If no acquiror will touch this stanky POS, why should an investor buy or hold shares?
The utter lack of a suitor tells the whole sad story. INTC has a defacto veto right over any buy out to the extent the buyer wants to make x86 chips. The buyer cannot retaliate by yanking AMD licenses to Intel; those survive Intel's termination of the x86 license for AMD's change in control breach.
The debt far in excess of both cash and market cap doesn't help matters either.
No turn around is possible. There is no way AMD survives. 2 years, max, but more likely 2-3 quarters then done.
Um, if you're mulling an R9 Nano, then you are not looking at "high end parts" and a set-up using such a chip would indeed be a "cheap" one from an entusiasts point of view. I second the "idiot" vote. You are an idiot.
Yes and received an A1 rating on the debt. That's "investment grade". AMD's debt is sub-junk rated. Intel's debt service rate is HALF what AMD's is. Intel retains its mountains of cash in the bank for R&D while AMD loses another $100 million in cash every quarter.
Intel did the smart thing. It makes more on its cash thanks to Intel capital than it pays to service the new debt, so for Intel it's free use of other people's money. On the other hand AMD's debt service burden alone burns up $44 million in AMD's dwindling revenue every quarter. Money that AMD has no way of replacing.
The most humorous thing is this. AMD is at all-time lows. It's a company that has tanked and cratered scores of times in its 40+ year history of uninterrupted blunders and failures. But never before has it scrooed the pooch so badly as now.
And yet, no one is showing even a remote interest in acquiring AMD. Proof that the Intel x86 license veto right spelled out in the FTC consent decree renders acquisition of AMD as a going concern impossible. The price copy-cats pay for imitating the technology of an innovator rather than developing their own technology.
With no buyout possible the only valuable asset AMD retains is its non-x86 GPU technology. Given that its GPUs also have historic low market share now on account of inferior execution, the value of the graphics business is much lower today than it was even 3 years ago. AMD might be able to raise $1.5 billion by selling off the ATI assets and taking back a license to retain the right to make APUs.
$1.5 billion won't keep the lights on for long, though. Tick-tock, the clock runs down on AMD.
See article titled "The G-Sync and FreeSync monitors available right now"
Half of the Freesync models didn't even support 144Hz rate! All of the G-Sync monitors did, though, and the cheapest G-Sync monitor was $50 LESS than the cheapest Freesync monitor showing that greed is the only motivation for any manufacturer to implement Freesync.
They can't give Freesync monitors away. That should be no surprise. 80% of the world's systems using discrete graphics now run on GeForce, up from just 60% a few years ago. Monitor makers develop for the dominant rather than minority platform. AMD's market share is so low now that it is almost irrelevant in every segment in which it participates.
They've tried to finagle the Street quarter after quarter, stuffing the channel with APUs and GPUs at deeply discounted prices and extending slow pay credit terms. This has backfired in the form of collapsing margins and APU and GPU revenues, and massive inventories of unwanted products. They've suffered two inventory write downs so far due to channel stuffing and are facing a third.
But now they are stuffing the channel in semi-custom as well. Semi-custom (aka console chips - they really have no material wins other than the two game consoles). How do you know? Accelerated inventory ballooning and margin erosion, and quick revenue shift from CPUs and GPUs to semi-custom.
The "growth" shiester Su and her cronies were pumping as the sole bright stop on the CC is the same kind of "growth" we've seen previously when GPU and CPU channel stuffing occurred. It's spurious and nothing more than a desperate attempt to save face as the company's business on all fronts collapses.
Console sales have flattened out and actually fallen off a bit. The market is now a seasonal, cyclical market. Not a growth market. AMD is trying to palm off the small seasonal peak as sustainable sequential growth. It's not.
The main reason the bought ATI 9 years ago is that the saw the writing on the wall in CPUs. They first approached best in class nVidia - nVidia was far and away AMD's first choice - who laughed in their face. In a panic, they settled for second rate, unwanted ATI and paid way to much for it (They paid $4.5 billion which is FOUR TIMES AMD's current whole-enterprise value.
ATI was just another AMD blunder in a long line of AMD blunders.
They need to scrap that tranny CEO in favor of someone with smarts and experience.
x86 is encumbered by the non-transferable Intel x86 license, per the FTC.
ATI graphics are second rate, having a paltry 16% stake of the discrete GPU segment, losing as bad to NVDA in GPUs as it loses to INTC in CPUs.
AMD already sold off ATI's mobile graphics patents several years ago for chump change, so no ARM mobile vendor would have any interest.
So who would buy AMD to obtain second rate non-mobile GPU technology and nothing else? How much realistically would they pay?
$200 to $500 million, tops. Not even 25% of the company's massive debt load. Ergo no possible buyout whatsoever. None.
Well let's look at it this way.
In the last five years AMD has hyped numerous new products and technologies. Without one single exception each of those products and technologies has failed miserably in the marketplace and also failed to meet AMD's promised performance.
A rational person doubts the veracity of further future product claims from such a source, whose dozens of past such claims have been lies.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me a dozen times, call me a selfkornholing AMD fantard.
No problem for Intel so long as AMD has a higher cost structure and no competitive designs. The ie may shrink but Intel is taking away AMD slices of the pie much faster than the pie is shrinking.
PC sluggishness affects AMD far more than Intel because AMD is losing market share in a declining market.