AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3 - Page 2 - Techist - Tech Forum

Go Back   Techist - Tech Forum > Computer Hardware > New Systems | Building and Buying
Click Here to Login
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-20-2007, 03:15 AM   #11 (permalink)
Super Techie
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 330
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

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.
__________________

__________________
CPU: e6320 W/ Zalman CNPS9700 @ 2.8
MOBO: MSI P6N PLATINUM
RAM: 2gigs G. Skill HZs
VID: EVGA 8800 GTS 640mb @ 625/1025
CASE: NZXT ZERO
HD: WD1600YS
PS: CORSAIR 520HX
MONITOR: CHIMEI 22in
OS: VISTA HOME PREMIUM 32bit
nerdygeek is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 04:25 AM   #12 (permalink)
Techie Beyond Description
 
Apokalipse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 14,559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darksideleader View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by midn1gh7 View Post
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?
__________________

__________________
Apokalipse is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 05:40 AM   #13 (permalink)
Ultra Techie
 
KingAustin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Iowa
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to KingAustin
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

Quote:
Originally Posted by nerdygeek View Post
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.
__________________
E6300 w/ AF7 Pro 3.11ghz
Gigabyte DS3
2GB G.Skill DDR2 800
7900GT w/ Zalman vf900 650/800
Z-5500 Digital Speakers
22" Chimei + 19" BENQ
XClio 3060
KingAustin is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 07:27 AM   #14 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,479
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

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
maroon1 is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 08:29 AM   #15 (permalink)
TF's First Dry Ice User!
 
Peter.Cort's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 5,018
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

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.
__________________
A notice to EVERYONE who has posted here with a computer problem, I highly encourage you to keep current with the forums, even if it's browsing for 10-15 minutes during lunch, or before you go to bed at night. There are many things that you can learn and apply to future issues. My goal is to help people get to a point where they can use their own knowledge to help themselves, and others.

Also please use the search button. You've got a 50/50 chance that someone's asked your question and we've answered it.
Peter.Cort is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 08:52 AM   #16 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,479
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

Quote:
Originally Posted by midn1gh7 View Post
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)

Quote:
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)
maroon1 is offline  
Old 10-20-2007, 09:01 AM   #17 (permalink)
Master Techie
 
baron5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,984
Default Re: AMD Records $396 Million USD Net Loss for Q3

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

__________________
<<<Please give me Rep if I have helped you<<<

I7 930 @ 4GHz : Noctua D-14
Gigabyte X58A-UD7 : Asus GTX 480
G.Skill Trident 1600MHz 6-8-7-18 : Samsung F3 1TB
OCZ Vertex 2 50GB : Silverstone RV02 Case
Silverstone Strider Plus 1Kw : Sony DRU-870s Optical
Samsung P2350 Monito
r

baron5 is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.