has AMD hit rock bottom?!

[PlayStation 2]

Sure, unless he goes around posting in the Tech News section, cherry-picking lines, reading only the title of his source and drawing conclusions based on that. At the very least this deserves a ban from this section, as in not posting any more news.

 

In the scenario he mentioned, competition will exist. Intel will be able to make dedicated GPUs and Nvidia will be able to make desktop CPUs, as such both companies will compete on both fronts.

Nvidia, while not the brightest company in the world, would not buy AMD's CPU department. Hell, Intel would be the most likely to absorb it.

[Muz]

Nvidia, while not the brightest company in the world, would not buy AMD's CPU department. Hell, Intel would be the most likely to absorb it.

There are such things as monopoly laws.

[PlayStation 2]

There are such things as monopoly laws.

I still doubt Nvidia would buy AMD's CPU division out.

Chances are, if AMD goes kaput, Microsoft would be a likely candidate for both AMD departments.

[Muz]

I still doubt Nvidia would buy AMD's CPU division out.

Chances are, if AMD goes kaput, Microsoft would be a likely candidate for both AMD departments.

I think anyone would like to see Microsoft buy AMD, I don't care for their CPU's, I just want Radeon to live on.

[Clyne]

Then Nvidia might end up like 3dfx if pascal doesn't have full dx12 features and current amd cards have some features that maxwell dont.

[Ashaira]

There's only one reason AMD is not gonna die, and that's because Intel doesn't wanna pay up the ass for court fees.

There's something i don't get. If AMD does go down of it's own fault why would intel have to pay due to it remaining a monopoly. it would by no means be their fault. how the f does the law work for this?

[PlayStation 2]

There's something i don't get. If AMD does go down of it's own fault why would intel have to pay due to it remaining a monopoly. it would by no means be their fault. how the f does the law work for this?

There's a few reasons mostly involving that Intel practically extorted OEMs to using their CPUs

it's a long and convoluted story

[patrickjp93]

You can't be that thick-headed. No competition = charge up the ass for something

No it wouldn't. Even monopolies have to drive their own sales when we're discussing luxury items. It's not like the medical equipment industry. Please take a class in microeconomics before you say something equally or more stupid.

 

Further, that breakup and splitting of IP would generate more competition on both fronts than AMD can possibly produce on its own. It's the best possible way to break the triad and keep competition going. It would be much worse if Intel drove Nvidia out of HPC and then bought it (the only area of the computing industry where they compete). That would leave AMD utterly defenseless, and that is Intel's long-term goal.

[PlayStation 2]

No it wouldn't. Even monopolies have to drive their own sales when we're discussing luxury items. It's not like the medical equipment industry. Please take a class in microeconomics before you say something equally or more stupid.

 

Further, that breakup and splitting of IP would generate more competition on both fronts than AMD can possibly produce on its own. It's the best possible way to break the triad and keep competition going. It would be much worse if Intel drove Nvidia out of HPC and then bought it (the only area of the computing industry where they compete). That would leave AMD utterly defenseless, and that is Intel's long-term goal.

Ever been to somewhere where they charge up the ass for soda, ex. a fesitval? Yeah..

[patrickjp93]

There's a few reasons mostly involving that Intel practically extorted OEMs to using their CPUs

it's a long and convoluted story

Those legal issues were rectified years ago, and the perpetration was under a different CEO (Paul Otellini). They would hold no bearing on Intel's fate if AMD collapsed. Again, your ignorance of law and economics is astounding...

[ZetZet]

Everything seems to be riding on Zen.

 

In this state, I can see AMD lasting about two years before they're unrecoverable. They need to release Zen soon before it's too late.

Zen is too far away to have anything riding on it. It's 2016 Q4 AT BEST, probably 2017. If they fail with Zen it's over.

[Doobeedoo]

Last thing AMD said today that I've read is that they're confident about Zen
Probably a good thing

[patrickjp93]

Ever been to somewhere where they charge up the ass for soda, ex. a fesitval? Yeah..

And do you need to buy the soda? No. It's a luxury item. Second, you always get markups at malls and special events regardless of the amount of competition. Lines are long, and you need to eat. If you decide to give in and get a soda instead of a cup of water, that is your stupid decision. In an open economy, Intel can't jack up prices and keep making the money it does year over year. Intel will continue to sell at the point where they predict their marginal costs of production meet marginal profits, regardless of AMD's existence or not. AMD's competition is one small variable in a much larger predictive equation of their perceived product quality (and thus marginal profits. Nvidia taking over the x86 business from AMD would increase the weight of that variable significantly, though there are others which are more important regardless.

[TorqueS]

I don't care if AMD goes bankrupt and gets bought by another company. 

I care for the products. If the technology and engineers remain and if the budget grows, allowing for further development, it can be Coca-Cola that buys AMD for all I care...

[Centurius]

Ever been to somewhere where they charge up the ass for soda, ex. a fesitval? Yeah..

Those prices aren't really related to monopolies but rather supply and demand. There is a limited supply and demand is apparently high enough to push the price.

[GoodBytes]

AMDis not going bankrupt. If they do Intel and Nvidia are in trouble globally.

For each country, and EU (europe is all together) beside the US, they'll need to show in court why they don't have the monopoly in the desktop and laptop space running Windows, if not and in the mean time, not be able to sale their product in the region due to anti-monopoly laws.

[PlayStation 2]

AMD is not going bankrupt. If they do Intel and Nvidia are in trouble globally.

For each country, and EU (europe is all together) beside the US, they'll need to show in court why they don't have the monopoly in the desktop and laptop space running Windows, if not and in the mean time, not be able to sale their product in the region due to anti-monopoly laws.

my thoughts exactly except i can't put it in words ;-;

[zMeul]

-snip-

nope, not my thing; I will always hate AMD with every fiber in my body

I will point out every flaw and every wrong move they make, I will make them pay (in my own way) for the defects I paid for

why are you combatting me instead of their business decisions? I'm just the messenger ... don't like the bad news? don't read them!

[patrickjp93]

AMDis not going bankrupt. If they do Intel and Nvidia are in trouble globally.

For each country, and EU (europe is all together) beside the US, they'll need to show in court why they don't have the monopoly in the desktop and laptop space running Windows, if not and in the mean time, not be able to sale their product in the region due to anti-monopoly laws.

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Please actually research the law before you spew about it. Gaining a monopoly through competition is not illegal. If anything Intel can prove it has priced so high as to give AMD plenty of room to maneuver, and AMD fell on its own. Intel is not facing any legal trouble from this unless someone can prove this end result was gained through anti-competitive means. No one is going to be able to, because Kirzanich has played above board since his rise to being CEO. The only other issue Intel could face would be abuse of its market leadership position which would be equally difficult to prove since its pricing model hasn't shifted since the start of Core 2 beyond standard inflation. 

[TheMcSame]

I see Jim Keller leaving at a rather odd moment, why didn't he stayed for the CPUs to leave the production line?

Everyone has their reason, though he likely didn't see a safe future with AMD. AMD has been chewing through CEOs (I know Keller isn't a CEO), which in itself, is a very bad sign. CEOs coming and going within a small amount of time (considering that a lot of CEOs are there for a good few years, sometimes decades) is usually a sign that the CEOs aren't confident about the future of the company.

 

Of course, there's always the chance that Zen brings AMD back into the CPU game... But given the many CEOs that have come and gone and Keller leaving... Well, again, everyone has their reasons but it sounds like AMD doesn't have much of a future going for it unless Zen can compete. To me it looks like it's Zen or nothing.

[Notional]

nop, not my thing; I will always hate AMD with every fiber in my body

 

WHY?

 

And why are you spamming this forum with it? Such a biased and hateful starting point of your threads just turns it into propaganda. No one wants to be exposed to your FUD in here.

[Notional]

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Please actually research the law before you spew about it. Gaining a monopoly through competition is not illegal. If anything Intel can prove it has priced so high as to give AMD plenty of room to maneuver, and AMD fell on its own. Intel is not facing any legal trouble from this unless someone can prove this end result was gained through anti-competitive means. No one is going to be able to, because Kirzanich has played above board since his rise to being CEO. The only other issue Intel could face would be abuse of its market leadership position which would be equally difficult to prove since its pricing model hasn't shifted since the start of Core 2 beyond standard inflation. 

 

That's not what he said. He said that Intel would have to prove they didn't abuse their new monopoly status, and that would be difficult with the pricing scheme they already have. The anti monopoly laws are strict in EU, and no company is big enough to ignore it. EU's penalties are based on percentage of the global revenue of the company, so it hurts a LOT.

 

I still don't understand why you are so pro NVidia when it comes to taking over CPU divisions. But looking at how bad the 700 and 900 series are hardware wise, I doubt NVidia actually has the competencies to be even close to Intel.

 

Everyone has their reason, though he likely didn't see a safe future with AMD. AMD has been chewing through CEOs (I know Keller isn't a CEO), which in itself, is a very bad sign. CEOs coming and going within a small amount of time (considering that a lot of CEOs are there for a good few years, sometimes decades) is usually a sign that the CEOs aren't confident about the future of the company.

 

Of course, there's always the chance that Zen brings AMD back into the CPU game... But given the many CEOs that have come and gone and Keller leaving... Well, again, everyone has their reasons but it sounds like AMD doesn't have much of a future going for it unless Zen can compete. To me it looks like it's Zen or nothing.

 

Seems like Keller is hired on contract per project, not as a standard employee. If it is true that he is going to Intel to lead the next Atom development, he will probably leave when that is done too. After all, ZEN is done. It's finished. Now we're just waiting for GloFo to actually manufacture the damn thing.

 

The last two AMD CEO's seems to have done a fairly good job of moving AMD in the right direction. But big companies are like oil tankers. Changing direction takes a LONG time. I mean Zen started development in 2012.

[Ashaira]

Having a monopoly is not illegal. Please actually research the law before you spew about it. Gaining a monopoly through competition is not illegal. If anything Intel can prove it has priced so high as to give AMD plenty of room to maneuver, and AMD fell on its own. Intel is not facing any legal trouble from this unless someone can prove this end result was gained through anti-competitive means. No one is going to be able to, because Kirzanich has played above board since his rise to being CEO. The only other issue Intel could face would be abuse of its market leadership position which would be equally difficult to prove since its pricing model hasn't shifted since the start of Core 2 beyond standard inflation. 

but there is something they would need to prove. they may have settled that dispute about oem but the fact remains that that problem caused a huge shift in brand recognition which in turn lead to consumers buying intel over amd due to brand perception. Brand perception by itself is not something a company would be responsible for but in this case something illegal they did had consequences on it.

[ivan134]

Those prices aren't really related to monopolies but rather supply and demand. There is a limited supply and demand is apparently high enough to push the price.

That's absolutely not true. He should have used a movie theater as a better example. They have a rule that you can't bring your own food which means they can charge a much higher price to sell you food.

[zMeul]

but there is something they would need to prove

no, they don't need to prove anything - the ones making a case against Intel need to prove it