AMD on track to report a profit for Q3

Enough said.

I'm no financial expert, but I'm pretty sure theres a difference between operating profit and net profit due to one time sales of company assets.

AMD is still operating in the red as far as I can tell, selling off assets will help stem the cash bleed in the short term but they still need to get back to operational profit in the long run to remain fiscally viable.

Indeed.

The boy who cried wolf...


again, and again, and again.

In case anyone needs a hint: You generate profits by successfully selling product to end users at a price that puts cash in your own pocket. NOT by selling off chunks of your company and by playing a restructuring shell-game.

Thanks in advance for all the down ratings I'm about to get for daring to question AMD.

i think they're strong w\ ati.... if etrade releases my money to use before amd stock is $6 or more i'm going to buy some...

i've already sent them a few semi-nasty emails letting them know how unhappy i am w\ them, my next is going to be asking if they're going to credit me for the price difference in the stock from my intended purchase date last week and when they are saying i can use my money (the 21's) even though the bank transaction took a few days and was complete last week.

Thats true, every point. My responses were to comments of this as being a negative, when in fact, it is a positive. No spinning, just 400 million reasons to like this. If AMD doesnt get off their arse and make some cpus that sell, itll continue, but each and every step they take is magnified because of their current situation. If it turns out to be making 600 million dollars on selling obsolete material, all the better for them. If they dont right their ship, itll surely , eventually go down. But for now, this transaction, is good news. Win win. Layoffs, etc is bad, execs dont actually make the products, and some may have been bad for the companby and are welcome to have left. Depends how you look at it too. This is a positive, and should be seen as such. As far as profit margins, leave that up to the author, the reader, and business practices.

If it's obsolete, why is someone paying hundreds of millions of dollars to buy it?

Either the buyer is stupid, or AMD could have had a continuing revenue stream by manufacturing the chips that the buyer is now going to make itself. And helping start 'a Russian version of Silicon Valley' could be really bad for AMD in the long term if it actually comes about.

The layoffs were obvious. No one has left the company. The assets they're selling are no longer needed. You make it seem like the restructuring is bad.

The equipment they are selling, from what I understand from the article, is the equipment used to make 90nm processors. Obviously they aren't going to be producing those anymore. The company that is buying the equipment will use the equipment to make chips for a completely different market. Did you even read the article?

Hester, Orton and Eckstein will be missed, the others no, and some good riddance.

I think the marketing from AMD has sucked for a long time. One of the most exspensive and least productive ways to sell , say a cpu, is motor sports ads. So the ads people, no problem, especially from what Ive seen with the tactics used in the coming of the 4xxx series. Didnt see that one coming eh? No, theyre more ON track than before

That is a natural part of business. Intel sold lots of businesses and layed off more people than AMD employs last year. They did that so that the big hole that was made with a $183 E6300 was covered until they could dump P4 and get to 45nm.

You mean a quad core 45nm laptop is a bad thing? I wish I was running AMD sometimes. I wouldn't have dropped prices as much and would definitely have put more resources into mobile. They should take my advice and shrink Griffin with Stars cores and forget about being able to sell $1500 desktop processors that no one buys anyway (what about .2%).

If I wereto give Intel advice it would be to have left ATis chipset license and stop tying products together. What happens is that if they have a problem, where will people get chipsets or IGPs for all those CPUs? I would also have stayed out of the XO market. Intel is stretched too thin, almost like MS. Nehalem may be their Rubicon as it will require new boards, new chipsets, a whole new infrastructure. I'd also wait and drop server chips first, since if the plan backfires i7 will sit while Deneb and Penryn sell out.

Well, let's see. AMD has lost $5B and Intel has been found guilty of bad things all over the world. I guess I could have screwed em up worse than that. You're right.

Let me respond to you why your advices would've resulted in bigger crisis than AMD is in now.

Well at the moment, Intel is the only one with a quad core mobile CPU, and that unit itself costs over 1000 USD. Aside from that, AMD's CPU would have to lower mobile Deneb's prices in order to compete aganst the mobile Yorkfield. How many people will actually spend that much money in purchasing such a high end mobile CPU? As statistics show, people are much more willing to pay for high end graphics than CPU. If that's the case, what's the point of AMD entering into the fray, commit resources in optimizing Deneb for mobile, and further divert resources from else where? It also seems that Deneb will not have the TDP to actually fit into the mobile segment. AMD would have to wait for 45nm HK/MG, or even 32nm HK/MG before attempting something like that.

I'm not sure how far you would've dropped the prices, but if at the moment performance / price is the only reason why people would select AMD over Intel. In the world where switching from one company to another means an entire makeover in your computer components, AMD's first goal is to secure a relatively safe footing in the market share; to keep AMD users from switching over to Intel. Even if they do lose money now due to extremely low prices, the platform compatibility will allow users to purchase much higher performance CPUs, with much better margin, in the case they do come out.

As for mobile, you have to realize one thing: mobile sector is Intel's playground. Intel has been dominant in the mobile sector since the launch of Centrino back in 2003. Centrino laptops have became a household name for laptop. Therefore in order for AMD to penetrate the market and establish a footing, they would not only have to commit extra resources in altering the current AMD system architecture to favor mobile platform, but also spend enough on marketing to increase the brand awareness. For a cash strapped AMD, it makes much more sense to be in a defensive position, and fortify its foothold in the server segment.

I'm not exactly sure about what you meant by "typing products together", but your "suggestion" of Intel leaving ATI license couldn't be more wrong. Due to the lackluster performance current AMD CPUs have, and users tendency to go for Intel's offering, by confining Crossfire technology only to AMD chipset is no doubt a suicide, just like Nvidia. AMD would lost a lot of graphics card sales just because Crossfire technology is not available on Intel chipset, which is currently the best chipset available on the market for Intel CPUs.

As for IGPs, I think you're overestimating the importance of graphics power. As statistics show, Intel currently controls about 60% of the IGP market, while AMD only controls ~15%. However everyone + dog knows that Intel's chipset sucks arse, while AMD's chipset kicks arse. Why is that?

Personally I don't understand why you have a beef with Intel entering the XO market. Intel is not stretched too thin.

Don't worry about Nehalem. It will do much better than you expect. Sure, it requires a new board, new RAM, but it also offers a lot of advantages that Penryn and Deneb cannot offer. It won't be too long before OEMs switch to GFX equipped Havendale for mainstream and low end PCs, to conserve cost by taking off redundant chipsets.

On the other hand, it would make absolutely no sense by releasing server parts first. Remember Dunnington? It has just been released this year. By releasing server Nehalem parts will only eats up the sales of those products. Oppositely, if Nehalem is released to the enthusiasts crowd first, then it may build up the hypes, which in turn helps more companies to switch to Nehalem.

I agree with amiga here, thats a no brainer. Also, do you have a reliable link for the TDP Deneb mobile? Im just asking, as Id like to read it. Itd suck, if true, or be put in a very limited use scenario

Intel clearly wants to own this market. The server market has been making them itch, thus the Nehalem = no great shakes for gaming/desktop. They abandoned DT for server this round. Good for the bottom line ya know. And people are ticked because AMD may show a profit? Hafta own that too? I dont care how AMD does it, if it doesnt hurt their future capacity to continue, then its fine. Would a solid, AMD sold x amount of cpus, their gpus are selling like hot cakes, are in the black as well, plus their other ventures all in the black because of marketing,innovation and coming thru look better? Sure

You still going on about gaming and such? Will you be happy when everyone just agrees with you? If Intel isnt making any major movements in gaming then neither will AMD. Its the same both ways. Only ATI and nVidia will.

No one should be getting pissed IF AMD does profit because that would be great but considering the source, who has been known to be a fanboy and wrong numerous times (i.e. reverse hyper-threading), its hard to believe it. I will believe it when AMD reports this without having to take a hit from the ATI purchase.

But here is what you ahve to remember, the market that buys the GPUs is so small that even if the ATI division was showing a profit it could in no way make up for the CPU side if the CPU side was showing loss.

My comment only mentioned the gpu side of AMD as a whole, meaning like 1 piston in an engine, with all working to their potential, itd be great for AMD, and would of course be ideal. I mentioned it because even tho its great to see, and experience one of those gpus, that do so well, its only 1 part thats doing this good, and from whats being implied in certain posts here, its like selling old equipment is a lousy thing to hang your hat on, when all Im saying is, it doesnt matter how AMD makes money at this point, whether Intel or AMD sell off their old tech, they still make money off it. And, like I said, itd be surely better to see all factions of AMD operating smoothly and in the black. You completely misunderstood what Ive been saying. Some people in this thread had crapped all over this, going into business semantics on the merit of having more cash, which I replied to as who cares as long as its there for AMD. It helps, and moreso down the road