AMD makes a bold move.

filmoret

With the launch of their new GFX cards and some of their CPU,APU chips they are still having problems that will take a few years to recover.  Basically they are indebt and have opened up to selling an extra 1 billion worth of the company to help pay it off.  This does not necessarily mean its bad but it also doesn't imply anything good at all.  Basically they are borrowing money to pay off debts.  Its a cycle that every company wants to break at some point.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13695799/1/advanced-micro-devices-amd-stock-falls-in-after-hours-trading-on-public-offering.html

Malabooga

Nvidia stock is down, Intel stock is down, are they all "bad business"?

They are indebt for 7-8 years now. And finally in position to repay part of the debt. Now, somehow, thats a bad thing lol

Scorchien

I bought a alot of AMD last hmm Oct/Nov @ 1.92 .. Just sold it all recently @ 7.00 ..Nice investment ...

Malabooga

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

filmoret

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Yea they are finally in a place where they can come out on top.  Problem is they were in debt and just now borrowed money to pay it off.  Hopefully it works out for them.

Talonsin

AMD going under would be very bad.  Nvidia needs a competitor. 

Malabooga

filmoret said:

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Yea they are finally in a place where they can come out on top.  Problem is they were in debt and just now borrowed money to pay it off.  Hopefully it works out for them.

First part of debt is due in 2019. So you got something very very wrong.

zanfire

Talonsin said:

AMD going under would be very bad.  Nvidia needs a competitor. 

i always love hearing the idiotic fanboys who for some crazy reason want AMD to fail....because a monopoly always lowered prices and created innovation right? /s

Even if you love Nvidia and believe they are they best you should always be rooting for the only other guy in the race because they are the only thing keeping Nvidia from having "COURAGE" to no innovate and remove features because of money. (yes that was an apple joke...because they are a joke atm)

laserit

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Does that include the consoles?

Malabooga

laserit said:

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Does that include the consoles?

Consoles dont have dGPU....

AMD already owns 100% console market.

laserit

Malabooga said:

laserit said:

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Does that include the consoles?

Consoles dont have dGPU....

AMD already owns 100% console market.

What is their total market share?

Over extending yourself can mean big trouble no matter your Market Share. Profit Margins can be very very small to achieve that Market Share.

filmoret

Malabooga said:

filmoret said:

Malabooga said:

SedrynTyros said:

AMD has been getting crushed by Intel and Nvidia for years.  I don't see that trend changing any time soon.

AMD gained over 7% dGPU marketshare in last quarter alone and is now at 35% dGPU marketshare.

Yea they are finally in a place where they can come out on top.  Problem is they were in debt and just now borrowed money to pay it off.  Hopefully it works out for them.

First part of debt is due in 2019. So you got something very very wrong.

You read something wrong.  The 2019 is the second debt not the first.  They are borrowing 1bil to pay off debt that is due right now.  They are also increasing their market share which drives down price and it did that already.  Stock dropped 10% in a few days because of this alone.  Doesn't mean its a bad move it just shows they aren't clear out of the water quite yet.

Quizzical

If Zen is good, AMD will make a bunch of money and be fine.  If Zen is bad, AMD will go out of business.  It's nearly that simple, though there are intermediate possibilities.  That would probably leave Intel as the only meaningful supplier of x86 CPUs, but someone would buy up AMD's GPU business and that would survive.

AMD has been in debt ever since they borrowed $5 billion to buy ATI.  That's nothing new.

filmoret

With their current move they have decreased their current debt by 500 million.  But this was at the expense of current stock holders.  But yea time will tell if they are able to hold it together for another round.

Ridelynn

Quizzical said:

If Zen is good, AMD will make a bunch of money and be fine.  If Zen is bad, AMD will go out of business.  It's nearly that simple, though there are intermediate possibilities.  That would probably leave Intel as the only meaningful supplier of x86 CPUs, but someone would buy up AMD's GPU business and that would survive.

AMD has been in debt ever since they borrowed $5 billion to buy ATI.  That's nothing new.

I wouldn't rule out Intel buying up said GPU business (or at least trying, barring anti-trust) - Intel has been dedicating a lot of resources to improving their own integrated graphics for a very long time, and are the de-facto top graphics supplier across all PC models.

There have been a lot of attempts to break into the x86 market - AMD has been the only one to hang in there for any meaningful period of time with any significant volume (Cyrix, Transmeta, Via, IBM, National Semi, even nVidia at one point attempted it). The x64 license is probably the saving grace for AMD, and probably the only significant thing that will go up for auction on the CPU side of the house, and I couldn't tell you where that will end up. It would make sense for Intel to buy it, but anti-trust issues there may prevent it, and it could conceivably go to someone like nVidia, Apple, or even Microsoft.

The PC market isn't the hot growth item it once was though, it's not dead, but it's stopped growing for the most part. That means we won't see a lot of new blood or innovation, just a lot of dogged evolution as the parts get dragged down to commodity value. And I think we have truly been there for a number of years now, we just don't want to admit it. So I think, if AMD exits the scene, it won't have that big of an impact - we have already seen the impact since AMD has failed to be exceptionally competitive.

ianicus

AMD would rule the world if they fixed the disaster that is usually thier drivers these days. paaaaaathetic. I was ATI/AMD graphics for over a decade, jumped ship a little less than a year ago.

filmoret

Oh imagine if Intel buys AMD.  You would just hang up Nvidia because the mainstream market would evolve around intel and noone could stop it.

Quizzical

If Intel buys AMD, consumer Intel CPUs might stop coming with PCI Express 3.0 x16 as an option to lock out Nvidia GPUs and force gamers to buy Intel Radeon integrated graphics.

ianicus

Quizzical said:

If Intel buys AMD, consumer Intel CPUs might stop coming with PCI Express 3.0 x16 as an option to lock out Nvidia GPUs and force gamers to buy Intel Radeon integrated graphics.

would never happen,  they would be slapped with an anti-trust in microseconds.

zanfire

ianicus said:

AMD would rule the world if they fixed the disaster that is usually thier drivers these days. paaaaaathetic. I was ATI/AMD graphics for over a decade, jumped ship a little less than a year ago.

These days? Ive owned AMD GPUs or years now and rarely run into an issue and i game constantly on PC. Their drivers being bad is an old excuse for people to ignore or bash AMD. Especially with crimsion its far cleaner and i have yet to have any problem.

laserit

zanfire said:

ianicus said:

AMD would rule the world if they fixed the disaster that is usually thier drivers these days. paaaaaathetic. I was ATI/AMD graphics for over a decade, jumped ship a little less than a year ago.

These days? Ive owned AMD GPUs or years now and rarely run into an issue and i game constantly on PC. Their drivers being bad is an old excuse for people to ignore or bash AMD. Especially with crimsion its far cleaner and i have yet to have any problem.

It's how they support older software and more niche software products. I can't speak to how well they support that currently, but I can say that Nvidia has been pretty reliable in that regard.

filmoret

ianicus said:

Quizzical said:

If Intel buys AMD, consumer Intel CPUs might stop coming with PCI Express 3.0 x16 as an option to lock out Nvidia GPUs and force gamers to buy Intel Radeon integrated graphics.

would never happen,  they would be slapped with an anti-trust in microseconds.

I would think if they buy AMD it would be for the graphics and motherboards.  Not that AMD is better but this would basically knock NVIDIA out of the park.  Think about every computer sold as a package will have intel cpu and gpu instead of the intel/nvidia we see most of the time.  Then there is the fact that Intel has the money to actually make AMD much more potent then NVIDIA.   Intel worth 174 billion,  AMD worth 5.3 billion.  They can easily buy them out without batting an eye.

But the anti-trust case would definitely take place and in the USA even though we are free to do what we want we aren't allowed to monopolize like that.

Cleffy

nVidia has a harder time supporting legacy products than AMD. Since AMDs architecture is generalized and their architecture life cycle is longer than nVidia, they are able to support the last 2 architectures and capture most of their consumers.
nVidia on the other hand would need to support cards all the way back to the GeForce 8800 GT to cover the same range of legacy products. This would be Pascal, Maxwell, Kepler, Fermi, and Tesla. Currently nVidia does support all the way back to the GeForce 8xxx series, but they may drop it in the next year or two along with the GeForce 9xxx, GT(x) 2xx and GT(x) 3xx cards.
Despite nVidia offering support for legacy hardware, it has been seen that AMD supports their legacy products better as formerly competing products are now in AMDs favor.

Also there is little evidence that AMD is in financial trouble. The only problem they may face is the unsuccessful launch of Zen. As far as desktop computing, AMD holds the best position in the near future. nVidia does not have a CPU side. Intel's GPU side is shit. AMDs upcoming console offerings are equivalent to an 8 core desktop PC with an RX 480. This is all on a single chip manufactured for a system at $300. If they can bring such technology to the desktop market, then it can completely eat up the mid-range and under market. That is ignoring the factor of brand loyalty and partnerships.
It would pretty much make a system that meets your goals in the other thread.
As far as the gaming sector, it's AMD and brand loyalists at this point. Getting the hardware wins for the last 2 generations of consoles is starting to pay dividends now. nVidia is getting slaughtered in this upcoming generation of gaming. Part of it is because of nVidia's slow adoption of DirectX standards. A major part of it is that developers are concentrating on the AMD hardware first. They have to. As a developer do you become a nVidia partner and make games run like shit on AMD systems while completely locking yourself out of consoles and 35% of the PC market? Of course not.

Wizardry

I guess badly managed businesses.
I noticed the same thing with that Blackberry guy,he spent tons to try and stay on top of the heap but eventually you lose out to the population just wanting a NEW change.Often times a new star on the block is not warranted,people are finnicky/weird like that,they just see or want to be part of a NEW TREND or new crowd/hype.

I doubt anyone ever thought AMD was at the top,imo always chasing Intel but to try and become the leader i am sure they way over spent their budgets.Reminds me of the days when Soundblaster was knocking off competition and sent the competition into debt and oblivion.

There can really only be one guy at the top,sometimes room for two like Apple and Intel although Apple struggled for along time before finally becoming popular.

Ridelynn

Well, nVidia does have Tegra, which is technically a CPU. It just isn't a desktop x86 CPU.

The console wins have definitely helped AMD, no question about that. The only question I think that remains to be asked with regard to the console business - will it be enough? AMD has invested heavily into their APU line, for a long while now. It hasn't translated to a lot of PC sales (although maybe the A12 will turn things around, but I doubt it, since Intel has been doing just as much to bring their integrated graphics up to par), but that is what got them the console wins. For whatever reason, it's good enough for consoles, but everyone on the PC side tends to stay away from them.

filmoret

Ridelynn said:

Well, nVidia does have Tegra, which is technically a CPU. It just isn't a desktop x86 CPU.

The console wins have definitely helped AMD, no question about that. The only question I think that remains to be asked with regard to the console business - will it be enough? AMD has invested heavily into their APU line, for a long while now. It hasn't translated to a lot of PC sales (although maybe the A12 will turn things around, but I doubt it, since Intel has been doing just as much to bring their integrated graphics up to par), but that is what got them the console wins. For whatever reason, it's good enough for consoles, but everyone on the PC side tends to stay away from them.

The reason a midrange chip is good enough for consoles is because the games are made to run on that particular chip.  So they can spend a lot of time making it run to the best possible way.  They also concentrate on price to stay competetive.  Unlike the PC market which will require you to make the game run on several different gpu's and cpu's.