Why hasn't Apple acquired AMD?

[Pending]

I would say because AMD isn't the best but then again they did buy Beats.

True, Apple bought beats, probably for too much, got Dr Dre and Iovine with the deal but it seemed like a panic buy to stay hip. I think the question should be why should Apple buy AMD?
Apple are sitting on nearly $150bn of cash and need to do something cos their share price is falling gradually.

 

[deconstruct60]

I suppose they might do that if AMD gets in trouble even more. Nvidia seems to increase the distance between them in this new generation gpus,

Nvidia putting distance from AMD looses the context of the overall GPU market.

http://jonpeddie.com/publications/market_watch
that blue line is the one putting a gap on the competitors. Relatively speaking the gap between Nvidia and AMD isn't all that big. In terms of Apple GPU component spend neither Nvidia nor AMD are the major recipient.

but we'll have to see when both have unveiled their full range of products. If AMD keeps going down, apple might jump in.

Jump into what? The largest GPU spend that Apple does is for x86-GPU integrated packages. If Apple buys AMD, then the AMD "subsidiary" ability to do x86-GPU packages evaporates. What plausible advantage does Apple have in blowing that up and spending billions to do it? It is a spectacular way of blowing a bucketload of money, but strategically it is more than highly dubious.

Buying AMD as a discrete only GPU business isn't viable and also doesn't make much sense at all. Only a small subset of Macs use dGPUs at this point and the iOS/watchOS/tvOS not at all. It is extremely unlikely Apple would buy AMD and then allow it to sell parts to others. The companies that did : fingerprint sensor, flash controller , P. A. Semi (and their PowerPC solution). .... all of those were terminated as a external supplier.

Apple is going to take AMD's ARM "server" chip and going after the desktop big boys ..... 1. it hasn't surfaced yet from this time this anceint thread got started and 2. ... ARM doesn't necessarily mean have a winner.

" ... The Xeon D, by comparison, offers superior performance per watt: twice as good as the ThunderX. It is clear that the ThunderX is not a good match for heavy database servers, nor for enterprise workloads where energy consumption at low load is a high priority. ... "
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10353/investigating-cavium-thunderx-48-arm-cores/20

Intel is far from asleep at the wheel here.
[doublepost=1466193357][/doublepost]

.... I think the question should be why should Apple buy AMD?
Apple are sitting on nearly $150bn of cash and need to do something cos their share price is falling gradually.

Apple's share price was a bit hyperinflated. Falling back a bit isn't all that bad is the higher price is based on unrealistic expectations. However, not going to keep folks like Buffet (and Berkshire ) in the stock to help ward off ding-dongs like Ichan is run around buying big stuff just to blow the cash horde. Have it so blow it on something isn't the point.

Apple needs to invest it and get a return. The "problem" they have had is that the iPhone business for growing so fast there was little to invest in that was a "better than iPhone" return. As the iPhone cools off a bit from a unsustaniable long term pace, there will be reasonable stuff to buy and or spend money on. [ This car thing probably isn't it and appears to be a sinkhole that will eventually be a real problem. ]

In the Mac Pro space Apples money would be far better invested in:

1. paying Intel, Nvidia, and AMD to do better and more complete GPU drivers for macOS.

2. Apple building a slightly more diverse ecosystem for Mac Pro GPU cards. ( 3 cards every 3-4 years is a cheap, Scrooge Mc Duck ... penny wise , pound foolish death spiral. ) . The Mac Pro product team appears to be staffed by part timers.

3. More and better software infrastructure. Why is OpenCL stack trailing edge? OS X bugs lists and glitches ? Find more bugs/defects before you ship products.

4. better fouding/resource allocation to more of the open source stack they are sitting of top of . ( LLVM isn't under supported but a number of other things appear to be. )

5. Instead of trying to completely "outsource" your business support to IBM ... trying building a better support org. There is a skill set that Apple appears to be throwing out the window. [ Even to effectively integrate with IBM (and other) business solution providers .... Apple needs some very substatnive internal technical folks to support (as opposed to a layer of MBAs coupling the companies together. ) ]. Most of the "high touch" business, sure. Apple appears to be disconnecting themselves a bit too much.


All of that probably doesn't even add up to $1B, so Apple would still have billions.

 

[antonis]

that blue line is the one putting a gap on the competitors. Relatively speaking the gap between Nvidia and AMD isn't all that big. In terms of Apple GPU component spend neither Nvidia nor AMD are the major recipient.

I should have clarified a bit better. I meant the performance gap, not the market share. It seems that Nvidia will increase the performance gap for this generation, and this probably means another lost battle for amd in the high-end gpus. I assume that if amd - eventually - loses the war, apple maybe make the move. Just maybe.

Just trying to put some pieces together.

- Apple seems more interested in low-to-mid range gpus. After all, almost all of their models have an intel gpu inside. The remaining are equipped with an amd.
- Apple is depended from intel for their igpus. I'm sure apple doesn't like that. Being control freaks and all that.
- AMD seems to target more aggressively towards the mid-range market. That seems to be a competition with intel.
- AMD seems to fall behind on the high-end gpus, probably leaving nvidia lead the race.

It seems that AMD's profile right now fits with the way apple is taking. Apple surely can't buy intel. But - maybe - they could see a benefit buying amd and be even more independent / self-contained.

 

[lowendlinux]

I should have clarified a bit better. I meant the performance gap, not the market share. It seems that Nvidia will increase the performance gap for this generation, and this probably means another lost battle for amd in the high-end gpus. I assume that if amd - eventually - loses the war, apple maybe make the move. Just maybe.

Just trying to put some pieces together.

- Apple seems more interested in low-to-mid range gpus. After all, almost all of their models have an intel gpu inside. The remaining are equipped with an amd.
- Apple is depended from intel for their igpus. I'm sure apple doesn't like that. Being control freaks and all that.
- AMD seems to target more aggressively towards the mid-range market. That seems to be a competition with intel.
- AMD seems to fall behind on the high-end gpus, probably leaving nvidia lead the race.

It seems that AMD's profile right now fits with the way apple is taking. Apple surely can't buy intel. But - maybe - they could see a benefit buying amd and be even more independent / self-contained.

Why do you think the nVidia will increase the performance gap? We've seen one AMD GPU and two nVidia GPU's. The AMD GPU is it's answer to the x50/x60 line and nVidia hasn't pushed out its big die stuff yet.

I think this generation is going to be close nVidia may win but not by much

 

[Pending]

Apple's share price was a bit hyperinflated. Falling back a bit isn't all that bad is the higher price is based on unrealistic expectations. However, not going to keep folks like Buffet (and Berkshire ) in the stock to help ward off ding-dongs like Ichan is run around buying big stuff just to blow the cash horde. Have it so blow it on something isn't the point.

Apple needs to invest it and get a return. The "problem" they have had is that the iPhone business for growing so fast there was little to invest in that was a "better than iPhone" return. As the iPhone cools off a bit from a unsustaniable long term pace, there will be reasonable stuff to buy and or spend money on. [ This car thing probably isn't it and appears to be a sinkhole that will eventually be a real problem. ]

Yeah I agree nothing bad about falling back some on the share price.
And not for a minute am I suggesting ' Have it so blow it on something ', not sure AMD would bring that much to the party either. Having said that I would agree Apple needs to invest and get a return to continue their success, thats a challenge but with so much cash sitting in the bank compared to most companies they really ought to be able to innovate products that push the boundaries. Its not just the cash position but the people they have too. I think a little more 'dare' is needed.

 

[koyoot]

Why do you think the nVidia will increase the performance gap? We've seen one AMD GPU and two nVidia GPU's. The AMD GPU is it's answer to the x50/x60 line and nVidia hasn't pushed out its big die stuff yet.

I think this generation is going to be close nVidia may win but not by much

None of Nvidia offerings will be able to compete with Polaris chips in mainstream market. AMD played well, especially considering that there will be versions of RX 480 with 1600 MHz core clocks, and 10000 MHz clocks on GDDR5 memory that will be faster than 1070(like for example here:

, while using less power and costing less(299$). AMD's biggest problem is mindshare, and perception of the brand. Not actual technology.

 

[deconstruct60]

I should have clarified a bit better. I meant the performance gap, not the market share.

Apple's need are not decoupled from what the market demands are. The sole focus on performance (at any cost) is more the stuff that fanboys flamewars are based on. That is about as far as you can get from a rational discussion of sound business practices as you can get.

It seems that Nvidia will increase the performance gap for this generation, and this probably means another lost battle for amd in the high-end gpus.

Haven't seen AMD's high end GPU yet other than vague references to Greenland and new interconnect fabrics. Neither AMD's or Nvidia is going inside any Mac product though. Short or long term. So more so falls on the motivation not to buy than to buy. The bigger the business outside of Apple's needs, the more likely they are a bigger mismatch as an acquisition. AMD does have a high end GPU business that is probably making money. They have an embedded solutions business that is making money too (e.g. the console market ). Apple would have to pay for those and then kill them (there by return absolutely zero on that part of the acquisition costs. )

I assume that if amd - eventually - loses the war, apple maybe make the move. Just maybe.

Far more likely Intel would buy them. if Intel keeps a hand in the dGPU market there are still two competitors for Apple ( Intel vs. Nvidia). if any one else buys AMD there is zero competitors for the Intel x86-GPU package anyway. Apple loose nothing on that front with an Intel buy. The only way to "win" on that front is for AMD to survive as a separate entity.

As desktops drop off as being the central core of "computer market" business this shouldn't be a huge antitrust problem. (IBM bought up former mainframe competitors assets toward the end. ) There will be grumbling, but if AMD is imploding anyway ... one x86 vendor is happening. Block Intel and still only have one. Not promoting competiton for consumers in any single way at all. Might as well go to a company that has to resources to expand a healthily dGPU market place.

- Apple seems more interested in low-to-mid range gpus. After all, almost all of their models have an intel gpu inside. The remaining are equipped with an amd.

If Apple buys AMD, they destroy any multiple vendor here. Intel will be it for the integrated needs.

- Apple is depended from intel for their igpus. I'm sure apple doesn't like that. Being control freaks and all that.

Apple wants to avoid making things more than they are control freaks. Apple actually makes almost nothing. Apple loves shipping work out; not being a completely vertical, in control. As long as Intel does a "good job" Apple has iittle problem with single vendor. For a while Apple was making all of their iPhones out of one megafactory complex. As long as it is done more cost effectively than the alternatives that have and continue to do "one vendor" solutions.

There is enough a "threat" from the ARM vendors to keep Intel in line if AMD collapses. Intel is shifting their core business to servers and iOT. The desktop segment is feeling heat whether AMD sticks around or not.

- AMD seems to target more aggressively towards the mid-range market. That seems to be a competition with intel.

More so AMD only has resources to do one thing at a time. They are going to do mid range. Then more top half. Then come back to mid range. If had a bigger budget they would do more. If the just stop shooting themselves in the foot ( which in part is trying to do too many things ). They will eventually have a bigger budget so can do more concurrently. But for now they are focusing. That is a good thing (and unlikely to lower acquisition costs... since they will survive).

- AMD seems to fall behind on the high-end gpus, probably leaving nvidia lead the race.

Again ... wait and see what Greenland(Vega) does or doesn't do. The top end, high cost market really doesn't move all that fast in reality. I think you are trying to suppress this part of AMD because it highlights the why Apple doesn't make sense as an acquirer. I think that is the tail-wagging-the-dog. To be a viable dGPU vendor they need a viable high end GPU business. If Apple buys and looses the dGPU aspect then why bother?

If Apple wants to buy an iGPU only vendor then Imagination Tech makes more sense. It is several billion dollars cheaper and far more strategic to Apple products overall. Take the billions in acquisition cost savings and possibly make a custom Apple dGPU out of that to cover most usages. Overall it is cheaper for Apple if IMG remains independent and same is true for AMD. Muliple companies buying their respective products spreads out R&D costs which in the end leads to more profitable products for Apple.

It seems that AMD's profile right now fits with the way apple is taking.

You notion is that this is Apple only. The reason why Intel has that huge gap is it isn't just Apple on this path. The consumers of PCs are the path. Therefore, the vast majority of all the PC system vendors are on the path. Again as long as the whole industry is going in general direction Apple is going there no "control freak" motivation to buy. They are generally in line with everyone else and everybody is sharing in distributing the costs load.

Apple surely can't buy intel.

If they really wanted to they could. Cash + Leverage; it is doable. Right now Apple is selling debt primarily to get out of paying taxes. They could do debt to actually do something. There is about zero motivation to do that though.
Intel actually makes things. That is the biggest mismatch right there.

 

[koyoot]

dec, one correction: Greenland is dead. I thought it morphed into Vega 10, but... it did not. Vega is something different. Also it is name of completely new architecture.

As I have said: the only way to get performance increases on smaller than 28 nm nodes are new architectures. Each generation of GPUs will be new architecture, at least for AMD. Nvidia may recycle on consumer market previous generation of architectures, like they did with Paxwell=GP104(Maxwell SM layout, but with extremely high clocks), and will do with Volta- it will be based on GP100 architecture. Only new Arch with Volta will be again Tesla and Quadro GPUs.

 

[deconstruct60]

None of Nvidia offerings will be able to compete with Polaris chips in mainstream market.

Mostly pure fanboy BS. Nvidia could price their midstream offerings right on top of AMD. A bit under would be even more competitive. Nvidia probably wants the extra profits more, so they probably won't . And if Nvidia subsantively dropped their average selling price to AMDs level they'd be in the same boat as AMD is now over the long term. AMDs current benchmarks have little restrictions on what Nvidia pricing can be.

AMD will "survive to the next round" with where they are currently placed in the mainstream market, but long term viable they need decent offerings in the top end market and more device churn in the console market. Looks like the latter is picking up next year. However, if AMD flubs the top end ( glitches , bugs , bad software ) at the high end their ability to have enough margins to pay for the amount of long term R&D is at deep risk. If Zen is bust, again the downward implosion of that won't be saved by there main market GPU positioning. Mainstream GPUs all by themselves can't save AMD. There is no one silver bullet here.

 

[antonis]

Why do you think the nVidia will increase the performance gap? We've seen one AMD GPU and two nVidia GPU's. The AMD GPU is it's answer to the x50/x60 line and nVidia hasn't pushed out its big die stuff yet.

I think this generation is going to be close nVidia may win but not by much

None of Nvidia offerings will be able to compete with Polaris chips in mainstream market. AMD played well, especially considering that there will be versions of RX 480 with 1600 MHz core clocks, and 10000 MHz clocks on GDDR5 memory that will be faster than 1070(like for example here:

, while using less power and costing less(299$). AMD's biggest problem is mindshare, and perception of the brand. Not actual technology.

Apple's need are not decoupled from what the market demands are. The sole focus on performance (at any cost) is more the stuff that fanboys flamewars are based on. That is about as far as you can get from a rational discussion of sound business practices as you can get.




Haven't seen AMD's high end GPU yet other than vague references to Greenland and new interconnect fabrics. Neither AMD's or Nvidia is going inside any Mac product though. Short or long term. So more so falls on the motivation not to buy than to buy. The bigger the business outside of Apple's needs, the more likely they are a bigger mismatch as an acquisition. AMD does have a high end GPU business that is probably making money. They have an embedded solutions business that is making money too (e.g. the console market ). Apple would have to pay for those and then kill them (there by return absolutely zero on that part of the acquisition costs. )




Far more likely Intel would buy them. if Intel keeps a hand in the dGPU market there are still two competitors for Apple ( Intel vs. Nvidia). if any one else buys AMD there is zero competitors for the Intel x86-GPU package anyway. Apple loose nothing on that front with an Intel buy. The only way to "win" on that front is for AMD to survive as a separate entity.

As desktops drop off as being the central core of "computer market" business this shouldn't be a huge antitrust problem. (IBM bought up former mainframe competitors assets toward the end. ) There will be grumbling, but if AMD is imploding anyway ... one x86 vendor is happening. Block Intel and still only have one. Not promoting competiton for consumers in any single way at all. Might as well go to a company that has to resources to expand a healthily dGPU market place.





If Apple buys AMD, they destroy any multiple vendor here. Intel will be it for the integrated needs.



Apple wants to avoid making things more than they are control freaks. Apple actually makes almost nothing. Apple loves shipping work out; not being a completely vertical, in control. As long as Intel does a "good job" Apple has iittle problem with single vendor. For a while Apple was making all of their iPhones out of one megafactory complex. As long as it is done more cost effectively than the alternatives that have and continue to do "one vendor" solutions.

There is enough a "threat" from the ARM vendors to keep Intel in line if AMD collapses. Intel is shifting their core business to servers and iOT. The desktop segment is feeling heat whether AMD sticks around or not.





More so AMD only has resources to do one thing at a time. They are going to do mid range. Then more top half. Then come back to mid range. If had a bigger budget they would do more. If the just stop shooting themselves in the foot ( which in part is trying to do too many things ). They will eventually have a bigger budget so can do more concurrently. But for now they are focusing. That is a good thing (and unlikely to lower acquisition costs... since they will survive).



Again ... wait and see what Greenland(Vega) does or doesn't do. The top end, high cost market really doesn't move all that fast in reality. I think you are trying to suppress this part of AMD because it highlights the why Apple doesn't make sense as an acquirer. I think that is the tail-wagging-the-dog. To be a viable dGPU vendor they need a viable high end GPU business. If Apple buys and looses the dGPU aspect then why bother?

If Apple wants to buy an iGPU only vendor then Imagination Tech makes more sense. It is several billion dollars cheaper and far more strategic to Apple products overall. Take the billions in acquisition cost savings and possibly make a custom Apple dGPU out of that to cover most usages. Overall it is cheaper for Apple if IMG remains independent and same is true for AMD. Muliple companies buying their respective products spreads out R&D costs which in the end leads to more profitable products for Apple.




You notion is that this is Apple only. The reason why Intel has that huge gap is it isn't just Apple on this path. The consumers of PCs are the path. Therefore, the vast majority of all the PC system vendors are on the path. Again as long as the whole industry is going in general direction Apple is going there no "control freak" motivation to buy. They are generally in line with everyone else and everybody is sharing in distributing the costs load.



If they really wanted to they could. Cash + Leverage; it is doable. Right now Apple is selling debt primarily to get out of paying taxes. They could do debt to actually do something. There is about zero motivation to do that though.
Intel actually makes things. That is the biggest mismatch right there.

Guys, not trying to start another boring battle of nvidia vs amd here, that's why I tried to choose the words in my last post very carefully. I used the phrase "it seems" many times (although everyone seems to ignore it for some reason), because things are still unclear right now and we'll certainly have to wait and see. But - right now - nvidia has presented a gpu that has no direct competition yet. Sorry, but arguments like "2 amd gpus that cost less than the 1080 and perform better" cannot be taken seriously, and I'd say the same if things were the other way around. You just have to experience the crossfire nightmare once, and you'll know what I'm talking about. Couple this with amd's contradictory statements "we're aiming on high-end" , "wait, no we are not" and you'll see that my post is justifiable.

I've read somewhere recently that the only gpu market that is not at a direct decline is the high-end. Not sure if that's indeed the case, but if it is, anyone targeting lower than that is not because they want to. I know that AMD has yet to show their Vega line and I really hope it will bring some options on the high-end market. However, I assume that nvidia also keeps an ace or two in their sleeve with the new gen Ti and Titan. So, we'll see. But as it is right now, nvidia is ahead.

Other than that, I can see deconstruct60's point of view. He has some good points, but things could easily go a completely different direction as well. If I had to guess right now, I wouldn't bet that intel is going to buy amd anytime soon. But it's anyone's guess how the tide will turn.

 

[Mago]

Apple could acquire AMD for a few billion dollars and own their own desktop x86 CPUs and GPU technology rather than paying a premium for Intel CPUs (and either AMD or Nvidia GPUs).

I guess part of the reason is that AMD just doesn't have a competitive x86 product.

I'm also guessing someone at Apple has done the math and it's cheaper in the long-run to just buy these components in volume rather than own the R&D and manufacturing.

Or perhaps, they see their own ARM chips pushing up into laptop territory (where the volume of Intel chips are used) and thus x86 is not the future.

What do you all think?

ARM evolution soon will enable as competitive Desktop CPU, x86 has its own instruction set and compute model deficiencies, (besides being archaic), I think ARM should have good enough Single Thread Performance (stdp) on desktop cpu on 1-2 yr from now, and competitive stdp high-end IPC desktop/server CPU on 4yr, while rigth now on perf/watt has an unbeatable advantage over x86.
[doublepost=1466267449][/doublepost]The next gen, is the Hybrid CPU era (one combining ALU/FPU with FPGA and Neural Networks, in addition to vector/dsp processing pipes), no cpu maker is on safe land.

 

[deconstruct60]

dec, one correction: Greenland is dead. I thought it morphed into Vega 10, but... it did not. Vega is something different. Also it is name of completely new architecture.

New arch but from all indications it is not a new product category. I should have said Greenland class. That the is the equivalency I meant to indication not that they are different code words for exactly the same thing.

So far there is nothing in AMD's materials I've seen that indicates that Vega is a not a next generation thing. ( where replacing current Polaris generation with Vega generation. ). It is unclear so far if the differences in "architecture" changes significantly span past the memory and I/O subsystems (and possibly some additional power gating in the cores).
That's OK. AMD is probably going to be on 14nm for a fairly long amount of time.

However, Intel has a single architecture class that spans single and multiple sockets. It is somewhat just marketing hooey to arm flap that just because deployed in two sockets this is a major new architecture change.

As I have said: the only way to get performance increases on smaller than 28 nm nodes are new architectures.

Process size has little to do with it. Your pronouncments that prize sizse are the sole driver here are overblown and myopic. (e.g., 10nm isn't going to stay that same cost of manufacture over a long period of time. It is going to get cheaper. Perhaps not as fast as previous generations, but it will. )

AMD doesn't need a one size fits all design. Nvidia and Intel didn't have them in previous process generations. AMD drifted into that a bit more so because they were going broke than any technical need. Intel has a A , B , and C class offerings. Nvidia has X , Y , and Z class offering. If AMD counters trying to offer A, B, C, X, Y, and Z then AMD goes broke. AMD has to be smarter in what to choose to do and, just about as importantly, what to skip.

 

[koyoot]

AMD doesn't need a one size fits all design. Nvidia and Intel didn't have them in previous process generations. AMD drifted into that a bit more so because they were going broke than any technical need. Intel has a A , B , and C class offerings. Nvidia has X , Y , and Z class offering. If AMD counters trying to offer A, B, C, X, Y, and Z then AMD goes broke. AMD has to be smarter in what to choose to do and, just about as importantly, what to skip.

Of course they will go down. The problem is this: Wafer for 14 nm sells currently for 18-20K$ depending on volume. Projections are that at the end of its life it will cost 12-15K. Increase that cost 3-4 times and you have exact cost for 10nm process. Both at the start and end of life for 10nm process. Currently the price is projected to be around 50K at the end of 10 nm life.

There is one bit that drives the cost down which is of course FD-SOI technology that GloFo bought from IBM with the Fabs. The question is: will GLoFO be able to implement it? It is linked directly with the topic of Vega. Greenland died, because like other GPUs from PolarisBaffin and Ellesmere) was designed for 14 FinFet Process. AMD and GloFo decided to put this GPU onto FD-SOI process to drive the costs down, increase performance and lower power consumption.

After that information, everything started making sense.

Mostly pure fanboy BS. Nvidia could price their midstream offerings right on top of AMD. A bit under would be even more competitive. Nvidia probably wants the extra profits more, so they probably won't . And if Nvidia subsantively dropped their average selling price to AMDs level they'd be in the same boat as AMD is now over the long term. AMDs current benchmarks have little restrictions on what Nvidia pricing can be.

AMD will "survive to the next round" with where they are currently placed in the mainstream market, but long term viable they need decent offerings in the top end market and more device churn in the console market. Looks like the latter is picking up next year. However, if AMD flubs the top end ( glitches , bugs , bad software ) at the high end their ability to have enough margins to pay for the amount of long term R&D is at deep risk. If Zen is bust, again the downward implosion of that won't be saved by there main market GPU positioning. Mainstream GPUs all by themselves can't save AMD. There is no one silver bullet here.

Are you sure about all of what you have written in this post?

You tend to believe that AMD is on the edge of death. Not that it started to raising again, and rebuilding their brand.

And please, stop calling me fanboy of AMD.

 

[deconstruct60]

ARM evolution soon will enable as competitive Desktop CPU,

At the Mac Mini and entry iMac end of the pond. At the Mac Pro end (this forum)..... not even close.
It makes about zero sense to chop the mac line up in half if Apple is largely committed to keeping the same price points as hold now.

Are ChromeOS systems going to continue to grow larger than Mac base? Probably. Is Apple going to drop down to compete with them more closely on price with Macs? Probably not.

[doublepost=1466267449][/doublepost]

The next gen, is the Hybrid CPU era (one combining ALU/FPU with FPGA and Neural Networks, in addition to vector/dsp processing pipes), no cpu maker is on safe land.

vector ( SIMD) covering DSP is already been done for a while. Fixed function units have been in GPUs for more than a while. Hybrid CPU+FPGA are probably not coming to the mainstream and workstation market any time soon. If millions of people need it then it can just be done fixed function instead of FPGA.

No CPU maker was on safe land before. Intel did well more so due to following the mantra of "only the paranoid survive" then in having declared a safe CPU zone.

Th Hybrid era is more so due to that there is a limit to what applying "copy and paste " can effectively do with an increasing transistor budget. The same function duplicated into more copies only buys so much. At some point have to bring the "other" functions onto the same die to make progress in higher value utilization of the transistor budget. (e.g., Apple's "motion" chip eventually becoming integrated.). The "black hole" of the shrinking chip package with a larger transistor budget is a pretty powerful effect.
[doublepost=1466270898][/doublepost]

...
You tend to believe that AMD is on the edge of death. Not that it started to raising again, and rebuilding their brand.

And please, stop calling me fanboy of AMD.

"...
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow(ttm) -96M
Levered Free Cash Flow(ttm) -95.12M
..."
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD/key-statistics

Until they fix that. Yes, they are slowing dying. End of story. Any claim otherwise and you are a fanboy whether you want to be called one or not. Arm flapping about brand is fanboy stuff.

 

[koyoot]

Until they fix that. Yes, they are slowing dying. End of story. Any claim otherwise and you are a fanboy whether you want to be called one or not. Arm flapping about brand is fanboy stuff.

This is the thing that gets people confused. I am not talking about brands, but about technology.

 

[deconstruct60]

... I wouldn't bet that intel is going to buy amd anytime soon. But it's anyone's guess how the tide will turn.

I wouldn't bet that anybody is going to buy AMD any time soon. AMD mainly has to stop shooting themselves in the foot to survive. Less talking and more doing the right thing. ( "right thing" is not trying to wrap yourself in the lastest "what's hot and trendy" buzzword either). That's it... it can be a profitable business.

Once they are profitable I don't see any buyouts coming. There is little to be gained by buying them by someone else ( except maybe Intel ... which can easily spend its money more effectively elsewhere. Only a "Fire Sale" price would work even for Intel. ).

 

[CapnDavey]

Just found this thread I've been saying that for 6 years so what do they do buy a crappy headphone company and put gangsta rappers on the board bad move!

 

[Mago]

"...
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow(ttm) -96M
Levered Free Cash Flow(ttm) -95.12M
..."
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMD/key-statistics

Until they fix that. Yes, they are slowing dying. End of story. Any claim otherwise and you are a fanboy whether you want to be called one or not. Arm flapping about brand is fanboy stuff.

Check Amazon's cash flow, and repeat again AMD is on the verge of death...

 

[thewitt]

AMD just announced a video card that will change the nature of gaming... I would buy more stock if I could.

 

[koyoot]

AMD just announced a video card that will change the nature of gaming... I would buy more stock if I could.

Will do what?

 

[AidenShaw]

A lot of people don't realize this.

For those who don't know, AMD's license with Intel to make x86 processors ends the moment that AMD is acquired.

And if you engage the brain cells that are often idle - you'd realize why AMD split the ATI group off to a separate division.*

It let's you sell the two pieces separately, and the ATI group will have value even if the AMD side collapses due to the lack of the x86 license.

* Actually named after ATI's consumer GPUs, not after Pro stuff
[doublepost=1466292174][/doublepost]

Will do what?

2 frames per second will change the nature of gaming
[doublepost=1466292303][/doublepost]

Just found this thread I've been saying that for 6 years so what do they do buy a crappy headphone company and put gangsta rappers on the board bad move!

At least they haven't put the Apple logo on those crappy Beats headphones....

 

[koyoot]

And if you engage the brain cells that are often idle - you'd realize why AMD split the ATI group off to a separate division.*

It let's you sell the two pieces separately, and the ATI group will have value even if the AMD side collapses due to the lack of the x86 license.

* Actually named after ATI's consumer GPUs, not after Pro stuff
2 frames per second will change the nature of gaming

At least they haven't put the Apple logo on those crappy Beats headphones....

So I suppose you will not gonna invest your money in AMD stock?

 

[deconstruct60]

Check Amazon's cash flow, and repeat again AMD is on the verge of death...

Perhaps you are thinking of Amazon's profit margin. Cash Flow?

"
Cash Flow Statement
Operating Cash Flow(ttm) 11.26B
Levered Free Cash Flow(ttm) 7.98B
..."
http://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AMZN/key-statistics

The range between AMD's negative 96M and Amazon's positive $11B is somewhat close to $12B. That is in the ballpark of being 3x greater than AMDs entire market capitalization. Free cash flow? That is a bit under 2x AMD's entire market capitalization.

Those two are no where near being in the same class of "healthy". Amazon spends money about as fast as they make it. AMD is not making any. They are borrowing money to keep the lights on. They have dug themselves a deep hole to get out of, so short term that is OK. However, if they don't get out of the hole long term ... eventually they'll get buried in that hole.

 

[pat500000]

Just found this thread I've been saying that for 6 years so what do they do buy a crappy headphone company and put gangsta rappers on the board bad move!

Dr dre approves this message-

 

[AidenShaw]

So I suppose you will not gonna invest your money in AMD stock?

I've been buying Silicon Valley real estate - and I'm smiling.