Monday, December 10th 2007
AMD Worth Less than it Paid for ATI
More bad news for AMD I'm afraid, this time it's in terms of company value. AMD's share price dropped to its lowest for more than four years last week, leaving the company with a total value of $5 billion US - that's $400 million less than it paid for ATI a year and a half ago. To put things into perspective, AMD's main rival Intel is worth $162 billion, which is more than 32 times more than AMD. Meanwhile, graphics card competitor NVIDIA is worth almost four times as much as AMD with a company value of $19 billion. These are tough times for AMD, and it will be hoping its Phenom processors and its HD 3000 series of graphics cards can get it out of trouble, although the former has not been particularly well received so far.
Source:
bit-tech.net
79 Comments on AMD Worth Less than it Paid for ATI
trying to support a company that has nothing to offer as real competition to intel is silly.
what, you help pay the light bill this month but what about next month????
AMD abandoned its customers and the market they served by trying to compete head to head with the 800lb gorilla (intel), the customers did not abandon AMD they just have nothing that makes sense to buy. AMD should have stoped trying to beat intel and just kept building quality products that offered customers a much cheaper alternative product that could still do the same jobs. loyalty is nice but when spending money you need the best results from the money your spending. if a corvette only cost $2000 more than a ford economy car then which would you buy, or should i say which would make more sense to buy?
My prediction: Firefox will continue to gain browser market share, perhaps even reaching parity with IE's share, due to the increased usage of web-based applications, and the corresponding usage of Firefox amongst the developers creating those web-based applications (I don't know a single web designer who isn't using Firefox anymore). So there. :p
Now, if you'd said 10 years in the future, I'll agree with you -- that's impossible to predict.
(For the record, I drive a '91 Ford Escort. 35 MPG FTW)
India,
Most countries from Asia, Africa and south america.
But looking at AMD's stock info and history wouldn't their value at the time of the merger only have been slightly less than double what it is now? Actually looking at the numbers it seems like the stock value dropped more in the 2 months prior to the merger than it has in the year and half since. While it's an interesting tidbit that their value dropped to less than what they paid for ATI the idea of it as a story seems to be somewhat out of or lacking context. If there's any value to doing a true quad it'll probably have more to do with the business side of things and will won't be realized until triple cores come out. But the point of the post you were responding to was that AMD/ATI are obviously not trying to reverse engineer anything since they're doing things differently. He wasn't saying that ATI developed 10.1 but they were the first to make a card that could handle it. Regardless of how far off it may be from being a standard it is still direct x. If it's not in use now it will be eventually. If Nvidia is not including it on their new cards what are the chances that they're refusing to plan ahead vs. them just not being able to do yet?
Also iirc I think that MS acknowledgment you referred to happened to be at an Nvidia sponsored event lol.
AMD's strategy would be fine if they had more prebuilt computers using their Phenom chips. Since Intel has most prebuilts in their pocket already, AMD needs to focus on a chip that allows for overclocking to make the consumer, rather than wholesaler, the primary target.
As for webdesigners using Firefox, they're really bad at their job if they only use a single browser.
Sadly enough, Firefox has had an easier time making inroads than AMD has -- maybe they need to start making processors that fit in Intel's own slots again. :p
Amd
True 4 core 65mm
Take the mcm approach
8 cores on 65m
mcm again
12 cores or so on 45mm
mcm again
16 cores or so 32mm
and so on
SO when intel starts developing true quad cores if i am correct which will be sometime next year amd will have the upper hand with the mcm route as they have already a true quad cpu
correct me if i am wrong or if this is not at least possible in the future
p.s Not a fanboi got a intel quad and amd 6400x2
peace
I care about performance, and I want bang for my buck. I bet that statement represents the vast majority of users on this site.
I don't care if it's a TRUE quad core or a 386. If the 386 is better performing, then i will get that.
Is that an x86 cpu or one that they have manufactured to be used within their sun blade systems.
If I were Intel, I'd start assembling a team of the best lawyers money can buy (or add to their already high-powered lawyer team)... if AMD ever goes under and dies, Intel will get anti-trust lawsuits up their ass and then some :P
IMO, it'd be more beneficial (and also profitable) for AMD to maintain ownership, but allow ATI to function as it's own seperate entity.
the most promising thing I have seen from AMD over the last year or so has got to be this: multicore.amd.com/us-en/AMD-Multi-Core/Quad-Core-Advantage/Spider.aspx
If AMD starts designing more pre-built rigs in this fashion, competitively priced, they stand a better chance of regaining some foothold.