Login:
Password:

AMD Takes Big Hit in Servers in Q4 2006

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

January 23, 2007, 6:36 PM

In the first two years of its business in the server CPU space, AMD was able to capture about 20% market share. But in the wake of tremendous competition from Intel, AMD's executives Tuesday afternoon were forced to admit that revenues from servers fell and unit shipments remained flat in the prior quarter over the end of 2005.

With Intel having answered the challenge, the company whose language at this time last year evoked images of a high-noon duel on a main street in old Texas, sounded a lot more cautious, measured, quiet. Even CEO Hector Ruiz, who said he opted this time to speak to shareholders "from the gut" with a speech ostensibly reaffirming his enthusiasm for his company's coming year, ended up mocking his competitor, promising to focus only on innovations that are "truly relevant," to follow Moore's Law "in an intelligent fashion," and taking credit for forcing Intel "to become more efficient."

At one point late in today's analysts' briefing, AMD President and COO Dirk Meyer invoked dark and menacing language in reference to Intel, reminiscent of Pres. Reagan's language in reference to the menace of communism. "We compete against a monopolist who has a dominant share, and in the long term, the best returns we can generate for our shareholders involve breaking that monopoly."

Not counting the newly acquired ATI part of the business, fourth quarter revenue last year only increased by $36 million – far less than the seasonable amount – to $1.37 billion, gaining only 2% over the year ago quarter. With ATI revenues of $398 million factored in, AMD revenue for Q4 was $1.77 billion. But with acquisition charges of $550 million to contend with – as anticipated – AMD posted a net loss for the quarter of $527 million. For the year, without ATI factored in, AMD posted gross revenue of $5.25 billion, but ended up losing $47 million for the year after acquisition and integration charges.

The biggest problem AMD faced last quarter was a huge decline in margins, down to the 40% level, while Intel is staring at breaking the 50% mark. More on today's AMD news to come in the next update.


Update ribbon (small)

Typically, a company giving a quarterly earnings report tends to shed the spotlight on the good points to avert attention from the bad ones. Today’s AMD earnings report was an overt exercise in spotlight shifting. Executives refused to break down the bad news into discrete numbers, though financial analysts on the call eventually acquired the bits and pieces of variables they needed to do the math themselves.

Overall, microprocessor unit shipments grew 26% over the fourth quarter of last year, and 19% over Q3 2006. The breakdown spotlighted mobile processor unit shipments increasing 76% annually, and desktop processor shipments rising “strongly.” That’s where the spotlight trails off, as server unit shipments were declared “flat.”

When CEO Hector Ruiz chose to speak “from the gut,” it was obvious he wanted to change the message to downplay Intel’s recent strengths, by casting them as responses to AMD’s successes in 2005. “We recognize that the industry’s addiction to single-core clock frequency was something that was past due,” Ruiz remarked. “We had to introduce the industry and our customers to a new way of looking at how to innovate by looking at workflow and application-specific performance, and therefore we introduced the first ever dual-core server product into the marketplace on x86 instruction [set]. I’ve decided that was such a major change in the industry that the competition has followed suit, and created also their own extensions to x86 and multicore technology roadmaps.

“But it’s more than just about cores,” Ruiz continued, shifting the spotlight even further. “Really, it’s about mapping technology to specific usages...We see the opportunity to exploit Moore’s Law in a very intelligent fashion, by focusing on what’s relevant to our customers...It is true that Moore’s Law is allowing some people to claim that putting 64 cores or even 128 cores on one piece of silicon can be the future of this industry. I beg to differ. As a matter of fact, I think those products and technologies are going to find their rightful place [alongside] the Pentium 4 at 10 GHz.”

Later, Ruiz and the other executives were asked, with Intel steering its strategy toward more silicon and more cores at the same price as prior generations, doesn’t AMD have to make an obvious change that strategy to come back to profitability, or does it have some other plans? “I don’t know what you mean by ‘gotta change,’” responded Dirk Meyer. “But if you look at what’s happening in the marketplace, it’s similar to what’s always happened in our business: new features, new capabilities get introduced at the top of the price stack, and slowly over time get rolled down the price stack. And that’s in fact what you see with dual-core. That’s what we’ve been doing and the competition’s doing, so from our perspective, nothing new.”

Next: How changing the mix could improve AMD’s margins

Continued. . .
1 | 2 | Next >>

Add a Comment (10 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Name (required):

E-mail (required):

Enter Your Comment:

By domino360

edited Jan 25, 2007 - 4:11 AM

Competition is good for the consumer and business. If it wasn't for the "marketing department" of AMD, we would still use Pentium 4. But times have changed. Intel is on a roll with the multi-cores, and AMD has no idea in what direction to go (except their obsession of whatever version of quad-core). Their roadmap is not that impressive either. I can't figure out whether their "over marketed" roadmap leads to China or Betty Ford Clinic.
I know that both AMD and Intel keep "Joker card" (part of their roadmap) hidden just in case the competition makes a sudden move. But if uber-geeks don't know in which direction AMD is heading, then don't expect Wall Street to make any sense.
AMDs financial downfall is upper-management mismanagement. Almost everyone in the 3D animation industry knows that Ruiz has a PhD in his own psychology, and he (and his buddies) used that in over polishing AMDs image. No comments about AMDs marketing at SIGGRAPH 2006 which sounded like a scratched LP with glossy brochures. Well... it's pretty bad when you go to a design conference such as SIGGRAPH and when you start asking technical questions the only reply you get over and over is "We make the best chips on the market - he is a brochure." Did the AMD sales people at SIGGRAPH knew what AMD makes? To me and many others, these people sounded like used car sales men. Designers don't care about glossy brochures, because all we want is tech spec details and visual honesty of what can be done with your product.
So, what's wrong with AMD? The engineers are brilliant, and it's time for AMD to be honest on who (?) is running the show. There are many questionable statements coming from AMDs PR with no clarification in sight. Anyway, here is an example - if you run a large design studio in US and want to build a render farm with Opterons inside, you have to go through an IBM sales office. That's a bit odd! What does IBM have to do with AMD? How much influence does IBM have on AMD? Is AMD being used as a proxy by IBM and others with an agenda in mind?
Another buggy thing is ATI. Just after AMD acquired ATI, ATI announced that their video cards are no longer going to be tested on Intel chips. Since when does a video card manufacturer care about AMD or Intel? Oh wait... ATI is the new pet of AMD, and thanx to AMD the only true video card manufacturer left on the market is nVidia. It's ironic to think that AMD complains about monopoly and they gave away the video card market on a silver platter to nVidia - DAH. I'm confident that AMD can still make great chips. As for video cards I wouldn't waste my money on them.
It's time for a management shake up at AMD. The upper-management needs to leave, and new people with a self-conscience are needed to prove that AMD is still a zippy, honest and innovative company worth investing. If that's not going to happen any time soon, and if Intel is still on a roll then nobody knowledgeable of the industry could care less about AMD (except Dell and eMachines).

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jan 27, 2007 - 10:02 AM

zippy and innovative?

Do a bit of research! Almost ALL of AMD's advancements have come as a result of licensing technology from IBM!

And your answer is the the sales force be more polished and glitzy like well polished liniment salespeople. Yup. That's what I always look for! I want smoooooth talkin sales people!

There fundamental problem is that they are in a role of following the technology instead of driving it. They don't have the means nor the resources to compete consistently with Intel in this regard - especially as the innovation cycles require a high reuse component that AMD cannot sustain - hence their need to source technology from IBM.

The fact is, Intel and AMD follow the 'value pricing model' which is actually a an implementation of Schumpeter's "Creative Destruction" concept in economics, a model prosecuted expertly by Intel.

And if you don't understand the dynamics of this model, everything else is moot.

Score: 0

By ce la vie

edited Jan 25, 2007 - 5:14 AM

good points. but you didn't mention that hp was about to buy amd in 2000. so much for their bla bla relationship with intel on itanium.
welcome to high tech - don't trust anyone.
so dude, don't worry about amd or intel. it's not worth it - believe me.
have a cigar, a glass of wine and relax.
life it's like a box of chocolate. enjoy!

Score: 0

By daq

posted Jan 24, 2007 - 1:39 PM

To all those who were sceptical when i said AMD will drag down a great company like ATI down the drain now that they bought them, enjoy the article.

Score: 0

By ds0934

edited Jan 24, 2007 - 11:50 AM

I hope AMD comes back. If all we have to choose from is Intel, we're screwed. We need competition in that marketplace very badly. If it weren't for AMD being in Intel's face for so long, we'd still be on Pentium I chips

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jan 23, 2007 - 8:44 PM

Monopoly smonopoly!

Oligopoly: A market dominated by a small number of participants who are able to collectively exert control over supply and market prices.

It is so humorous to listen to one player in a two player OLIGOPOLY complain about the other player!

The next thing we will hear is that BP will complain about Exxon. Now that will really bring tears to my eyes!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jan 23, 2007 - 10:08 PM

I think the word you were looking for is 'Duopoly'. :)

Fortunately AMD & Intel are competing voraciously with each other, and are still offering 'good' competition in the eyes of the consumer.

The same can't be said about oil conglomerates.

Score: 0

By foxfyre

edited Jan 24, 2007 - 6:34 AM

A true duopoly is a form of oligopoly where Only two producers exist in a market.
Thus, this is not a true duopoly.

Nevertheless, AMD would be better off competing based upon superior products and technology.

And the oil companies actually compete on a much wider scale with a Much broader product mix! To focus simply on 'gas' demonstrates an ignorance of their market and product mix.

And not all belong to OPEC nor are controlled by their behavior - in fact many smaller and more independent producers are trying their best to exploit the market opportunities created by the cartels.

But lumping all of the oil companies together, overly generalizing and overly simplifying is popular politics, isn't it?

Score: 0

By Paul Skinner

posted Jan 24, 2007 - 6:18 AM

"Nevertheless, AMD would be better off competing based upon superior products and technology."

It would be wise to do that if they were producing better products, but unfortunately the Core 2 Duo pisses on their latest attempts.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Jan 24, 2007 - 2:19 PM

Free enterprise resolves its own problems in time, I find. Intel did not clean up their act because the US courts forced them to, they did it because AMD was finally that much better that they had to start doing something about it. If Media Player was such a problem then the customers would have demanded MS remove it from Windows. Don't believe me? It has happened before, people! MS stopped including their (in)famous easter eggs after businesses complained that it was distracting their employee's time (stupid argument, but whatever). It was not the EU or the Ninth Circus Court that did it--the customers did it.

They also did not release Windows 2000 SP5 due to service pack deployment issues--customers did not want to hassle with all the 'service pack' testing before upgrading. Windows 'Whistler' and 'Neptune' ended up being combined based on feedback from customers. So--why do we suddenly want more power to the government to do it?

Better question--how the #$%^ do I keep venturing so far off topic??

Score: 0