[updated] AMD lowers revenue expectations because of poor APU sales - Q2 earnings call

[patrickjp93]

That is a conspiracy theory. You are trying to link unrelated things together to illustrate what kinds of agenda you think the companies have. It is quite hilarious.

I'm quite sure you have all the insider information on what went on between Intels and Nvidias crosslicense-agreement. :lol:

The crosslicense-agreement also came after the FTC was after Intel (which nvidia was a part of). Not all got cleared, so it got dealt with under the new crosslicense-agreement. Something about nvdia chipset IIRC.

Also isn't it $1.5 billion over six years?

Greedy investors dont usually like to have companies make unjustifiable decisions to pursue a nvidia.

You even to think it would make a different if amd was there or not. xIn86_64 is at safe hands for Intel.

That some cartoon logic. You are living in a small world, that is all I can say to that.

Intel is not going to knock off Nvidia in HPC. Not any time soon. They can expand their marketshare in GPGPU, but Nvidia is sitting tightly there, and is very integrated with its customers.

They aren't unrelated. Nothing in big business is unrelated when there are this few competitors.

 

I have the agreement itself which is of public record and the court proceedings records of the 6 billion dollar lawsuit Intel filed and won against Nvidia afterward. Have you been asleep?

 

It's 1.5 billion annually. AMD refused to license at all. That left Intel dealing with whatever Nvidia gave them.

 

It's not unjustifiable. The Xeon Phi are potentially even higher margin products than CPUs. And the accelerator market is huge even if the industry is made of only 3 real competitors. It's a lot of potential revenue in the short run and profit in the medium. Beyond this taking down Nvidia means Intel gets all of that graphics IP, and TSMC loses a huge customer. It's better for Intel 9 ways from Sunday. 

 

Nvidia's not integrated with anyone but IBM, and IBM's slipping. Intel has a CUDA license and uses it. All those CUDA users have been converting to OpenMP and OpenACC with Intel's exhaustive help. The more groups Intel flips, the more vulnerable Nvidia becomes. And if Nvidia falls, AMD will be left crawling, and Intel can keep it on life support and exist as an uncontestable monopoly, meaning more money for investors than ever, because it gained that monopoly the legal way.

[othertomperson]

ARM seems to have lost its way in that too. MIPS is almost preferable for that sort of scenario now (Internet of Things). For Smartphones, we're getting to the point that more processing and GPU power is damn pointless.

 

I was thinking less smartphones per se and more tablets -- the kind of Surface or chromebook-like product that bridges the gap between tablet and lightweight productivity laptop. Maybe not as expensive as the Chromebook Pixel or the Macbook but definitely that kind of ethos.

[patrickjp93]

I was thinking less smartphones per se and more tablets -- the kind of Surface or chromebook-like product that bridges the gap between tablet and lightweight productivity laptop. Maybe not as expensive as the Chromebook Pixel or the Macbook but definitely that kind of ethos.

Eh, Atom's catching up to ARM though, and if concepts from it are blended into the next Core M, ARM is going to have serious trouble even there. Intel's already back up to selling chips at half-cost instead of giving them away, and ARM's not making any headway back.

[othertomperson]

Eh, Atom's catching up to ARM though, and if concepts from it are blended into the next Core M, ARM is going to have serious trouble even there. Intel's already back up to selling chips at half-cost instead of giving them away, and ARM's not making any headway back.

 

True. And people are always going to prefer x86 where possible. At least when all of the things they want to run already exist on Windows or Linux.

[patrickjp93]

True. And people are always going to prefer x86 where possible. At least when all of the things they want to run already exist on Windows or Linux.

At least the saving grace of Linux is that it is available for every assembly language out there.

[Deletive]

The massive problem AMD is facing is that they are banking on a sea-change in the way the majority of programs are written to happen now. As it stands iGPUs are needed for displaying OS and effects, watching and decoding videos, and gaming. For the first two any Celeron's integrated graphics is enough, let alone i3 and i5. For the third most people use a dedicated GPU. Iris is decent, but largely irrelevant for most people.

 

The thing is what is likely to happen in the future is that more and more programs will be written to take advantage of many cores. More specifically, they'll be using something akin OpenCL or CUDA, and the requirements for CPUs will go down. This is where AMD are hedging for the future of APUs, and they may be right. However, they are making a product for a world they envisage five to ten years from now, and not the world they see out of their window.

 

Right now the more powerful CPU that is the i3 or the i5 is far more useful than even the best integrated graphics so it doesn't really matter how good an iGPU you include.

 

My phones processor do the exact same thing the difference is that I can't change that at any point which is quite the same with laptops, mobile, tablets most markets other then consumer desktop. Largely enough the need for higher end iGPU's to perform task or even display images for higher resolutions, while still being able to perform is something that I think the market is growing to include.

 

 

Eh, Atom's catching up to ARM though, and if concepts from it are blended into the next Core M, ARM is going to have serious trouble even there. Intel's already back up to selling chips at half-cost instead of giving them away, and ARM's not making any headway back.

 

Intel knows that atom isn't making the money they would like it to, but atleast they're popping up in other markets. 

 

Intel's Atom's are up in phones, servers and comsumer tablets, laptops. Intel even took it further to put Atom chips on the same socket as other Xeons. Arm is already going to have to worry. 

Intel knows that atom isn't making the money they would like it to, which is the real problem here

[vm'N]

They aren't unrelated. Nothing in big business is unrelated when there are this few competitors.

 

I have the agreement itself which is of public record and the court proceedings records of the 6 billion dollar lawsuit Intel filed and won against Nvidia afterward. Have you been asleep?

 

It's 1.5 billion annually. AMD refused to license at all. That left Intel dealing with whatever Nvidia gave them.

 

It's not unjustifiable. The Xeon Phi are potentially even higher margin products than CPUs. And the accelerator market is huge even if the industry is made of only 3 real competitors. It's a lot of potential revenue in the short run and profit in the medium. Beyond this taking down Nvidia means Intel gets all of that graphics IP, and TSMC loses a huge customer. It's better for Intel ways from Sunday. 

 

Nvidia's not integrated with anyone but IBM, and IBM's slipping. Intel has a CUDA license and uses it. All those CUDA users have been converting to OpenMP and OpenACC with Intel's exhaustive help. The more groups Intel flips, the more vulnerable Nvidia becomes. And if Nvidia falls, AMD will be left crawling, and Intel can keep it on life support and exist as an uncontestable monopoly, meaning more money for investors than ever, because it gained that monopoly the legal way.

Not to the extent you are trying to point out.

Are you talking about the $1.5 billion that was a part of their crosslicence-agreement, or ?

Potentially is the keyword. Potentially everything could be very profitable. Potentially, you could be wrong.

If it was as simple as stepping on an ant, it might have been an easy choice. Answer is it isn't, and it sounds like fantasy.

Nvidia is not that huge of a costumer at TSMC, seeing what their are working with.

However they are almost always the first to change to a newer node. Where many of TSMC customers still are on older nodes.

Okay, if you say so  :lol:

[patrickjp93]

Not to the extent you are trying to point out.

Are you talking about the $1.5 billion that was a part of their crosslicence-agreement, or ?

Potentially is the keyword. Potentially everything could be very profitable. Potentially, you could be wrong.

If it was as simple as stepping on an ant, it might have been an easy choice. Answer is it isn't, and it sounds like fantasy.

Nvidia is not that huge of a costumer at TSMC, seeing what their are working with.

However they are almost always the first to change to a newer node. Where many of TSMC customers still are on older nodes.

Okay, if you say so  :lol:

Exactly to that extent. The last thing any company wants is competition. That hurts profit. If you understand that much, it all makes perfectly logical sense and explains Intel's behavior regarding the Xeon Phi. Instead of going back to the drawing board and making a graphics architecture, they respun it and went right after Nvidia with all guns blazing. Meanwhile they're not exactly forcing AMD to compete on the same level on the PC side. Intel wants AMD alive but half-dead. Nvidia would love for AMD to be dead because that means it could pick up x86_64 and break into the tablet space much more easily by way of the Denver Tegra.

 

There is no cross-license agreement. It's a 1-sided money for IP deal.

 

You know what I mean. Supercomputing will always be a huge market with an insatiable hunger for more performance. Getting Nvidia out of the way means a ton of money for Intel beyond what it already makes. Monopoly is always more fun for the monopolist.

 

Nvidia and Apple are TSMC's two biggest customers. What are you smoking? If Nvidia no longer uses TSMC's foundries, TSMC will lose faith from a number of other customers. At the very least it will be weakened by the loss of Nvidia.

 

Who is Nvidia integrated with? Cray has stopped caring about partner loyalty. In the scientific community Intel is working around the clock to help rewrite libraries to more open standards to avoid antitrust issues, and Nvidia is refusing to budge. Nvidia is going to lose if it keeps up like this,

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

It's AMD's own fault. I only hope the company that buys them brings some serious competition to Nvidia and Intel.

[patrickjp93]

It's AMD's own fault. I only hope the company that buys them brings some serious competition to Nvidia and Intel.

It's likely AMD would be split in half cross-wise between Nvidia and Intel. The only potential buyer I see is Apple, but as a company it is so heavily focused on margins I'm not so sure it's willing to make such a gamble. It's not like IBM where risk is the margin. Qualcomm has no interest in the PC segment, though perhaps it could take the IP related to K12.

[vm'N]

Exactly to that extent. The last thing any company wants is competition. That hurts profit. If you understand that much, it all makes perfectly logical sense and explains Intel's behavior regarding the Xeon Phi. Instead of going back to the drawing board and making a graphics architecture, they respun it and went right after Nvidia with all guns blazing. Meanwhile they're not exactly forcing AMD to compete on the same level on the PC side. Intel wants AMD alive but half-dead. Nvidia would love for AMD to be dead because that means it could pick up x86_64 and break into the tablet space much more easily by way of the Denver Tegra.

 

There is no cross-license agreement. It's a 1-sided money for IP deal.

 

You know what I mean. Supercomputing will always be a huge market with an insatiable hunger for more performance. Getting Nvidia out of the way means a ton of money for Intel beyond what it already makes. Monopoly is always more fun for the monopolist.

 

Nvidia and Apple are TSMC's two biggest customers. What are you smoking? If Nvidia no longer uses TSMC's foundries, TSMC will lose faith from a number of other customers. At the very least it will be weakened by the loss of Nvidia.

 

Who is Nvidia integrated with? Cray has stopped caring about partner loyalty. In the scientific community Intel is working around the clock to help rewrite libraries to more open standards to avoid antitrust issues, and Nvidia is refusing to budge. Nvidia is going to lose if it keeps up like this,

Oh, I'm sure it is on every companys agenda to destroy the competition  :lol:

That sure is what they plan throughout all the long meetings. How they finally can take down Nvidia, and take over the world /s

I doubt xeon phi was ever going to be a graphical processor. It is to much of an uphill battle.

 

I still don't see why you think Intel would care if AMD was alive. I doubt Nvidia have any interest in x86. They markets they pursue dont really favor x86 that much.

 

There is. Nvidia got some rights for some older chipset licesnses, and Intel payed out because they also didn't get some of the never chipset licenses (QPI/DMI). Also, I believe there are parts that aren't official.

 

There are huge amount of profits is so many markets. Some, you have very high profits per sale, others you have a lot of sales with a smaller per sale profit. Sure, Intel have its interest in that market, but not to the extent they are pursuing Nvidia.

 

How do we meassure how big of a costumer they are?

TSMC most certainly have some bigger contracts in works. This is more related to low-power processors, that could end up in IoT, network equipment or the like. What one might even consider industrial components. 

Again, if it is more profitable that Nvidia as a customer, and cant say, but they certainly have the quantity advantage.

[Techhog]

I didn't realize that AMD was so close to becoming a penny stock...

[Techhog]

Oh, I'm sure it is on every companys agenda to destroy the competition  :lol:

That sure is what they plan throughout all the long meetings. How they finally can take down Nvidia, and take over the world /s

I doubt xeon phi was ever going to be a graphical processor. It is to much of an uphill battle.

 

I still don't see why you think Intel would care if AMD was alive. I doubt Nvidia have any interest in x86. They markets they pursue dont really favor x86 that much.

 

There is. Nvidia got some rights for some older chipset licesnses, and Intel payed out because they also didn't get some of the never chipset licenses (QPI/DMI). Also, I believe there are parts that aren't official.

 

There are huge amount of profits is so many markets. Some, you have very high profits per sale, others you have a lot of sales with a smaller per sale profit. Sure, Intel have its interest in that market, but not to the extent they are pursuing Nvidia.

 

How do we meassure how big of a costumer they are?

TSMC most certainly have some bigger contracts in works. This is more related to low-power processors, that could end up in IoT, network equipment or the like. What one might even consider industrial components. 

Again, if it is more profitable that Nvidia as a customer, and cant say, but they certainly have the quantity advantage.

You do realize that AMD owns the patent for x86_64 and also that Intel risks being broken up if AMD dies unless they convince courts that Qualcomm is a direct competitor, right?

[vm'N]

You do realize that AMD owns the patent for x86_64 and also that Intel risks being broken up if AMD dies unless they convince courts that Qualcomm is a direct competitor, right?

You do realize, that these things have been worked over in the crosslicense agreement?

Intel would keep rights to x86_64, in almost all scenarios.

 

I think you want to read up on the monopoly laws. Non of what you are talking about have any real aplication in the real world.

Intel will not be split up. How would that work? Intel are working in hundreds of different fields, how will they break them all up? Many of them directly unrelated to this matter.

Been a monopoly, is not illegal.

[Techhog]

You do realize, that these things have been worked over in the crosslicense agreement?

Intel would keep rights to x86_64, in almost all scenarios.

 

I think you want to read up on the monopoly laws. Non of what you are talking about have any real aplication in the real world.

Intel will not be split up. How would that work? Intel are working in hundreds of different fields, how will they break them all up? Many of them directly unrelated to this matter.

Been a monopoly, is not illegal.

Then why isn't Intel being more aggressive to just get rid of them so they can dramatically raise prices in the future?

[vm'N]

Then why isn't Intel being more aggressive to just get rid of them so they can dramatically raise prices in the future?

Because things are not that simple.

One, Intel almost already is a monopoly in the x86 market (AMD been almost non-existing is almost all x86 segments).

Abusing the monopoly power can lead to a monopoly case going against Intel. Difference between been a monopoly and abusing the power that comes from it.

[patrickjp93]

Then why isn't Intel being more aggressive to just get rid of them so they can dramatically raise prices in the future?

Because despite V'mn's skepticism, Intel wants AMD alive as a shield against bigger competition. And Intel would prefer to consume Nvidia instead of have Nvidia get x86_64 in the event AMD died too soon. Also, monopoly is legal as long as it is achieved without antitrust violations. In other words, if it's done via raw competition, lawyers can't touch you.

[Techhog]

Because despite V'mn's skepticism, Intel wants AMD alive as a shield against bigger competition. And Intel would prefer to consume Nvidia instead of have Nvidia get x86_64 in the event AMD died too soon. Also, monopoly is legal as long as it is achieved without antitrust violations. In other words, if it's done via raw competition, lawyers can't touch you.

Fair points. So, the question is, what does happen after AMD dies?

[patrickjp93]

Fair points. So, the question is, what does happen after AMD dies?

If AMD dies early, Intel would rapidly buy up ATI, and the FTC would have to see about who gets x86_64. The only two big companies interested in it (to me anyway) are Nvidia and maybe Apple. Nvidia needs to differentiate and find more markets to serve, because Intel is heavily pressuring IBM and it in the HPC space, and that's Nvidia's biggest money maker. The low end of dGPUs are being pressured too, so unless multiadaptor in DX 12 becomes rapidly ubiquitous, that market will pretty much die off in the next couple years thanks to both Intel and AMD. If Nvidia gets x86_64, it will be able to challenge Intel in mobile SOCs very rapidly with its Denver IP. Even if it takes a while to extract the new CPU IP it gets from AMD, it already has Denver sitting there which gave Apple fits. 64-bit x86 Denver would be a very strong but low power tablet/2-in-1 SOC. Widen it to 4 cores and Intel would have some trouble in laptops and the market for Pentiums/Celerons as well. It would also put Nvidia in a prime position since the major compilers are still far more heavily focused on and designed to optimize x86 than ARM.

 

Intel getting the ATI graphics IP... I leave that to your imagination with Intel still being a node ahead of everyone else and with a far bigger manufacturing scale than TSMC. 

 

If AMD lives long enough for Intel to corner Nvidia and pressure its shareholders into a buyout, IBM will be defunct, Oracle will be helpless, Xilinx will have no benefactor (other than Oracle which doesn't really use FPGAs anyway), and AMD will still be financially crippled and wide open. At that point Intel could literally drive them into the dirt the legal, competitive way, and it would have no legal threats for antitrust violations. That is a doomsday monopoly scenario unlike any other in the industry. And before you ask about Samsung, the FTC would never allow a foreign firm to hold power over the most ubiquitous instruction set in the world and the U.S.. I doubt Qualcomm wants to try to pick up that smoldering heap AMD has become either, and despite its server inclinations, Qualcomm is not interested in low volume markets like PC.

[Doobeedoo]

If AMD dies early, Intel would rapidly buy up ATI, and the FTC would have to see about who gets x86_64. The only two big companies interested in it (to me anyway) are Nvidia and maybe Apple. Nvidia needs to differentiate and find more markets to serve, because Intel is heavily pressuring IBM and it in the HPC space, and that's Nvidia's biggest money maker. The low end of dGPUs are being pressured too, so unless multiadaptor in DX 12 becomes rapidly ubiquitous, that market will pretty much die off in the next couple years thanks to both Intel and AMD. If Nvidia gets x86_64, it will be able to challenge Intel in mobile SOCs very rapidly with its Denver IP. Even if it takes a while to extract the new CPU IP it gets from AMD, it already has Denver sitting there which gave Apple fits. 64-bit x86 Denver would be a very strong but low power tablet/2-in-1 SOC. Widen it to 4 cores and Intel would have some trouble in laptops and the market for Pentiums/Celerons as well. It would also put Nvidia in a prime position since the major compilers are still far more heavily focused on and designed to optimize x86 than ARM.

 

Intel getting the ATI graphics IP... I leave that to your imagination with Intel still being a node ahead of everyone else and with a far bigger manufacturing scale than TSMC. 

 

If AMD lives long enough for Intel to corner Nvidia and pressure its shareholders into a buyout, IBM will be defunct, Oracle will be helpless, Xilinx will have no benefactor (other than Oracle which doesn't really use FPGAs anyway), and AMD will still be financially crippled and wide open. At that point Intel could literally drive them into the dirt the legal, competitive way, and it would have no legal threats for antitrust violations. That is a doomsday monopoly scenario unlike any other in the industry. And before you ask about Samsung, the FTC would never allow a foreign firm to hold power over the most ubiquitous instruction set in the world and the U.S.. I doubt Qualcomm wants to try to pick up that smoldering heap AMD has become either, and despite its server inclinations, Qualcomm is not interested in low volume markets like PC.

Yes that would've been quite a mess.

So AMD really needs to be magical with their next gen CPUs and GPUs and earn market share and money. That would be gold. As far as what is known on paper it really looks promising, Zen being entire new architecture and moving away from CMT to SMT also on much smaller manufacture process, next, their new Radeon card also on smaller manufacture process and with HBM2 having more memory.

 

I'm sure they know they're in quite a problem so they work as much as they can in their position now, and having next products on much smaller node and also entire new architecture better bring an epic beast of products. I can't see it fail with those two modern tech things. All their current products are still based on old tech and large manufacturing process for quite a while and are still solid in competing. They lasted this far with it, now when they're back at same modern process as others and architectural improvements, that will be interesting to see. 

[MrDynamicMan]

wtf do you expect when Intel does this

and completely wrecks AMD at their own game. I know there is a large price difference, but prebuilt PC makers know consumers like Intel Inside.

dude, that's like comparing a 960 to a furyX. Of course it's not as good.

[Dabombinable]

dude, that's like comparing a 960 to a furyX. Of course it's not as good.

An R9 390X to a 980ti you mean.

[mr moose]

I didn't realise we had so many law specialists on these forums.   IF AMD go belly up it's anyone's guess what happens with Intel, Nvidia, Someone will buy the IP but gods knows if they even want to use it.  The world is turning toward ARM as much as it is continuing with x86.

 

Also why are people surprised by any of this, AMD have been in the financial toilet for the better part of a decade and barely treading water in said toilet for the last 6 years.  Probability and their Z-score says they should have gone bankrupt 4 years ago.

[Guest Strangerbob]

If AMD dies early, Intel would rapidly buy up ATI, and the FTC would have to see about who gets x86_64. The only two big companies interested in it (to me anyway) are Nvidia and maybe Apple. Nvidia needs to differentiate and find more markets to serve, because Intel is heavily pressuring IBM and it in the HPC space, and that's Nvidia's biggest money maker. The low end of dGPUs are being pressured too, so unless multiadaptor in DX 12 becomes rapidly ubiquitous, that market will pretty much die off in the next couple years thanks to both Intel and AMD. If Nvidia gets x86_64, it will be able to challenge Intel in mobile SOCs very rapidly with its Denver IP. Even if it takes a while to extract the new CPU IP it gets from AMD, it already has Denver sitting there which gave Apple fits. 64-bit x86 Denver would be a very strong but low power tablet/2-in-1 SOC. Widen it to 4 cores and Intel would have some trouble in laptops and the market for Pentiums/Celerons as well. It would also put Nvidia in a prime position since the major compilers are still far more heavily focused on and designed to optimize x86 than ARM.

 

Intel getting the ATI graphics IP... I leave that to your imagination with Intel still being a node ahead of everyone else and with a far bigger manufacturing scale than TSMC. 

 

If AMD lives long enough for Intel to corner Nvidia and pressure its shareholders into a buyout, IBM will be defunct, Oracle will be helpless, Xilinx will have no benefactor (other than Oracle which doesn't really use FPGAs anyway), and AMD will still be financially crippled and wide open. At that point Intel could literally drive them into the dirt the legal, competitive way, and it would have no legal threats for antitrust violations. That is a doomsday monopoly scenario unlike any other in the industry. And before you ask about Samsung, the FTC would never allow a foreign firm to hold power over the most ubiquitous instruction set in the world and the U.S.. I doubt Qualcomm wants to try to pick up that smoldering heap AMD has become either, and despite its server inclinations, Qualcomm is not interested in low volume markets like PC.

 

 

You convinced me that AMD dying early would be the best thing for the market. Since apparently they cant become big and strong on their own anymore, thats done.

 

Well, i was gona buy AMD stuff in the future, just to support, but i guess imma get the stuff with the better value tho.

[MrDynamicMan]

An R9 390X to a 980ti you mean.

no, I don't. They have completely different price points. take it this way; WOW! product x sucks because product y that is twice the money performs better than it!

(I'm not saying that Intel doesn't have better tech, but it's just a horrible, biased comparison.)