AMD revenues, profits down, but still in the black

Well, AMD has some good news and some bad news in its freshly released quarterly results announcement. The good news: AMD didn’t lose any money in the second quarter. And the bad news: the company’s revenue, profits, and gross margin were all down compared to the same quarter a year ago. See for yourself:

  Q2 2011 Q1 2012 Q2 2012
Revenue $1.57 billion $1.59 billion $1.41 billion
Net income $61 million -$590 million $37 million
Gross margin 46% 2% 45%

This shouldn’t come as a surprise if you’ve kept up with AMD news, of course—the chipmaker announced last week that Q2 revenue would fall short of expectations. True to the revised guidance, revenue ended up dropped about 11% sequentially, despite previous predictions of a 0-3% increase.

AMD CEO Rory Read blames the poor results on "overall weakness in the global economy, softer consumer spending and lower channel demand for our desktop processors in China and Europe." He adds:

We are taking definitive steps to improve our performance and correct the issues within our control as we expect headwinds will continue in the third quarter as the industry sets a new baseline. We remain optimistic about our core businesses as well as future opportunities with our competitively differentiated next-generation Accelerated Processor Units (APUs). Our recently launched Trinity APU continues to gain traction with customers. We are committed to driving profitable growth.

It looks like AMD’s graphics products fared better than its processors. The chipmaker says its Computing Solutions business saw a 13% revenue decrease from $1.20 billion to $1.05 billion, while its GPU sales were flat compared to last year, staying put at $367 million. GPU average selling prices (ASPs) increased year-over-year, too, while microprocessor ASPs fell.

Looking ahead to the ongoing quarter, AMD forecasts a revenue decrease of "1 percent, plus or minus 3 percent."

Comments closed
    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    I’m sorry to be bell ringer on AMD… but AMD as we knew it is already gone.

    Some numbers :

    Cash and Short Term Investments today 1,579.00 a year ago 1,861.00
    Total Liabilities today 3,924.00 a year ago 3,583.00

    Dont be fooled, AMD debt is increasing.

    amd Total Equity today 1,117.00 a year ago 1,641.00
    nvidia Total Equity today 4,287.43 a year ago 3,447.81

    So no, take all the accounting trick away and AMD is not in the black,
    FACT: AMD get itself 50 million$ deeper in debt every month.

    AMD predict a 1 to 4% lost of revenue for July-September, so things are getting worse.
    Specially on the back of this 11% drop .

    I think that If AMD didn’t receive that 1+ billion check from Intel, AMD would already be bankrupt. Because having a negative net worth and loosing 50 million a month is ripe for bankruptcy.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      Intel threw them a bone to bail them out. What’s a billion to Intel? They probably have tons of it. It’s so easy for them to throw AMD a few pennies than risk the FTC or regulators butting in if AMD collapses.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      If Intel hadn’t illegally muscled AMD out of the market they wouldn’t have had to pay them any money.

    • HighTech4US2
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]TR: It looks like AMD's graphics products fared better than its processors. The chipmaker says its Computing Solutions business saw a 13% revenue decrease from $1.20 billion to $1.05 billion, while its GPU sales were flat compared to last year, staying put at $367 million. GPU average selling prices (ASPs) increased year-over-year, too[/quote<] Expect GPU revenue to fall further next quarter as the effect of AMDs price cuts and competition from Nvidia heats up. And to say that the GPU business was good because it fell less than the CPU business is kind of like putting a dress on a pig. It will be prettier but still a pig. [quote<]Graphics segment revenue was $367 million, down 4% compared to the prior quarter due to seasonally lower unit shipments in the channel. GPU revenue was also down seasonally. Game console royalty revenue was flat sequentially. Graphics segment operating income was $31 million, down $3 million from the prior quarter, primarily due to seasonal declines in the revenue in the quarter.[/quote<] [url<]http://seekingalpha.com/article/734631-advanced-micro-devices-management-discusses-q2-2012-results-earnings-call-transcript?part=single[/url<]

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I’m not gonna cheer for AMD here by saying their CPUs are ‘good enough’ or anything like that, because I believe they were responsible for the lackluster FX lineup that, if everything went well with it, probably would’ve put AMD in a far better position nowadays. But what’s happening here is that people tend to just look at the short term and not the long term. They only care about what will be in their NEXT rig, not their rigs after that. So today we have the i5 and i7 chips that offer the best performance/watt and price/performance. That’s something that, quite frankly, AMD is increasingly finding harder and harder to match given Intel’s gazillions spent on R&D. I’m not blaming people for opting for an i7 over an FX because logic dictates that people want the best product their money will buy them. Unfortunately, long term, this will all be very bad for the computer industry in general, as we are all aware of.

    All this reminds me about the debates regarding the environment. People will always justify that they have to do the things they need to do even if it hurts the environment. It’s all short term. Of course, just like the AMD/Intel scenario, some people are doing their part in saving the environment. But will it be enough? I don’t really think so. In the case of AMD, there will always be people partial to AMD and still buy their products, but will it be enough? Frankly, I don’t think so too. Humans really do tend to think only for themselves and only for the short term, as hard as it is to accept.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      I spend more on environmentally friendly products. And I’m not worried about an Intel monopoly even if AMD goes under; Samsung will be there to compete, either with ARM products or, if they gobble up AMD, x86.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Would whoever acquires AMD be able to transfer the x86 license to themselves?

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          I think that’s a possibility.. the AMD-Intel settlement terms aren’t public, and I’ve seen many suggest that the terms might include x86 license transferability. And regulators might make it happen anyway if AMD collapses

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            But who would be crazy enough to snap AMD up and get into a fistfight with the Mighty Intel? Even somebody as big as IBM or Sony surely wouldn’t want to risk a bloody nose competing with a very strong company.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Samsung.

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            So let me get this straight? Is it ok for you if AMD and its technology falls into the hands of the Koreans? I assume you’re American. I’m not, but I don’t want AMD to go to Korea.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      So what ? you want a government mandate that require that OEM make 50% Intel and 50% AMD laptops? People vote with their wallet and clearly people dont want current AMD CPUs.

      AMD spent huge on R&D. 6 billion to make its APU by the ATI acquisition, and spend after that 200+ million on month on R&D. Thats more then Apple.
      Recently over 300 million to buy a PCIe ‘bridge’.

      AMD got an astronomical R&D budget, thats something that cant be denied.

      Law of nature, law of business all stack up against AMD. ‘We’ cant save them unless AMD save themselves and do something right for a change with all the money they are spending.

      Next month, go to repay 450 million of debt… and they dont even own any factories, just rent a bunch of office space.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Your first paragraph is exactly what I’m talking about. Yes, people vote with their wallets, and I did say that logic dictates that. Human logic, that is. Unfortunately human logic has its flaws and people tend to think short term, as you yourself are demonstrating.

        As for AMD ‘s less than stellar financial decisions, yes, they do tend to overpay for everything.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          Making any compromise to buy AMD is misdirected. What AMD need is not more money to burn, but better management, leadership, marketing & execution.
          The fact that they spend over 600 million a quarter already or 800 million a quarter wont change AMD DNA.

          So you might have noble intention in this particular case, but any money AMD receive from people getting AMD instead of Intel wont help.

          My point is that we shouldn’t artificially reward a company for struggling. The market will equalize itself.

          Keeping AMD around like a zombie is not in our best interest.

            • ronch
            • 7 years ago

            So my question here is, if AMD goes under some big guy will snap them up and inject new management? Just like that? Make no mistake… AMD management does suck (except when they processed my RMA really fast), and it’s as bad as HP’s, but…will somebody really pick them up and run them properly? Another concern is the transferability of the x86 license.

      • plonk420
      • 7 years ago

      well, i’m still happy with my 65 watt Phenom II X3 on my desktop to this day. gaming, i’m proudly an Intel Core i7 user.

      however, in defending AMD, i’m rather annoyed to see Toms with an alleged desktop Trinity review, but no GPU reviews to see if it can redeem itself from the embarassingly bad Skyrim/Civ5/Starcraft II* Bulldozer performance. (note: almost all of the other games are just fine compared to Sandy Bridge performance)

      *edit: and Metro 2033. i guess it’s sold 1.5m copies, but i only know one person that has played it

    • Vasilyfav
    • 7 years ago

    The amount of AMD shills in the comments is mind-boggling. Stop being apologetic for poor non-competitive products.

      • DancinJack
      • 7 years ago

      What products are you talking about?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        Any of their desktop and mobile CPU stuff is, generally speaking, non-competitive.

          • Chrispy_
          • 7 years ago

          And they’ve “given up” on the CPU side of their business too, so the gap is only going to widen until Intel can’t be bothered anymore.

          • Krogoth
          • 7 years ago

          Not for price.

          Performance in the normal desktop arena doesn’t matter that much anymore. There’s hardly anything that needs more power than what a Core 2 Quad and Phenom II 4X can yield.

          The focus is energy efficiency and Intel has the advantage here, but they do charge a premium for it. Mobile platforms reap the most benefits from the energy efficiency.

          AMD is back to being a budget-minded solution like it was during K6 era.

            • travbrad
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Performance in the normal desktop arena doesn't matter that much anymore.[/quote<] Yep that's the excuse AMD frequently uses now that they aren't competitive. I've owned a lot of AMD CPUs over the years, and hope that can somehow keep Intel on their toes, but this "we don't need that performance anyway" excuse from their PR department is pretty weak. [quote<]There's hardly anything that needs more power than what a Core 2 Quad and Phenom II 4X can yield.[/quote<] Games and video encoding benefit quite a bit from faster CPUs. While I realize a lot of consumers don't play PC games, the PC gaming market isn't quite as tiny as you seem to be implying. If you are just talking about web browsing and spreadsheets, then I'm not sure they needed to develop multi-core CPUs at all, let alone quad-cores. If AMD is developing CPUs for the "average consumer" now, their 8-core approach makes no sense. Web browsing and word processing is never going to use 8 threads. [quote<]The focus is energy efficiency and Intel has the advantage here, but they do charge a premium for it[/quote<] Unfortunately for AMD, the mobile market is bigger than the desktop market. [quote<]AMD is back to being a budget-minded solution like it was during K6 era.[/quote<] On an extremely tight budget maybe, but even the latest econobox build on TR used an Intel CPU as the primary choice.

            • Krogoth
            • 7 years ago

            Intel is doing the same thing.

            They aren’t playing too much attention to the desktop market. Just enough to keep the performance-types interested. They are focus mostly on server, workstation and mobile markets. AMD has been doing this as well, but obviously they didn’t have as much success.

            Games are typically limited to two threads and there are only handful that go beyond that count. The problem is that is difficult for coders to effectively harness multiple threads and the benefits quickly diminish as you go up in thread count. Besides, GPUs are the primary focus for PC gamers. Video encoding is being overtaken by modest GPGPUs and it will only get worse.

            AMD has a foot-hold in the budget-minded laptop and desktop markets.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      The amount of people that expect a company netting $400 million to be able to compete toe-to-toe with a company netting $13 billion is mind-boggling. Stop letting facts get in the way of your thoughtless, fanboy rage.

      • rrr
      • 7 years ago

      I’m guessing you’re AMD shill in disguise, because your obvious slanders make people hate Intel/nVidia more – their fanboys are complete and insufferable d-bags just like that.

    • bcronce
    • 7 years ago

    I still have 6months+ until I have to build a file server. If AMD can release something in the area I want, I will buy it.

    Kind of depressing when Intel’s net profit is greater than AMDs revenue.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      Intel’s spending on R&D is greater than AMD’s revenue.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        A single of Intel fab is worth more then AMD as a whole.

        Intel spend 5 billion alone for its new fab in Austin texas. AMD is currently worth 2.9 billion.

        AMD is pretty much gone… AMD stated that they will hurt in the next 3 month.

        Thats basically the time when Windows8 inventory is being build (OEM purchase) and back to school.

        AMD also didn’t announce any good news, no laptop wins with OEM, nothing out of seamicro.

        They also have debpt repayment hitting them hard next month in the tune of 450 million.
        *** 15% of their worth ***

        + that 700 million they own GF and the close to 200 million$ they burn a month in ‘R&D’

          • dpaus
          • 7 years ago

          And yet they’re still reporting revenue in excess of 1.4bn per quarter, and are profitable even after all those expenses.

          I know lots of companies that would love to be that badly off.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            That 700mil “one-time charge” to GloFo blew five years of profits in an instant.. Sure, AMD might [i<]look[/i<] profitable for a couple of quarters again, until the next one-time charge hits (e.g., RR's golden parachute)

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            Thats fluff when you have 4 billion in debt. Look at their balance sheet.
            (like that 450 million $ repayment they have to do in august…)

            Even if AMD could continue making 36 million a quarter (Q1 was bloody red, and they said they could loose another 3% of revenue this quarter)
            it would take AMD 27 years to repay they accrued debt (not counting interest).
            Thats best case.. if anything goes wrong, AMD will never go out of debt even after it sold all its fab and its entire Mobile business.

            On the book AMD is not even worth 1 billion (if you where to liquidate at full price)
            And I can tell you that their asset value is over inflated by 2x. (In short they have a negative book value)

            Company like nVidia, also a fabless entity like AMD, and have 4 time less debt.

            Biggest telling sign. AMD spend twice as much as nVidia on administration.
            Did you know that AMD spend a quarter billion $ a quarter just in administration cost??
            I guess you need to grease the VPs and accounting for the great work they are doing ..
            “Our revenue will go up 3%..” 6 weeks latter they blame channel inventory for a 11% drop.

            Seriously. anyone saying anything positive about AMD dont realize how bad the situation is.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          Why did you put scare quotes around R&D for AMD?

          Last time I checked they still make the 2nd fastest processors in the world despite being outspent by pretty much everyone.

            • bcronce
            • 7 years ago

            But most of the other CPUs are #1 in their own markets.

            I still have hope for AMD. Their long term goals are really good. They are also working with other companies like ARM and IBM to design, trying to change the way GPUs and CPUs work together.

            If I had money, I would buy AMD stock. I assume they’re in a slump and have no where to go but up.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]But most of the other CPUs are #1 in their own markets.[/quote<] What do you mean by most? Intel owns the desktop, servers, and big iron. So which market is IBM with Power #1 in? I believe Apple has the fastest ARM CPU, so which market are Qualcomm, TI, Samsung, or Nvidia #1 in?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]If I had money, I would buy AMD stock. I assume they're in a slump and have no where to go but up.[/quote<] That's what people said when it went below $10.. There is still plenty of room to go down further But if you think dropping stock is a screaming buy, you should look at Nokia

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 7 years ago

            “Never try to catch a falling knife.”

            • just brew it!
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<][quote<]If I had money, I would buy AMD stock. I assume they're in a slump and have no where to go but up.[/quote<] That's what people said when it went below $10.. There is still plenty of room to go down further[/quote<] Indeed. We can't rule out a Chapter 11 filing down the road, in which case the stock price goes to zero. I think bankruptcy is unlikely though. VIA will probably snap them up before that happens; they seem to have a history of buying other failing tech companies. (That is if VIA doesn't go out of business first...)

            • moose17145
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t see VIA buying AMD if they ever go under. I could, however, see Samsung gobbling them right up and then trying to see if they can get AMD’s x86 license transferred to them. Yes yes we all know the x86 license is not transferable… but as many mentioned in an earlier thread a week or two ago… many countries around the world might very well dictate to Intel that it is transferable simply for the sake of Intel not having a monopoly in the x86 market.

          • ronch
          • 7 years ago

          Hate AMD much?

        • A_Pickle
        • 7 years ago

        Gosh, I wonder why AMD can’t produce a chip that stands toe-to-toe with Intel’s best stuff.

      • A_Pickle
      • 7 years ago

      If I were building a fileserver right now, I would probably purchase AMD hardware.

      Specifically, this: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131843[/url<] It's cheap, six SATA-III ports, a low-power, dual-core, 64-bit CPU, and Gigabit Ethernet.

    • Anarchist
    • 7 years ago

    without a proper CEO, the company is doomed to extinction.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      Doom it is. AMD took a year to find R.Read.. and he is pretty pathetic.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        Did you expect the company would be able to take sharp turns so fast? They’re already in the middle of many things, they have to get out of those first.

        Don’t dismiss Read yet.

          • sschaem
          • 7 years ago

          No I didn’t expect AMD to fix all its problems all at once.

          But Read didn’t fix any, and created new ones.

          And he showed his incompetence understanding AMD core business.
          Listen to his excuses on why in mid April he predicted a 3% rise in revenue, and 6 weeks later was faced with a 11% drop. “Miss match in the channel of CPU and motherboard”
          No way AMD could have foreseen this .. sigh
          (I personally dont believe this is the root reason, lots of pissed OEM made their Vote)

          And its also more of the same: Tell OEM a date, but than its just delays , no products, change spec, etc…

          The biggest shocker is how they will lose ~3% in revenue even so the PC market is building inventory for windows8.
          When the Pc market goes up 3% and your revenue drop 10%, its death knocking at your door.
          When you loose 3% during a time the PC industry is building iventory, you are already dead.

          Nothing Read can do at this stage but wind down AMD gracefully…

          My feeling is that AMD got this rotten image that acquisition are not in the card, even so AMD is not even worth 1/3 the value of Skype.

          But I wonder, if AMD fire another 10% or more, how will Sony, MS, Nintendo feel ?
          Maybe MS will be desperate enough to spend a couple billion to buy AMD gut the CPU division out.

            • Meadows
            • 7 years ago

            The “PC market” dropped 0.1%. There was no net increase.

            [url<]https://techreport.com/discussions.x/23243[/url<]

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            That’s according to analysts that don’t have good visibility to Brazil/Russia.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            To me, the biggest shock is still the 700mil “one-time charge” they sent to GloFo to get rid of the exclusivity agreement. That’s about 5 years of profits.. gone.

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            Or… less than 2.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Could also be 10.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      Somebody call Jerry!!!

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    So they’re being optimistic about their core businesses, the crown jewel being their x86 CPU business which they plan to not compete in as aggressively as they used to anymore and which seems to be their most profitable business.

    One other thing that puzzles me though, is how far behind they will be behind Intel. I mean, they’ve fallen behind this far already even with them taking x86 seriously, what more if they stop taking it as aggressively in the next few years? How do they actually plan to keep themselves in the picture?

      • ptsant
      • 7 years ago

      They’re probably betting that x86 will be less relevant. You can already transcode HD video at real-time. What are you going to do with more power? Almost any non-professional audio tasks are now far from being CPU limited (encoding decoding), photo editing is very fast and resolution will not get much bigger (entry level SLRs are lens-limited now!). People want portable, they want tablets, phones and all that. Most only change computers because “the hard drive is full”, or “the screen is small” or “something broke down”. Not because the need to blur JPGs in 1 sec instead of 2 secs. That’s the big market, not computer enthusiasts and overclockers folding…

      • Corrado
      • 7 years ago

      I’m not sure how many people remember, but they said before the 3850/3870s came out that they weren’t going to compete in the ‘high end gaming’ arena anymore. They were going to concentrate on making good power efficient mid range cards and maybe use multiple ones to increase speeds. Then nVidia slipped up and the 48xx series were faster than the nVidia equivalent and all of a sudden, AMD was right back in the race.

      Its always possible the same thing will happen in the CPU realm. Intel’s screwed up before. Pentium 3 1.13ghz, Pentium 4 + RDRAM, P3 chipset issues, Prescott power usage/heat. What happened last time was that Intel didn’t believe AMD could ever compete with them, so they kinda slowed down their product releases and kept prices stagnant for a while with the P3s. Once the Athlon came out and COULD compete, Intel VERY quickly rushed to get the P4’s working and rushed them out the door only to get sucker punched by the A64.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Intel roadmap is rock solid, AMD future is in its own hands.

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    The bad news is the entire year and they don’t have good enough products either – CPU/APU wise at least, in GPU the latest price drop makes them ok.Looking at their roadmap one has to wonder when they”ll be able to take back some share…if ever.The GPU advantage over Intel in mobile Trinity is not enough,power consumption is only fine. They need more than that to survive and things are likely to get worse once Haswell arrives.

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      the gpu advantage is quickly evaporating. I’d expect haswell to kick a fair bit of ass.

        • ptsant
        • 7 years ago

        So you’re arguing that the Haswell GPU will be good enough. One could argue that the AMD CPU part will be “good enough” at the same time. Or maybe it already is. I get the passion with each company, but I never felt less need to upgrade the CPU. GPU for 3xdisplay maybe, high-dpi IPS maybe, SSD maybe, soundcard maybe, but I don’t think changing my phenom II 965 to a i7 3930K (which I could very easily afford) would matter much for my computing experience. The more I look at it from a consumer perspective, the more I think intel makes more money through better marketing and business alliances. When Read says that AMD needs to execute (in time, in good volume, good pricing) and forget the performance crown, I think he’s right. After all, people had been happy with inferior apple hardware for ages (although religious shopping fervor is not exactly something a company can easily inspire).

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          I agree on desktop CPUs, but I think most of the market is mobile now instead of desktop, and in mobile there is still plenty of need to upgrade to speed things up and/or reduce power consumption.

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            But AMD is competitive in mobile, where general performance isn’t nearly as important and where graphics is. AMD can, essentially, match a Core i7 3720QM. Of course, Trinity doesn’t so much as scratch it in terms of x86 performance, but graphics-wise, it’s superior. It also costs less, and offers similar battery run-time.

            Intel needs to catch up on graphics. If they do, AMD is in for a world of hurt unless they can match power consumption and bring up x86 performance.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Trinity doesn't so much as scratch it in terms of x86 performance, but graphics-wise, it's superior.[/quote<] I've been waiting for solid reviews on 17W TDP class Trinity laptops, but haven't seen any. The ones that are out there now surprisingly show that low-power Trinity is [b<]not[/b<] superior to Ivy Bridge - its graphics performance is more in line with Sandy Bridge. So, the jury's still out on this one - I'm hoping to see a TR or AnandTech review on these. But so far it doesn't look good for AMD even in graphics at that power range. And in battery life AMD is similar only because the manufacturers use bigger batteries on AMD ultrathins.

          • squeeb
          • 7 years ago

          Well said. I’ll be sticking with my Phenom II X4. Its still getting the job done for me.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          well, it depends on your task, but a 3930 might HUGELY increase your computing experience, depending on work loads.

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    In other words “The economy sux, no one likes our products.”

    Not that what they say really matters, the numbers do most of the talking. Hopefully there is a revision of BD making its way out sometime soon. Phenom is to Phenom 2 as Bulldozer is to ???.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    Bulldozer is true reason for weak sales. Thankfully there is Intel and not have to worry that we will be forced to buy weak AMD CPU for hundreds of dollars

      • Firestarter
      • 7 years ago

      Obvious trollbait is obvious.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      I hope that when AMD is gone and you’re all the more not forced to buy a ‘weak AMD CPU ‘, you won’t feel like you’re being forced to pay $1,000 for your Intel CPU.

        • Arag0n
        • 7 years ago

        so true…. those guys thinks that if no AMD intel will keep the same prices as do now…. look forward for the cheapest cpu being ATOM at 50$ and celerons starting at 150$….

          • Star Brood
          • 7 years ago

          Nonsense, Intel has to incentivize people to buy their new stuff. They may have a virtual monopoly on new CPUs but their real competition is from computers which the consumer has already bought.

          For example, I want to get a computer which has literally 20x the CPU and 20x the GPU of my current laptop, but my current laptop can still serve all of the basic needs of 99% of consumers and I bought it for about 200€. I’d be buying the NEW computer with the strict benefit of better gaming – which doesn’t convince my wife, of course. For Office, Internet, eMail… a netbook like the one I have is enough. Even iPads can do that these days. So Intel has to cater to the niché market or innovate in some striking way, ie. Ultrabooks, to provide things like more lightweight + better battery life to the mass market.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            If Intel triples their prices they only have to sell 1/3 of the number of processors.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            by the time everyone was willing to replace their computers, ARM would have moved into the 99% of the market. arm is getting faster, and since in the next 2-3 years, it’ll be fast enough for almost all of regular desktop usage, intel will NEED to keep prices low to compete. 5 years ago, the industry needed amd. I don’t think it’s the same anymore. that’s not to say arm will satisfy EVERYONE, but it’ll be fast enough for the facebook crowd, which is almost everyone. IF intel prices gaming CPU’s too high, guess what, the next xbox will look pretty damn sexy, and it’ll likely be cheapish. intel CAN’T raise prices too high. there IS too much competition.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Here’s another line they could follow. Drop the mid range.

            Have terrible Atoms to compete with ARM, and have high end that blows it away and nothing in the middle.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            sure.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Right, which sucks for me and most people on this site who generally buy the mid range.

            AMD is already struggling to make even midrange CPUs compared to Intel, once/if they die, there will be no pressure on Intel to service this market segment.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t disagree, but i don’t think it’s likely. technically, sure. they COULD also not release any new cpu’s for the next 2 years and still maintain their lead over amd. I don’t see that happening either. Intel seems to understand if they want to remain relevant, they have to remain relevant. dropping midrange isn’t going to accomplish that. it would make the x86 advantage disappear, and then people might as well buy an IBM chip if they’re going to drop a K. it would remove the ubiquity of x86, as well as heavily slashing revenue.

            • A_Pickle
            • 7 years ago

            Ugh. Yeah, that’d be great… ARM processors competing with Intel. Not that this isn’t feasible, but ARM-centric platforms (namely, iOS and Android) are shitty.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            sure, but win rt should be solid enough.

            • Arag0n
            • 7 years ago

            Hey, those things are not done in a single day man. Intel can start to setup new releases over the price of the old hardware WITHOUT reducing prices and expanding slowly their price range from 20-1000$ to 50-2500$. Just not overnight, but they would do that over 3 or 5 years.

            You never need to spend more to get less, that’s true, but it also happens to be true that the outlook of PC market where you get more paying the same over time becomes less likely.

            • Pholostan
            • 7 years ago

            That’s not how the market works. How many people actually buys a new car because the old one doesn’t work anymore? Completely unheard of, people buy new stuff ’cause they think it looks cool, the cool kids have one etc etc. Look at all the phone sales the last five years or so. People replace perfectly working phones with new ones on a whim. Intel can just rise prices, sit back, and rake in the money. They wont even have to rely on shady business models, heck not that long ago they were convicted in court for using thing like that to keep AMD out of the market.

            And when it comes to computers, if you want the new stuff like say Thunderbolt, DirectX whatever etc you pretty much have to upgrade. And pay whatever price Intel asks for. Look how much prices on Sandy Bridge processors have fallen since the introduction of Ivy. Almost not at all. Intel don’t have to lower any prices, so why should they?

        • derFunkenstein
        • 7 years ago

        AMD will manage to not go anywhere. Intel has a vested interest in that.

        • Lazier_Said
        • 7 years ago

        For all intents and purposes AMD already is gone from the $125+ product range. And they have been for 6 years now.

        So where are these $1,000 Intel CPUs?

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 7 years ago

          Okay, it’s not $1K…
          [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117261[/url<] These three are: [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819115079[/url<] [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116491[/url<] [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819117273[/url<]

      • burntham77
      • 7 years ago

      “Wrong sir, wrong!” -Willy Wonka

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        classic film.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 7 years ago

    Guess we know why AMD was trying to make up for their entire company with high prices on their GPU’s when the market didn’t warrant it. If only they had thought past their immediate bottom line and priced their GPU’s more aggressively against nVidia competition ahead of time, they might have won this generation.

    Instead, they gouged the consumer and now people will wait for the nVidia part even when it’ll probably wind up more expensive (and in short supply).

    Good job, AMD.

      • dpaus
      • 7 years ago

      So, if AMD was ‘gouging the consumer’ and the Nvidia part is even more expensive, what does that make them, and why would anyone pay more for the privilege of having that done to them? (fans of whips-n-chains need not reply)

        • HighTech4US2
        • 7 years ago

        What are you babbling about.

        The AMD HD7970 was $550 and the HD7950 was $450 on release whereas Nvidia’s GTX680 was $500 and the GTX670 was $400 on release.

        If any company was more expensive it was AMD.

          • sweatshopking
          • 7 years ago

          i was going to say i wasn’t sure why you were downvoted, but i do know why. it’s not about facts, it’s about personal preference. people will vote based on what company they like, not what it reality.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            On launch is a stupid metric.

            If one company (AMD) has a product out first that essentially has no competition they should charge more right?

            • l33t-g4m3r
            • 7 years ago

            Oh, the irony.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Captain obvious is back!

          • ptsant
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, but when AMD released, they were the only ones to have a next-gen product, while Nvidia released second against a product that is quite competitive. Furthermore, the REAL prices in stores were and still are quite different. AMD silently decreased prices to the point where I could get a 7970 for 435 CHF versus cheapest 680 for 560 CHF. Right now, it’s 7970 at 427 CHF versus cheapest 680 at 547. Fact is, NVidia sells more expensive products because they have better marketing. Not because the 680 is worth 25% more..

      • l33t-g4m3r
      • 7 years ago

      What? I’d say AMD’s cards are competitively priced against nvidia. Are they low as they could be, maybe not, but they are priced to match. Radeons have higher reliability too, so I’d say AMD’s done fairly well.

      • sparkman
      • 7 years ago

      I’ve never understood people who find high prices [b<]personally offensive[/b<]. If you don't like a high price, laugh at it and move on. AMD was not [i<]hurting[/i<] you with their product pricing. We may or may not agree with everything AMD management does, but they aren't completely incompetent to the point that they would price themselves out of a market and not know it. Meaning somebody was paying those prices. The demand was there -- why shouldn't AMD profit from demand for their products?

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    Whoa… we’re half way there.
    Whoa-Ho margins on a prayer!
    Take my hand, we’ll sell Radeons I swear.
    Whoa-Ho revenues from thin air!

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      That was great! Now change keys and get some crap edits done that lose a beat and you’ll be the next Bon Jovi.

      • pedro
      • 7 years ago

      This has greatness written all over it.

      • Knee Dragger
      • 7 years ago

      Bon Jovi rocks.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Bon Jovi rocked.[/quote<] FTFY

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          Bon Jovi sucks and has always sucked.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Name something better.

            • BestJinjo
            • 7 years ago

            Michael Jackson. Thriller – Best selling music album of all time.

            Andrea Bocelli – You know a single with a real voice!

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            I liked Thriller, but on the interwebs it doesn’t matter much how much an album has sold; snobs are always disparaging commercially successful music regardless. Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet and New Jersey albums were good, clean fun – well produced and catchy, and sold hugely.

            I think music has… expanded (I wanted to say ‘evolved’, but there is too much music that’s gone the other way). As it has become easier to make and distribute music than in the past, talent instead of marketing dollars has a decent chance of making it. LastFM has been a source of great discoveries for me; I’ve found great bands that I have no chance of ever seeing live or hearing about on radio stations.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            you guys both do drugs.

            you know rocks? Tchaikovsky. you listen to 1812 and tell me you’re not getting super jacked by the 14 minute mark. that song pumps me up like crazy. also jenkins is pretty fly.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This