# Samsung To Allegedly Acquire AMD To Compete With Intel And Qualcomm Head On



## qubit (Mar 26, 2015)

I don't remember ever seeing a lame product from Samsung, so if the rumours are finally true, I think it could make AMD really competitive with Intel and NVIDIA - and that would be good for us. Competitive, high performance and reasonably priced products from AMD and perhaps no more NVIDIA Titans at a ridiculous $1000?


> A fresh report from South Korea has just surfaced with claims that Samsung will allegedly attempt an AMD buyout to compete with Intel. The report claims that the Korean giant will attempt to acquire AMD and merge it with one of its subsidiaries.



http://wccftech.com/amd-allegedly-merge-samsung/


----------



## bubbleawsome (Mar 26, 2015)

I've always loved AMD, but them being bought by samsung wouldn't be a bad thing.


----------



## Batou1986 (Mar 26, 2015)

At this point any change at AMD is a good thing


----------



## Steevo (Mar 26, 2015)

Not sure, if they lose interest in making high end GPU's we all will be stuck with Nvidia cards at absurd prices. 

But if they gain access to Samsung's foundry, ability to make CPU's, GPU's controllers, and couple that with the memory, and much else...... we could see some leaps and bounds in technology.


----------



## erocker (Mar 26, 2015)

Without any kind of reason, plan or intent with the deal I have no idea.


----------



## manofthem (Mar 26, 2015)

I like Samsung.  If this is true and Samsung has an interest in the enthusiast CPU and GPU market, then hey, what the heck... I'm in for it.

edit: i just happened to see another post on the OPO forum.


----------



## alwayssts (Mar 26, 2015)

If this means AMD promotions by K-POP groups, then that would be a-ok.

(That just made me realize I'm freaking old...that campaign was 6 years ago already.  Whatever, still better than a still picture ad.)

But seriously,



erocker said:


> Without any kind of reason, plan or intent with the deal I have no idea.



This.  Whole bunch of this.  There certainly is synergy....yeah I said it...but at first blush I fear this prospect worse than I did AMD taking over ATi, and we all know how that turned out.

Kinda was hoping AMD would be bought by one of the government subsidiaries of Abu Dhabi.  Sure, it's not a net positive from an IP pov, but it would equally mean unlimited funds but likely without fear of encroaching upon their engineering game plans.  Even with how much money they've poured into amd/gf, they seem pretty hands-off.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

I voted yes, but this would be continent to all current divisions staying open.  I don't want to see them going CPU only.


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 26, 2015)

o look another qubit thread with questionable sources and sensationalist titles
this rumor has been floating around since jan ....
and that's all it is a rumor from some south Korean tabloid


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

It is however an interesting discussion.  And rumor or no rumor, I'm sure people have thought about this that could actually make it happen.  The question is whether or not it would be worth Samsung's while, to be honest.


----------



## OneMoar (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> It is however an interesting discussion.  And rumor or no rumor, I'm sure people have thought about this that could actually make it happen.  The question is whether or not it would be worth Samsung's while, to be honest.


I won't validate this nonsense with a constructive argument 
so ill leave the thread with this *HELLS NO*


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I voted yes, but this would be continent to all current divisions staying open.  I don't want to see them going CPU only.


OCZ currently make the R7 SSD's for AMD, and they are a part of the Toshiba group.
I wonder how this is going to work out.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> I won't validate this nonsense with a constructive argument
> so ill leave the thread with this *HELLS NO*



Ah come on OneMoar.  There was nothing argumentative about it being an interesting discussion.  There was nothing argumentative in general.  Come on, you know me better than to spout garbage.  Be nice.  Have a happy kitten:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

Samsung could stop AMD from making any more x86 processors and instead, turn AMD over to ARM which is the bulk of Samsung's business.  It may not be the best thing for us end consumers.


----------



## Countryside (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Samsung could stop AMD from making any more x86 processors and instead, turn AMD over to ARM which is the bulk of Samsung's business.  It may not be the best thing for us end consumers.



Indeed that scenario is likely to happen. For AMD to stay in competition a good x86 processors is very important so lets hope that Zen will be a phoenix from the ashes.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

Countryside said:


> Indeed that scenario is likely to happen. For AMD to stay in competition a good x86 processors is very important so lets hope that Zen will be a phoenix from the ashes.



I find it more likely Samsung would be looking to expand into x86 tbh,


----------



## Naito (Mar 26, 2015)

Maybe Samsung is going after IP to help mitigate risk from current or future lawsuits against Nvidia or others.

EDIT: And that is exactly what the article read (I didn't view it before writing this).


----------



## Countryside (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> I find it more likely Samsung would be looking to expand into x86 tbh,



Maybe so, with the information we have now we can only speculate


----------



## W1zzard (Mar 26, 2015)

AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?


----------



## qubit (Mar 26, 2015)

@R-T-B OMG a kitten! 



W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?


I was wondering that too, but the article reckons it can be done. We'll see.

That was a really clever clause that Intel put in, wasn't it? Really stops AMD becoming stronger by being bought out.


----------



## RCoon (Mar 26, 2015)

This rumour has surfaced 3 times over the last couple of years. It seems to do the rounds whenever somebody's fingers get twitchy on a random internet forum to kickstart the rumour-mill on the internet.

Not happening.



W1zzard said:


> who'll make console CPUs ?



Snapdragon 810, probably about as powerful as an Xbox One. /sarcasm


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 26, 2015)

A resounding yes from me...

And.......long live speculation and discussion.
Good thread @qubit


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

Simple solution is to break AMD down into different divisions and leave the CPU division as a separate entity.


----------



## Cartel (Mar 26, 2015)

AMD is obviously in trouble.... I knew it


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?


Stackable 3D Arm Processors


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?



VIA? LOL


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?


Eh?  The x86 license stays with AMD but being bought out means that license would be Samsung's.  There's only two ways for a company to acquire an x86 license: get a new one from Intel (a Chinese company is apparently in talks to do this) or buyout a company that already has one (e.g. Via got their current license by buying out Centaur).

Samsung wouldn't renege on AMD's contractual obligations with Microsoft and Sony.  Samsung also wouldn't throw AMD's current R&D investments away on the new architecture.  The question is what happens to x86 long-term when those opportunities have passed?

At the same time, there is this:


			
				John Ribeiro said:
			
		

> A Samsung spokeswoman said a decision has not been taken yet on what type of chips would be made at the new fab and the manufacturing process. The company said in July it was on track to roll out 14-nanometer manufacturing process in volume by the end of this year.


A week later, this:


			
				Trefis Team said:
			
		

> While Intel’s growth in Q3 2014 was mainly led by strong performance in the PC and the Data Center business, the company fared well in mobile and Internet-of-Things (IoT) segments as well, which promise to be an important part of its future growth strategy.


I can totally see x86 tablets taking over the market over the next decade with the help of Windows 10 and the only way Samsung can get a piece of that action, because Microsoft abandoned Windows RT, is to get into x86.

Samsung could have been planning this acquisition for a while.  Build a fab to make Samsung competitive with Intel and buy AMD to acquire x86 license.  Even though that fab won't be ready for another two years, it takes about that long to get a new CPU design to the point it can be tested on a fab.  Too many pieces fit too well to be mere coincidence.

The one thing I fear most of all of this is what happens to AMD's desktop and laptop lines?  I really can't see Samsung using precious 14nm fab time on a market they really don't care about.


Edit: Can't forget about ATI either.  Samsung having ATI gives it a huge leg up, in all markets, against Intel.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The one thing I fear most of all of this is what happens to AMD's desktop and laptop lines?  I really can't see Samsung using precious 14nm fab time on a market they really don't care about.
> 
> 
> Edit: Can't forget about ATI either.  Samsung having ATI gives it a huge leg up, in all markets, against Intel.


Samsung make some nice laptops already, if they made the Processor, Ram, SSD's etc it's all cost savings for them.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Eh?  The x86 license stays with AMD but being bought out means that license would be Samsung's.  There's only two ways for a company to acquire an x86 license: get a new one from Intel (a Chinese company is apparently in talks to do this) or buyout a company that already has one (e.g. Via got their current license by buying out Centaur).



I'm pretty sure Intel licenses the x86 license to AMD by court order (back in the 90s they did not want to renew it), and one of the few things they won is that if AMD is ever bought out, the x86 license is null and void.

or something to that extent.


----------



## Tatty_One (Mar 26, 2015)

OneMoar said:


> o look another qubit thread with questionable sources and sensationalist titles
> this rumor has been floating around since jan ....
> and that's all it is a rumor from some south Korean tabloid


To be fair, if you cut rumour and speculation from these forums we would be down to a dozen threads and 30,000 members with zero post counts so he can have a turn now and then too.


----------



## qubit (Mar 26, 2015)

Tatty_One said:


> To be fair, if you cut rumour and speculation from these forums we would be down to a dozen threads and 30,000 members with zero post counts so he can have a turn now and then too.


Thanks Tatty. In fact, that title is from the article, not me. None of that is my saying. It looked interesting and worthy of discussion so I posted it here.

It's clear onemoar has no idea what he's looking at and instead prefers to have an illiterate pop at me. So stupid and trollish.


----------



## xvi (Mar 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?


Where does x86_64 fall in all this? Seems like AMD would own that.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

There's a cross-license agreement where AMD licenses x86-64 to Intel and Intel licenses x86 to AMD.


----------



## CAPSLOCKSTUCK (Mar 26, 2015)

It begs the question though.....how much ?     I would like to be a fly on the wall in that meeting.

Forbes most valuable companies list

http://www.forbes.com/powerful-brands/list/


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Samsung could stop AMD from making any more x86 processors and instead, turn AMD over to ARM which is the bulk of Samsung's business.  It may not be the best thing for us end consumers.



Question
Has Samsung got  License Patent rights to the X86 processor already   if not (and i think not) then buying AMD  makes sense if those cross licensing patent rights with Intel are part of the deal

edit
quote
"I'm pretty sure Intel licenses the x86 license to AMD by court order (back in the 90s they did not want to renew it), and one of the few things they won is that if AMD is ever bought out, the x86 license is null and void."

If that is the case then that fucks intel 
If they Void the Existing agreement then they also lose the cross patent Deal they signed with AMD


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 26, 2015)

Why would anyone (Samsung included) want to compete with Intel? This would all be about getting hold of AMD's graphics IP which would go towards boosting their mobile/tablet market.


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2015)

If there was no one to compete with Intel  then that $450 per processor bulk price was to jump to $600  whats your response

tooling up for Risc or ARM is a poor choice if you then have to convince the whole hardware and software world to adapt 

competition Does keep the price Down


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> If there was no one to compete with Intel  then that $450 per processor bulk price was to jump to $600  whats your response
> 
> tooling up for Risc or ARM is a poor choice if you then have to convince the whole hardware and software world to adapt
> 
> competition Does keep the price Down


http://techreport.com/news/28014/gigabyte-latest-microatx-board-has-an-eight-core-armv8-soc
Interesting that AMD has already done the tooling and development work.


----------



## qubit (Mar 26, 2015)

AMD have done some great innovations over the years with 64-bit x86 and Mantle being just two of them. This company really deserves to be more successful, so I hope that there's some truth to the buyout rumour. With Samsung's resources they'll be a force to be reckoned with.


----------



## 64K (Mar 26, 2015)

I think it would be a good thing if Samsung did buy AMD. They could put enough cash into AMD R&D to turn the company around and frankly AMD has been managed poorly for too long to the point that they could face bankruptcy in the near future. 

Have a look at the Net Profit Margins:

Intel +20.95%
AMD -7.3%
Nvidia +13.47%

One of the worst management things AMD has done for years was charging too little for their chips and not having enough money for R&D and now it's to the point that they almost can't charge as much as they need to because they've fallen behind so much.


----------



## Frick (Mar 26, 2015)

> Competitive, high performance and reasonably priced products from AMD and perhaps no more NVIDIA Titans at a ridiculous $1000?



The golden days truly were when both companies had $1000 CPU's.

Anyway I'm all for a Samsung buyout, if it means they can make x86.



64K said:


> One of the worst management things AMD has done for years was charging too little for their chips and not having enough money for R&D and now it's to the point that they almost can't charge as much as they need to because they've fallen behind so much.



Which chips would these be?


----------



## 64K (Mar 26, 2015)

Frick said:


> The golden days truly were when both companies had $1000 CPU's.
> 
> Anyway I'm all for a Samsung buyout, if it means they can make x86.
> 
> ...



Console chips, high end CPU, high end GPU. Do you remember when AMD was a real competitor with Intel in the high end CPU arena? How did they get from there to here if not by poor management and trying to treat their customers to the best chips for way less than their competition. As a result too little money for R&D over the years and here we are.


----------



## Toothless (Mar 26, 2015)

Ima wait for the 8-cored triple-hyper-threaded Samsung F10-9800 processor that'll sit in AM9.4 sockets and have it only run at 1.1ghz with a TDP of 450w. 

I think Samsung should just change out the management in AMD and see how it runs. By all means AMD engineers aren't idiots but they need real goals and room to breathe.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

dorsetknob said:


> Question
> Has Samsung got  License Patent rights to the X86 processor already   if not (and i think not) then buying AMD  makes sense if those cross licensing patent rights with Intel are part of the deal
> 
> edit
> ...


It would go before a court and any court, seeing AMDs position, would approve it in the name of potential Intel trust busting.  That licensing arrangement won't hold because it is very anti-trust material.




Fluffmeister said:


> Why would anyone (Samsung included) want to compete with Intel? This would all be about getting hold of AMD's graphics IP which would go towards boosting their mobile/tablet market.


Because Intel + Microsoft are poised to control the tablet market in the next few years because of x86.  When you can buy a $200 tablet that runs virtually all software ever made for Windows including compatibility with virtually all devices made since Vista launched, Samsung/ARM can't compete.  Samsung wants a piece of that action and the only way they can get it is by acquiring an x86 license.

ATI isn't worth owning.  Profits are tiny by comparison.  If anyone buys ATI, it will be after AMD files for bankruptcy.


----------



## Caring1 (Mar 26, 2015)

Toothless said:


> Ima wait for the 8-cored triple-hyper-threaded Samsung F10-9800 processor that'll sit in AM9.4 sockets and have it only run at 1.1ghz with a TDP of 450w.
> 
> I think Samsung should just change out the management in AMD and see how it runs. By all means AMD engineers aren't idiots but they need real goals and room to breathe.


He he he, I think you got that backwards, they should make a 450GHz chip with a TDP of 1.1


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

64K said:


> Console chips, high end CPU, high end GPU.


The console CPUs are a piece of shit.  The only thing decent is the GPU component and that can't hold a light to a serious discreet GPU.  Their highest end CPUs have ridiculously high TDP and really don't have the performance to back it up compared to Intel.  GPUs are the only area where AMD has been doing well but in terms of survivability of the company, GPUs are less than 10%.  If AMD can't pick up its CPU game, it will be out of the game entirely before long.



64K said:


> Do you remember when AMD was a real competitor with Intel in the high end CPU arena?


I still have an operable system with an Opteron 180 from that era.



64K said:


> How did they get from there to here if not by poor management and trying to treat their customers to the best chips for way less than their competition.


It was a one-two punch:
1) Core 2 Duo was launched obliterating the FX-62 (the best AMD had at the time) for a fraction of the cost.
2) Having bore witness to Core 2 Duo and knowing very well they can't compete and won't be able to compete for a very long time, then went ahead and dropped billions of dollars on an over-valued ATI when they didn't have the money for it nor the means to earn money from it for years due to the costs of aquisition.

#2 especially is what killed AMD.  It was no different than Ford Motor Company buying out Land Rover, Jaguar, and Aston Martin in the 1990s which caused the company to suffer in the 2000s.  Buying out other companies without a clear means to turn it into profit on short order is the pinnacle of mismanagement.  AMD did this when they were in no position to do it.

Unlike AMD, Ford's CEO (Jacques Nasser) that made those bad investments was canned and they brought in a great grandson of Henry Ford to run it (Bill Ford).  AMD?  The CEO (Hector Ruiz) stayed over a year after that...more bad decisions were made like the over promotion and under-delivery of Phenom.


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> [Hector] Ruiz *endorsed the decision to buy ATI*, which led to a period of financial reverses. Ruiz survived rumors of his ouster in late 2007. However, he resigned as CEO on July 18, 2008, after AMD reported its *seventh consecutive quarterly loss*.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 26, 2015)

Personally I see it as a good thing but it would depend on how they handle it...

For one, having ATI would not be a bad thing for Samsung as then they would have a graphics card manufacturer with good experience and products to bolster their own embedded chips along with the stand alone products in their own machines.  Its something they are trying to gain more ground in especially with everyone carrying phones, tablets, and other small gadgets more than anything.

As for X86, I doubt they would let they falter as I believe they would utilize that to the fullest and bolster it up.  Samsung knows that X86 is important even with ARM's widespread adoption however X86 is still beyond necessary and they have many products utilizing it so it would only make it easier and cheaper for them to make products with better parts inside against the competition.

I have heard this rumor for quite awhile, I think it would be good for them mostly in the fact Samsung can push a lot of money towards them to help them.  Hopefully they would not get rid of any part of the system the way it is now and only improve it as it would be devastating to the consumers.  Though if they did there would be other complications including legal ones that would come into play...


----------



## Frick (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> #2 especially is what killed AMD.



Or that was the very thing that kept them alive in the long run, because 1) they actually sell that tech now and 2) more funds in R&D would not automagically mean something that was better Bulldozer, or something that would beat the C2D.



64K said:


> Console chips, high end CPU, high end GPU. Do you remember when AMD was a real competitor with Intel in the high end CPU arena? How did they get from there to here if not by poor management and trying to treat their customers to the best chips for way less than their competition. As a result too little money for R&D over the years and here we are.



OTOH a higher price would mean fewer chips sold.


----------



## Vayra86 (Mar 26, 2015)

AMD still seems to be plagued by the same issues it has always had, what with the fourth rebrand of their GPU's that we heard of recently, to the lack of design wins of the past years, and the incredibly bad marketing surrounding their product lines.

It needs a big boss to give it direction. Their new CEO and Keller may be worthy additions but they alone do not change a culture within a company. Only a really drastic shakeup will do that. AMD *will* be acquired by some larger company in the future, of that I have no question at all. Whether this will be Samsung is questionable, but seems to be a good contender with sufficient R&D and funding to really shake up the Intel-Nvidia dominated market that is x86.

We need this.

I don't question at all that AMD will stop making GPU when they get acquired by Samsung. There is a major potential market here because right now there is only one other flavour and that is Nvidia. The only reason Nvidia is ahead today is because AMD is being held back by R&D budget, the only reason Intel is ahead today is because they also have a larger R&D budget. I would rather question whether AMD will keep making CPU - Samsung may want to take their technology and make it their own, and AMD has really taken big hits with the past few generations of CPU being unsuccessful. APU won't really land on store shelves either. Regardless of the causes of that, it means the average joe will not really consider AMD at all. But average joe does know the brand Samsung.


----------



## Ferrum Master (Mar 26, 2015)

It would be more sane for Samsung to buy out VIA, not AMD then.

The only giant that should have picked up AMD and steer it is IBM and put their boffin teams together. But it is too late for both companies... They both need restructuring... AMD woke up too late with ARM...

Soon Qualcomm stomps in, as their boffin team managed to survive the tough competition... They even have 2.5x times more employees than AMD, not mentioning the net income numbers. They have a proper ATI branch Adreno too that performs same as nvidia ones in the same power envelope... it just needs time, the mobile stuff Snapdragons already breathe the performance of low end AMD cpu's... despite the hugely lower power consumption...


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Mar 26, 2015)

W1zzard said:


> AMD's x86 license doesn't transfer in a buyout, so who'll make console CPUs ?



One of these agreements involving AMD, Intel and Microsoft in which they all work AGAINST the progress in industry.

Technically, Intel should't be allowed to stay alone doing x86 processors for Microsoft Windows environment, nor nvidia should be allowed to be the only GPU manufacturer.

I voted with YES, and if GOD (and the court if needed) is with us, there will be better times ahead with Samsung creating new x86 and GPU processors with their 14 nm and beyond nodes.


----------



## 64K (Mar 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> One of these agreements involving AMD, Intel and Microsoft in which they all work AGAINST the progress in industry.
> 
> Technically, Intel should't be allowed to stay alone doing x86 processors for Microsoft Windows environment, nor nvidia should be allowed to be the only GPU manufacturer.
> 
> I voted with YES, and if GOD (and the court if needed) is with us, there will be better times ahead with Samsung creating new x86 and GPU processors with their 14 nm and beyond nodes.



No one in their right mind wants to see Intel and Nvidia without some competition. Intel with their ~10% increase in CPU performance with each new CPU generation because they can get away with it and if people think Nvidia is greedy now wait until they are the only game in town.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

Frick said:


> Or that was the very thing that kept them alive in the long run, because 1) they actually sell that tech now and 2) more funds in R&D would not automagically mean something that was better Bulldozer, or something that would beat the C2D.


The only reason why AMD is still around is because they split off Global Foundries.  That gave them a capital infusion but at the same time, it's like sacrificing one arm to save the other.  Global Foundries now needs to take a cut of the action which is yet another disadvantage AMD has against Intel.  All things being equal, AMD will have a smaller profit margin than Intel because of Global Foundries.  It was about the worst move AMD could make but they had no choice.  The lenders that AMD borrowed from to buy ATI needed to be paid.  You see, ATI hurt not once, but twice.  If AMD could sell ATI, they would, but they can't because then they'd owe money in licensing fees to another company just so they can continue to make their APUs.  AMD's just digging their grave deeper and deeper.


AMD paid $5.6 billion for ATI in 2006 when AMD was worth about $42 billion (13%).  In 2007, AMD wrote off $1.77 billion in "goodwill" most considered to be a correction on the overvaluation of ATI.  That brings *ATI's value down to $4 billion or less than 10% of AMD's value* at the time of acquisition.  There's this common misconception that ATI was a huge part of AMD and still really isn't.  Reason?  NVIDIA.  AMD's GPU and CPU divisions are both in second place.  AMD could perhaps become a GPU only company but in doing so, it consigns itself to being 10% of what it used to be.  That's not something to be proud of.


----------



## 64K (Mar 26, 2015)

I see the term underdog being tossed around forums concerning AMD but I'm not sure if most people really understand how small AMD is compared to 9 years ago. This graph tells the tale. Click on the 10 year button in the graph.

http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp...q=NASDAQ:AMD&ntsp=0&ei=00wUVcm0OoTV8Aa5h4GQDA

Market Cap

AMD 2.06 Billion
Intel 141.8 Billion
Nvidia 11.57 Billion
Samsung 232.19 Billion

It would take very little for Samsung to buy out AMD. Even less to gain a controlling interest in AMD with or without AMDs permission and just run AMD the way they want.

I found this article of interest too

http://www.investopedia.com/stock-a...oblems-facing-advanced-micro-devices-amd.aspx

Intel outspends AMD 10 to 1 on R&D.

AMD has 2 Billion dollars of debt which it's getting very hard to service their debt.

During the second quarter of 2014, Intel generated nearly 95% of PC processor revenue, shipping 84% of all desktop processors and 88% of all laptop processors.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> AMD paid $5.6 billion for ATI in 2006 when *AMD was worth about $42 billion* (13%).



The AMD case should be put in all management textbooks about the worst case in which an once thriving company transformed itself into something very little and close to bankruptcy. 

How is it possible that those same people who achieved successes, then suddenly ruined everything?


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> How is it possible that those same people who achieved successes, then suddenly ruined everything?



AMD's been managed by several CEOs and executives over the years.  The golden years weren't really managed by the same CEOs as those that oversaw the buyout of ATI, I imagine.


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> AMD's been managed by several CEOs and executives over the years.  The golden years weren't really managed by the same CEOs as those that oversaw the buyout of ATI, I imagine.



Hmm, but the responsibility should be shared between all employees and connected partners, including the shareholders, the board of directors, the CEO, the engineers, etc.

The CEO himself or herself can't do alone the whole job. And you can't blame them for this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

64K said:


> AMD 2.06 Billion


Seriously?  The whole of AMD is now worth less than half of what ATI was worth in 2007 (give or take 14% for inflation)?  ATI would have probably been better off on its own.



Sony Xperia S said:


> How is it possible that those same people who achieved successes, then suddenly ruined everything?


K6 (up to Athlon), K7 (Athlon XP), K8 (Athlon 64) had an excellent run, especially K7 and K8 because Intel was tripping over itself with Pentium 4.  Pentium 4 being horrible and Athlon 64 being awesome is the reason why AMD was competitive from about 2003-2006 which, in turn, was when AMD was the biggest it ever was.  Ruiz was CEO from 2002-2008 so he was in charge during the boom and the bust.  AMD was simply outplayed by Intel and Intel's better position allowed it to not only weather the storm, but come out on top because they could afford to develop two architectures simultaneously as well as advance the fabrication process.

CEO can be squarely blamed for pushing the purchase of ATI.  Intel's CEO should also be applauded for seeing Pentium 4 as stagnate and pushing for a replacement.  In both scenarios though, it was the engineers that ultimately delivered winning (Athlon 64 and Core 2 Duo) and losing products (Pentium 4 and Phenom).


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> The CEO himself or herself can't do alone the whole job. And you can't blame them for this.



Of course you can

the CEO goes before his Board with "" HIS/HER PLAN or STRATEGY ""
The Board hear his/her plan and then vote to either back or not back said plan/strategy.

If they back the plan/strategy and it fails  its the CEO that's going to carry the can (Because he/she got it wrong)


----------



## Sony Xperia S (Mar 26, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Seriously?



Seriously you need to change your quote because I didn't type that.



dorsetknob said:


> Of course you can
> 
> the CEO goes before his Board with "" HIS/HER PLAN or STRATEGY ""
> The Board hear his/her plan and then vote to either back or not back said plan/strategy.
> ...



It's all the engineers' responsibility because they didn't deliver a working competitive product. The CEO couldn't do anything about his own employees' intellectual capabilities. The only thing he could do was to try to find some others or to resign...


----------



## dorsetknob (Mar 26, 2015)

Since when have the engineers been responsible for the Business plans of any Company.
they are employed to Further as best they can the Board and CEO's Business plans

If the Board and CEO's Business plans are crap and they fail to deliver on that Crap then its  "" STILL THE FAILINGS of the BOARD and THE CEO ""


----------



## Easy Rhino (Mar 26, 2015)

Here is why this would be a very good thing for CONSUMERS: AMD has a boardroom full of morons. Samsung has a boardroom full of winners who continually push for innovation. they also have much larger more efficient supply chain in place and a huge pool of money that they can spend on R&D. That means Intel will have to speed up its release cycle giving us faster more efficient procs on the market's timetable rather than its own.


----------



## natr0n (Mar 26, 2015)

This is Samsung's way to say f**k you to Intel.

I like it.

Only good things can come from this.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

Easy Rhino said:


> Here is why this would be a very good thing for CONSUMERS: AMD has a boardroom full of morons. Samsung has a boardroom full of winners who continually push for innovation. they also have much larger more efficient supply chain in place and a huge pool of money that they can spend on R&D. That means Intel will have to speed up its release cycle giving us faster more efficient procs on the market's timetable rather than its own.


I wouldn't say that.  Should Samsung make an offer, it needs to be approved by USA, EU, and Korean trade commissions before it can even go through.  Then there would likely be a lawsuit between AMD and Intel over licensing and finally, once Samsung has the x86 license, it would take 2 years to bring AMD's existing microarchitecture to 14nm or upwards of 5 years to design a new microarchitecture.  If Samsung announced today, we're looking at 5+ years before consumers see any difference.

The only reason why it would be appealing to Samsung because AMD is dirt cheap.  All the legal and regulatory battles will probably end up costing more than AMD itself.


----------



## GhostRyder (Mar 26, 2015)

Sony Xperia S said:


> The AMD case should be put in all management textbooks about the worst case in which an once thriving company transformed itself into something very little and close to bankruptcy.
> 
> How is it possible that those same people who achieved successes, then suddenly ruined everything?


Well its a mix of bad business decisions and underhanded tactics that have ruined them from competing.  One thing to note is that OEM's drive the market and right now we have very few OEM's even putting AMD GPU's and CPU into their systems (Of the big dogs I mean).  AMD can be part to blame on the GPU part for lack of working on more GPU's for the mobile and focusing hard on APU's and Intel can be blamed for the CPU's.  Intel pushed AMD completely out of the OEM market down to mostly HP as the primary seller of laptops and desktops with AMD inside.  Hard to sell products when you cannot get them into machines to begin with...



64K said:


> No one in their right mind wants to see Intel and Nvidia without some competition. Intel with their ~10% increase in CPU performance with each new CPU generation because they can get away with it and if people think Nvidia is greedy now wait until they are the only game in town.


 Yea, even the extreme fanboys do not want that unless they are nuts (Though I know a few who would probably at first be overjoyed).  Sadly enough the only thing keeping prices down is competition.  Right now though, the name needs to be more seen among people for them to purchase products with the chips inside otherwise many just buy off a name they see more often.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

There is a fun counter argument FOR the monopoly at the moment:

Rigs last a long time.  Seriously.  I could still be using my i7 920 comfortably if I wanted and play the latest titles.


----------



## Fluffmeister (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> There is a fun counter argument FOR the monopoly at the moment:
> 
> Rigs last a long time.  Seriously.  I could still be using my i7 920 comfortably if I wanted and play the latest titles.



Still rocking my i7 920 now, don't feel the need to upgrade it at all. 6 years service+ and still doing me proud!


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 26, 2015)

Fluffmeister said:


> Still rocking my i7 920 now, don't feel the need to upgrade it at all. 6 years service+ and still doing me proud!



I upgraded from high end X58 to low end X99 for like $50 because the higher end mobos are going for insane rates.  Technically it was an upgrade, but honestly it felt more like a sidegrade.  The only real noticeable difference was energy efficiency.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 26, 2015)

R-T-B said:


> Rigs last a long time.  Seriously.  I could still be using my i7 920 comfortably if I wanted and play the latest titles.


I blame consoles with their pathetic 512 MiB of RAM.  That's rapidly changing now.  Only AAA manufacturers try to get every drop of performance out of a platform and AAA manufacturers target consoles before computers programming for the lowest common denominator (Xbox).  Titles couldn't be ambitious from a performance standpoint simply because the consoles can't stand it.  Now we're getting AAA computer exclusives (like Star Citizen) and Xbox One ports with 16 times the memory of the old generation.  Both translate to 64-bit games which translates to >2/>4 GiB of RAM.  Take a game designed for 8 GiB of RAM and 720p resolution on Xbox One and bump it up to 4K...you could be sitting at some 30+ GiB of memory usage...like Wolfenstein New World Order cautions.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I blame consoles with their pathetic 512 MiB of RAM.  That's rapidly changing now.  Only AAA manufacturers try to get every drop of performance out of a platform and AAA manufacturers target consoles before computers programming for the lowest common denominator (Xbox).  Titles couldn't be ambitious from a performance standpoint simply because the consoles can't stand it.  Now we're getting AAA computer exclusives (like Star Citizen) and Xbox One ports with 16 times the memory of the old generation.  Both translate to 64-bit games which translates to >2/>4 GiB of RAM.  Take a game designed for 8 GiB of RAM and 720p resolution on Xbox One and bump it up to 4K...you could be sitting at some 30+ GiB of memory usage...like Wolfenstein New World Order cautions.



Damnit, now you are making me wish I'd gone 32GBs of ram instead of 16... lol

But honestly, the 32-bit barrier being broken is more of a boon than consoles being upgraded.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 27, 2015)

Yes, but the reason why it was broken was because consoles got upgraded.  Most games you look at that were released between 2005 and 2014 with 64-bit executables, the 64-bit version was woefully under tested.  I remember RAGE having tearing problems and Thief having FMV issues.  We're now finally starting to see some 64-bit titles that work as well as if not better than 32-bit (2/3s of them are on Unity Engine 4/5 and about 1/3 are on Unreal Engine 3/4).


I'm thinking about X99 and putting 2x8 GiB sticks in it for 16 GiB RAM (upgradeable to 64 GiB).  It's easy to add memory, ya know.


----------



## R-T-B (Mar 27, 2015)

FordGT90Concept said:


> It's easy to add memory, ya know.



Not when I already have populated my mobos 4 DIMM slots.

That won't stop me from just buying 8GB sticks though.


----------



## john_ (Mar 27, 2015)

Samsung doesn't have the same interests or goals as AMD. I don't believe this could happen, but if it happens we will have to forget many things about AMD. IF they keep making CPUs and GPUs for the average Joe, those would probably be more expensive, with more proprietary stuff and no to limited upgreadability.


----------



## qubit (Mar 29, 2015)

AMD's R&D budget is at its lowest ebb ever, even below NVIDIA. Meanwhile, Intel and NVIDIA are at their highest ever.

This really isn't good, so let's hope the Samsung buyout rumours are true.

EDIT: If someone doesn't buy them, then I can really see AMD going bust in a few years and that would be really bad all round.






http://wccftech.com/amd-budget-lowest-10-years/


----------



## rtwjunkie (Mar 29, 2015)

Personally I want this to happen. I want a much stronger AMD. I want them to make performance cpu's and gpu's that are released more frequently. This will give everyone an option, force Intel to make REAL advances, and Nvidia to lower prices just a small bit. Maybe then we wouldn't be where we are with 1st gen, 2nd and 3rd gen Core users seeing no reason to upgrade.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Mar 29, 2015)

Frankly, I'd rather have IBM or some other company buy out AMD.  Samsung is already too big.


----------

