UPDATED: Reuters: AMD hires JPMorgan Chase to ”explore options”

Looks like AMD might be putting itself up on the auction block. Quoting three unnamed sources, Reuters reports that AMD has retained the services of banking firm JPMorgan Chase to “explore options.” One of those options: a “potential sale” of the chipmaker.

According to Reuters, some investors speculate that AMD could be sold—either partly or fully—to a firm eager to replicate Apple’s unified approach to hardware and software development. (Remember, Apple designs its own chips for iDevices nowadays.) Candidates reportedly include Microsoft, Google, Samsung, Intel, and… Facebook. Yes, Facebook. Don’t ask.

That said, Reuters’ sources think “an outright sale of the company is not a priority.” Instead, AMD might be more keen on selling off its patent portfolio—valuable ammunition in today’s highly litigious tech industry. Even if AMD sought to pursue a complete sale, finding a buyer might be difficult. Reuters says one of its sources characterized AMD as a “legacy company” that may be an unappealing acquisition target due to its “dependence on the PC industry and lack of strong mobile offerings.”

Those are unkind words, but not entirely inaccurate ones. Both Intel and AMD are struggling to compete with cheap, low-power ARM-based processors these days. While Intel finally managed to squeeze an Atom chip inside a modern smartphone earlier this year, AMD doesn’t have anything like that on its public roadmap. The company has disclosed plans to diversify into ARM-based chips, but the first products from that initiative aren’t due until 2014—and, as far as we know, they’ll be aimed only at servers. 

AMD’s current financial situation might not be sustainable, in any case. Last month, the company announced a $175 million quarterly loss and a plan to lay off 15% of its work force—its second round of downsizing in less than a year. (The company shed 10% of its staff last November.) AMD shares closed at $2.01 yesterday, down from $5.95 a year ago.

Update 7:23 PM: Reuters had updated its story with an official response from AMD. The response reads, “AMD’s board and management believe that the strategy the company is currently pursuing to drive long-term growth by leveraging AMD’s highly-differentiated technology assets is the right approach to enhance shareholder value. AMD is not actively pursuing a sale of the company or significant assets at this time.”

Comments closed
    • marvelous
    • 7 years ago

    AMD CPU are failing. WHY? They are always trying to compete with Intel. Intel isn’t trying to compete with AMD because Intel is in a league of its own. Only way AMD can compete with Intel is when Intel make big mistakes like pentium 4. What AMD should learn is what Apple have done. Apple can’t compete with Intel or Microsoft far as market saturation but they are in a league of their own because they don’t try to compete with anybody else. When you compete 1 company fails and that’s the sad reality. Innovation or performance sells. Not knock offs.

    I wanted to buy AMD stocks soon but not with this news. Hope AMD pulls through.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      AMD Stock is good as worthless with that news. why?

      AMD will sell asset, anything to pay off debt (2 billion of it, that they cant really refinance anymore)
      So AMD will loose intrinsic value just to pay off its ever increasing debt.
      Long term it just devaluate AMD.

      AMD in stock is now worth 1.3 billion (Loosing about 150 million a week in value for the past 9 month)
      At this rate the stock will drop to 95 cents in late December.
      But it might actually be worth much less if AMD divest itself.

      AMD history of doing deals ? Sell Imageon for 62 million, buy Seamicro for 365 million.

      AMD is now in a self mutilating mode, selling parts for dog food to live another day, its painful to watch.

    • beck2448
    • 7 years ago

    AMD is bleeding cash and customers. They will go BK without a major infusion.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    IBM should acquire them. IBM has the cash, the fabs, the management, the talent, the vision and the Intel x86 license to run AMD. The x86 license was probably created in such a way that IBM cannot produce its own x86 processors, but there’s a possibility that it can be worked on to allow them to do so. Plus, IBM is an American company. I’m not an American but I think AMD’s technology shouldn’t be given away to the Koreas and Japans of this world.

      • tfp
      • 7 years ago

      IBM would be interesting but really I’m not sure how it fits their business model.

        • ronch
        • 7 years ago

        Well, there’s such a thing as expanding your business model, isn’t there? IBM didn’t use to have anything to do with video game consoles, but they’ve expanded their business recently and now power all current consoles.

          • Kurotetsu
          • 7 years ago

          Even if IBM does buy AMD for whatever reason, it won’t be to produce consumer desktop hardware, let alone enthusiast consumer desktop hardware. IBM was in that business, but they realized early on that that was a path leading to nowhere and got out (they did the same thing with their laptop division). They’re not going to turn around and go back to that after being proven “right” (at they very least, exiting that market and turning into a service-based company worked out wonderfully for them). I can see IBM using AMD to produce a new line of x86 servers to complement their POWER series though.

      • designerfx
      • 7 years ago

      no way. Actually, VIA would be an interesting buy.

    • clone
    • 7 years ago

    Apple should buy AMD, gradually.

    they’d have it all by the end, platform, patents, architecture and unlike any other company on the market Apple doesn’t need to offer superior hardware, they never have, it’s the end to end integration combined with the Apple brand name that sells their products.

      • travbrad
      • 7 years ago

      I think it’s more likely that Apple would just build their own ARM CPUs, and move everything (even MacOS) over to ARM. As you said Apple doesn’t need to offer superior hardware, so ARM fits that description too. Apple hasn’t had a problem with cutting off backwards compatibility in the past either.

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      I disagree, but to tired to list all the reason why. Just check the A6x spec for example.

      And the reason why Apple would buy AMD is to accelerat its GPU effort, and get control to the patent portfolio.

      If Apple can stop to use imagination and have its own state of the art GPU platform, its would be a very valuable edge over the competition.

      The reason Apple will not buy AMD? they already have some of the brightest ATI architect on their payroll and been working on their GPU architecture for 3 years now.
      AMD is just to much of a cluster fuck to even consider, it would take apple years to sort out the mess AMD is today.

      Microsoft might be a better fit. Acquire AMD, shut it all down but the GPU/Console division.
      And the good thing is, Microsoft can sell Radeon branded gaming cards that carry the xbox brand. (Wait untill you see the next xbox gen games..)

      At this point AMD x86 business got negative value, so it need to be dumped.

      Deep inside, I really hope MS take AMD over. I cant stand Apple products, so ‘ATI’ in the hand of apple would be a sad day for me.

      edit: Microsoft spend 8.5 billion to buy skype.. a glorified video conferencing codec… AMD is only worth 1.3 billion.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        The more I think on it the more I think that the ATIC should just take AMD private to stanch the bleeding. The way that Wall St. evaluates things is insane given that Skype has that kind of value.

        Something dramatic does have to be done though – whether that be a merger (ARM, Imagination Tech?) or some sort of financial infusion.

        Maybe they should off shore their management.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        Microsoft has proven itself far more bloated and broken than AMD….. an org chart at MS is a triangle of circles with guns pointed at one another, I see no synergy in an MS purchase of AMD, MS is too busy stumbling around cutting it’s own legs out from one another.

        why AMD would be a good fit for Apple, complete independence at every level….. a huge patent portfolio and minimal risk.

        I also believe AMD is far less of a mess than most believe it is, AMD’s actually very lean at this point and given Apple has been grabbing a lot of ex ATI and AMD personel it’d seem like a far easier fit.

      • CuttinHobo
      • 7 years ago

      And with the patents they could convince a jury that they not only invented microprocessors, but silicon as well. Also, that they had a hand in inventing sand!

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    As a kick in the pants.. TI cant compete in the ARM SoC market and is laying off 5% of its workforce
    [url<]http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/14/technology/texas-instruments-layoffs/[/url<] Just when AMD finally decided, "its 2012, time to start invest in the SoC market" when Samsung, Qualcomm, Intel, Apple, all with BILLIONS in cash are moving full speed. I wonder if Qualcomm would seel Adreno back to AMD for 62 million. AMD just spent 360 million on seamicro afterall, what is 60 million. oh AMD, when will you learn...

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    But seriously, amd is “NOT actively pursuing a sale of significant assets at this time”

    So… what are the insignificant asset they want to sell… ???

    And if they do have insignificant asset to sell, why do they need a banker that take high percentage fee ???

    I gave AMD the benefit of the doubt but now it seem that AMD is truly in the hands of monkeys.

    And AMD GPU business is crumbling… first by being kicked out of Apple products recently and replaced by nvidia.

    Number speaks:

    “AMD’s market share in desktop computers in the quarter decline from 40.7% in Q2 to 35.7%, while Nvidia’s rose from 59.3% to 64.3%. In notebook computers, AMD’s share fell more dramatically, from 44.8% to 34.2%, while Nvidia’s share rose from 55.2% to 65.8%.”

    Anyways, moving on…

    • ptsant
    • 7 years ago

    AMD should stop selling patents or divisions or foundries or whatever is left and instead sell me the 8350 I paid 2 weeks ago and still haven’t seen. How do you expect to make money if your products are not available?

    • Theolendras
    • 7 years ago

    Lenovo, HP, IBM, Oracle, Qualcomm are more likely candidates to me, except maybe Samsung. Tough not all of them would be interested to buy every AMD operations…

    • marraco
    • 7 years ago

    This is the end of AMD. It turned from a tech company into a financial trickery. “Maximize shares value”, “use financial ´specialists´”, and all that crap. Engineering just goes to the bottom of the prioritues, and this is how tech companies die.

    • BIF
    • 7 years ago

    I think the killing stroke was AMD’s purchase of ATI those years ago. Or maybe it was that ATI allowed itself to be purchased by a suitor with health problems.

    However we got here, the end result was predictable. Most mergers/acquisitions actually end up reducing value. “Too big to fail” often becomes “too big to be nimble in the marketplace.”

      • joselillo_25
      • 7 years ago

      this was the only move that makes sense for AMD in the last years.

      AMD now has a better gaming chip than intel, but the sinking in the x86 market is hurting them a lot.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        You make this assumption that the only way to produce a piece of silicon with a CPU and GPU on it is for a company A (AMD) to go through a massively bloated and wasteful takeover of company B (ATI) that has the effect of throwing away all the capital for company A and leads to the abuse of the staff of company B to the point that the best ones left voluntarily before the layoffs even hit.

        You completely ignore that it would have been just as possible for ATI & AMD to remain completely separate companies and instead sign a joint agreement to pool their resources to get products that would probably be just as good or better than what AMD is churning out now, but without destroying both companies financially. Don’t believe me? Look at the smartphone industry.

          • joselillo_25
          • 7 years ago

          you are right but intel has not be able to do it, so they are developing its own gpu now, do not know if AMD could have got more luck trying.

            • chuckula
            • 7 years ago

            Intel’s GPU program is indeed a strange beast, but since they intentionally don’t try to enter the high-end market they’ve been able to muddle through and are at least moving in the right direction (although frankly not fast enough).

            AMD has good designers but by itself in 2006 probably didn’t have the resources to pull off what would become Llano and Trinity. I’m not saying that working with ATI (or Nvidia) as separate companies would have necessarily made something amazingly better than Llano/Trinity, but it would have meant that AMD could keep its fabs and focus like a laser on CPU design. Worst case scenario: AMD would be in the same straits it is in now, except it would at least have substantial capital assets to work with.

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]AMD now has a better gaming chip than intel[/quote<] Umm... what have you been smokin'?

          • joselillo_25
          • 7 years ago

          I was talking about trinity APU

            • just brew it!
            • 7 years ago

            I repeat… what have you been smokin’?

            I suppose if you had said “best bang-for-the-buck CPU/IGP combo for gamers on a tight budget who play older games or don’t mind playing at low resolutions” you might have a case.

            • joselillo_25
            • 7 years ago

            That are the most part of the pc gamers and future pc gamers and were the money is. You cannot see the PC industry as a mirror of the way you use a PC. You are going to be able to buy an AMD tablet or an AMD laptop that can run games much better than intel counterpart. Including all the things that are GPU acelerated.

            AMD got a solution that Intel cannot match due to its buy of ATI probably until 2014, and this is a consecuence of the ATI purchase.

            The problem is how fast the PC sales are falling but the movement was pretty smart.

            • just brew it!
            • 7 years ago

            Trinity’s power consumption is too high for tablets, and I seriously doubt that most gamers are using laptops (or would switch to one based on the performance of Trinity).

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 7 years ago

      [i<]To the end of time[/i<] we're going to have to listen to this over and over and over again. Oh how swell it would have been for ATI and AMD to be separate companies, oh how bright their futures were!

        • joselillo_25
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, in a environment were 80% of the market are SoC systems they could sell their separate CPUs and GPUs to some gamers with 850W power supplies, aside from the rest of the people who is buying small pcs, tablets, phones etc…

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        ATI had SoC. One was MIPS based (Xilion) the other open architecture (Mostly ARM)

        ATI would have done just fine without AMD.

        And to date their is not server chip with a GPU integrated. All used discreet GPU.

        so if AMD was able to use that 6 billion spend on AMD to focus on server processor it might have been able to keep its foundries and product a better server / workstation CPU (Tons of money)

        So we would have had killer ARM SoC from ATI, and killer Workstation & server CPU from AMD.

        What did we get from the merger ?….

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        I said nothing to imply that it would have been “swell” had they not merged.

        All I said was that most mergers end up reducing shareholder value over time. To me that is a FAIL. Period. End of story.

        But I never claimed that not merging would have been a guarantee of success. Please don’t put words in my mouth.

          • jonjonjon
          • 7 years ago

          who cares about share holder value? i care about a company that make great products. with great products comes money and shareholder value blah blah blah. the only reason a ceo cares about shareholder value is when they are a major shareholder and about to cash out. im so sick of hearing about shareholder value. do you really think companies do things strictly for shareholders?

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      If AMD left ATI on its tracks, ATI would have been the size of nvidia or bigger.
      ATI was years ahead in the GPGPU and Mobile SoC business.

      Knowing that nvidia makes hundreds of million in profit, its clear that AMD itself is at fault and ATI well managed would have been a cash cow.

      • TheEmrys
      • 7 years ago

      No, it was the sale of Imageon to Qualcomm. Huge lack of vision on AMD’s part.

    • Silus
    • 7 years ago

    I mentioned before that, as soon as AMD’s shares went under $2 (and they already did) we would probably see someone trying to buy AMD or pieces of it. That didn’t happen or at least it wasn’t public yet.
    But these news certainly put AMD on the map as actively looking for either a partner in business or simply trying to sell itself (even if they deny it). But given its current state (large debt, no profits, isn’t ahead in any of the markets they’re in and have almost no presence in highly profitable and booming markets) who would really want to buy them ?

    The problem is that AMD’s business right now, depends largely on both the CPU division and GPU division, which means neither can be sold without killing AMD altogether…but AMD needs to do something…or it’s dead either way…

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    They might be looking into a buy not a sale here.
    As for sale,very slim chance, who would want the CPU part and why.Not for the price anyway,no matter the current market cap i don’t see AMD going for less than 8B. The list of companies that might buy it is just hilarious,There are some ways to sell it by splitting it but unlikely.

      • just brew it!
      • 7 years ago

      Who the heck would they buy at this point? VIA? Matrox? ALi?

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        If they could buy ARM through a reverse merger (as ATI did with ArtX) that might work. I’ve been of the opinion that they should have bought or got controlling interest in Imagination Tech for years.

        Of course AMD would have to have something compelling for ARM to want to merge – which is unlikely – and ATI actually had the money to purchase ArtX.

          • just brew it!
          • 7 years ago

          The only scenario where that works would be convincing ARM that an ARM/ATI synergy (i.e. the Fusion strategy, but with ARM instead of x86) makes sense. I agree it is unlikely.

      • internetsandman
      • 7 years ago

      I’d like to see the cash you expect AMD to produce in order to buy any company of relatively significant value

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah, that pretty much dovetails with my post #100…

    • just brew it!
    • 7 years ago

    AMD’s protestations that they’re not for sale aside, here’s my take on the list of potential suitors –

    MS: I don’t see this ending well for either party. It’s just not a good fit. Maybe MS would see value in the ATI side of the house for a next-gen gaming console, but that’s probably about it.

    Google: At least they’ve got the deep pockets to potentially turn things around. I just don’t see them being all that interested; their focus would likely be on low overall power (potential synergy with their Motorola Mobility acquisition) and performance/watt (for their datacenters). Neither of these areas are among AMD’s current strengths.

    Samsung: This has some potential. Even though AMD’s current tech isn’t particularly relevant to Samsung’s mobile business, Samsung is a huge diversified operation and might be willing to suffer through a few unprofitable years to pursue a longer-term vision.

    Intel: While this might make sense if Intel wants to dive into GPU computing, I think if Intel was seriously interested in pursuing this market they would’ve done so already. The CPU side has little value to them, and an AMD acquisition would run up against significant regulatory hurdles in any case.

    Facebook: Yeah, right. Even worse fit than MS.

      • destroy.all.monsters
      • 7 years ago

      The only reason I think Google would be a possibility is because fairly soon Apple will be able to do everything except fab their chips in-house (including propping up Sharp). There may be shareholder pressure to do the same to some degree. I’m not at all sure that Google has a need for their own x86 processors. Perhaps the SeaMicro purchase is of some interest to them.

      I don’t see anyone buying AMD to keep it the same company with the same products it has now unless someone has a need for an ongoing billion dollar tax write off.

      Weird off the wall possibilities – ARM, Bill Gates himself, Warren Buffett, ASUS, VIA or some Chinese or Indian conglomerate. None of which are terribly likely.

      If they can convince the US government that they need a bailout that might be a better route.

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]The only reason I think Google would be a possibility is because fairly soon Apple will be able to do everything except fab their chips in-house (including propping up Sharp).[/quote<] Too bad AMD doesn't own their fabs any more. [quote<] There may be shareholder pressure to do the same to some degree. I'm not at all sure that Google has a need for their own x86 processors. Perhaps the SeaMicro purchase is of some interest to them.[/quote<] Yes, I suppose the Seamicro IP could be attractive to Google (and Facebook, for that matter). But there are other players in that space; is it really so attractive that either of them would feel compelled to grab it for their own (exclusive) use? I don't think so.

          • Welch
          • 7 years ago

          I always liked AMD… but they got shafted with years of BS from Intel playing dirty. All of that aside.. I’d like to see them in the same space + mobile to give the rest of the guys a run for their money. But in my current opinion of AMD, its just not going to work.

          IF Google were to purchase AMD, they would benefit from IP and their own in-house design, which is what Destroy.all.monsters probably meant, as you are right JBI, AMD sold off GlobalFoundaries awhile back.

          All in all, it doesn’t look very good for AMD. I would say its a crying shame if it weren’t for the fact that x86 seems like its being pushed out the door by ARM based chips for mobile. The only truly worthwhile part of AMD is maybe their APU and for sure GPUs, console deals have to be worth something.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      You’re forgetting two other companies that would have much more interest in AMD than any of those you list: Oracle and Qualcomm

      Qualcomm would want the graphics division especially. with NVIDIA being one of their largest competitors in the mobile market.
      And Oracle would definitely be interested in AMD’s server business.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 7 years ago

        I think Oracle already took a big bite of marginally competitive server hardware. I’m not so sure they’d want another.

          • Silus
          • 7 years ago

          Well Oracle is very big with boat loads of cash and AMD is very cheap. AMD’s server business is not Intel’s, but it’s nothing to sneeze at either, so Oracle would have something to gain from an AMD buyout.

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 7 years ago

      There are a couple ways MS could work. MS wants to become vertically integrated, and AMD would be the quickest way to that end. They are heavily invested in x86, and they have a need for ARM support. They have a good relationship with Intel, and they could use Intel consultants and Intel fabs for their chips to keep the relationship intact. MS may be the only company Intel will sign off on without restrictions.

      Facebook is a wild card. Facebook has been getting into hardware design, and this could work. They could benefit from AMD’s chip expertise and relationships with vendors, and they would have in house experts that can analyze their workloads and work with other companies to get designs that do what they need them to do.

      Google buying AMD makes sense if they want to beef up Motorola. I think Moto has been relying on Ti chips for their phones, so this could be a step up for them. Google would also get the same advantages as Facebook. However, Google isn’t part of the old boys club, so I don’t think Intel would be keen on this happening. Apple and MS wouldn’t be happy, so they may call in some favors.

      Samsung may do it for the desktop and server experience as well as graphics. They are slowly trending towards competing with Intel and Apple, and an AMD acquisition would speed that up since AMD already competes in those spaces. AMD’s graphics tech would be an advantage in mobile; that would be one less piece they would have to license. This really is the best fit, but Intel would hate it.

      Intel could buy AMD’s graphics tech leaving the rest of the company behind for someone else, like Facebook. They have their Xeon Phi line to compete against in the GPU computing arena, but their IGPs are still behind AMD and Nvidia.

      Nvidia may be a dark horse if something can be worked out for the x86 license. They have to do something, or they are going to get acquired in a couple of years.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 7 years ago

      Pretty sure the feds would never never let Intel buy AMD.

        • just brew it!
        • 7 years ago

        Yes, that is exactly what I meant by “significant regulatory hurdles”.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    So the decades-old war between Intel and AMD has almost finally come to an end. AMD is bloody, seriously wounded, armor bloody and practically shredded to pieces, and lying on the ground, while Intel is proudly standing up with only a bruise or two, armor shining, with one foot stepping on AMD’s face. This is not the end anybody would like to see. So sad. Is there hope for AMD still? A tiny glimmer of hope?

    What a sad day. David vs. Goliath. David’s win in the Bible was just a fluke, apparently. In our case, Goliath totally smacks David, and is ready to kill him now.

    Not even Trinity can save him.

    • gamoniac
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]The company has disclosed plans to diversify into ARM-based chips, but the first products from that initiative aren't due until 2014...[/quote<] How long did it take NVidia to carry out their ARM Tegra chip implementation, from vision to product? Anyone with a history brain...?

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      No brain here, just google.

      – The Tegra APX 2500 was announced on February 12, 2008
      – The first product to use the Tegra was Microsoft’s Zune HD media player in September 2009

      You didn’t ask, but at the same time:

      – Q2 2008 AMD divested its SoC business and some the branch to Qualcomm
      – In late 2008 Qualcomm was already producing ARM SoC with ATI Adreno (Radeon)

      Before that qualcomm only had a 2d / software solution, so it was a corner stone to qualcomm success. A company now worth more then Intel.

      So while nvidia was starting to build its SoC business, AMD sold its profitable SoC business to Qualcomm.

      Less know buy around the same time AMD sold ATI Xilleon. A Mips based SoC.
      Another profitable division with SoC expertise sold in august 28 to boardcom.
      (Broadcam stock doubled since the AMD Mips SoC acquisition)

      Maybe more info, but there you have it. AMD was a SoC leader in 2008 when it was still just a dream in nVidia eyes.

      ATI was also the driving force behind GPGPU way back in 2004, something that AMD also killed and nvidia went for with Cuda.

        • gamoniac
        • 7 years ago

        Thanks for the run-down, sschaem. Indeed, it looks like AMD has quite a few mis-steps in recent years. It also shows that NVidia was able to implement their ARM vision in less than two years, while it will take AMD roughly three years to materialize their plan (They licensed ARM design in June 2011). I am sure there is a lot more behind the scene, but as an AMD fan, I am quite disappointed.

        I hope they will come back strong.

        • Flatland_Spider
        • 7 years ago

        I understand selling the divisions since AMD needed quick cash, and they weren’t AMD’s core business. I didn’t think it was wise since they were profitable, and that was where the future was.

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    Hey, what if AMD just licenses out its chip designs to a second-source manufacturer? You know, the way Intel allowed AMD to be a second-source of their designs before the K5? That way people will still have an alternative to Intel?

    Hello… anybody? IBM? Samsung? Can anybody hear me?

    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I was originally seriously thinking about getting a fast Core i7 because I no longer expect AMD to be around in the next 2 years or so, and if that happens CPU prices will rise. I’d better get the fastest chip I can afford right now while I can still afford it to last me long enough until ARM (hopefully) gains enough traction to challenge Intel everywhere. Some folks are saying ARM will prevent Intel from raising prices, and they may be right, but I won’t risk it. At the same time, I guess I should grab an FX-8350 as well while it’s still available, as a tribute to the once great Intel challenger called AMD, a company that stood for competition and lower prices in the desktop PC space.

    I think the only thing AMD needs to get rid of is its BoD. Hey Rory, don your pirate suit and make them all walk the plank!

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    whats does this mean? [quote<]leveraging AMD's highly-differentiated technology assets[/quote<] isn't that the same thing as having a marketing team? oh wait...

      • Geistbar
      • 7 years ago

      It’s a fancy way of saying that AMD has useful tech/patents in both processors and graphics (other things too I’m sure — interconnects, probably some memory stuff among other things — but gpu/cpu are the main ones).

      • kc77
      • 7 years ago

      I would think licensing. Think Power VR/Imaginiation Tech, ARM or even Rambus. Basically focus on selling technology ( AMD64).

      • Squeazle
      • 7 years ago

      Leveraging- useless verb. Could mean anything, throw it out.
      AMD- brand
      highly- meaningless enhancer, remove
      differentiated- could refer to internal diversity (cpus and gpus, server vs. pc) or market (fast, efficient, and supported vs. …AMD)
      technology- products produced
      assests- modifier for the word technology.

      “Using our different types of previously existing AMD stuff.”

        • ish718
        • 7 years ago

        Lmao?

        • BIF
        • 7 years ago

        [quote<]Leveraging- useless verb. Could mean anything, throw it out. [/quote<] Buzzword Bingo is always fun. Leveraging Synergies/synergistic Metrics Powerful Dynamic Critical Cloud Green I could go on. Hah!

      • CuttinHobo
      • 7 years ago

      All that corporate-speak reminds me of silly book reports and such in school. I was always straining to reach the minimum word/page count.

      But these guys and their leveraging of core competencies and disruptive paradigms of GIFing… they turn three-sentence press releases into full pages. I’d like to see who actually gets dazzled by it. If they really were looking for a buyer and put out a document full of that garbage, who would they be fooling? I suppose ignorant shareholders may bite, but any prospective buyers would be quite fluent in that nonsense.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    Nobody wants AMD. Even AMD does not want AMD.

      • pogsnet
      • 7 years ago
    • juampa_valve_rde
    • 7 years ago

    So i guess Mubadala Investment Group could buy whats left of AMD to integrate it with Global Foundries and rename it to AMD (Arabian Micro Devices) :p

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      i’m cool with that. as long as somebody does that doesn’t suck.

      • juampa_valve_rde
      • 7 years ago

      Google translate says: عربية مايكرو الأجهزة

    • tbone8ty
    • 7 years ago

    [url<]http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/13/amd_exploring_options_with_jpmc/[/url<] "Soon after we clicked Publish on this story, we received a comment from an AMD spokesman. "AMD's board and management believe that the strategy the company is currently pursuing to drive long-term growth by leveraging AMD's highly-differentiated technology assets is the right approach to enhance shareholder value," he wrote. "AMD is not actively pursuing a sale of the company or significant assets at this time."

    • anotherengineer
    • 7 years ago

    Rory Read, pro CEO and pro board for hiring him *sarcasm*

    • Bensam123
    • 7 years ago

    Uh oh, I don’t want micro-transaction Intel chips.

    Someone should write a article on buying AMD processors so we all don’t end up with a Intel monopoly and have a overall better future in the long run.

      • chuckula
      • 7 years ago

      1. Intel has been doing all it can to keep AMD alive for the past 6 years or so. AMD has done this to itself.
      Edit: Examples: 1. Intentionally throwing every lawsuit that AMD tosses its way to make back-door cash transfers. 2. Intentionally pricing its chips high enough to give AMD breathing room at the bottom.. ironic really that your pure hatred of the supposedly “ripoff” prices that Intel charges is part of Intel’s strategy to throw AMD a bone. Of course, Intel couldn’t realize that AMD would come up with Bulldozer, a chip that is beyond its ability to produce profitably, but there’s only so much it can do.

      2. Intel has a great deal of competition: it’s called ARM. There’s no “Intel monopoly” and once again, you are taking your made-up fantasy “Intel wants to charge us microtransactions!” and using it as a basis for reality in contradiction of real facts that you don’t personally like.

        • Bensam123
        • 7 years ago

        This isn’t even worth replying to. I did and unfortunately I spent a good 30 minutes typing up a nice cohesive response talking about the few points I dug out of your insults.

        If you intend on actually talking to someone online or being taken seriously I’d suggest you reassess how you act and how you respond to others. The hate and pure malice coming out of your posts is a lot stronger then any of the points you’re making.

        As such I scrubbed my post. Acting like a decent human being and maintaining some dignity is not that hard.

    • odizzido
    • 7 years ago

    Don’t kill ATI please.

    • Plazmodeus
    • 7 years ago

    I think there is quite possibly great value to Microsoft to acquire AMD. Consider:

    -By owning the ATI GPU tech M$ saves a per unit royalty on one of its most sudessful products: Xbox. Furthermore, they can build all that surface/smart glass/xbox products in house with their own custom GPU tech. Apple is still paying licensing fees for theirs.
    -Ditto with the CPU stuff from AMD. Trinity might not be great for desktops, but it was MADE for game consoles. M$ also get an X86 license from Intel, and an ARM licence.
    -AMD has fabrication capabilities, no? At least a stake in Global Foundries.

    All of these represent cost savings for Microsoft, which alone makes them worth a certain price. But the real value in this acquisition is that suddenly Microsoft leaves behind one of its landmark characteristics, its reliance on open platforms. Suddenly MS owns everything to make quality, tightly integrated consumer computing devices from design (which has gotten very good lately) all the way to package. No worries about having another player from squeezing you on the supply side, like Apple is wont to do, you own it all.

    If we really are moving into a post PC computing world, then acquiring AMD would look like a brilliant, visonary move.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]M$ also get an X86 license from Intel[/quote<] No they don't, the license in nontransferable. Any buyer would not have an x86 license from intel. The buyer however could license AMD's x86 patents again to intel (current deal expires Nov 2014) or anyone else.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        you know as well as most guys on here that the details of the new agreement haven’t been made public.

        quit fudding cause he says it might be tough for apple. don’t worry, they’ll do fine.

      • Grigory
      • 7 years ago

      “M$”! What a flashback to the nineties! 🙂

        • UberGerbil
        • 7 years ago

        [url=http://img78.imageshack.us/img78/6587/20020722l1mq.gif<]Indeed.[/url<]

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    Bad: Firing the engineers who you need to design products to keep the company alive.

    Worse x1000: Taking the money “saved” from firing the engineers and forking it over to JP Morgan [s<]Wallstreet Bailout[/s<] Chase instead of using it to you know... make crap people want. Rory Read is now even worse than Wrector and Dirk. I gave him a chance at first and he started off with some positive sounding things, but instead we get this crap. If Rory was hired to *lead* AMD instead of liquidate it, then the first cut he should make is to any and all "consultants" that take money and make nothing. If Rory were hired to sell off AMD, then he's incompetent if he can't figure out how to do that on his own without requiring outside firms to swoop in and ruin any chances that AMD had of a recovery.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Rory Read has been with the company for just over a year. I keep having to say this, but AMD is a semiconductor engineering firm. It had roadmaps all the way into 2014 [b<][i<]before[/i<][/b<] Read ever imagined himself in the CEO's leather chair. You don't turn around a company like this in the blink of an eye. Intel, NVidia, AMD, and others all have momentum -- whether good or bad --, they're not like fishing boats, they're more like ocean cruisers when it comes to changing (or, in the optimal case, [i<]determining[/i<]) direction.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        No, you don’t change a company like this in a blink of an eye – but continuing to give out bonuses in a down period is reckless and ejecting anyone that could be a threat to your position (or just generally padding the company with yes men) is inexcusable.

        He’s had over a year to articulate a vision – and to this day all we get is buzzwords and “trust us”. Everyone from the board to middle management should have been gone yesterday. Buzzwords impress no one – delivery and vision does and Rory has done nothing that inspires confidence. He’s being paid big money and relies on consultants for vision and a way out. So kindly explain to me why he’s getting paid. Any of us here could do the same thing for a fraction of the price and wouldn’t need to pad the company with cronies.

        At the time they needed PR the most they gutted the team (who I’m not saying was doing a stellar job but it would be hard to do a worse job of damage control).

        Even if Rory had vision, which I’m not convinced of, his ability to inspire and articulate is deplorable.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]He's had over a year to articulate a vision[/quote<] They have a vision. A PREMIUM vision. [url<]http://www.desktopreview.com/assets/3683.jpg[/url<]

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            -rimshot-

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        to d.a.m:
        Great analogy image… but what is the first thing that come to mind ? TITANIC

        Another way to see it ?

        You have a boat that was neglected for years…
        your crew tells you of the leaks and that the boat is slowly sinking.
        What does the captain and officer do to address the situation?
        throw the crew and goods overboard.

        So yea the ship will sail a bit longer, toward that iceberg called bankruptcy.

        Nothing R. Read is doing is fixing anything, he his just downsizing to live another day,
        the cost? AMD becoming less a and less relevant and valuable.

          • Diplomacy42
          • 7 years ago

          You obviously have never read anything ever written about the Titanic, which sunk on its maiden voyage from London to New York when it hit an ice-burg. It is a veritable comedy of errors too be sure, Too few lifeboats, the captain ignored ice warnings, vaunted egos. not one of the things you said though.

          and out of a duty to my love of Irony, J.P. Morgan was originally a railroad tycoon who built his fortune on the backs of the poor and was consistantly criticized for his terrible safety record. He founded J.P. Morgan (bank) currently selling off AMD. He also owned White Star Lines, who ran the titanic.

      • Meadows
      • 7 years ago

      Also, reorganisation is not liquidation.

        • lilbuddhaman
        • 7 years ago

        JP Morgan will destroy them.

        • destroy.all.monsters
        • 7 years ago

        Yet. The likelihood of them going down that road seems to increase every day.

      • NeelyCam
      • 7 years ago

      Yeah – I thought Rory was supposed to be the turn-around artist. Why does he need to hire outside “artists” to do his job?

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        yeah…. i wanna be a ceo… i can do that…

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          Be careful what you wish for: being paid millions of dollars to fire people and hollow out a firm is tough work. You’ll be kept awake for hours every night wondering if this is the week that you should bail out with your golden parachute.

          • Meadows
          • 7 years ago

          I wanna be a C E Ooooo
          So f’king baaaaad
          Bankrupt all the com’pnies I can geeet

      • Theolendras
      • 7 years ago

      Honestly I really like the compagny, but since Nehalem, AMD is outclassed on CPU lead and Intel to the point where Intel is now ultimately targeting both power sensitive traditional ARM market and traditional PC market mid term with the same architecture. Haswell is the first step.

      On AMD side, it find itself with decreased margins when manufacturing R&D keep getting higher (I know AMD is now fabless, but the bills is somehow pass to the consumer), Intel lead is notre even threatened in manufacturing, it keeps getting even more cozy. It’ too bad, but I think the soonest, AMD sell itself, the more probable we keep an estimated x86 competitor… AMD finance is resulting in too many engineering layoff now to hope for a comeback in my opinion.

    • bjm
    • 7 years ago

    nVidia should buy AMD.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      nVidia was actually a better match for AMD than ATI was, for a variety of reasons both technical and cultural, but at the time nVidia’s market cap was significantly more than ATI’s, and arguably part of AMD’s present problems is that they overextended themselves just to swallow ATI (and then failed to get the “fusion” synergy out of it that they used to justify that overextension).

        • Geistbar
        • 7 years ago

        If I recall, there was a bit of a management hurdle for the NVIDIA idea as well — Jen-Hsun Huang would have wanted to be CEO of the combined firm, while the AMD team wanted to stay as management.

          • UberGerbil
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, and that’s the flip side of the cultural coin; for all the common cause they had against Intel (vs ATI which had very little friction) the personalities and egos undoubtedly were a factor, though the financial hurdle was almost certainly too high anyway.

          It’s hard to know the details exactly, but it seems unlikely that JHH would have been content to remain with the company at any level but the top. He might have been willing to walk away at the right price, of course. Or AMD might have been willing to let him take over, again at the right price. (And in retrospect, that might have been the best thing they could have done.)

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            I agree. I expect that if they had gone with NV, there’s a good chance we’d be talking today about “if only AMD had bought ATI instead…”.

            In reality, I think AMD was in a bind where none of their visibly available options would have gotten them where they needed to be. Perhaps if they could have gotten NV at the price of ATI and had Huang take over as CEO, but that wasn’t going to happen.

            • Theolendras
            • 7 years ago

            They needed to pull that sort of move sooner or later. Seeing Intel going more and more SoC style for their chips, they would have had a hard time to compete in a few years by staying pure CPU firm I think. But they didn’t had the ressource. A buyout after the antitrust conclusion after which it authorised AMD to sell itself and retain x86 licence would have been an ideal scenario. A player like Samsung, had much deeper pocket and would have kept manufacturing in house keeping margins at a reasonable level and probably could have invest much more money in R&D accelerating fusion project and all that. Also AMD itself could have been much closer on architecture front.

          • bjm
          • 7 years ago

          A CEO like Huang is exactly what AMD needed. Had the merger happened the way it should’ve, I’m sure the fate of AMD would have been remarkably different than it is now. Say what you will about Huang, but he has the drive, foresight, and intelligence to lead a company like AMD.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Well said

        • no51
        • 7 years ago

        What could’ve been… XP2600 Tbred B + NForce2 was the first system I built and it was awesome.

          • pedro
          • 7 years ago

          Sure was.

        • bjm
        • 7 years ago

        In the years since, nVidia is still a good match for the AMD today — if not more so. nVidia now has ample experience in the low-power ARM field, a field which AMD is wanting to jump into. And obviously, both companies have strong graphics backgrounds. When combined, they’d have the strengths to have both ARM and x86 SoCs. A Tegra x86 processor, anyone? And with Huang at the helm, you’d have a competent CEO. Who knows, he just might actually put out a “can o’ whoop ass” on Intel.

        Ah.. one can only wonder cuz it ain’t gonna happen.

      • pogsnet
      • 7 years ago
        • jihadjoe
        • 7 years ago

        In hindsight, Huang controlling the merged company would’ve been the best thing.
        Meanwhile, AMD’s executives have managed to run it nearly into the ground.

      • TheEmrys
      • 7 years ago

      Anti-trust laws would say no.

        • clone
        • 7 years ago

        Nvidia would be what AMD is today if they had

        it wasn’t ATI that killed AMD, it was Intel, Nvidia couldn’t have stopped Core2duo, the TLB bug, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge or Bulldozer.

        AMD took a risk, Intel caught them in time, AMD has been slowly bleeding to death ever since…… Nvidia has and never had any ability to stop any of it…. no magic sauce, no voodoo dolls, nothing to offset the challenges AMD was facing.

      • rrr
      • 7 years ago

      You should buy a functioning brain.

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    “Reuters says one of its sources characterized AMD as a “legacy company” that may be an unappealing acquisition target due to its “dependence on the PC industry and lack of strong mobile offerings.”

    Nothing to see here. We are not in the post-pc era. Move along. Nothing to see here.

    Oh wait. Madmanoriginal your thoughts against Reuters, JP Morgan Chase and the entire IT and media industries.

      • MadManOriginal
      • 7 years ago

      When there aren’t about 1 million PCs shipping from OEMs per day maybe. ‘Post PC’ is a stupid term because it implies PCs are going away or being replaced entirely. During the last few years of explosive mobile growth, PC shipments have shown small single digit growth until the most recent quarter. I think it was Microsoft (or maybe Intel) who said this is a ‘PC plus’ movement which is more accurate. Simpletons think in terms of zero sum, but clearly the last 5 years have not been zero sum…PCs just aren’t sexy and growing like mobile and that’s why mobile gets all the attention. They call it ‘legacy’ because there won’t be huge growth in PCs, not because PCs will cease to exist…and AMD is a poor acquisition target because a buyer would want growth.

      Last I knew, laptops counted as PCs: [url<]http://vr-zone.com/articles/survey-shows-kids-want-laptops-not-smartphones-or-tablets-for-christmas/17847.html[/url<]

    • ludi
    • 7 years ago

    Any company in AMD’s current position needs capital, fast. They’ve already borrowed against several year’s worth of crops, layed off all non-essential workforce, lost a few other good people they might have preferred to keep, and are about to start eating the actual seed corn. If they could get the right offer, there’s no reason why a sale shouldn’t be in the list of possible options.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      Well, Chapter 11 isn’t necessarily death for corporations; it’s not even as harmful as it is for individuals. A company can go through bankruptcy, reduce its debt / evade its creditors, and emerge in much better shape. Airlines do this regularly (and in some cases repeatedly). It’s less common in tech, and doesn’t have a lengthy record of success, but it is possible. There’s be some rather annoyed money managers in Abu Dhabi, however.

        • Meadows
        • 7 years ago

        Sure bankruptcy does not equal death, but it will leave an ugly scar on AMD’s credit history and they may not get a third chance if they screw it up again.

        • ludi
        • 7 years ago

        Problem with a tech firm is that your best talent can jump ship to competitors within a week or two.

    • Deanjo
    • 7 years ago

    Hmmm, and if Apple picks them up they could get even more buddy/buddy with intel. Buy AMD and continue to license the AMD portfolio to intel for exclusivity to some of intels cpu development.

      • Geistbar
      • 7 years ago

      I believe that Intel retains access to the AMD patents regardless of what happens with AMD. Anyone buying AMD isn’t going to have any leverage against Intel from that.

        • Deanjo
        • 7 years ago

        That agreement expires Nov 2014 and only covers the cpu patents. It does not include, even as of now their other patents that they acquired on cluster interconnects and graphics.

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          If it doesn’t cover their other patents why would gaining those be any leverage against Intel? Presumably if they provided that leverage it would be being used.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Because you wouldn’t be licensing from a competitor, you would be licensing from one of your largest customers.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            You missed what I was getting at. You said yourself that the patents are not covered in their current agreement. That presumably means that Intel isn’t licencing them right now. Why would Intel have a need to licence them if ownership changes hands? There’s no leverage to be gained over someone when you have something that they don’t need nor have a strong desire to possess.

    • Johannesburg
    • 7 years ago

    I was under the impression that a condition of VIA and AMDs x86 license is that they cannot sell their CPU division without losing the right to make IA-86 based devices. This seems unlikely…

      • sschaem
      • 7 years ago

      This is not speculation, those are official statement done by AMD.

      AMD credit rating is going down the tube, next time they need to restructure, they might not be able to…. and that mean automatic bankruptcy.
      AMD hold what 2 billion in debt ? … its a hammer ready to drop.

      • UberGerbil
      • 7 years ago

      [url=https://techreport.com/discussion/23663/as-amd-struggles-intel-chip-prices-stagnate?post=674097#674097<]Once again[/url<]: there is no license per se. There is a [url=https://techreport.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=58083<]patent-sharing agreement[/url<], which must be re-negotiated in the even of a "material change" in AMD (and a merger or acquisition in which it is not the surviving corporation certainly qualifies as that). It's not beyond the bounds of credulity to imagine Intel willing to do such a renegotiation and allow the acquirer of AMD to continue making x86 products if the acquiring company has a patent portfolio that Intel would like to get access to (Samsung, for example) and said company is willing to offer it up (presumably that would be factored into their decision to pick up AMD). It's also possible that an acquiring company would be doing so to get access to the talent on the CPU side (whatever's left) and the IP / products on the GPU side of the company, and their bid would essentially value the x86 assets at zero; however, keep in mind that AMD has x86 patents that Intel needs (eg relating to x64), so some patent sharing would take place regardless.

        • bthylafh
        • 7 years ago

        Also it’s in Intel’s interest to have some competition in the x86 space: it will keep the anti-trust regulators at bay.

          • UberGerbil
          • 7 years ago

          Yes, there is certainly that, though with ARM increasingly ascendant it’s unclear if regulators would be quite as concerned with that today as they were 10 or 15 years ago.

          • Geistbar
          • 7 years ago

          It’s also in Intel’s interest for their competition to be relatively impotent. Swapping AMD as a rival for Samsung is the type of thing that could hurt Intel’s margins quite a bit.

    • Narishma
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]Candidates reportedly include Microsoft, Google, Samsung, [b<]Intel[/b<],[/quote<] Yup, makes total sense. They should sell the CPU division to Intel and the GPU division to Nvidia.

      • brute
      • 7 years ago

      wow your domb

      awful idea

        • rrr
        • 7 years ago

        You mean his domb? What is that “domb” thing he apparently possesses and why it’s so interesting that you have to bring it up like that?

      • tfp
      • 7 years ago

      Really it should go the other way…

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    “AMD said in an email to Reuters it is not actively pursuing a sale of the company or any significant assets.”

    So they are only interested in selling insignificant assets… Typical AMD talk.

    So 2 billion in debt to pay, 1.4 billion worth on the open market…
    Sound like AMD is living the American dream.

    To continue the analogy, AMD will gut the home to extract every penny to pay its debts,
    destroying any value left in the property itself…

    Microsoft… have a heart, salvage ATI before AMD kills what left of it!

      • brute
      • 7 years ago

      askign microsoft to have a heart is like asking AMD to exercise good judgement.

      get real

        • nanoflower
        • 7 years ago

        That’s true. No company is going to rescue AMD out of the goodness of their heart. Though ATI is the one piece that actually has a lot of value currently so it would be a logical piece to sell off if it comes to that. I suppose AMD would retain rights to continue using the ATI GPU tech in their APUs.

        The sad thing is that news like this is only going to continue to hurt sales of products until there is a clearer view of what will be happening with AMD. No one is going to want to spend significant money with the company when they don’t know if the products they buy today will be there a year or two from now.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        I mentioned Microsoft not because they are known to have a good heart, but rely on AMD for their console business.
        They sold 60+ million xbox360, and in less then 12month will release a new AMD based product in direct competition to Sony AMD based product.

        Assuming MS spend $20 in royalty per system , thats 1.2 billion that they can put toward an ATI purchase . Knowing that AMD is only worth 1.4 billion on the open market,
        its not a question of money, or a question of poor strategic investment.

        So If you really think this was a plea to Microsoft heart… you get real.

          • phileasfogg
          • 7 years ago

          $20 in royalties per system (game console) sold?? I don’t know — that sounds awfully high.

          Let’s see: you are forecasting an equal, or higher, # of Xbox-next units sold, as compared with Xbox360, over their respective lifetimes. (so >=60m units). AMD won’t be manufacturing these APUs; MSFT buys wafers and finished goods from their fab vendor(s). So, you’re saying that AMD stands to collect $1.2B, which is about $1.70 per share of earnings (assume 700M shares), over the life of this Xbox-next (let’s say 5 years) for zero incremental investment (or COGS) on their part. Man, that sounds too good to be true.

          And we haven’t even computed the potential eps contributions from sales to Sony’s PS4 and Nintendo WiiU.

          Somehow, I don’t think the earnings from game console sales will be *that* sweet to AMD.

          IMHO, the royalty will be about $5 per chip, if that.

            • sschaem
            • 7 years ago

            1.2 billion over 7+ years. Its also not a flat scale.
            They might get $5 in royalty after 50 million are sold? we dont have the contract for the fine print.
            Bu we know its not 1 cent per unit, or 100$ per unit.

            To put this in perspective, AMD in 2008, 2009 spent over 450 million a *quarter* in R&D expanses (not counting operation ).
            Since 2010 they average about 350 million in R&D spending a quarter.
            But their total quaterly expanses is 1.4 billion… yes, AMD burn money at the rate of 1.4 billion every 3 month.

            So that 1.2 billion spread over 7+ years is NOTHING for AMD, they spend more then that in 12 weeks.

            Not so impressive anymore 🙂

            Microsoft can take over AMD, shut it all down and just keep the GPU division alive and it will make a profit.

            My point is that AMD as it stand today makes no sense. AMD made 6.5 billion in revenue in 2011 but it was a disastrous financial year. loosing money, standing, respect, etc…

            The only people that benefit are ex AMD CEO, like Dirk that got a 12 million parachute in Jan 2011.

            AMD business model is just unsustainable.

    • geekl33tgamer
    • 7 years ago

    [quote<]AMD might be more keen on selling off its patent portfolio.[/quote<] Yeah, I see all that IP for the Bulldozer is really going to look attractive... ...Jokes aside, AMD fully deserve this. Management team one after another has completly ruined the company beyond all recovery IMO. Pains me me say this, as I've always bought their stuff since the K6-II era. I am still rocking one of their FX 8120's now and 2 6950's in CF. I regret buying the dam CPU though - It's awfull. I thought review sites were just jumping on the hate bandwagon, but no - It's really bad. Hot, slow, full of bugs in Turbo Core and Core Parking features, and now seemingly abandoned on the latest roadmaps. Lets just hope whatever happens their Radeon side of the business continues ok - Because those are pretty decent...

      • geekl33tgamer
      • 7 years ago

      I see the downvote fairy has been busy…

        • UberGerbil
        • 7 years ago

        So it would appear.

      • Dysthymia
      • 7 years ago

      Logged in to upvote you. Sadly, while I appreciate the value of AMD in the CPU market keeping Intel from shoving their fist up the rectum of the collective CPU market customer, Intel /clearly/ has the upper hand. I couldn’t blame anyone for choosing an Intel CPU for gaming. And while I am currently rocking an AMD GPU as well, I’m leaning toward nvidia for my next purchase based on power efficiency and the games that I’m interested in playing.

        • geekl33tgamer
        • 7 years ago

        Exactly my point (but you worded it a little better!)… I will be moving to an Intel CPU next time round, anyone would. You can’t ignore the fact that Intel’s CPU’s are just *so* far ahead of AMD now on performance and power consumption.

        Even the most die-hard AMD supporter (and I was probably one tbh) must start questioning to buy into their CPU division now.

        Graphics isn’t quite so easy, as I actually like my Radeon’s, and it’s replacements perform very well against NV also. AMD need to make sure their GPU business survives, as im sure that is worth a lot more than any other area of their current business?

      • anotherengineer
      • 7 years ago

      “…Jokes aside, AMD fully deserve this. Management team one after another has completly ruined the company beyond all recovery IMO.”

      AMD and the workers at AMD do not deserve this.

      All (most) of the management at AMD deserves to get fired with no severance and blacklisted and work at Burger King till they’re 85 or die first.

      It’s a big joke how incompetent people can ruin entire companies and cost many 1000’s of jobs, then get a few million in bonus/severance and onto the next job. Hurts the economy also.

      Maybe the board should have hired someone capable and knowledgeable in the cpu/gpu/PC world.

        • Geistbar
        • 7 years ago

        I think the issue is that “past experience as a corporate executive” seems to be given higher priority than “competence”. Companies will skip past someone who seems to be doing a good job as a high level manager at a similar company, just so they can get someone who was the CEO of 10 different companies — never mind if all of them had financial issues during their tenure.

        It’s gotten to the point where a single facet of the resume overrides all of the others. I think boards have gotten so risk averse that they’ll prefer a known-bad candidate over an unknown-potentially good candidate.

          • destroy.all.monsters
          • 7 years ago

          That’s pretty typical HR thinking everywhere. It’s as if no one in an HR department was familiar with the Peter Principle.

            • Geistbar
            • 7 years ago

            My un-ending hunt for a job has me well acquainted with this fact, much to my dismay. No past experience means no interest…

            It’s just more surprising at the top of a firm. I would expect the board of directors — unlike a local hiring manager — would be more willing to spend a bit of extra time finding the absolute best possible candidate. What’s a wasted month or two of vetting extra candidates when you’ll be putting one of them in charge of your multi-billion dollar company?

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            I agree with you. HR departments are notoriously shallow and usually don’t do their homework. I personally think HR departments exist primarily so that those people are perpetually employed (rather like how many politicians are lawyers) but that’s a side rant.

            There’s a theory that in actuality the only competent people need to be at the bottom of the ladder (essentially to prop up the incompetents that are reaping the benefit of the actions of others) which I have trouble finding fault having been at so many agencies that needed a housecleaning.

            Considering that in this particular case they took 8-9 months to hire Read you’d have thought they’d actually have done this vetting. However, I think that they just wanted to make sure they got someone that was going to rubber stamp or have few ideas of his/her own in order to merely implement the board’s will.

          • NeelyCam
          • 7 years ago

          In case of AMD, it may have been that they couldn’t find anybody competent willing to take over. I remember their CEO hunt taking a really long time..

            • destroy.all.monsters
            • 7 years ago

            They refused to consider anyone in house though. Henri Richard, Rick Bergman, and there’s others whom I’m forgetting.

            I’m not saying you’re wrong but I’d think that it would have been better to either keep Meyer or get someone in house that actually has some loyalty and longevity going for them.

            Pat Gelsinger turned *them* down so obviously your argument isn’t without merit.

            • Flatland_Spider
            • 7 years ago

            Pat would have been crazy to leave EMC for AMD. EMC is making money and a market leader. He was the best candidate, but apparently, a stable paycheque is more important than being a geek hero.

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 7 years ago

      No up or down vote for me as I’ve not owned an AMD chip since my X2 4200. I always bought or built AMD setups for friends until the Core 2 arrived. I’ve watched AMD slip and it has bothered me, not because I’m a fanboy but because I know what competition means for us the consumer. Let’s hope someone pulls something out of their hat and brings a good cpu designing company back from near death.

    • RtFusion
    • 7 years ago

    Sad to see a giant of 40 years or so just slowly die like this, through its own faults of horrid management.

    I might want to put my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ in a glass display case or something from my very first desktop.

      • just brew it!
      • 7 years ago

      [quote<]I might want to put my AMD Athlon XP 2000+ in a glass display case or something from my very first desktop.[/quote<] Somewhere in the crawlspace I've still got this: [url<]http://justbrewit.net/trstuff/amdcpu.jpg[/url<] That's the AMD 9080 CPU from my very first PC, built back in the late 1970s. The 9080 was a clone of Intel's 8-bit 8080A CPU.

    • brute
    • 7 years ago

    AMD stocks are being sold to Charmin to make exquisite toilet paper for the discerning ass wiper. Slightly more valuable per sheet, more absorbent after the loss of staff, and clearly capable of dealing with shit.

      • 5150
      • 7 years ago

      I’ll never switch as long as stock for the Green Bay Packers are available.

    • Alexko
    • 7 years ago

    “Yes, Facebook. Don’t ask.”

    They’ve expressed interest in AMD’s plans to make ARM-based server CPUs for datacenters.

    I don’t see Facebook as a very likely candidate, but they do use *A LOT* of hardware, so making it themselves could make sense. According to Alexa, Facebook is the world’s second largest website (behind Google) so their datacenter needs must be enormous. Plus, they might want to make a phone or tablet at some point, at least they were rumors about that, so AMD’s expertise could come in handy.

    Still, if AMD has to be bought, I hope it’s not by Facebook.

      • Theolendras
      • 7 years ago

      Would make sense, if AMD had more efficient architecture of power efficiency. Not that they couldn’t manage it. This is now the case as of now.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      In the future at TR: “Facebook FX-8950 Processor Full Review”

      • CuttinHobo
      • 7 years ago

      Facebook would bring real innovation to the CPU industry. Who else would bring new ad-acceleration instructions, a dedicated Farmville co-processor, and add backdoor controls to keep your webcam recording? That last one adds a lot of value. Why pay ADT good money every month for their security services, when Facebook will watch you for free? 😀 Once they observe intruders, they’ll post on your wall:

      [quote<]HELP! I'm getting burgled!! (Like This) [/quote<]

        • marvelous
        • 7 years ago

        Fuck the intruders. I rather let them in my house than let some facebook douche spy on me.

    • Vasilyfav
    • 7 years ago

    Translation: please find us a rich [s<]sugar daddy[/s<] parent company.

      • Vaughn
      • 7 years ago

      I hope intel buys them and takes the ATI part out and just craps the cpu’s.

      AMD is now just a shell of its former self and i’m sure most of the talent that made them great in the early 2000 isn’t there by now anyways.

      I always wanted intel to buy ati and not AMD i’m hoping this may still happen.

        • colinstu12
        • 7 years ago

        Intel sees zero value in AMD. Intel is smart and can figure out their own fast computing platforms (which they do now anyway… Xeon Phi a real product after 7yrs of experimentation, as well as traditional CPUs and Itanium which they’ll be blending in more new tech), and desktop graphics has really been going downhill too due to shit games and pressure from other gaming platforms (the consumer has stopped caring about graphics quality and wants more to do with buying into franchises/neat storylines/new ways of interacting with games via tablets and consoles).

        Besides that, the EU and/or US would totally bitchslap Intel in court about monopolies and this that and the other… more money down the toilet for Intel.

        No thanks. If intel wanted to buy someone, it would be misc tech startups that have actual smart people in them–not AMD full of a bunch of left-overs and cruft. I’m not saying there aren’t good minds at AMD still, there are… but management and marketing among other things have really tarnished the whole thing.

        I think AMD should concentrate more on the high-density high-compute power server market (and on this same token… stick with the more regular/entry level server market too). Their quad g34 offerings are pretty good considering the price. They could definitely live a healthy life just off of this market. AMD is bleeding the worse on their cheap consumer CPU/APU side.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This