SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) has posted another quarter of disappointing financial results:
The Computing and Graphics segment continues to struggle, although AMD did see stronger sequential growth here with the recent launch of Carrizo. Revenue increased 12% over last quarter, although it is still down 46% year-over-year. This segment had an operating loss of $181 million for the quarter, up from a loss of $147 million last quarter and a loss of $17 million a year ago. Sequentially, the loss is mostly attributed to a write-down of $65 million which AMD is taking on older-generation products. Annually, the decrease is due to lower overall sales. Unlike Intel, AMD processors had a decrease in Average Selling Price (ASP) both sequentially and year-over-year, so there was no help there from the lower sales volume. The GPU ASP was a different story, staying flat sequentially and increasing year-over-year. Recent launches of new AMD graphics cards have helped here.
Alongside the Q3 2015 earnings release, AMD has announced that it is selling an 85% stake in its back-end manufacturing operations. ATMP, "for assembly, test, mark, and pack," is the step in semiconductor manufacturing that takes a finished wafer of chips and cuts them up into individual chips for customer use. AMD retained these operations even after the spin-off of chip fabrication in the form of GlobalFoundries in 2009. Nantong Fujitsu Microelectronics (NFME) will pay AMD $371 million ($320 million after taxes and expenses), and operate a joint venture to produce chips:
[More after the break.]
As for the joint venture itself, this gives NFME the ability to further expand into the market for semiconductor assembly and test services (SATS). With AMD's lower product volumes no doubt making it harder to fully utilize their high-volume ATMP facilities, a joint venture with NFME can bring more work into those facilities by having them work for additional customers beyond AMD. Furthermore NVME also gains the R&D experience that comes with AMD's ATMP operations, which for them is a competitive advantage against other 3rd party SATS providers.
The news comes just days after AMD "Corporate Fellow" Phil Rogers departed for competitor NVIDIA after working at ATI and AMD for 21 years:
As one of AMD's high-ranking technology & engineering corporate fellows, Rogers' held an important position at AMD. For the last several years, Rogers has been responsible for helping to develop the software ecosystem behind AMD's heterogeneous computing products and the Heterogeneous System Architecture. As a result, Rogers has straddled the line as a public figure for AMD; in his position at AMD, Rogers was very active on the software development and evangelism side, frequently presenting the latest HSA tech and announcements for AMD at keynotes and conferences.
[...] Meanwhile of equal interest is where Rogers has landed: AMD's arch-rival NVIDIA. According to his LinkedIn profile Phil Rogers is now NVIDIA's "Chief Software Architect – Compute Server" a position that sounds very similar to what he was doing over at AMD. NVIDIA is not a member of the HSA Foundation, but they are currently gearing up for the launch of the Pascal GPU family, which has some features that overlap well with Phil Rogers' expertise. Pascal's NVLink CPU & GPU interconnect would allow tightly coupled heterogonous computing similar to what AMD has been working on, so for NVIDIA to bring over a heterogeneous compute specialist makes a great deal of sense for the company. And similarly for Rogers, in leaving AMD, NVIDIA is the most logical place for him to go.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by martyb on Saturday October 17 2015, @01:37AM
It's sad. In my opinion, there is a need for a company to run toe-to-toe with Intel.
AMD was the first in the marketplace with a 64-bit x86 architecture.
Their Mantle programming tools seem to provide a means by which developers can get more performance out of their GPUs.
Their merging the CPU and GPU onto one die seems like it has some real staying power.
Unfortunately, as I recall it (please correct me if I am wrong) that Intel provided funds for advertising to PC OEMs, but only so long as they were an all-Intel shop. That, effectively, blocked AMD from making any real inroads with the likes of Dell.
That said, AMD made some mistakes of their own. Their video drivers had a reputation of being buggy. They built their own chip fab (at a huge cost) well ahead of the time they were able to drive enough business to make it a sustainable, going concern. That cut into their R&D budget, reducing their ability to keep competitive products coming down the pipe.
I certainly hope they can pull through and keep the products coming. The more competion between them, the better off we will be.
Disclaimer: I bought an AMD Athlon 64 based HP laptop back in '05 and it gave me 10 solid years of service and the main reason I am no longer using it is that the hard drive started reporting errors. That, and for the last 7 years, it had a broken screen (so I used an external monitor) and the battery had long-since stopped holding a charge (so I just kept it plugged in all the time.)
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Saturday October 17 2015, @01:57AM
It's sad. In my opinion, there is a need for a company to run toe-to-toe with Intel.
And, there is a need for a company to run toe-to-toe with Nvidia.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday October 17 2015, @02:41AM
The consensus seems to be that even if AMD x86 fails completely, the graphics division will either take over or be sold off and continue to exist. It is profitable and it will live on.
On a side note, future NVIDIA high-end GPUs [xbitlabs.com] may include Project Denver [wikipedia.org] ARM cores. There is no escape from the CPU.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2015, @02:27AM
Intel has probably outdone AMD on power sensitive systems like laptops as well, which helps them in modern times where people have a Personal Laptop rather than Computer.
AMD really needs to aim at owning the games market in the short/medium term.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2015, @02:29AM
x86-64 was a great achievement, but it was borne out of necessity: in the late 90's, Intel was betting on Itanium to be the 64-bit architecture to replace x86, first on mainframe-scale systems, then servers, then desktops. That never made its way out of the ultra-expensive niche of the mainframe-scale systems, mostly due to the need to port to IA-64, as well as the dog slow x86 emulation, which IIRC was handled by a coprocessor chip on the mainboard. Microsoft's cynical, grizzled veteran Raymond Chen (arguably an engineer who is about as un-21st-century-Microsoftian as is possible) posted a long, LONG series on the Itanium architecture, which starts here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/oldnewthing/archive/2015/07/27/10630772.aspx [msdn.com]
Alongside the release of Itanium, Intel then worked on the NetBurst architecture which became the Pentium 4. When it first came out, it was ridiculously expensive, and required Rambus RIMM modules. I remember John Romero posting on his blog (this was 2000, back when he was supposedly still working on Daikatana) about buying a new Pentium 4 CPU with Rambus RIMMs and its expensive motherboard. I remember thinking, "Wow, what an idiot. Ah well, he has the money for it." The Athlon was a far better bang-for-buck, and even had faster FPU performance later on. I remember upgrading my P3 500MHz system to an Athlon Thunderbird 1.33 GHz (and being very, very careful about the heatsink, back in the days when installing it wrong meant the CPU die literally going up in smoke: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UoXRHexGIok [youtube.com] ).
Intel eventually arrived to the x86-64 party late, in 2004, but they were still struggling along with the NetBurst architecture, which despite its higher clock speed, had a longer pipeline, and ridiculous thermal output for the time (back before videocards became the hottest component in a gaming PC). What eventually saved Intel was Nehalem, which was based off of the Core (Yonah) microarchitecture, which was far more scalable, and abandoned the strange long pipeline of NetBurst. Somewhere between the Core 2 Duo and i7 was the last time that AMD was performance-competitive with Intel in the CPU field.
With ATI's flaky drivers, and Intel's rock solid chipsets for almost the past decade, I really haven't looked back at AMD. I don't think they can become competitive again without some magical way to shed their past baggage, but that would involve losing control of the quality control pipeline, which makes their quality problem worse. And being the provider of all the game console APUs apparently isn't paying the bills enough. This all seems self-inflicted.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2015, @02:50AM
It is always sad to see a retarded kid think he can beat a pro athlete. AMD has been the retarded kid since Intel's Core2.
Flush this turd down the toilet and put it out of its misery.
(Score: 2, Troll) by meisterister on Saturday October 17 2015, @07:34PM
...but they can and did for about 6 years.
The original Athlon kicked the PIII and later P4's ass, and even then AMD was up against a "pro athlete." Hell, even the K6 and K6-II were still very competitive with Intel's offerings in the mid-late '90s.
The only reason that AMD is in the position it's in right now is because of horrible mismanagement. The K8 core in the Athlon 64 was originally going to be far wider and more ambitious, but internal scuffles ensured that it was just a beefed up K7. AMD also sat still and watched as Intel whipped the Pentium III into shape with the Pentium M, and didn't even bother starting development on a new architecture to take over from K8.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 18 2015, @08:43PM
Reading comprehension ain't your strong suit I see. Yes, they were ahead until Intel's Core2. Simce them AMD has been a turd.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 17 2015, @09:55AM
AMD has been making the same mistakes since the 70s. And they all come from the top.
While the founders of Intel were driving around in middle class passenger cars, the CEO of AMD was driving around in a Ferrari. While Intel was rolling its money heavily back into R&D, AMD was already cutting corners. It is one of the reasons they had processors that seemed so much faster than Intel's when they were just a second source supplier: Intel's testing was much more thorough and their numbers much more conservative.
Intel has acted like they were taken over by MBAs since the late 80s/early 90s. (they did a number of really scummy things, mostly pushed by the sales dept.) However, while Intel's reinvestment strategy allowed them to overtake the entire semiconductor manufacturing industry, technology-wise, AMD's cost cutting, golden parachutes and salaries, and general 'corporate slacker culture' has sunk them ever further into irrelevancy.
That said: I'm going to stock up on a few ECC-capable AMD chips and mobos before they go under. Fuck if I'm going to let a bunch of Intel hardware into my house with signed firmware I can't audit or replace.