2013 Q1 CPU Market Share Numbers

[naokaji]

What worries me more about AMD however, is the percentage of their own sales that were lost. 18,800 down to 11,800. That's a catastrophic plummet year over year, that's close to a 40 percent drop in sales vs intels 12 percent drop in sales.

And in the same time frame tablet sales increased 140%...
Did they both miss the mobile bandwagon?

[tajoh111]

No it doesn't...

Bull. AMD getting the console deals is public knowledge to everyone, especially analysts. When the PS4 was revealed to use AMD processors, the stock didn't really do anything.

If the price of the AMD stock doesn't include the console deal, this would be the worst kept insider knowledge ever. Hell the CEO has been talking about the console deal left and right. If the console deal was as you think, analyst would be rating AMD alot better. Everyone analyst left and right has been calling it a low margin deal.

The recent surge on AMD stock has been related to an Intel buyout rumors which is ridiculous.

[DilTech]

There is essentially no way that AMD can lose everything though. The console contracts foot the bill for the losing CPU and (probably) GPU divisions.

Just to remind ya... AMD had 2 of the 3 consoles last generation. The two best selling consoles last generation at that. Didn't change as much for their bottom line as you would have thought. It's not like AMD are producing each chip in-house and selling them to the gaming companies, they pretty much sell them the design itself. It's one of the biggest reasons why the game consoles jumped to AMD, because NVidia won't sell the chip design to them (same reason why the PS4 won't backwards compatible with the PS3, or why microsoft stopped their backwards compatibility project for playing xbox1 games on the xbox360, because they have to pay NVidia to make it happen). It's definitely nowhere near as much as you guys seem to think.

AMD are banking more on the publicity from the deal than the profits on the deal.

[PatRaceTin]

what will happen if Intel is monopoly.

[Piledriver]

Of course AMD is focused on making desktop cpu's, HELLO, it's what a majority of whats left of their business is based on, if they drop focus on desktop cpu's they don't exist plain and simple.

Of course they have to venture into other markets to make up the losses they are seeing in the desktop and mobile cpu sales volume, Intel is and has been trying to do the same thing but they are overall in a whole other league as far as desperation and profitability is concerned.

It's not to bash AMD by any means it's simply the reality of the situation, lets take a look. AMD has had a major top to bottom management shake up, consistent quarterly losses, significantly reduced sales volume, employee exodus, mass employee layoffs and on top of that AMD has sold off a majority of its assets. This is not made up, it's reality... While all the other tech companies are grappling with a changing market you don't see any of them scrambling around as AMD.

Like I said AMD's management deserves a standing ovation if they manage to keep the company intact in one piece through these tough times because they are in a bad position that statistically has continued to worsen to date.

your speech is at least 6 years old, it's annoying like those homeless preaching end of days. Meanwhile, AMD in those 6 years went from $5 billions in debt to $2 billions in debt with "consistent" quarterly losses, it doesn't add up, and no AMD focus isn't on desktop anymore, it hasn't been since Meyer left, get on with the program.

Not particularly. The CEO during the 4th quarter conference call was telling investors that in the long term, his goals were trying to turn AMD into a profitably company while making 1.2 billion dollars a quarter(which would include the console deal).

This is a lie, i already call you out on this before, and i already explained you this before, and here you are spreading fud again.

The CEO said he wanted the BREAK EVEN POINT to be at 1.2 billion dollars, that means the point at which AMD starts to make profit, there is NO CAP on revenue! AMD can make 100 billion dollars a quarter, above the 1.2 billion mark it's all profit. It's really, really, really simple to understand this.


Off course consoles deals are meaningless, AMD are expected to triple the revenue on embedded devices, but hey meaningless, i bet here you won't be manipulating the data with percentages , i also bet if nvidia won those contracts i would be a big deal.

[Rollo]

what will happen if Intel is monopoly.

Intel employees pants suddenly feel too tight.

More seriously, probably not much. (and same with NVIDIA)

Intel and NVIDIA have to keep the doors open and profits rolling for stockholders. So while they can sell a small percentage of parts for $1000 to enthusiasts, they have to give the rest of us reason to buy new parts.

They have to keep churning out parts that offer advances in performance at prices we will pay.

And for intel, with 85% market share, they basically have a monopoly today. Even when AMD had dominant parts they only hit around 25% market penetration.

[DilTech]

your speech is at least 6 years old, it's annoying like those homeless preaching end of days. Meanwhile, AMD in those 6 years went from $5 billions in debt to $2 billions in debt with "consistent" quarterly losses, it doesn't add up, and no AMD focus isn't on desktop anymore, it hasn't been since Meyer left, get on with the program.


This is a lie, i already call you out on this before, and i already explained you this before, and here you are spreading fud again.

The CEO said he wanted the BREAK EVEN POINT to be at 1.2 billion dollars, that means the point at which AMD starts to make profit, there is NO CAP on revenue! AMD can make 100 billion dollars a quarter, above the 1.2 billion mark it's all profit. It's really, really, really simple to understand this.


Off course consoles deals are meaningless, AMD are expected to triple the revenue on embedded devices, but hey meaningless, i bet here you won't be manipulating the data with percentages , i also bet if nvidia won those contracts i would be a big deal.

I didn't say they meant nothing... Profit IS profit. But let me give you an idea of how much is REALLY made here.

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/15...s-are-terrible

NVidia only had made 500M off the PS3 deal by March 2011. 100 million a year (keeping in mind the PS3 came out in 2006) sounds great to us, but that's barely a drop in the bucket for these guys. That isn't even a single quarter's revenue for these guys! It's DEFINITELY not enough to cover the R&D for the CPU team to handle their business.

AMD didn't win the sony contract. NVidia walked away from it. $10 a console? That's ALL NVidia got for the PS3, and that was apparently more than AMD was charging microsoft for the x360. Now, consider that AMD obviously offered to do the job for less than NVidia's offer, and you'll see why I say this isn't nearly as big of a deal as you guys seem to think.

What you guys seem to forget is that the profit in the console market is NOT the systems themselves (which are made and sold at a loss, cutting every corner they can, and doing everything in their power to lower costs), but rather the games sold. When it comes to that, no console company gives money from that to the hardware makers. These contracts merely give the hardware makers a small padding on their bottom-line, a guaranteed paycheck every quarter, and more-or-less bragging rights.

[Rollo]

Console money will not be the savior of AMD.It's way too big a company to be floated by that, or the GPU division.

The thought of it is as preposterous as the whole "Seamicro! AMD is teh king!" argument.

For AMD to survive, they need to offer competitive products in their core business. (or get a "do-over" from QUALCOMM)

"Gee guys, we didn't mean to sell you that tech that lead you to be 50X bigger than us for nickels and dimes. Ummm....mom and dad say we have to get Snapdragon back, we'll borrow the nickels and dimes to re-pay you and we'll be even-steven!"

More likely we'll see that by discontinuing free coffee in the break rooms and selling the dart machine they hope to break even next quarter.

[highoctane]

your speech is at least 6 years old, it's annoying like those homeless preaching end of days. Meanwhile, AMD in those 6 years went from $5 billions in debt to $2 billions in debt with "consistent" quarterly losses, it doesn't add up, and no AMD focus isn't on desktop anymore, it hasn't been since Meyer left, get on with the program.

You need to feed your brain from AMD's own financial statement, everything they talk about is CPU, GPU & APU all in the desktop space with a shake of console and cloud.

Again with the debt, AMD is now and has been continually selling off assets to date and received a multi billion dollar settlement from Intel. Abu Dahbi investment paid a heft sum for AMD's fabs & tech and if I remember correctly part of the deal was Abu Dahbi taking over some of AMD's debt in the process.

AMD today is a fraction of they company they where 6 years ago, they are no longer a growing company with high tech multi billion dollar fabs.

Today AMD as a company is no larger than Nvidia revenue wise and Nvidia is largely desktop graphics.

[Piledriver]

You need to feed your brain from AMD's own financial statement, everything they talk about is CPU, GPU & APU all in the desktop space with a shake of console and cloud.

Again with the debt, AMD is now and has been continually selling off assets to date and received a multi billion dollar settlement from Intel. Abu Dahbi investment paid a heft sum for AMD's fabs & tech and if I remember correctly part of the deal was Abu Dahbi taking over some of AMD's debt in the process.

AMD today is a fraction of they company they where 6 years ago, they are no longer a growing company with high tech multi billion dollar fabs.

Today AMD as a company is no larger than Nvidia revenue wise and Nvidia is largely desktop graphics.

And AMD spent more than 1$ billion getting rid of GF's exclusivity and buying seamicro for example, and AMD keeps putting improved products out at a cadence never seen before by them, for example, and they keep innovating and making things that nobody else done, (kaveri\huma just around the corner), for example, AMD fires engineers "On noes it's the end, downsizing", AMD hires engineers... *crickets*...


I loved the "multi" billion settlement from intel part, your passion or need to make AMD look bad is so, that making stuff up is no barrier.

[highoctane]

This conversation is senseless, there's more to business than producing a product, buying companies or r&d alone. You have to produce a product that sells and generates enough profit to sustain and grow the business.

AMD makes its business decisions and if those decisions lead to low wafer penalties or breaking exclusivity deals then those are all the fault of AMD. If AMD posts a loss what are you going to do blame all their vendors because of charges AMD agreed to pay, oh nooes its not AMD its everybody elses fault that AMD losses money.

AMD right now is floundering as a business simply because there is weak demand for their product.

AMD doesn't even have high expectations for the next quarter with expected revenue increase of 2% plus or minus 3% sequentially, at least they are hoping to be in the black by h2 but that's what expectations should be for a company at all times.

[qcmadness]

This conversation is senseless, there's more to business than producing a product, buying companies or r&d alone. You have to produce a product that sells and generates enough profit to sustain and grow the business.

AMD makes its business decisions and if those decisions lead to low wafer penalties or breaking exclusivity deals then those are all the fault of AMD. If AMD posts a loss what are you going to do blame all their vendors because of charges AMD agreed to pay, oh nooes its not AMD its everybody elses fault that AMD losses money.

AMD right now is floundering as a business simply because there is weak demand for their product.

AMD doesn't even have high expectations for the next quarter with expected revenue increase of 2% plus or minus 3% sequentially, at least they are hoping to be in the black by h2 but that's what expectations should be for a company at all times.

In fact Q2 is a weak quarter.

[raghu78]

Just to remind ya... AMD had 2 of the 3 consoles last generation. The two best selling consoles last generation at that. Didn't change as much for their bottom line as you would have thought. It's not like AMD are producing each chip in-house and selling them to the gaming companies, they pretty much sell them the design itself. It's one of the biggest reasons why the game consoles jumped to AMD, because NVidia won't sell the chip design to them (same reason why the PS4 won't backwards compatible with the PS3, or why microsoft stopped their backwards compatibility project for playing xbox1 games on the xbox360, because they have to pay NVidia to make it happen). It's definitely nowhere near as much as you guys seem to think.

AMD are banking more on the publicity from the deal than the profits on the deal.

AMD is selling finished APU chips to Sony and Microsoft for next gen consoles. For Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii / Wii U they were on a licensing model. The PS4 and Xbox next console APU has x86 CPU tech which cannot be licensed due to Intel and AMD's x86 license agreement which prohibits licensing to another company. also the APU is a SOC with CPU cores, GPU cores, integrated memory controller, UVD blocks etc tightly integrated in a single die design.

http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderd...twithstanding/

"We note the business model should be different from AMD?s existing Xbox 360 and Nintendo Wii U wins which were unit-royalty bearing agreements as opposed to selling finished chips. The processor used in the Playstation 4 is an eight-core CPU, based on the company's new architecture ("Jaguar"), integrated with an AMD graphics chip. We estimate that average selling prices for the company's game console business are roughly $60 due to its premium specifications"

[Piledriver]

This conversation is senseless

Just to pile on, on how bad you were own here, that it became "senseless"

Ex-AMD employee Bob Feldstein has revealed that a deal struck up between Microsoft and AMD for the Xbox One is worth more than $3 billion.

Posting on his LinkedIn profile, the former AMD vice president of Strategic Development stated that AMD had signed a multi-year deal with Microsoft valued at over $3 billion. The posting also revealed that AMD provided a "custom silicon solution" to Microsoft for the Xbox One.

http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-on...illion-6408926


Now people just need to read a couple of posts above and have a good lol

[Rollo]

Just to pile on, on how bad you were own here, that it became "senseless"



http://www.gamespot.com/news/xbox-on...illion-6408926


Now people just need to read a couple of posts above and have a good lol

Both can be true.

$3b over 8 years (life of console) is not quite the impact of "$3b deal!". That would be something like $360m a year, and even if profit is as high as 33%, it's only $120m a year profit.

Not exactly the savior of a company the size of AMD.

So, it could well be a "$3b deal" and still a "this is not what AMD needed deal" as everyone is saying.

[KiSUAN]

Both can be true.

$3b over 8 years (life of console) is not quite the impact of "$3b deal!". That would be something like $360m a year, and even if profit is as high as 33%, it's only $120m a year profit.

Not exactly the savior of a company the size of AMD.

So, it could well be a "$3b deal" and still a "this is not what AMD needed deal" as everyone is saying.

Add at least 3 Billion more from Sony and you can also say they are being paid to develop products or enhance technology they can use in other business offloading economical burden from R&D. I don't know exactly how wafer market work, but it might also help negotiate wafer price, it’s not exactly the same to negotiate for 10 million CPUs (or equivalent wafer allocation) per Q AMD is selling than 30 or 40 million. And so on, almost every angle I can think of is an advantage, it isn’t only about the final price you sell the product.

Also, from a marketing and market share stand point, as what the hell will this be reported? This are x86 CPUs or not? They will be reported in conventional x86 CPU reports? If so, wee could see AMD tie Intel CPU market share and passing them in GPU for sure.

[rk7p5]

Either way it's good news for Amd and enthusiasts and will hopefully bring better perfoming console ports for pc.

Hopefully Steamroller doesn't disappoint. I really hope Amd pulls out of their slump.

[highoctane]

Now people just need to read a couple of posts above and have a good lol

I did and read your user name! couldn't stop laughing !!!

Nobody said consoles wouldn't generate revenue, DUH, the problems that plague AMD are profitability and market demand in their core product lineup, the business that made AMD.

[Piledriver]

I did and read your user name! couldn't stop laughing !!!

Nobody said consoles wouldn't generate revenue, DUH, the problems that plague AMD are profitability and market demand in their core product lineup, the business that made AMD.

You said worse, that it was a miracle if AMD survived another year, even after i pointed out that idiotic speech is 6 years old at least.

[Piledriver]

Both can be true.

$3b over 8 years (life of console) is not quite the impact of "$3b deal!". That would be something like $360m a year, and even if profit is as high as 33%, it's only $120m a year profit.

Not exactly the savior of a company the size of AMD.

So, it could well be a "$3b deal" and still a "this is not what AMD needed deal" as everyone is saying.

And after taxes AMD gets nothing of the deal.. right?

It's amazing how you already know profit margins and yearly revenue... first it's OVER $3b, second microsoft is aiming at 1 billion xbox sales, that's 1 billion APU's, do you think AMD will make the same if either Microsoft sells 400 millions units or 1 billion units? years of the deal are irrelevant.

[RVWinkle]

hopefully the SR core is equivalent to Intel's P4 > Core 2 jump in IPC...

At best it will still be slower than Sandy Bridge but with a larger die size. They have a steep hill to climb.

4. APUs while more efficient, convenient and nice, take away from their previous discrete sales and discrete development, plus do not reap much $$ per unit.

This isn't entirely accurate because of material and production costs for different skus along with things like different markets.

I like the fact that AMD is avoiding unnecessary chipset/socket development as much as possible, continuing to reuse a variant of AM2 still and the lesser pin FM sockets, but their company is too small do do any real development anyway.

What I find interesting about the socket is they have access to Intel patents so they could easily clone it. I would imagine that switching to lga would save a few bucks per package. Lga costs more for the motherboard manufacturer so they might have sway with a 2nd place company.

[DeathReborn]

And after taxes AMD gets nothing of the deal.. right?

It's amazing how you already know profit margins and yearly revenue... first it's OVER $3b, second microsoft is aiming at 1 billion xbox sales, that's 1 billion APU's, do you think AMD will make the same if either Microsoft sells 400 millions units or 1 billion units? years of the deal are irrelevant.

A billion units??? Not going to happen in this reality and anyone claiming that to shareholders/investors would be laughed out of the room and off a very tall building. 100-200 million units is all they can hope for realistically, it's high price will prevent it becoming as ubiquitous as a toaster or kettle.

[highoctane]

World wide sales as of 2012 for xbox 360 and ps3 where both around 75 million units total each since their original launch dates, combined thats a long way from any 400 million units so much as mention the higher number.

[Rollo]

And after taxes AMD gets nothing of the deal.. right?

It's amazing how you already know profit margins and yearly revenue... first it's OVER $3b, second microsoft is aiming at 1 billion xbox sales, that's 1 billion APU's, do you think AMD will make the same if either Microsoft sells 400 millions units or 1 billion units? years of the deal are irrelevant.

1. Oh. MS plans to sell 1 billion, I guess that means it will happen.

2. No one said AMD makes the same on 400m as they do on 1b, I was just going off what is posted. An ex-AMD guy said they expect $3b.

3. "Years of the deal are irrelevant"? In what alternate reality? I took the number of years between the xbox 360 and new unit launch (8 years) but the first xbox was out 10. How many years they sell these new ones is a key part of the equation, unless you think MS is buying a billion APUs upfront.

4. "1 billion" might be a little optimistic as the first xbox sold 24m and the 360 sold 77m. Golly gee, the new one is so great it will sell 10X as many as the first two did over 18 years! Probably in 2014! AMD is gonna be RICH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xbox


Anyway time is ALWAYS key.

AMD is losing money hand over fist:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD...IBM,20644.html

AMD Reports 2012 Loss of $1.18 Billion, While IBM Profits

So like I said, "If the $3b dollar deal is over the life of a console (~8 years) and if they're running a 33% profit on the chips, making $120m a year doesn't put much of a dent in the $1.18b losses.".

Even if they made 50% per chip, it would be peanuts in their overall financial picture. Consoles just aren't as big a deal as you are hyping them up to be. (and I guarantee you AMD isn't making 50% margins)

[Sushi Warrior]

1. Oh. MS plans to sell 1 billion, I guess that means it will happen.

2. No one said AMD makes the same on 400m as they do on 1b, I was just going off what is posted. An ex-AMD guy said they expect $3b.

3. "Years of the deal are irrelevant"? In what alternate reality? I took the number of years between the xbox 360 and new unit launch (8 years) but the first xbox was out 10. How many years they sell these new ones is a key part of the equation, unless you think MS is buying a billion APUs upfront.

4. "1 billion" might be a little optimistic as the first xbox sold 24m and the 360 sold 77m. Golly gee, the new one is so great it will sell 10X as many as the first two did over 18 years! Probably in 2014! AMD is gonna be RICH!

The point of that statement was saying that the next gen consoles will be around for a LOOONG time, and will presumably be much cheaper than the last gen ($300-400 launch price?). So they will sell more than the current gen, which I would totally agree with.

AMD is losing money hand over fist:

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/AMD...IBM,20644.html



So like I said, "If the $3b dollar deal is over the life of a console (~8 years) and if they're running a 33% profit on the chips, making $120m a year doesn't put much of a dent in the $1.18b losses.".

Even if they made 50% per chip, it would be peanuts in their overall financial picture. Consoles just aren't as big a deal as you are hyping them up to be. (and I guarantee you AMD isn't making 50% margins)

AMD was losing money, they aren't doing great now but they are just about out of the red for 2013-2014. They were a bloated company in 2012, now they are operating at a much better pace/size in comparison to their business. They were trying to hire as many people as Intel while only selling 5% of CPUs The bigger deal isn't about consoles, but rather the fact that every game developer will be coding for highly-multithreaded, GCN optimized games...