And are almost as fast as a single core last generation Atom CPU.
The real story is that Intel declined to sell Avotons to SeaMicro and is considering dropping them as a Xeon reseller as well. If Intel follows through, you'll see SeaMicro's business dry up instantly.
Then even the fan boys will know what a joke AMD CPUs are.
There's a case study pdf on SeaMicro's website about the Verizon deal that says point blank that the solution chosen by Verizon featured servers using both Xeon and Opteron. So much for sharikou's feeble attempt to mislead investors into believing that the Verizon deal was all Opteron. I wonder why he felt the need to lie when the truth is available publicly on SeaMicro's own website? Maybe he's on margin and desperate?
In any case, Extremtech gave the actual breakdown of Xeon to Opteron - 75% Xeon/25% Opteron. So it looks like there's not much of a market for Opteron SeaMicro servers, which really isn't surprising.
The guy who founded SeaMicro was the lead designer of the Opteron. Instead of Opteron, he chose Xeon and Atom when he designed the servers. If the father of the Opteron and the SeaMicro server avoids Opteron, is there really any surprise that customers for the servers avoid Opteron too?
Well here's why no one is buying the Verizon deal hype. A Verizon executive said that the purchase involved a mix of Xeon and Opteron based SeaMicro servers. Later in an interview a Verizon insider admitted that 75% of the servers being purchased by Verizon from SeaMicro would use Intel Xeon rather than AMD Opteron CPUs.
Intel Xeon CPUs are extremely expensive. Microservers are in vogue because they are extremely cheap compared to big iron server alternatives. AMD is merely an OEM for Intel-based SeaMicro servers. OEM margins on low margin servers using high margin CPUs are really low. Intel's margin on the Xeons will be near top of the heap because SeaMicro sells so few servers of any kind and doesn't get good volume discounts from Intel.
So there's a really good chance that in revenue and more importantly income terms, Intel may actually make more money on the SeaMicro Verizon deal than AMD. Hence the lack of credible pumping.
That's really, really amusing.
Here's what's being said about the tablets:
"Apple's New iPads Should Lead To Record Sales In The December Quarter"
Predicting 27 million units, up from just 13 million units last quarter. That's more than DOUBLE.
Thanks for sharing this important information.
It makes perfect sense. I mean, AMD was at $1.81 just a shirt time ago - that is, roughly half its recent price - and there were absolutely no suitors.
If $1.81 was too rich for prospective suitors, anything above that is as well.
The detail about the x86 license terminating if AMD gets bought totally fits the fact that even at $1.81 no one bothered to pursue AMD.
That's ridiculous. There was a massive uptick in short interest the day of earnings. 50 million additional shares short in the low 4s. Now the stock is in the low 3s. That's brilliant. We see a little covering this morning, but nothing close to the massive now 170 million shares short interest. A little profit taking by smart shorts at the expense of goofy longs forced to sell.
The bet, though, seems to be on low 2s since the big majority of shorts aren't budging. Of course many of the longer term shorts are short from the 8s, meaning that there's virtually nothing that can happen to force them to cover. Because AMD has so many shorts locked in in such unassailable positions, the stock has very limited upside.
As others have said, hedge funds do in fact control the price of this stock. Thank Rory's incompetence and the tumble to $1.81 for that.
What is the total market size for professional graphics chips in annual revenues? Going from 18% to 25% of a $1 billion market is much less interesting or relevant than the same growth would be in a $10 billion market. There's no doubt that the per chip margins in this space are much, much better than anything AMD is getting in its bargain basement margin console, PC and laptop business, but without data on the market size, this is rather meaningless to investors.
Also, how much R&D is AMD investing to gain market share in this space? Spending $100 a year million to get a net income return of $50 million would be foolish. Spending $100 million to net $200 million would be less foolish. The costs have to be known in addition to the return in order to figure out whether this is a smart business move.
I'm pretty sure the most you'll lose from here is about $1.50 as share. I don't see it going much below the recent $1.81 low. That's not a lot of money to lose ($1.50 a share). My AAPL swings easily by $10 a share each day.
Share price since Rory Joined: Down 68%
CPU Market share since Rory Joined: Down 33%
Cash since Rory joined: Down 50%
Revenues since Rory Joined: Down 40%
Ratio of loss quarters to profitable ones since Rory joined: 8:1
Records set during Rory's tenure:
a. Lowest server market share ever lowest all-time;
b. 40-year share price of $1.81;
c. largest set of one time charges in company history (over $700 million paid to GF);
d. second largest inventory write-down in company history
e. company kicked off of S&P 500 - reclassified as a small cap
f. lowest CPU market share in a decade
g. released a new core architecture slower than old Stars core
h. dumbest haircut ever on a tech company CEO
So what is it about Rory's performance that pleases you as an investor?
AMD might have a chance with someone other than a braindead moron as CEO.
Heck, AMD did far better with no CEO than it has with Read as CEO.
I agree. He's miffed because Intel passed him over for CEO and he wants a CEO position. He'll make a great replacement for Rory since it's very clear from the Q4 forecast that the Board has no choice but to fire him.
Unfortunately, AMD's fate soon changed, as increasing pressure from a dying PC industry and competition from Intel hurt the company's margins. In 2007 and 2008, the company experienced huge losses. After 2008, business seemed to have recovered. However, in 2012, the company announced a loss of more than $1 billion.
Notice that AMD was never consistently profitable. Between 2003 and 2012, the company only generated positive free cash flow in 2009 and 2011. According to Forbes contributor Michael Kanellos, this happened because AMD did not believe in its people. A clear example is when AMD "politely showed the door" to Fred Weber, who was the man behind the development of Opteron. Instead, AMD prioritized Fusion, a chip designed to act as both a CPU and graphics accelerator. Fusion did not become a positive growth catalyst like Opteron. Its CPU performance and memory turned out to be weak, and it did not open new markets like Opteron did. Aware of Fusion's weaknesses, Intel took that opportunity to regain market share in the server space.
Furthermore, from 2003-2012, Intel never generated negative cash flow, but instead accumulated more than $19 billion in cash and short term investments, which will likely be used in the future to support strategic investments or be returned to shareholders.
Ouch! AMD is dying!
Um, it just fell 30% and is struggling to break even after three #$%$-enlarging trading days, and you call it a reversal?
No wonder you dweebs are getting wiped out with margin calls.
The bleeding by AMD has barely just begun. AMD will warn for Q4. Then you'll see what we mean by melt down.
What Apple deal? AMD lost all of Apple's GPU business except for managing to hang on in just one line - the lowest volume line. AMD has never had any of Apple's GPU business.
The Mac Pro deal is not a win. They had the GPU slot in the last Mac Pro too. It's just not a loss. Losing the high revenue, high volume, high margin GPU slots in iMac and MacBook pro to nVidia was a huge loss, however. Easily 1000x more revenue lost with that defeat than will ever be made lifetime on the Mac Pros.
Apple sells million of iMacs and MacBook Pros each quarter. It sells a few thousand Mac Pros a quarter. That's a fact.
Sure, but then what will AMD use to pay salaries and fund R&D? The CFO says that AMD needs cash reserves of $1.1 billion to remain viable.
Seriously the freefall in the shares indicates that there's not much demand in the stock that's already out there. I don't think a secondary equity offering by AMD has a chance in Hell.
It'll be debt. Junk bonds with insane usurious interest rates. Trading low interest debt for knee-breaking-if-you-don't-pay high interest debt.
Of course not. Price reduction happens automatically. Such agreements feature a volume purchase discount schedule typically. This means that the more you buy, the less you pat per chip. The prices, therefore, will automatically go down per the terms of the agreement. For example:
0-5 million units = $75 per chip
5- 10 million units = $65 per chip
10 million + units = $55 per chip
So while its true that the R&D cost for these chips suppresses margins in early years as it's paid off, it's equally true that a large buyer would never agree to pay as much for the ten millionth unit as it paid for the first unit.
You sure know very little about the chip business, bubba. Maybe you ought to go back to working in a taco truck.
Too funny. Every AMD fantard who contributes to SA is whining about the beating AMD is taking.
AMD is NOT a fundamentally solid company. It's fundamentals are disastrous.
AMD saw a 26% revenue pop in Q3 courtesy of console chip sales alone. Its CPU products division (oddly AMD put console APUs in graphics rather than CPUs) declined disproportionately to the decline in PC and laptop sales reported by Mercury Research. Chief competitor in PCs and laptops, Intel, saw only a modest dip in its revenues from that segment, clearly and unequivocally indicating that AMD lost a material amount of additional market share to Intel in that segment.
To make matters worse, Intel grew its server and datacenter (cloud) business 12% in a single quarter during which the Mercury data suggests server demand was basically flat. Again, clear indication that AMD is being routed in all mainstream CPU segments by Intel.
AMD reported that the console chip revenue growth party was already coming to an end. For Q4 it said that the revenue growth rate would tumble from 26% to a mere 5%. It added that margins, which took a big hit in Q3, would get hit again in Q4. The trend is crystal clear. The custom CPU business is not an engine for sustainable revenue growth. Rather, it is a tactical, opportunistic segment marked by feast and famine cycles between gigs.
90% of AMD's revenues still come from "PCs" not custom chips, consoles or microservers. Not only is the size of the PC pie slowly shrinking, but the percentage of the remaining pie held by AMD is dropping at a rate much higher than the shrinkage rate for the pie itself. It's still a HUGE pie. Far larger in size than the tablet, smartphone, microserver and custom x86 markets combined.
AMD is not electing to swap slices of the PC pie for slices of other pies. Instead it is being obliterated by superior offerings from competitors in the PC pie game and driven off to other, much less desirable, lower margin pies. Full retreat.