By: Azazel (none.delete@this.gmail.com), January 19, 2011 2:46 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
David Kanter (dkanter@realworldtech.com) on 1/18/11 wrote:
---------------------------
>Almost all the stuff you listed are implementation details which a CEO may or may
>not have a great deal of visibility into and control over.
>
>The spin-out of GF was a pretty big deal and was handled reasonably well. I think
>designing a mobile oriented microarchitecture was a very good idea, and something
>long overdue at AMD. So Dirk deserves credit for backing that project as well, although the jury is out on the results.
>
>Also, while some of AMD's products are somewhat late - that's not exactly new.
>The K8 came to market late and did quite well. Bobcat derivatives seem to be on
>time, while most of the problems seem to revolve around the gate first 32nm process.
>IBM and GF's 32nm process choices weren't great, but it's unclear how much influence
>AMD had on those decisions relative to IBM.
>
>So I think you're being unduly negative and pessimistic. But the last 5 years
>certainly weren't a walk in the park for AMD either.
>
>David
>
I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I'm realistic.
I see nothing positive in AMD's development for the last 5-6 years. The absence of accomplishment examples only proves that hard to find even one.
Meyer was the President and COO of AMD since 2004 till 2009. Cpus were of his prime pride. And i'm pretty sure he was deeply involved in development of cpu strategy.
As to GloFo, that deal was of Ruiz's responsibilities. In my view, the deal was done in the very bad way.
AMD had had no intention to sell its fabs back in 2006 when she bought ATI. That's why GloFo deal was not a part of AMD's strategy at that time. AMD was compelled to sell their fabs due to the burden of huge debts. And because that was done two years later, when AMD shares experienced a sharp decline, AMD had gotten only about 2B$ for ~67% sold stake. It's a joke of money for the modern fabs. BTW, now AMD has 14% only.
---------------------------
>Almost all the stuff you listed are implementation details which a CEO may or may
>not have a great deal of visibility into and control over.
>
>The spin-out of GF was a pretty big deal and was handled reasonably well. I think
>designing a mobile oriented microarchitecture was a very good idea, and something
>long overdue at AMD. So Dirk deserves credit for backing that project as well, although the jury is out on the results.
>
>Also, while some of AMD's products are somewhat late - that's not exactly new.
>The K8 came to market late and did quite well. Bobcat derivatives seem to be on
>time, while most of the problems seem to revolve around the gate first 32nm process.
>IBM and GF's 32nm process choices weren't great, but it's unclear how much influence
>AMD had on those decisions relative to IBM.
>
>So I think you're being unduly negative and pessimistic. But the last 5 years
>certainly weren't a walk in the park for AMD either.
>
>David
>
I'm neither pessimistic nor optimistic. I'm realistic.
I see nothing positive in AMD's development for the last 5-6 years. The absence of accomplishment examples only proves that hard to find even one.
Meyer was the President and COO of AMD since 2004 till 2009. Cpus were of his prime pride. And i'm pretty sure he was deeply involved in development of cpu strategy.
As to GloFo, that deal was of Ruiz's responsibilities. In my view, the deal was done in the very bad way.
AMD had had no intention to sell its fabs back in 2006 when she bought ATI. That's why GloFo deal was not a part of AMD's strategy at that time. AMD was compelled to sell their fabs due to the burden of huge debts. And because that was done two years later, when AMD shares experienced a sharp decline, AMD had gotten only about 2B$ for ~67% sold stake. It's a joke of money for the modern fabs. BTW, now AMD has 14% only.
