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
Add your own comment

79 Comments on AMD Worth Less than it Paid for ATI

#1
tigger
I'm the only one
maybe intel should bail them out,i reckon even intel dont wanna see amd go down.Going by the 5bn figure,intel could buy em even and let them carry on as they were,intel would'nt even miss the money.
Posted on Reply
#2
Scrizz
dang... and along with AMD goes ATI..
Posted on Reply
#3
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
Silverel said:
Firefox '07 Market Share
Erm, not quite, but good point anyways. They're hovering around 15%...

Regardless, it does make a good comparison if you turn IE into Intel, and FF into AMD. Well, except that AMD isn't really gaining a whole lot of ground lately.
That's an inaccurate link. Here, this one's directly from W3 Schools
Posted on Reply
#4
Spunky
Batou1986
i really don't see where you coming from on that statement as most amd ati stuff is technologically superior but somehow fails in real world application's
Well then said:
2 examples of how your statement makes no sense phenom quad core is an actual quad core chip not just 2 dual core chips on 1 socket.
Woopdee doo. They managed to put four cores on a single die. Congratulations, let's throw a party. Or not, because honestly, that doesn't really make any difference whatsoever. It's the same technology. Part of reverse engineering is NOT doing the exact same thing your competition did.

Batou1986
and the hd2800 series runs dx 10.1 and sm 4.1 how could they be reverse engineering someones stuff when they develop it first as nvidia has yet to produce any thing up to par technology wise other than die reduction and pci-e 2
Let's look at how long it took them to get their foot in the DX10 door said:
my point is you cant reverse engineer something you invent first
Good point. AMD didn't invent DX10.1 or SM 4.1, they were just the first to implement it. NVIDIA is taking their time, because let's be honest, they're worth 5x more than ATI. So they don't really have to worry about deadlines. They can take their time perfecting the technology. ATI, however, is getting close to bankruptcy if they can't get something decent out the door soon. They certainly didn't invent quad-core technology either. Your argument fails.
Posted on Reply
#5
mandelore
Spunky said:
Well then, I guess it isn't technologically superior after all then, is it?


Woopdee doo. They managed to put four cores on a single die. Congratulations, let's throw a party. Or not, because honestly, that doesn't really make any difference whatsoever. It's the same technology. Part of reverse engineering is NOT doing the exact same thing your competition did.



Let's look at how long it took them to get their foot in the DX10 door, shall we? What were they doing all of that time? Oh wait, I think you know the answer.



Good point. AMD didn't invent DX10.1 or SM 4.1, they were just the first to implement it. NVIDIA is taking their time, because let's be honest, they're worth 5x more than ATI. So they don't really have to worry about deadlines. They can take their time perfecting the technology. ATI, however, is getting close to bankruptcy if they can't get something decent out the door soon. They certainly didn't invent quad-core technology either. Your argument fails.
well actually... yes it is superior, just intel has had alot more time to get older tech working at much greater efficiency than this new tech in its infancy

intel has no 4cores on 1 die cpu, so reverse engineering, I think not, Intels Nathalem or whatever may be native, so THAT with inbuilt mem controller may have a wee bit of reverse engineering in from AMD

AMD didnt invent quad core, lols, they just implimented the technologically superior method of getting all on one die, not 2 strapped together, reguardless of performance in its infancy, its till superior technology. most of what u said was a bit weak tbh

no diff than saying ddr3 is technologically superior to ddr2, but not all ddr3 is better than ddr2, catch my drift?
Posted on Reply
#6
Silverel
btarunr said:
That's an inaccurate link. Here, this one's directly from W3 Schools
What makes mine inaccurate?
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies. These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.

These facts indicate that the browser figures above are not 100% realistic. Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at least 80% of the users.

Anyway, our data, collected from W3Schools' log-files, over a five year period, clearly shows the long and medium-term trends.
Posted on Reply
#7
xvi
Wile E said:
But the point remains that AMD didn't reverse engineer Intel and nVidia's stuff, which is what you originally said. The designs AMD/ATI uses in their products differs completely from Intel/nVidia. AMD's multi core technology has been in development since 2004. Lets also not forget who made the first dual core processors.

I'm not arguing performance levels, we all know AMD is behind in that category, but your statement that AMD just reverse engineers it's competitor's products is completely without merit.
/agree
Wile E is always right. *worship*

AMD puts all their money into inventing this stuff, then Intel, nVidia, IBM and VIA copy their hard work. Patents and copyrights, AMD. Come on now!
That's not to say that AMD hasn't taken Intel's technology and improved it. Afterall, AMD started as a company that designed a processor to almost exactly emulate an Intel processor.
Posted on Reply
#8
Wile E
Power User
xvi said:
/agree
Wile E is always right. *worship*

AMD puts all their money into inventing this stuff, then Intel, nVidia, IBM and VIA copy their hard work. Patents and copyrights, AMD. Come on now!
That's not to say that AMD hasn't taken Intel's technology and improved it. Afterall, AMD started as a company that designed a processor to almost exactly emulate an Intel processor.
Lol. Thanks for quoting it. I accidentally deleted the post.
Posted on Reply
#9
xvi
Wile E said:
Lol. Thanks for quoting it. I accidentally deleted the post.
:toast:
Posted on Reply
#10
imperialreign
Good point. AMD didn't invent DX10.1 or SM 4.1, they were just the first to implement it. NVIDIA is taking their time, because let's be honest, they're worth 5x more than ATI. So they don't really have to worry about deadlines. They can take their time perfecting the technology. ATI, however, is getting close to bankruptcy if they can't get something decent out the door soon.
Only reason ATI is getting close to bankruptcy is the AMD takeover. They were doing quite well until then. It was the merger that killed them, and really hurt AMD.

ATI, for some reason or another, has always been very quick to jump on new technology, and try to get it out the door before anyone else does. It's a double edged sword. If the technology isn't up to snuff in other departments, it makes them look bad. If it becomes the next big thing, they've got a step up.

Problem being, though, is that ATI don't have a "niche" market like nVidia does. ATI has never been about having the biggest/fastest VGA adapter, they were always more about IQ than anything else. Even still, their cards handle HD capabilities better than nVidia's do - why ATI doesn't market on that point specifically, I have no idea.

As for technologically advanced . . . take for instance the usage of the ATI GPU's for the F@H project.

As of right now, ATI's downfall will be because of poor marketing on AMD's part, and having a sinking ball and chain that will pull a lot of their funding.

I'm not a big AMD fan, but I don't want to see the company fail, either.
Posted on Reply
#11
cdawall
where the hell are my stars
imperialreign said:
Only reason ATI is getting close to bankruptcy is the AMD takeover. They were doing quite well until then. It was the merger that killed them, and really hurt AMD.

ATI, for some reason or another, has always been very quick to jump on new technology, and try to get it out the door before anyone else does. It's a double edged sword. If the technology isn't up to snuff in other departments, it makes them look bad. If it becomes the next big thing, they've got a step up.

Problem being, though, is that ATI don't have a "niche" market like nVidia does. ATI has never been about having the biggest/fastest VGA adapter, they were always more about IQ than anything else. Even still, their cards handle HD capabilities better than nVidia's do - why ATI doesn't market on that point specifically, I have no idea.

As for technologically advanced . . . take for instance the usage of the ATI GPU's for the F@H project.

As of right now, ATI's downfall will be because of poor marketing on AMD's part, and having a sinking ball and chain that will pull a lot of their funding.

I'm not a big AMD fan, but I don't want to see the company fail, either.
just to point this out ATi wasnt exactly out doing NV for market shares before AMD took them over albiet they have dropped a good bit now that AMD is in control but that is normal for all takeovers this should like most corp takeovers even itself out in time. honestly for all who think AMD is failing how much is VIA worth? is VIA still around YES!
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
And so is SiS.

The best way to compare the state of ATi now and before the merger is ATi's website. It was so groovy in red before, and now it's merely a sub-site in AMD's website with the same colour scheme. Yuck. I'm an Intel user, I go to ATi.com and I'm presented with a link to AMD processors? makes little sense. From what I see, NVidia is going to gobble down ATi in the same way it gobbled doen 3DFX, exactly 10 years ago. As for AMD, they'll be sold to some rich Dubai based firm which will keep it as rudementary as VIA keeps S3 Graphics. Bad decision making has made once two brilliant companies in to whores.
Posted on Reply
#13
Scrizz
btarunr said:
And so is SiS.

The best way to compare the state of ATi now and before the merger is ATi's website. It was so groovy in red before, and now it's merely a sub-site in AMD's website with the same colour scheme. Yuck. I'm an Intel user, I go to ATi.com and I'm presented with a link to AMD processors? makes little sense. From what I see, NVidia is going to gobble down ATi in the same way it gobbled doen 3DFX, exactly 10 years ago. As for AMD, they'll be sold to some rich Dubai based firm which will keep it as rudementary as VIA keeps S3 Graphics. Bad decision making has made once two brilliant companies in to whores.
dam! and I still have my 3dfx cards.... just makes me angry :cry:
Posted on Reply
#14
imperialreign
dam! and I still have my 3dfx cards.... just makes me angry
yeah . . . I know . . . that was the start of my disapproval of nVidia. TBH, if they hadn't screwed over us 3DFX owners at the time, I might have ended up being nVidia loyal instead of ATI loyal. It won't stop me from recommending an nVidia card to someone if I think it fits their needs - but I'll never buy from them.
just to point this out ATi wasnt exactly out doing NV for market shares before AMD took them over albiet they have dropped a good bit now that AMD is in control but that is normal for all takeovers this should like most corp takeovers even itself out in time. honestly for all who think AMD is failing how much is VIA worth? is VIA still around YES!
never said ATI was. But, ATI was a ton more competitive with nVidia before the merger. Look at how well the 1900 series was doing at the time, and how competitive it was. Next up, the 2900 series - still a great card, but she was half-baked going out the door.


I've noticed a little something, though . . . it seems to me that recently (within the last couple of years) AMD has been going more after those assets that are proven to be strong developers of processor architecture. Just this last week there was a news story of hiring Mike Uhler, a month or two before that was someone else (can't remember the name off the top of my head), and small things here and there going all the way back to ATI (who at the time were known for having extremelly accurate and efficient GPUs) . . .

. . . makes me think AMD might have something big on the drawing board that they're keeping very hush-hush about.
Posted on Reply
#16
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
There really is something transpiring inside AMD that it's so tight-lipped about. AMD realizes that the biggest weakness Intel has is that it falters each time it resorts to reactive-engineering. The AMD K8 took Intel by surprise resulting in the Pentium 4 EE (Emergency Edition) and the Pentium D becoming classic examples of Intel in panic, resorting to reactive-engineering and screwing-up in the process. But when Intel sat down to doing something constuctive and original with its drawing boards, great pieces of work like the Conroe came to be. And with the advent of Kentsfield, Intel pushed AMD into panic. AMD resorted to the same reactive-engineering and produced the AMD Athlon64 FX 74. Which of-course flopped big-time.

Anticipating an onslaught by the AMD Barcelona/Agena, Intel was well prepared with the Yorkfield which sold a few units even before the Agena in the first production batch.

What I foresee: AMD could be working on something really big, and it's going to tell the buyer "look dude, I'm selling you the best thing in the market, I don't care what Intel has to offer". A cousin of mine works at the AMD RnD and Flash memory unit located in Bangalore, India. He says that his bosses are really secretive about things and he did feed me with his story about AMD working on a desktop processor that has 4 x86 cores + 508 stream processors (4 core, 512 thread, 2.2 GHz), which I mention with a schematic diagram in one of my other posts. Sure, this invites laughs but I don't care.
Posted on Reply
#17
imperialreign
btarunr said:
Pentium 4 EE (Emergency Edition)
That right there is the best anagram for the P4 EE's I have seen so far!


BTW . . . so, our assumptions that AMD is up to something might be correct?
Posted on Reply
#18
Scrizz
they better have something in the graphics department aswell
Posted on Reply
#19
imperialreign
perhaps just wishful thinking on my part, but if AMD comes up with a radical product . . . I'm sure we will see a variation of it headed ATI's way.
Posted on Reply
#20
alexicore5000
ive been out of touch with the cpu battles for a while (lack of net etc) and i come round to find the entire landscape has changed! i have been using AMD since my first pc (way back in 1995) and so they have a place in my - rooting for the underdog, etc.
i really hope that they can pull it together (either through fantastic innovation or a complete overhaul of their business/marketing practises). what i would hate to see happen, is that if the 'unspeakable' happens and AMD goes into administration, instead of some 'business angel' rescuing the company and putting them back onto the path to success, that the company gets bought by a company which then takes all the 'good' parts and sell off the rest (the 'rest' of the company invariably dies!). a similiar thing happened with Rover in the UK when BMW bought the company. BMW took Land Rover and the New Mini and then dumped the rest of the company. the company collapsed. a dire situation - lets hope it doesnt happen.

for the record i hated rover's cars, but thats not the point:
many people lost theyre job and the manufacturing sector of the west midlands took a severe kick to the nads
Posted on Reply
#21
Solaris17
Creator Solaris Utility DVD
mrmonk said:
Thanks or the info

Is that an x86 cpu or one that they have manufactured to be used within their sun blade systems.
only for the blade systems its i686 i bealive and it only supports linux and solaris OS's
Posted on Reply
#22
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
alexicore5000 said:
ive been out of touch with the cpu battles for a while (lack of net etc) and i come round to find the entire landscape has changed! i have been using AMD since my first pc (way back in 1995) and so they have a place in my - rooting for the underdog, etc.
i really hope that they can pull it together (either through fantastic innovation or a complete overhaul of their business/marketing practises). what i would hate to see happen, is that if the 'unspeakable' happens and AMD goes into administration, instead of some 'business angel' rescuing the company and putting them back onto the path to success, that the company gets bought by a company which then takes all the 'good' parts and sell off the rest (the 'rest' of the company invariably dies!). a similiar thing happened with Rover in the UK when BMW bought the company. BMW took Land Rover and the New Mini and then dumped the rest of the company. the company collapsed. a dire situation - lets hope it doesnt happen.

for the record i hated rover's cars, but thats not the point:
many people lost theyre job and the manufacturing sector of the west midlands took a severe kick to the nads
Well freakin' said!

... and there's me thinking you started with an Intel CPU like myself. You learn something knew everyday.
Posted on Reply
#23
tigger
I'm the only one
I think intel should rescue amd,then they can share idea and we will all benefit.Plus it means we dont lose amd.
Posted on Reply
#24
InnocentCriminal
Resident Grammar Amender
I doubt it's in Intel's best interest to bail out the competition, especially after all the court malarkey they keep putting each other through. I highly doubt AMD won't go out without a fight.
Posted on Reply
#25
jpierce55
InnocentCriminal said:
I doubt it's in Intel's best interest to bail out the competition, especially after all the court malarkey they keep putting each other through. I highly doubt AMD won't go out without a fight.
Actually Intel likely faces a split if ATI/AMD failed, it just depends on if they get ruled a monopoly, but they would likely have to separate some components of the company. I doubt they want AMD to fail completely, but would like to hold them down.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment