How does AMD survived

[zehao39]

AMD beats Intel at GPU industry And beat NVIDIA at CPU industry ?

[zehao39]

Just now, SageOfSpice said:

You can buy an i3 with an igpu for less than $100 if you want to talk value.

but AMD A series are much better in on board gpu

[Coaxialgamer]

Semi custom : they license their IP for devices like the ps4 and xbone ( which use amd apu's).  They recently got 250 M$ from china for a contract.  Their cpu and gpus still make money.  

[Coaxialgamer]

16 minutes ago, SageOfSpice said:

Intel creates igpus small enough to fit onto a CPU die that outperforms some dedicated graphics cards.

 

If you ask me, that's stupidly impressive.

Don't forget that those dedicated cards were 28nm, while the igpu was 14nm.  Thats 4 times the density 

[TriFlix Films]

3 minutes ago, SageOfSpice said:

You can buy an i3 with an igpu for less than $100 if you want to talk value.

I can buy a bike for $100 but I could also get an older decent car for $1200... if I need to travel 500 miles quess which one I am buying...

 

Price to performance the bike however... it wouldn't meet my needs nearly as well..

I know I was the one that brought up the price to performance argument, but it needs to be in context. Yeah igpus are a price/perf better but so is AMD against NVIDIA, its just AMD isn't meeting everyones needs. People (not everyone, just some) would rather spend a bit more and get lowest priced items that meet their needs. 750ti great! but if you want to play DOOM... lol good luck

 

igpus and AMD have their place but its supply and demand. There a lot more people that just want exce/lweb browsing/school device, hince igpus doing well. But when gaming its AMD/NVIDIA people lean towards a desired spec (so many fps, mid/high/ultra settings). Yes AMD can do high frames on ultra, but some would rather spend a bit more and get more FPS at ultra with NVIDIA.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never avoid buying a gpu that met my needs just because of a company badge. It's just AMD has been lacking at meeting a good portion of the gaming communities demands is all. Their 480 is only a bit cheaper than the 970 rn and perform pretty similarly but the 970 have been out for around a year, although the 480 does have more VRAM (great for video editors!)

 

Nice talking to you

[zehao39]

Just now, TriFlix Films said:

I can buy a bike for $100 but I could also get an older decent car for $1200... if I need to travel 500 miles quess which one I am buying...

 

Price to performance the bike however... it wouldn't meet my needs nearly as well..

I know I was the one that brought up the price to performance argument, but it needs to be in context. Yeah igpus are a price/perf better but so is AMD against NVIDIA, its just AMD isn't meeting everyones needs. People (not everyone, just some) would rather spend a bit more and get lowest priced items that meet their needs. 750ti great! but if you want to play DOOM... lol good luck

 

igpus and AMD have their place but its supply and demand. There a lot more people that just want exce/lweb browsing/school device, hince igpus doing well. But when gaming its AMD/NVIDIA people lean towards a desired spec (so many fps, mid/high/ultra settings). Yes AMD can do high frames on ultra, but some would rather spend a bit more and get more FPS at ultra with NVIDIA.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never avoid buying a gpu that met my needs just because of a company badge. It's just AMD has been lacking at meeting a good portion of the gaming communities demands is all. Their 480 is only a bit cheaper than the 970 rn and perform pretty similarly but the 970 have been out for around a year, although the 480 does have more VRAM (great for video editors!)

 

Nice talking to you

for money to performance view. AMD's A series CPU are much better than Intel CPU have igpu. Just a reminder ?

[SageOfSpice]

21 hours ago, TriFlix Films said:

I can buy a bike for $100 but I could also get an older decent car for $1200... if I need to travel 500 miles quess which one I am buying...

 

Price to performance the bike however... it wouldn't meet my needs nearly as well..

I know I was the one that brought up the price to performance argument, but it needs to be in context. Yeah igpus are a price/perf better but so is AMD against NVIDIA, its just AMD isn't meeting everyones needs. People (not everyone, just some) would rather spend a bit more and get lowest priced items that meet their needs. 750ti great! but if you want to play DOOM... lol good luck

 

igpus and AMD have their place but its supply and demand. There a lot more people that just want exce/lweb browsing/school device, hince igpus doing well. But when gaming its AMD/NVIDIA people lean towards a desired spec (so many fps, mid/high/ultra settings). Yes AMD can do high frames on ultra, but some would rather spend a bit more and get more FPS at ultra with NVIDIA.

Don't get me wrong, I'd never avoid buying a gpu that met my needs just because of a company badge. It's just AMD has been lacking at meeting a good portion of the gaming communities demands is all. Their 480 is only a bit cheaper than the 970 rn and perform pretty similarly but the 970 have been out for around a year, although the 480 does have more VRAM (great for video editors!)

 

Nice talking to you

You're buying a CPU anyways, right? So getting something along with it that's capable of playing a lot of modern games even at low settings is pretty fucking spectacular.

[zehao39]

21 hours ago, SageOfSpice said:

You're buying a CPU anyways, right? So getting something along with it that's capable of playing a lot of modern games even at low settings is pretty fucking spectacular.

Just like I said, you point is that intel are doing the good job that put a small gpu in cpu.However AMD are doing a better job in that. Their A series CPU have better in chip gpu than intel . BTW be nice to people?

[BrightCandle]

AMD looses a lot of money for a few reasons as they have listed in the past years:

 

- They have had to write off a lot of inventory because they couldn't sell it.

- They were stuck into a certain number of wafer starts at a fixed cost that they couldn't use because sales were so low.

- They don't sell enough product to cover their staff costs.

 

In essence AMD is a much larger company than it can afford to be. It doesn't sell enough products to make a profit for the number of staff it has and overheads are dwindling the cash reserves it made up selling the early Athlon processors.

 

Part of the problem AMD has today is it doesn't get to demand an equivalent market price to either of its competitors. It has a technical design disadvantage in all products and as such it ends up selling at budget prices with low margins to stay afloat. They are trying to change that a bit but their strategy is to simply be competitive and not industry leading as they simply don't have the resources to be and they continue to lay off staff.

 

AMD might only survive a few more years if Polaris and Zen don't return them to profitability for the longer term.

[kaylexmorgana]

1 hour ago, AresKrieger said:

That isn't a different industry just a specialty in the field of GPUs, since it's not like you can't game on an igpu it's just fairly weak

10fps on low on 1080?

[WEEEEEE]

1 hour ago, TriFlix Films said:

AMD lives because NVIDIA allows them to... If NVIDIA bought out AMD, NVIDIA would be a monoply on the GPU industry and would become government regulated.

 

Same thing with Apple/Android or Verizon/Other large Carriers

Anti-trust/Anti-Monopoly laws would stop that. They would never be allowed to merge in the first place (I'm pretty sure).

[SageOfSpice]

3 minutes ago, 69ing Rainbow Dash said:

10fps on low on 1080?

Your picture is adorable, by the way.

 

30 FPS in 720p is alright though.

 

That's like PS3 level, man. =p

[samcool55]

3 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

AMD looses a lot of money for a few reasons as they have listed in the past years:

 

- They have had to write off a lot of inventory because they couldn't sell it.

- They were stuck into a certain number of wafer starts at a fixed cost that they couldn't use because sales were so low.

- They don't sell enough product to cover their staff costs.

 

In essence AMD is a much larger company than it can afford to be. It doesn't sell enough products to make a profit for the number of staff it has and overheads are dwindling the cash reserves it made up selling the early Athlon processors.

 

Part of the problem AMD has today is it doesn't get to demand an equivalent market price to either of its competitors. It has a technical design disadvantage in all products and as such it ends up selling at budget prices with low margins to stay afloat. They are trying to change that a bit but their strategy is to simply be competitive and not industry leading as they simply don't have the resources to be and they continue to lay off staff.

 

AMD might only survive a few more years if Polaris and Zen don't return them to profitability for the longer term.

At this moment it does look like Polaris at least might bring them back into positive numbers.

In the US the rx 480 sells out in minutes. People right now are sitting at their computer hovering over the buy button and waiting until it's in stock again.

 

For now AMD can't meet the demand for the rx 480 which is a good sign, i think.

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

[Okjoek]

I would love if Intel were to create dedicated GPU. It would make ignoring Nvidia a lot easier.

 

As far as AMD goes they have a sort of monopoly in the homes console market. They're able to give people like Microsoft, Sony or Nintendo APUs at really low prices that doesn't give AMD much profit, but they make a LOT of them. I think I heard that from AdoredTV. 

 

I would love to see AMD do better for sure and I hope Polaris and Zen are going to be helping do that especially with the huge mainstream crowd AMD is targeting that those like Nvidia who are either unwilling/unable to cater to.

[BrightCandle]

6 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

I think I heard that from AdoredTV. 

Be careful with this guy he is a pretty huge AMD fan and it comes across in almost all his videos. His bias given little information is to down play Nvidia and to overstate the importance of results and to reach on the basis of speculation. Its what his channel is all about. Most actual reviewers wouldn't touch the rumours and speculation this guy works on because its just educated guesses. So long as you appreciate it for what it is there isn't a problem with his channel but being aware of his bias and the type of channel it is should be kept in mind as wild claims are being made.

[BrightCandle]

36 minutes ago, samcool55 said:

At this moment it does look like Polaris at least might bring them back into positive numbers.

In the US the rx 480 sells out in minutes. People right now are sitting at their computer hovering over the buy button and waiting until it's in stock again.

 

For now AMD can't meet the demand for the rx 480 which is a good sign, i think.

https://www.nowinstock.net/computers/videocards/amd/rx480/

This can be for another reason unfortunately. It could be they didn't buy many wafer starts in order to avoid building inventory they couldn't sell. They have had that problem a lot so they might not be capacity limited but rather specifically limiting supply to avoid a big write down that they can ill afford right now. Cards selling out can mean its popular or it can be mean they didn't make very many and we don't know which it is until we have seen a few Steam hardware surveys come out and the new cards feature on them.

[Okjoek]

3 minutes ago, BrightCandle said:

Be careful with this guy he is a pretty huge AMD fan and it comes across in almost all his videos. His bias given little information is to down play Nvidia and to overstate the importance of results and to reach on the basis of speculation. Its what his channel is all about. Most actual reviewers wouldn't touch the rumours and speculation this guy works on because its just educated guesses. So long as you appreciate it for what it is there isn't a problem with his channel but being aware of his bias and the type of channel it is should be kept in mind as wild claims are being made.

Obviously he's biased and speculation. I watch him because even despite those traits he provides a lot of accurate sources and information. I think he was objective enough in the 1060 review and even one of his recent Intel CPU reviews. I don't think having speculation or personal biased alone is worth boycotting a voice as long as it's informative where it counts and I think he does that marvelously.

 

 

[BrightCandle]

3 hours ago, Okjoek said:

Obviously he's biased and speculation. I watch him because even despite those traits he provides a lot of accurate sources and information. I think he was objective enough in the 1060 review and even one of his recent Intel CPU reviews. I don't think having speculation or personal biased alone is worth boycotting a voice as long as it's informative where it counts and I think he does that marvelously.

 

 

A lot of his argument around performance is complete garbage. You can't just hand wave away the difference by looking at the averages from each different review site like that its a nonsense method. If what he did was combined all the results for games on many then took all the games and average that then the method would be more sound but each review contains a different number of games so they can't be combined that way, its mathematically unsound. His bias is in doing that and waving away the difference that still existed. More than that his claims at the end are all biased, heavily skewed towards AMD technologies and ignoring completely Nvidia value adds entirely. Its a flawed review and I would assume that is accidental due to poor maths skills rather than intentional based on bias but the conclusion is definitely not balanced.

 

So in summary he bodged the objective data to favour AMD and then favoured AMD technology and ignoring the existence of any other Nvidia value adds. Biased clear as day.

[straight_stewie]

9 hours ago, zehao39 said:

I just do not get how do they lose that mount of money. We are talk about thousands of million. If they are good at low end how do they lose that much?

Big businesses often go through periods of loss. Especially when the economy of their headquartered country is in decline. Apple was losing millions every project for a number of years, now look at them: They own the cell phone market. IBM (one of the oldest companies in the country) went through massive losses and downsizing when Microsoft started selling Windows to other manufacturers. Look at the Detroit 3. They've been losing millions a year since before 2008 and they are still alive (partially thanks to the government, but whatever). 

One thing you'll find about the tech industry, swings are massive, bubbles rise rapidly and ever higher, and then everything drops. Things stabilize and the pattern repeats again. Billion dollar companies come and go all the time in this industry. That's just the way this works.

But to directly answer your question: It's because they have saved up large discretionary funds and/or are selling other "things" that they own and/or still have investors/private funding. 

[Okjoek]

12 minutes ago, BrightCandle said:

A lot of his argument around performance is complete garbage. You can't just hand wave away the difference by looking at the averages from each different review site like that its a nonsense method. If what he did was combined all the results for games on many then took all the games and average that then the method would be more sound but each review contains a different number of games so they can't be combined that way, its mathematically unsound. His bias is in doing that and waving away the difference that still existed. More than that his claims at the end are all biased, heavily skewed towards AMD technologies and ignoring completely Nvidia value adds entirely. Its a flawed review and I would assume that is accidental due to poor maths skills rather than intentional based on bias but the conclusion is definitely not balanced.

 

So in summary he bodged the objective data to favour AMD and then favoured AMD technology and ignoring the existence of any other Nvidia value adds. Biased clear as day.

Alright, suit yourself. I still enjoy his input.

 

For what it's worth though I think I might agree with Nvidia's approach for abandoning multiple-GPU setups. It's really such a small part of the market that I don't think it's worth putting resources into. If there is hope for it however, it's definitely the way AMD took with combining multiple mainstream priced cards. For all the competition that was hyped, I feel the 1060 barely brushes the mainstream graphics market. It's all fine and dandy what they did with their efficiency. The performance per watt on Pascal cards looks incredible, but in a graphics market where more than 80 percent of people probably shop under 300 dollars it won't matter very much if nobody but enthusiasts are getting to use it.

 

I think the worst case scenario for PC hardware market is that Intel buys out AMD. There would be zero CPU competition and with Intel's resources a new Radeon graphics produced by them would curb stomp Nvidia after long. That's my basic opinion on if AMD were to fail.

[BrightCandle]

39 minutes ago, Okjoek said:

For what it's worth though I think I might agree with Nvidia's approach for abandoning multiple-GPU setups. It's really such a small part of the market that I don't think it's worth putting resources into. If there is hope for it however, it's definitely the way AMD took with combining multiple mainstream priced cards. For all the competition that was hyped, I feel the 1060 barely brushes the mainstream graphics market. It's all fine and dandy what they did with their efficiency. The performance per watt on Pascal cards looks incredible, but in a graphics market where more than 80 percent of people probably shop under 300 dollars it won't matter very much if nobody but enthusiasts are getting to use it.

 

I think the worst case scenario for PC hardware market is that Intel buys out AMD. There would be zero CPU competition and with Intel's resources a new Radeon graphics produced by them would curb stomp Nvidia after long. That's my basic opinion on if AMD were to fail.

DX12 is either going to be the birth of a new age of explicit multi adapter games and dual cards are going to be amazing, or more likely developers are going to ignore it as most of the early games have and get absolutely no benefit at all and dual cards just disappears. SLI is really a terrible solution really and I used it for 8 years but the extra frame of latency and the issues associated with the technique made it a lot of work for the manufacturers and sometimes very poor value.

 

I view the competition argument differently. Governments around the world have shown interest in ensuring competition occurs properly and if there is no longer competition in the x86 market or in the GPU market then I suspect they will move to split up Intel/Nvidia and make competing entities. Its not necessarily the best strategy for customers to keep a lame competitor hanging in the market bumming around on 10% market share making competition happen without really competing (not that I think AMD is that bad). Instead its a better strategy to get the better performing company and break it up for a short term disruption for a longer term higher performing competitive market.

 

But I think the reality is AMD is going to die off, Polaris doesn't look like the saviour many hoped it would be and I have felt for a while that I don't care too much for a Haswell like performance 8c16t CPU, that is already pretty out of date and will another generation slower by the time it actually releases. Would you buy an 8 core Sandy Bridge  CPU now if AMD released it? The only person who would is looking for a budget CPU. I don't see how that brings them to profitability I really don't. They made the big bucks on having the best product with their Athlon's which was a combination of the 64 bit ISA and the memory controller being placed onto the CPU which gave them a substantial advantage for a while until Intel caught up and then beat them soundly.

[CtrlAltELITE]

The reason nobody has bought out AMD is because of the deal they have with intel for use of the x86 arcitecture. AMD has a infinte period license for x86 production which gets invalidated if they go bust or are bought out. Meaning that if someone bought AMD they would no longer be able to produce desktop cpu's.

 

Intels shitty licencing is the same reason none of the big Chinese ARM based conglomerates have broken into the desktop market.

[Brian McKee]

2 hours ago, BrightCandle said:

DX12 is either going to be the birth of a new age of explicit multi adapter games and dual cards are going to be amazing, or more likely developers are going to ignore it as most of the early games have and get absolutely no benefit at all and dual cards just disappears.

DX12 has so many more benefits than just better multi GPU support rofl.

Plus if multi GPUs are a part of new consoles you will see support for it in the PC market, no doubt. And guess who controls the console market? AMD.

[You_are_a_cunt]

The survival mechanism of large corporations generally involves taking out loans and finding capital from investors or investment funds.

While AMD has been bleeding money over the past 5 years, that doesn't mean much in the way of them going bankrupt soon, due to other factors.

Intel, for example, can't afford to have AMD die out because that would create a monopoly in the CPU market, which is a big no-no. You could argue that ARM/Cortex and IBM/Lenovo are also in the CPU market, but that would be putting things in the very broad perspective, since ARM is mostly targeted to mobile devices (phones and tablets, f.e.) and IBM CPUs are only seen in industrial (to use another broad term) applications (which require high compute power, like mainframes or high density servers).

nVidia is in the same boat as Intel, for mostly the same reasons.

 

There will always be someone interested in buying/funding AMD, but, hopefully, that won't be the case for at least a few more years with the launch of new AMD architectures. Let's just hope they do well enough to at least keep afloat and become viable options again, both in the CPU and GPU market.

[Mira Yurizaki]

If AMD goes out, Intel will not have a monopoly on the CPU market. ARM commands a much larger percentage of all computer processors out there and Intel has yet to tap into the market that ARM dominates. Technically, Intel competes with ARM. Now there may be a problem with the PC market, but even economists probably aren't going to care. People use their phones and tablets more than their laptops and desktops for consumer content.

 

As far as graphics go, there's still PowerVR (which is enjoying a nice reprisal in the mobile market), Qualcomm, and of course Intel. One of those companies will buy up all of AMD's IP and we'll have another competitor against NVIDIA.

 

There is no doomsday prices are going to jack up 10000% scenario here. Not to mention Intel can't do that anyway, because of all the trade commissions will hound Intel. If they can get Martin Shrekli for having a monopoly and price gouging the drug he did, they can get Intel if they decide to price gouge the x86 market if AMD goes under.