AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

[nerdygeek]

Come on guys AMD will never go down for one simple reason. Intel won't let it. This may sound crazy but its the same reason MACs are still so prevalent. If any one company has a monopoly they are so incredibly screwed. Bill gates wont let MACs go away and Intel wont let AMD. Its not worth it for them to let their competitors die, its more cost effective for them to be in business.

 

[Apokalipse]

AMD is putting pretty much all their eggs in one basket now, they wouldn't do that if they know their going down...

AMD won't go down.

and if you don't have the best of the best then you won't make money.

then why were Pentium 4's selling like crazy against the Athlon 64's?

 

[KingAustin]

Come on guys AMD will never go down for one simple reason. Intel won't let it. This may sound crazy but its the same reason MACs are still so prevalent. If any one company has a monopoly they are so incredibly screwed. Bill gates wont let MACs go away and Intel wont let AMD. Its not worth it for them to let their competitors die, its more cost effective for them to be in business.

That's the worst business logic I've ever heard in my life. If you don't have any competitors and people need your product, profit margins go way up. As long as Intel didn't jack up their prices, they can't be hit with an antitrust law (in the US at least). Macs are still prevalent not because microsoft let them be (another very stupid assumption), but because they have been crowned as the designing computer, (good luck trying to explain to someone who doesn't know computers why that's a horrible argument in today's world), they have a sleek design, and people love iPods so they "trust" Apple.

A monopoly is ideal in a capitalist market. The only time a monopoly would be a bad thing is if the company starts price gouging, but they won't get away with that for too long as they'll get fined, and the government pretty much pays other companies who takes risks to compete with the company. Also if a company under prices, they'll get slapped with an antitrust lawsuit. That means Intel can't start selling their high end chips for $80, taking a loss, but in doing so knocking out a major competitor, making their long term profits increase greatly.

It was amazing to see the X2 prices drop what seemed like 50% in under a week last year. I don't know AMDs financials, but their phenom is going to have to be much better in performance and price if they want to stick around most likely. No company can keep taking hits of hundreds of millions every quarter (comfortably at least). If AMD did die out, it wouldn't be as bad as some of you think. As I've already covered, they can't price gouge, but yes, prices would be higher. A company can't slouch too much on research though, because the government is willing to pay companies to take a risk and compete. Worst case scenario being AMD loses a bunch of money, gets bought out by another company, Intel pretty much gains most of the market share, slouches off, AMD comes back strong after working on a new chip line, gets money from the government. What would be best for Intel is to buyout AMD if their profit margins keep dropping hundreds of millions (no company can repeatedly take hits like that comfortably), but I doubt Congress would let that happen, it would most definitely get vetoed in fears of a monopoly. So I conclude, don't ever give business advice again, please.

 

[maroon1]

I heard some people here claiming that AMD processors crushes Intel in the mid to low chips, and that they way better.

People who said that are totally wrong.

First of all, Intel have some pretty good low chips like E2140, E2160 and E2180. Those might perform slightly slower than similar priced low-end chips from AMD, but the intel processors have higher overclocking potential

For the mid chips, I think Intel will be better after October 21th because intel is planning to drop the price of E4500 from $133 to $113 and it will release E4600 for $133. E4600 would be around 5600+ in performance at stock speed, but E4600 overclocks way much better

 

[Peter.Cort]

but think of it most people who get the mid to low end cpus do it for a few reasons.
1. they don't have the money to get the best, ie a q series.
2. they don't have a need for the best and don't want to splurge on unessicary items.
3. company's who are looking to make entry-mid level pc's for customers who are gonna go home, and use it for simple stuff.

so for the most part the cpu that would be used is the 4-5 series x2 because its cheaper and gives about the same performance as a 4 series cpu.

also the 4600 is comprible to a 5000+ - 5600+ as far as real time performance.

and anyway the e4300, e4400, e4500 are all the same except for a .2 ghz increase respectivly and a voltage difference.
that said the e4300 is prolly your best bet for a good mid end cpu cause its a great ocing chip, i have a e4400 and it oc's great, and just not spend for the increase of a .2 ghz.

 

[maroon1]

also the 4600 is comprible to a 5000+ - 5600+ as far as real time performance.

No you are totally wrong, E4600 can easily beat 5000+

Please look at the average performance from xbitlabs

E6420 is the closest intel processor to 5600+ in terms of performance

E4600 has 270MHz higher clock than E6420, so this means E4600 is as good or even better than E6420 because the extra cache that have E6420 doesn't make any huge difference.

Logically, E4600 should have similar performance to 5600+ at stock speeds (if not better)

and anyway the e4300, e4400, e4500 are all the same except for a .2 ghz increase respectivly and a voltage difference.

And the difference between 5000+ and 5600+ is only .2GHz

5600+ has extra cache but it will barely make any difference except in few applications

The difference between 5000+ and 5600+ in performance is just like the difference between E4300 and E4400 ( just look at the above benchmark from xbitlabs)

 

[baron5]

poor amd, i hope they regain sum ground with the phenoms