PDA

View Full Version : News: AMD in trouble.



Surly
12-29-2008, 21:21
For those unaware, the biggest thing on AMD's horizon lately (at least in the business world) has been a joint project with Mubadala Development Co. which was announced earlier this year. AMD is providing materials and technology in exchange for the Abu Dhabi company providing money and investment in AMD. Since the announcement, AMD has lost 50% of their stock value and their partners have backed out of the original investment agreement and are now going to be paying trading values for the 20% interest in AMD they'll acquire rather than the previously negotiated fixed rate.

Unless something very fortunate happens for AMD in the next cycle, I don't predict them surviving the recession without being bought out by another company. As far as hardware production and sales go, it seems entirely impossible (or at least highly improbable) that they'll be able to produce any hardware that can seriously compete with either Intel or nVidia for a stronger market share. What marginal successes they've had over the last two years have been dramatically overshadowed by their competitors.

Bottom line... if something doesn't change soon, AMD could wind up unable to produce competitive CPUs of any kind. Without competition in the market, CPU costs would go up quite a bit! Bad news for everyone, especially AMD fanboys who have to suffer seeing their favorite CPU mfg. tanking. They're being sustained, currently, by outside investment at the cost of profit reduction in the future (that is, if they can manage to produce a profit for once) and are getting ready for even more lay-offs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122875729091388429.html?mod=googlenews _wsj



Advanced Micro Devices (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=amd) Inc. will get a smaller stake in a planned manufacturing joint venture and an investment from Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Development Co. will result in less cash for the money-losing chip maker.
The value of AMD assets being contributed to the joint venture with Abu Dhabi investment entities has been cut, reducing AMD's stake in the venture to 34% from the 44% set when the venture was announced two months ago.
In addition, the price Mubadala will pay for 58 million shares and 30 million warrants of AMD is no longer fixed. Instead of the $314 million previously agreed to, Mubadala will pay a per-share rate based on an average price for AMD's stock. Mubadala, whose stake in AMD will more than double to nearly 20% as part of the investment, is also getting five million more warrants.
An AMD spokesman said the terms of the venture were amended as a result of the "challenging economic environment." AMD shares have fallen more than 50% since the joint venture was announced.
The deal's other terms, including the Abu Dhabi entities paying $1.4 billion into the venture and $700 million to AMD, remains unchanged.
"Looks like it's being priced down materially," said analyst Brian Piccioni of BMO Capital Markets. "Obviously, they are getting less for what they've got. That's not good."
The joint venture plan and the investment come as AMD has been trying to cut costs and become consistently profitable as it continues to battle much larger rival Intel (http://online.wsj.com/public/quotes/main.html?type=djn&symbol=intc) Corp. AMD said last month it would cut 3% of its work force and last week slashed its fourth-quarter revenue forecast amid slumping demand, following a similar warning from Intel. The problems are particularly severe in desktop computers.
Analyst Roger Kay of Endpoint Technologies Associates said it was good that AMD was able to renegotiate the terms and "kept the deal moving."

Poll not related

Cribble
12-29-2008, 21:26
You bastard you should state that you can see who voted for what!

Surly
12-29-2008, 21:26
Wah hah hah hah hah!

The Cougar
12-29-2008, 21:26
The poll is never related.

Viluin
12-29-2008, 21:28
AMD's GPU market share is equal to Nvidia's. The HD4000 series really kicked them off. The CPU department has been doing better than before, and it doesn't look like it will get any worse with Phenom II being a better alternative to the Core 2 Quad processors.

Erroneous
12-29-2008, 21:29
You bastard you should state that you can see who voted for what!

you can't read that for yourself?

Surly
12-29-2008, 21:31
AMD's GPU market share is equal to Nvidia's. The HD4000 series really kicked them off. The CPU department has been doing better than before, and it doesn't look like it will get any worse with Phenom II being a better alternative to the Core 2 Quad processors.
Ok, well... AMD's market share is down, and their stock prices have cut in half over the last 6 months.

So there.

Viluin
12-29-2008, 21:34
Okay, maybe not equal, but it's heading that way.

Before: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20071029062106.html

After: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20081112035812_ATI_Begins_to_Fight_Back_ Market_Share_from_Nvidia_in_Desktop_Disc rete_Market_Segment.html (40% vs 60%).


Ok, well... AMD's market share is down, and their stock prices have cut in half over the last 6 months.

So there.

Because they had nothing to compete with on the CPU market. That's about to change.

stalwart
12-29-2008, 21:35
i thought AMD was always in trouble.

Surly
12-29-2008, 21:40
Okay, maybe not equal, but it's heading that way.

Before: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20071029062106.html

After: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/video/display/20081112035812_ATI_Begins_to_Fight_Back_ Market_Share_from_Nvidia_in_Desktop_Disc rete_Market_Segment.html (40% vs 60%).



Because they had nothing to compete with on the CPU market. That's about to change.
At least you admit you were dead wrong after researching it. :P AMD got skunked last year and has been fighting to get some share back since. They're not producing impressive gains, but they're not losing market share left and right like they were before (nowhere to go but up from where they hit bottom, I guess).

Integrated graphics remain to be the largest contributor to market share, though. So if you're talking about after-market cards, or stand-alone PCI-e cards, they don't look that grand. 40% isn't as bad as it used to be, but to get any higher they've got to follow up the 4000s with something good.

edit: and it isn't going to help their falling stock prices much, if at all. AMD is in financial turmoil, it'd take a miracle to save them immediately. It's going to be a long haul to get them out of the hole they've dug themselves into with a year and a half of ass-grade CPUs and GPUs.

Viluin
12-29-2008, 21:44
At least you admit you were dead wrong after researching it. :P AMD got skunked last year and has been fighting to get some share back since. They're not producing impressive gains, but they're not losing market share left and right like they were before (nowhere to go but up from where they hit bottom, I guess).

Integrated graphics remain to be the largest contributor to market share, though. So if you're talking about after-market cards, or stand-alone PCI-e cards, they don't look that grand. 40% isn't as bad as it used to be, but to get any higher they've got to follow up the 4000s with something good.

AMD should get their next-gen 45nm GPU out a few months before Nvidia does. Apparently they've already got working samples, whereas Nvidia has yet to attempt producing them. It's not looking bad.

Don't forget that AMD has actually been competitive in server market with their Barcelona CPUs. Servers run at stock settings only, and AMD offers good CPUs at low prices when you only look at stock. AMD processors also kick major ass at virtualization for some reason, no Intel CPU can match.

Surly
12-29-2008, 21:51
AMD should get their next-gen 45nm GPU out a few months before Nvidia does. Apparently they've already got working samples, whereas Nvidia has yet to attempt producing them. It's not looking bad.

Don't forget that AMD has actually been competitive in server market with their Barcelona CPUs. Servers run at stock settings only, and AMD offers good CPUs at low prices when you only look at stock. AMD processors also kick major ass at virtualization for some reason, no Intel CPU can match.
lol do you know AMD's server CPU market share?

Anyway the point is... for hardware sales to be the thing that saves AMD, they would have to trounce Intel and nVidia at the same time in a way that has never been done before. I'm talking going from 30-40% market share to 70% market share and not having to slash prices. It's just not possible. The company's finances are terrible, and they continue to lose money.

Like I said, it's going to take a long, consistent trend of good hardware and good business decisions to pull AMD away from the brink of failure. Their last couple of years have not been this. Their next 5 will need to be.

Gunther TheBlack
12-29-2008, 22:51
Let's hope AMD doesn't crash, we need some competition on the market!

Silverhandorder
12-29-2008, 22:53
The hope isn't that they don't crash the hope is to that better competition takes their place.

Viluin
12-29-2008, 22:55
The hope isn't that they don't crash the hope is to that better competition takes their place.

A brand new chipmaker won't suddenly emerge and successfully compete with Intel. If anything, AMD will be bought just like ATI was bought. Chances are the name won't even change.

Surly
12-29-2008, 23:06
The hope isn't that they don't crash the hope is to that better competition takes their place.
That would be nice... if AMD collapsed there'd be a pretty big power vacuum and room for more competition.

Who knows? Cyrix might come back into the mainstream world! GOGO Cyrix!

AMD is a company I wish I could love, but they suck too much.

keeperofstars
12-29-2008, 23:27
and kmart tanked into rock bottom stock and market shares, talking 1 buck a share, yet they did what? fucking went and bought sears and now the "merged" company is actually looking half ass decent.

Just cause a stock market report, or a bad deal happens doesn't mean a company is out of the picture, fuck look at mac's every one thought that for once the fucking mac would die and rest in peace, then what fucking happened. Itunes, Ipods, Ifucking annoyingshit. Now they are actually trying to once again compete with windows.

Please for the love of anything that is dark or holy, don't start a mac vs window war. Just pointing out that a dead company isn't dead till the doors shut and the stock ticker goes away.

Oveall I think AMD is about to get a huge boost in market share. Overall they still make the best and cheapest 64 bit chip sets. Problem is that until this year nothing fucking supported 64 bit chips. Now that is starting to change people are starting to make the swap to 64 bit processing, and intel having a few chips flop recently, leaves AMD a place in the market. Now will they ever fucking get close to competing with Intel Fuck NO they wont. However they will fill the market niche of that low cost walmart computer that is 300 bucks cheaper cause it has a AMD in it vs intel chip. Go look at best buy, if your below 600 bucks it has a AMD in it if your go above 600 bucks it has intel.

Also intel would actually hate to see AMD go out of the way, cause then ever fucking small company wants to sue you and your monopoly now I know nividia is starting into the cpu world, but they still new in the market of cpu's.

Malhavok
12-29-2008, 23:54
So, the guy who thinks AMD actually makes the best and cheapest chips thinks AMD is going to have a huge resurgence. Gee, that's a huge fucking vote of fucking fuck confidence. Fuck.

Agge
12-29-2008, 23:57
If this makes them fight harder to survive, thusly trying to make better hardware for a better price, this could be a good thing.

I'm not worried.

Slypieguy
12-30-2008, 01:04
Citing the fact that their stock has been cut in half in the last 6 months is pretty weak, cosidering so many stocks, even good ones, have had the same thing happen to them, including Intel :ohno:

All other chipmakers have already spun off their manufacturing divisions, AMD was the only one left, a bit behind the others in that regard. The deal wasn't cut completely, it was just lessened. So it's still a plus for AMD, just not as much as originally expected. Also, They cut their losses sixfold last quarter compared to that quarter 1 year ago. They aren't a bank stock, so they aren't as likely to just fold or get bought out when their share price goes down so low. I read an article a couple days ago from an analyst that picked AMD as his #1 10-bagger in 2009 (saying he thinks it will go to $10). Of course they still have marketshare problems and the recession will be hitting them, but they should survive if the recession isn't too deep and as long as they don't make some big gaffes.

Malhavok
12-30-2008, 01:08
Citing the fact that their stock has been cut in half in the last 6 months is pretty weak, cosidering so many stocks, even good ones, have had the same thing happen to them, including Intel :ohno:

All other chipmakers have already spun off their manufacturing divisions, AMD was the only one left, a bit behind the others in that regard. The deal wasn't cut completely, it was just lessened. So it's still a plus for AMD, just not as much as originally expected. Also, They cut their losses sixfold last quarter compared to that quarter 1 year ago. They aren't a bank stock, so they aren't as likely to just fold or get bought out when their share price goes down so low. I read an article a couple days ago from an analyst that picked AMD as his #1 10-bagger in 2009 (saying he thinks it will go to $10). Of course they still have marketshare problems and the recession will be hitting them, but they should survive if the recession isn't too deep and as long as they don't make some big gaffes.

Would you be happier if I said it lost 95% of it's value since 2006? Even GM has only lost 90%.

Q3 Didn't go so bad for them, so unless Q4 is another shitter I'd say they've turned the corner already. I should note I don't follow AMD at all and this is based off a 10 second glance at reuters.

Surly
12-30-2008, 01:44
Citing the fact that their stock has been cut in half in the last 6 months is pretty weak, cosidering so many stocks, even good ones, have had the same thing happen to them, including Intel :ohno:

All other chipmakers have already spun off their manufacturing divisions, AMD was the only one left, a bit behind the others in that regard. The deal wasn't cut completely, it was just lessened. So it's still a plus for AMD, just not as much as originally expected. Also, They cut their losses sixfold last quarter compared to that quarter 1 year ago. They aren't a bank stock, so they aren't as likely to just fold or get bought out when their share price goes down so low. I read an article a couple days ago from an analyst that picked AMD as his #1 10-bagger in 2009 (saying he thinks it will go to $10). Of course they still have marketshare problems and the recession will be hitting them, but they should survive if the recession isn't too deep and as long as they don't make some big gaffes.Intel's only down 30% on the last 6 months, they're definitely beating the average. They also still trade around 15, while AMD has finally sunk under THREE. Just 2 years ago they were trading at 40.

I wasn't stating the last 6 months being the shame of AMD's business practices, it's been an ongoing thing for them. AMD hit bottom, and over the last 6 months has only tried to burrow underground. They've lost almost 95% in 2 years. This last 6 months was important for them because of the endeavor with Abu Dhabi... it didn't help, and they've wound up losing another 50%.

The company is in dire straits and is seriously at risk of being bought out or going under. Their cashflow problem was going to be offset a little bit by selling off so many shares to Mubadala at a good price, but they backed out and renegotiated it at current prices... so that's dead in the water too.

So all I'm saying is that they need a 2009 motherfucking miracle to get back any platform to be competitive with.

I'm not a fan of Intel. To date, I have never built a single Intel system. I still don't own one. I'm just very disappointed in AMD. They never should have bought ATI.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 01:46
So all I'm saying is that they need a 2009 motherfucking miracle to get back any platform to be competitive with.


Dragon platform. Google it.

Metal Wolf
12-30-2008, 01:51
AMD is fucked. And that is from a diehard Fanboy. I'm trying me best to figure out a reason to get a phenom II system but its really fucking hard to justify.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 02:00
AMD is fucked. And that is from a diehard Fanboy. I'm trying me best to figure out a reason to get a phenom II system but its really fucking hard to justify.

And why is that? Are you afraid AMD will scam you with a cheaper system that performs the same? Ohnoes.

Surly
12-30-2008, 02:01
Dragon platform. Google it.Yes... a niche market performance platform that is both speculative and highly unlikely to achieve superiority and economic feasibility over intel/nvidia is going to save the company from this many compounded problems.

:rolleyes:

Viluin
12-30-2008, 02:04
Yes... a niche market performance platform that is both speculative and highly unlikely to achieve superiority and economic feasibility over intel/nvidia is going to save the company from this many compounded problems.

:rolleyes:

How can you argue with the Dragon platform? What the hell? $400-450 for RAM, CPU and motherboard. And the CPU will clock to 4Ghz with this setup. Try building a similar Intel system, you won't be able to. A random $100 Intel board with a cheap quad would severely limit overclocking, it would never reach the same level as the Phenom II.

Septus
12-30-2008, 02:05
and their stock prices have cut in half over the last 6 months.

So has Intel's. So there?

Kekshorts
12-30-2008, 02:08
My mistake buying an AMD mobo. Guess this means i'll actually have to get a real sound card if I want to keep the updates.

Surly
12-30-2008, 02:10
So has Intel's. So there?So you're wrong. So there? Intel fared twice as well as AMD over the last 6 months.

Septus
12-30-2008, 02:13
So you're wrong. So there? Intel fared twice as well as AMD over the last 6 months.

lol, twice as well. In a vacuum sure, but look at the market cap for these stocks. You're comparing McDonald's to Marie Calendars and then acting surprised that Marie Calendars is losing more stock value in a market downturn. Idiot.

(Not to mention Intel's huge stock buy backs)

Malhavok
12-30-2008, 02:15
How can you argue with the Dragon platform? What the hell? $400-450 for RAM, CPU and motherboard. And the CPU will clock to 4Ghz with this setup. Try building a similar Intel system, you won't be able to. A random $100 Intel board with a cheap quad would severely limit overclocking, it would never reach the same level as the Phenom II.

Done and Done

Gigabye P45 $100
Intel E8500 3.2ghz clocked at 3.8ghz on stock cooler, haven't tried to go farther. $190
RAM - $45

I mean sure it's quad instead of dual core... but I'm a gamer I don't care. And it's not like the cheapo Q6660 didn't clock close to 4ghz a year ago. Doing 10% more than what Intel has offered for nearly two years (by the time the Dragon comes out) for a few bucks more isn't impressive. Of course clock speeds don't mean much... look at what the i7 does to C2Duo chips at equal clock speeds on non-gaming apps.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 02:18
Done and Done

Gigabye P45 $100
Intel E8500 3.2ghz clocked at 3.8ghz on stock cooler, haven't tried to go farther. $190
RAM - $45

I mean sure it's quad instead of dual core... but I'm a gamer I don't care. And it's not like the cheapo Q6660 didn't clock close to 4ghz a year ago. Doing 10% more than what Intel has offered for nearly two years (by the time the Dragon comes out) for a few bucks more isn't impressive. Of course clock speeds don't mean much... look at what the i7 does to C2Duo chips at equal clock speeds on non-gaming apps.


God you're stupid. To get a Q6600 to 4Ghz you need an expensive motherboard. What's the multiplier on those things? You need a massive FSB to get to 4Ghz.

Oh, and ITS A DUAL CORE BUT IT DOESNT MATTER CUZ IM A GAMER LOL. Don't be stupid, some games already benefit from 4 cores and more will surely follow. You can't possibly compare a Phenom II 940 to a measly E8500, not anymore.

Surly
12-30-2008, 02:19
lol, twice as well. In a vacuum sure, but look at the market cap for these stocks. You're comparing McDonald's to Marie Calendars and then acting surprised that Marie Calendars is losing more stock value in a market downturn. Idiot.
Haha, that's the most uninformed thing anyone has ever said in the history of forumfall. AMD and Intel are very comparable companies. They both make CPUs and GPUs and compete directly for the same business. I'm comparing McDonald's to Burger King.

Septus
12-30-2008, 02:20
Haha, that's the most uninformed thing anyone has ever said in the history of forumfall. AMD and Intel are very comparable companies. They both make CPUs and GPUs and compete directly for the same business. I'm comparing McDonald's to Burger King.

Do you even know what market cap is? You're fucking retarded.

Even comparing McD's to BK, McD's destroyed BK. Because in market downturns, market cap is king.

Surly
12-30-2008, 02:22
God you're stupid. To get a Q6600 to 4Ghz you need an expensive motherboard. What's the multiplier on those things? You need a massive FSB to get to 4Ghz.

Oh, and ITS A DUAL CORE BUT IT DOESNT MATTER CUZ IM A GAMER LOL. Don't be stupid, some games already benefit from 4 cores and more will surely follow. You can't possibly compare a Phenom II 940 to a measly E8500, not anymore.
Well, when you're calling people idiots over 15% performance fluctuations and demanding your little crap-box is going to save AMD from imminent collapse... I think we can compare a Phenom II to anything we want. I think I'll choose a rock, which I hope some one lobs at your head.

Phenom II is not going to save AMD, it's not even going to come close. What AMD needs to do with the Dragon Platform is turn it into a "Console" that sells as a single unit in stores as a gaming platform... and then, suddenly, have every person on the planet buy it.

Surly
12-30-2008, 02:22
Do you even know what market cap is? You're fucking retarded.
No you're fucking retarded!

Viluin
12-30-2008, 02:43
Surly, go bump that other thread you suspiciously left after I widened your anus.

Malhavok
12-30-2008, 02:45
God you're stupid. To get a Q6600 to 4Ghz you need an expensive motherboard. What's the multiplier on those things? You need a massive FSB to get to 4Ghz.

Oh, and ITS A DUAL CORE BUT IT DOESNT MATTER CUZ IM A GAMER LOL. Don't be stupiid, some games already benefit from 4 cores and more will surely follow. You can't possibly compare a Phenom II 940 to a measly E8500, not anymore.

No, you don't. You can pick up a nice P45/P43 mobo for around $100 that'll OC a Q6600 to the 3.6 to 3.8ghz range quite nicely. Eeking more is possible, numerous people have done 4ghz with the Q6600 on air. This isn't like the Phenom II which actually requires a good board to OC, pretty muh any piece of shit will work to OC a C2D chip with out melting the mobo due to inability provide juice to the CPU like was done in the preview of the Phenom 2.

Haven't seen anything outside OCworkbenches horribly done review. Still looks like the P2 940 compares nicely to the i7 940. The i7 costs $570 o_O while the P2 940 will be ~$350. The i7 920 @ $270 and P2 920 @ ~$300. My lowly E8500 compares very well given my other hardware (260 GTX, 4 gigs DDR2). Now if you're talking GTX 280... the no, there's a significant advantage in the I7 chipset. I could have gone 4850 and I7 920 for more than I spent on an E8500 260 GTX setup. Not worth it.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 02:50
No, you don't. You can pick up a nice P45/P43 mobo for around $100 that'll OC a Q6600 to the 3.6 to 3.8ghz range quite nicely. This isn't like the Phenom II which actually requires a good board to OC, pretty muh any piece of shit will work to OC a C2D chip with out melting the mobo due to inability provide juice to the CPU like was done in the preview.

The Q6600 has a multiplier of 9. You have to OC your board quite a bit to max it out. Reaching 4Ghz means you need an FSB of around 445. Budget boards won't do that, especially not if they come with small generic aluminum heatsinks.

The Phenom II 940 comes with an unlocked multiplier, you don't have to raise the FSB to overclock it. Any shitty budget board can max out a Phenom II provided it can handle the power requirement.


Haven't seen anything outside OCworkbenches horribly done review. Still looks like the P2 940 compares nicely to the i7 940. The i7 costs $570 o_O while the P2 940 will be ~$350. The i7 920 @ $270 and P2 920 @ ~$300. My lowly E8500 compares very well given my other hardware (260 GTX, 4 gigs DDR2). Now if you're talking GTX 280... the no, there's a significant advantage in the I7 chipset. I could have gone 4850 and I7 920 for more than I spent on an E8500 260 GTX setup. Not worth it.

The Phenom II 940 is supposed to be priced around $270, not 350. Now do you see why it's so awesome?

Voodoo Hoodoo
12-30-2008, 03:04
I'm pretty sure they won't go bust before May '09, when the Phenom II actually can be purchased.

Having said that, Surly is bang on. AMD is in a serious financial crisis.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 03:08
I'm pretty sure they won't go bust before May '09, when the Phenom II actually can be purchased.

Having said that, Surly is bang on. AMD is in a serious financial crisis.

January '09, fool.

The Phenom II Deneb core will be phased out in May to make room for AM3.

Malhavok
12-30-2008, 03:10
The Q6600 has a multiplier of 9. You have to OC your board quite a bit to max it out. Reaching 4Ghz means you need an FSB of around 445. Budget boards won't do that, especially not if they come with small generic aluminum heatsinks.

My $100 budget board is doing quite nicely at 400. Now, gigabyte doesn't make the best OC boards but even I'm reasonably sure I could get a measly 10% OC on the FSB to hit 440.



The Phenom II 940 comes with an unlocked multiplier, you don't have to raise the FSB to overclock it. Any shitty budget board can max out a Phenom II provided it can handle the power requirement.

Much more advantage in maxing the FSB. Hell, in my younger years when I used AMD chips I always ended up lowering the multiplier so I could raise the FSB more. Always good to have the BE with the unlocked multiplier though.



The Phenom II 940 is supposed to be priced around $270, not 350. Now do you see why it's so awesome?
If it actually comes in at $270 for the 940 I'll be impressed. At $350, not so much.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 03:19
My $100 budget board is doing quite nicely at 400. Now, gigabyte doesn't make the best OC boards but even I'm reasonably sure I could get a measly 10% OC on the FSB to hit 440.

Don't be too sure of that, even the really high-end boards cap out at around 460.



Much more advantage in maxing the FSB. Hell, in my younger years when I used AMD chips I always ended up lowering the multiplier so I could raise the FSB more. Always good to have the BE with the unlocked multiplier though.

There is no advantage to FSB overclocking. None. Your CPU is not in need of more bandwidth. FSB overclocking was preferred in the old days because it was the only way to OC your memory, but now that we have RAM dividers it is unnecessary. Although a small amount of FSB fine tuning to achieve the desired clocks is useful.

Malhavok
12-30-2008, 03:37
Don't be too sure of that, even the really high-end boards cap out at around 460.



There is no advantage to FSB overclocking. None. Your CPU is not in need of more bandwidth. FSB overclocking was preferred in the old days because it was the only way to OC your memory, but now that we have RAM dividers it is unnecessary. Although a small amount of FSB fine tuning to achieve the desired clocks is useful.
Eh, no. FSB affects anything coming to and off the processor. R/W requests to your GPU, RAM, HDDs, etc. Considering how much is done OFF the processor it's still as important as ever. Now that you don't have a choice but to run in asynch mode it's not quite as important as it used to be as you already have no choice but to take the huge performance hit.

For C2D chips the most important factors in performance are tRD and FSB since the multiplier is locked. The 450-460 "cieling" is for those who are afraid of voltage. I ran my old 3500+ rig at 460 three years ago. Now, I didn't buy this rig to OC out the ears. I wanted to hit around 4 ghz so I didn't particularly care. At the factory rated 400 fsb I'm quite happy with no stability issues and tight tRD timings. I've yet to touch the voltage aside from upping the vram from 1.8 to 1.9, which is the recommended voltage for my memory. FSB is all a matter of voltages. Everything on my board is passive cooling it'd do lousy at higher voltages.

You'll always want to max FSB for given memory timings and then (if available) the multiplier. Knock down the multiplier and OC your rig properly and then bring it back up as high as possible once you've hit the maximum stable OC for the rest of the system. I have no interest in chasing GHz by running comatose memory timings.

Surly
12-30-2008, 04:41
Surly, go bump that other thread you suspiciously left after I widened your anus.I do have to sleep every now and then. Speaking of widened anuses... your fanatical trumpeting of AMD is going to have to draw to a close pretty soon since they're tanking with no light shining out the end of your ass in sight.

lafayette
12-30-2008, 04:43
Unless something very fortunate happens for AMD in the next cycle, I don't predict them surviving the depression



Fixt that for ya ;)

Surly
12-30-2008, 04:48
Fixt that for ya ;)
Oh yeah, oops.

Timthelord
12-30-2008, 05:13
Everyone got and buy a billiob bucks worth of AMD stuff.

popsaregood230
12-30-2008, 05:43
EA is gonna buy out AMD and carebear it lulz.

Slypieguy
12-30-2008, 09:14
The phenom is just a desktop processor right? That isn't what will get them back where they need to be. The real money is made in business (server) hardware and laptops. Home desktops are the bottom of the barrel as a percentage of where AMD and Intel make their money.


Intel's only down 30% on the last 6 months, they're definitely beating the average. They also still trade around 15, while AMD has finally sunk under THREE. Just 2 years ago they were trading at 40.


Intel topped out at 24.52 in the last 6 months, and is now at 14.13. I'm too lazy to do the simple math, but that's more than 30%. Also, raw share price means absolutely nothing, it's all about p/e and all that fun stuff. Yes over the last couple years they have been fucking hammered down from 40, but over the last 6 months, their performance is on par with its competitors (horrible under the overall market pressure). And it is expected that they would fare a bit less well than Intel, since they were already churning out negative quarters and losing the marketshare battle.



I wasn't stating the last 6 months being the shame of AMD's business practices, it's been an ongoing thing for them. AMD hit bottom, and over the last 6 months has only tried to burrow underground. They've lost almost 95% in 2 years. This last 6 months was important for them because of the endeavor with Abu Dhabi... it didn't help, and they've wound up losing another 50%.


But the 50% loss was not because of the Abu Dhabi thing. Semis have been in a bear market for a good while now, and this news did virtually nothing to the stock. When the deal was first announced, it was good for a 1-day pop, and that's about it.



The company is in dire straits and is seriously at risk of being bought out or going under. Their cashflow problem was going to be offset a little bit by selling off so many shares to Mubadala at a good price, but they backed out and renegotiated it at current prices... so that's dead in the water too.


If that were the case, the stock would have tanked on release of this news. It didn't. But maybe you know the details of this deal and its implications better than professional analysts and investors.



I'm not a fan of Intel. To date, I have never built a single Intel system. I still don't own one. I'm just very disappointed in AMD. They never should have bought ATI.

The ATI acquisition was a big albatross at first, but from what I've read it's now going pretty well. They need to come out with a pimpass mobile processor. I'm hoping the stock gets back up to like 5, then someone buys them out around 8 or 9. Not gonna happen, but I can dream.

Viluin
12-30-2008, 09:41
Eh, no. FSB affects anything coming to and off the processor. R/W requests to your GPU, RAM, HDDs, etc. Considering how much is done OFF the processor it's still as important as ever. Now that you don't have a choice but to run in asynch mode it's not quite as important as it used to be as you already have no choice but to take the huge performance hit.

But guess what? Your CPU doesn't need more bandwidth in those areas. It's not a bottleneck. Well, not in the AMD camp anyway, with HyperTransport.



For C2D chips the most important factors in performance are tRD and FSB since the multiplier is locked. The 450-460 "cieling" is for those who are afraid of voltage. I ran my old 3500+ rig at 460 three years ago. Now, I didn't buy this rig to OC out the ears. I wanted to hit around 4 ghz so I didn't particularly care. At the factory rated 400 fsb I'm quite happy with no stability issues and tight tRD timings. I've yet to touch the voltage aside from upping the vram from 1.8 to 1.9, which is the recommended voltage for my memory. FSB is all a matter of voltages. Everything on my board is passive cooling it'd do lousy at higher voltages.

You ran an Athlon 64 3500+ at 460HT? Bullshit much? Around 300-325 is where most boards cap out, no AMD board will ever do 460. It's kind of insane when they all run at 200HT standard.



You'll always want to max FSB for given memory timings and then (if available) the multiplier. Knock down the multiplier and OC your rig properly and then bring it back up as high as possible once you've hit the maximum stable OC for the rest of the system. I have no interest in chasing GHz by running comatose memory timings.

AMD processors simply don't benefit from a higher HT clock. The older Athlon X2 CPUs could be run at 200x2 = 400Mhz HT instead of the standard 200x5 = 1000Mhz HT without losing any performance. And current boards go up to 200x26 - 5200Mhz HT. The CPU has more bandwidth than it will ever be able to use. There are other bottlenecks in the system.

I agree with you on the memory. If you want to run it at precise speeds, you'll have to mess with the FSB. I have my X2 4000+ at 295 x 8 right now, with the memory at 1066 even though technically only 800 is supported by my CPU's memory controller. It took me tons of tweaking, but I managed to get it to run at 1066 5-5-5-15 2T. It's only cheap ddr2-800 too.

kalahde
12-30-2008, 11:50
http://www.amd.com/us-en/Corporate/AboutAMD/0,,51_52_15438_15106,00.html

This should save them (real time rendering of cinematic quality graphics), if not its a shame this will probably die with them.

Surly
12-30-2008, 12:33
The phenom is just a desktop processor right? That isn't what will get them back where they need to be. The real money is made in business (server) hardware and laptops. Home desktops are the bottom of the barrel as a percentage of where AMD and Intel make their money.



Intel topped out at 24.52 in the last 6 months, and is now at 14.13. I'm too lazy to do the simple math, but that's more than 30%. Also, raw share price means absolutely nothing, it's all about p/e and all that fun stuff. Yes over the last couple years they have been fucking hammered down from 40, but over the last 6 months, their performance is on par with its competitors (horrible under the overall market pressure). And it is expected that they would fare a bit less well than Intel, since they were already churning out negative quarters and losing the marketshare battle.



But the 50% loss was not because of the Abu Dhabi thing. Semis have been in a bear market for a good while now, and this news did virtually nothing to the stock. When the deal was first announced, it was good for a 1-day pop, and that's about it.More like 2 weeks... but I never claimed this was the issue. I only claimed that this is the biggest news going on with AMD, and the thing that "didn't help" is the financial gain they were getting out of the deal. As explained, and repeated, they've had to renegotiate the investment which has drastically cut AMD's revenue increase from the investment. That hurts AMD a lot... cutting their cashflow from Abu Dhabi in half. They've been losing money consistently for 2 years straight, with no end in sight.

Of course they aren't going to perform as well as Intel on the market, but the pain for AMD isn't just the last 6 months. They haven't done well in the last 6 months, either, but they've been doing spectacularly poor for two years running. It's one of the most decimated companies on the market for investors already, you'd have a hard time finding any companies of its size doing as poorly.


If that were the case, the stock would have tanked on release of this news. It didn't. But maybe you know the details of this deal and its implications better than professional analysts and investors.Haha, they have already tanked. They aren't in imminent threat of being taken over yet, that's not even been suggested. They are in serious trouble, and are definitely at risk of going under in the next year. Not today, not tomorrow, not this week. So "if that were the case", and it is, it wouldn't have any strong impact on their stock this week. You said yourself it's a bear market, and then criticize the analysis of long-term effects and problems with AMD? Contradiction is strong!


The ATI acquisition was a big albatross at first, but from what I've read it's now going pretty well. They need to come out with a pimpass mobile processor. I'm hoping the stock gets back up to like 5, then someone buys them out around 8 or 9. Not gonna happen, but I can dream.Yeah, you can hope. Getting ATI is inarguably the worst thing AMD ever did... they won't be able to recover from it for years, even if the GPU side of AMD winds up being what keeps them from going under (which it doesn't look like it will). Maybe 10 years down the road if AMD somehow manages to hang on it won't look like such a big mistake, but the expected results the combined prowess of AMD/ATI were supposed to produce just didn't happen... and they've been paying the price for it. That's common knowledge.

Most recently, it's manifested itself with them getting fucked out of a lot of money with the biggest deal they have going right now. That's all I've been saying, and the only reason I posted the news. All eyes should be on what happens with this investment. AMD is giving up 20% interest in its company for this joint project, and the Foundry Company won't be making an impact on AMD's manufacturing in any real way for a while yet.

Do you even know what the whole purpose of this project is? They're trying to get a manufacturing facility capable of churning out 45nm processors cheaper than Intel can... but even with low production costs, AMD has had to reduce their interest in the company meaning, effectively, the facilities are completely in control of Mubadala now since ATIC isn't going to outvote them. It's a great investment and something AMD needs, and definitely isn't a bad idea... but the cost of it all? AMD is clearly, clearly hurting on this one. They have almost no leverage left. They will be at the mercy of Mubadala for production of their new generations of processors... and the benefits of the current production facilities (which are at least 80% of the cost involved) are only going to last around three years. And that's assuming AMD can survive that long.

If a crate full of money fell at the AMD headquarters with $100b in it, they'd probably turn into a major competitor in 6 months. Money is hamstringing them. I think they underestimated greatly how big of an impact the ATI acquisition would have on them. It crushed (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/35669/118/) their finances, and as you can see there, their market capitalization is now (http://www.tgdaily.com/content/view/40755/118/) almost a third what it was this time last year. It can't even cover the estimated value of ATI, alone. I don't even understand what you're arguing about.

-Jotun
12-30-2008, 12:41
only a retard would think that amd is somehow doing well