POST A COMMENT

34 Comments

Back to Article

  • Beenthere - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    GloFo has their work cut out for them. They had better work smart or they will become a bootnote in PC history. Reply
  • Ethaniel - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    ... AMD "could" work with other people, right? Reply
  • Kjella - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    AMD already produces all their GPUs at TSMC and had to scrap several CPU designs because GloFo's gate first process couldn't deliver, moving them to TSMC and gate last. So the question is more if GloFo will see any of AMDs business in the future or not. Of course TSMC isn't actually a shining beacon of delivering themselves, they had to scrap their 34nm GPU process. This really is a "deliver or die" market. Reply
  • Beenthere - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    Actually TSMC is only supplying AMD with GPUs not APUs or CPUs - yet. It takes at least a year and up to 18 months to change AMDs current CPU/APU designs so that TSMC could produce them with gate last.

    For now AMD is sticking with GloFo for their current series of CPUs and APUs. That is why GloFo had better deliver or they will lose a lot of AMD Biz, which they can't really afford to lose. Since Nov. '11 things have improved significantly at GloFo as far as ramping of 32nm HKMGF.
    Reply
  • mga318 - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    Uhm, that's what he said. Reply
  • gplnpsb - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    Actually, TSMC is supplying AMD with their enormously successful Brazos APUs. Those are manufactured on TSMC's 40nm process. It did seem that the 28nm successor to brazos got cancelled, I don't know if AMD had planned to fab those at Global Foundries or at TSMC. Reply
  • jjj - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Actually,despite this not being mentioned in the article,AMD also got GloFo to waver it's exclusivity rights for some 28nm APUs:
    GLOBALFOUNDRIES waived the exclusivity arrangement for AMD to manufacture certain 28nm APU products at GLOBALFOUNDRIES for a specified period.""

    Overall the deal doesn't seem that good but there is little info for now.
    Reply
  • r3Dslap - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Actually,,, Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    everybody knows what's going on and it's all different -LOL Reply
  • rocketbuddha - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    I think that AMD foolishly trusted GF would be up and ready with its 28nm HKMG (bulk) process by now so that it can use GF as the foundry for all its APUs and MPUs.

    Instead TSMC seems to have be ready with its 28nm earlier. Krishna and Wichita was designed using 28nm GF libraries and no wonder they are cancelled. So now we have Brazos 2.0 at the same 40nm from TSMC.

    Instead AMD was forced to keep its 28nm plans as a 2013 option. Even in 2013 it seems to be bulk and not SOI as Vishera the only desktop based successor to the Zambezi seems to be 32nm rather than 28nm
    Reply
  • animekenji - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    I think that was the idea, like when General Motors cut Delphi loose. It enabled them to buy parts from more than one source and allowed Delphi to sell parts to other car makers. Cutting GF loose from AMD is going to have similar benefits for AMD and GF. Reply
  • iwod - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    It would means AMD have got those Extra Money to make them look better on the balance sheet. After all they spend a fortune to acquire ATI.

    GF, or AMD 's Foundries were never able to complete with Intel anyway. They were always one node behind so in terms of strategic decision this doesn't make any difference whether AMD owns it or not.

    Lets just hope they get back on track and start giving some competition to Intel.
    Reply
  • Beenthere - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    That acquisition of ATI is looking pretty good right now with over 30 Million APUs sold and many billions more APUs to go. <LOL>

    Now days being the first to transistion to a smaller nm design doesn't mean what it did back in the days of 90 nm CPUs. As you see there are smaller changes now like 45 nm => 32 nm => 28 nm. AMD's goal is to maximize the core performance and not worry about the trace size transition so much.
    Reply
  • Exodite - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Strictly speaking the node transitions are roughly the same on a dimensional scale. Looking at areal density from previous nodes...

    130nm->90nm (48%)->65nm (52%)->45nm (48%)->32nm (51%)->22nm (47%)
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Friday, March 30, 2012 - link

    Good post Reply
  • chizow - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    How is it looking good? You have a case of the incredible shrinking company where the combined market cap of the two firms is now smaller than what they bought ATI for (6B) in 2006. And now they don't even have a fab. What did ex-CEO/founder Jerry Sanders say again? "Real men have fabs" or something to that extent. He must be hating what he's seen his company become over the last few years.

    While I do think it was a good move overall to divest their foundries, GloFo and its various transactions has been all that's been keeping AMD afloat for the last few years.

    Between the cash infusion from the original sale in shares to ATIC, to the various write-downs to make their balance sheet look better, to the non-cash gains to make their P&L look better. Its going to be harder for AMD to mask their operating difficulties in a quagmire of accounting transactions going forward.
    Reply
  • Targon - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Market cap means NOTHING when it comes to the health of the company. People speculate, and hype will drive stock prices higher or lower. You have companies out there that lose millions of dollars per year that have had a higher market cap than companies that are profitable, just because of hype.

    People look at how well the company is REALLY doing around here, and only people who listen to hype pay attention to market cap. More to the point, people claim that because Apple has the largest market cap, they are doing better than any other company out there, yet if you look at the FINANCIALS, they don't have the income or net profit of many other companies out there.

    If AMD is profitable and makes a product that sells well, that is what it comes down to. At this point, AMD is doing VERY well in the $550 and under range when it comes to computers. Slower CPU than Intel, but with MUCH MUCH MUCH better GPU performance, and better quality of components for AMD based machines in that end of the market. I've seen MANY Intel machines fail, not because of the CPU being bad, but because in the $550 and under system price range, the chipsets and other components SUCK.
    Reply
  • chizow - Tuesday, March 06, 2012 - link

    Seriously do you even know what market cap is or how its calculated?

    That's a direct function of shareholder value. AMD and ATI prior to acquisition were both trading ~$20 per share. Today, its ~$6 per share and its been below $5 for a significant period of time.

    That means if you were a shareholder in the company, your shares are worth FAR less today than in 2006. There's no getting around that and it should be obvious why.

    AMD has consistently lost money far more than it has posted a profit and even when they've been profitable (like last year), it was due largely to non-cash paper gains relating to divesting their interests in GloFo.

    And please don't even talk about company health? Seriously? Look at their balance sheet and you'll see a mountain of debt and very little cash or convertible assets.

    I think AMD's CEO has the company pointed in the right direction but the end result may not be the AMD you've grown to love (or hate).
    Reply
  • CeriseCogburn - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Yes, not just the sizable asset losses indicate the same, but the 10+ plus employee firing round.
    There's nothing left but hope for more Arab oil money from Dubai.
    Reply
  • MySchizoBuddy - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    ATIC which is owned by the Government of Abu Dhabi of U.A.E is already developing a fab in Abu Dhabi. I wonder who bought the rest of the shares. Reply
  • MySchizoBuddy - Sunday, March 04, 2012 - link

    ATIC also owns part of AMD as well. Reply
  • chizow - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    ATIC is the tech venture capital firm that originally bought GloFo, they just bought the rest of it from AMD so now GloFo is a fully owned subsidiary of ATIC. Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    AMD has been divesting itself from Global Foundries over the past few years and today announced that it has aquired the remaining shares of the company from AMD

    The above sentence reads strange. The 'it' refers to AMD if you read it naturally because you also have itself and AMD is mentioned first. Then the sentence doesn't make sense.
    Reply
  • compvter - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    i agree, it was kind of odd. Imo sentence should have started with "Over the past few years Amd..."

    I still think it was good thing that amd and gf were separated. I bet there was a lot of business that just couldn't happen because fabs were owned by amd. Now that amd is just a partner, amd´s competitors might actually consider gf over tsmc if price is right. Unfortunately amd can´t beat intel on high performance cpu side at the moment, but hopefully that changes (even though i don't expect that to happen any time soon). I wonder what would have happened to amd if they had chosen not to buy ATI.
    Reply
  • Mk4ever - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    I think if AMD didn't buy ATI, Intel would've bought them. The last thing that happened before AMD bought ATI, was the first and only Intel motherboard having a 3rd party chipset: ATI. Reports were that it was so good that Intel disabled some features (The dual channel memory, IIRC), As it was meant as a low end/budget motherboard. ATI perfectly could've filled the same gap/weakness for either AMD or Intel: Graphics and (to some extent) chipsets, not to mention the APU strategy that looked like a far-fetched imagination at that time. Just before AMD bought ATI, Intel and ATI's relashionship was getting stronger. I think the ~30% (IIRC) premium that AMD paid for ATI was to steer Intel away from a potential competition for ATI. Reply
  • STARK 33 - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    The name of the company is GLOBALFOUNDRIES. All caps. All the time. Just like AMD or IBM. It's purely a marketing thing. Reply
  • WeaselITB - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Homer Simpson: [Homer is buying a shirt] ... And I want the monogram to read "M-a-x P-o-w..."
    Store Clerk: Sir, traditionally, mongrams are just your initials.
    Homer Simpson: Max Power doesn't abbrieviate! In his name, each letter is as important as the one that preceded it. Maybe even *more* important... No, *as* important.
    Store Clerk: Fine.
    [She walks away with the shirt to apply the monogram]
    Homer Simpson: And if there's any room left, add a bunch of exclamation points and a pirate flag!
    Reply
  • peldor - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    AMD and IBM are acronyms. I haven't worked out what GLOBALFOUNDRIES stands for yet, but they should probably invest in a little brevity. Reply
  • chizow - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    I prefer GloFo tbh, all caps fully spelled out gives them more virtual ink space than they deserve.

    They'll be making DRAM in a few years, flash if they're lucky.
    Reply
  • Jamahl - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Yeah and you'll be making burgers at McDonalds if you finish high school. Reply
  • chizow - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Nah, you can keep your job, I've been finished with HS for years. Reply
  • BSMonitor - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Didn't Intel have a beef with the spin-off of Global Foundries?? Something about the x86 cross-licensing and allowing a separate Global Foundries to manufacture x86 intellectual property of Intel??

    I thought part of the settlement had to do with AMD keeping a share of GF??
    Reply
  • tipoo - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    I'm not completely sure but wouldn't the x86 licence just cover creation and ownership, not manufacture? Like TSMC makes chips for a number of clients but they don't own any of the chips so they don't have to pay licence fees to ARM or anyone else, only their clients do. Reply
  • Roland00Address - Monday, March 05, 2012 - link

    Intel and AMD settled that dispute in late 2009, Intel is now fine with AMD going fabless. They reached this agreement during the same meeting where Intel gave 1.25 billion dollars to AMD so AMD would drop their civil suit against Intel due to Intel business practices with the OEMs during the early 2000s.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/2873
    Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now