AMD in trouble: Barcelona bug, ATI write-down cast bad shadows

By Scott M. Fulton, III, BetaNews

December 13, 2007, 9:42 AM

At the opening of an analyst meeting this morning, the president of AMD lowered expectations for his company, saying it no longer needs to produce the best performing CPUs, and hinted at scaling back its R&D.

AMD's senior executives held a gathering in New York City this morning, where it would appear on the surface they had escaped the terrible winter weather that has clinched its home state of Texas and neighboring Oklahoma. But a very bad storm is on the horizon, as indicated by president and COO Dirk Meyer's opening remarks, which lowered the bar for what would normally be perceived as "cautiously optimistic."

"We operate in an environment where many people feel that AMD needs to have the highest-performance CPU component in order to be successful," Meyer said. "And I tell you, that perception is false."

Meyer was referring to the impact the company is feeling from an "erratum" in its first quad-core CPUs, which cause noticeable slowdowns at higher clock speeds. AMD has been shipping in limited numbers its first quad-core Opteron server CPUs and Phenom desktop processors with the erratum anyway, though with a BIOS fix that is believed to actually disable one of the processor's caching features -- an off-switch that enthusiast Web sites covering the issue believe could reduce overall performance by 10% or more, and substantially lower performance in some categories over AMD's existing dual-core product line.


AMD President and Chief Operating Officer Dirk Meyer, in a speech to analysts December 13, 2007.
AMD President and Chief Operating Officer Dirk Meyer, in a speech to analysts December 13, 2007.
As if that weren't enough of a problem for the company, a disclosure made to the US Securities and Exchange Commission earlier this week formally stated AMD has determined it paid too much for graphics card manufacturer ATI. At the time of last year's acquisition, AMD stated its evaluation of ATI's total value was $5.6 billion. But that included what acquiring companies typically call goodwill, which quite literally is an estimated amount of what the acquirer feels the acquired entity would add to it over and above its assessed capital value.

At that time, AMD said the goodwill ATI brought to the company would amount to $3.2 billion. Now, AMD is saying it will have to take a one-time write-down charge, effectively wiping some if not all of that value off of the company's books, in a move that cannot possibly please shareholders. AMD share value on the New York Stock Exchange dove at the time the news hit the street, and that value continued to plummet this morning, now down as much as 44% over a peak reached less than a month ago.

But if there seems to be a gloomy situation going around, then perhaps the problem lies with you. At least, that's what Dirk Meyer told analysts this morning.

"You know, there's times in your life where you feel that the perspective of those around you is quite a bit different than the perspective that you have yourself," he started out. "And you sit back and you think about it and you observe that maybe some of the folks around you aren't taking the time to see everything that you see, or maybe aren't motivated to see everything that you see. And I tell you, now is one of those times for me, for [CEO] Hector [Ruiz], and for the 16,000 employees that we have around the world at AMD.

"We've done a lot of things very well at AMD since Q1," Meyer continued, "and we've done one thing very poorly. Namely, we haven't delivered our quad-core products consistent with our plan. In fact, last month, while we were in the final stages of system validation, we uncovered a design error which is sensitized under very obscure operating conditions. We understand this design error, we've implemented the fix, the manufacturing lines are running again. But we have delayed general availability of our Barcelona server product until next quarter."

Everything else at AMD besides this process flaw, and besides the other unnamed write-down Meyer hinted at only mildly but did not mention specifically, is just fine, he said. But the market should stop judging AMD based on the performance of its products.

"You might ask, how have we made all this progress without having a quad-core product in the market?" Meyer continued. "Because again, as I've told you, the prevailing wisdom is wrong. The lion's share of the market opportunity isn't looking for the highest-performance CPU. They're looking for value, energy efficiency, a great visual performance, and affordable Internet connectivity. And we're delivering all those things to the market.

"Have we given up on the CPU performance crown? Absolutely not," he emphasized. "Hey look, we know exactly what the issues are with the quad-core, we know how to fix them, and we're hell-bent on getting those fixes into the market as soon as possible."

After that fire's put out, though, AMD's restructuring will probably take a toll on its R&D division. Since performance is no longer a top priority, the company will be focusing its efforts on squeezing every bit of value out of what it can produce, which includes CPU production at the 65 nm node -- a level which competitor Intel has already transitioned away from.

"We're going to slow down that pace of growth [in R&D]," COO Meyer said, "and focus increasingly on the efficiency of our R&D operations as opposed to just simply the capacity of our R&D operations."

That slimming down will help the company refocus its strategy, he concluded, on delivering what he called "compelling performance and value" to the mainstream computer buyer, while restoring all three of AMD's departments -- CPU, chipset, and graphics -- back to profitability. AMD has gotten lean and mean before to face its key competitor, but this time the trimming down is revealing some bare bones, and both investors and customers may have serious reasons to worry.

Add a Comment (32 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 bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:12 PM

AMD spent all their money on ATI when things were looking up for them, but also when things were about to pummel.

The Intel "Conroe" really hit AMD the hardest. It takes money to play catchup, and AMD didn't expect Intel to come back so strong so quickley. It looked like a great aquisition when AMD's Athlon 64 X2 4800+ was up against Intel's Pentium D 965, but the Core 2 Duo is killing them.

It is sad. I'm still using my X2 4400+ as my main machine since everything else on it is "good enough", but if I were to buy/build a new PC today it'd have to be an Intel one.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 11:07 PM

I'm seriously considering an Intel rig the next time around, unless AMD surprises with something completely unexpected (the likes of Intel's Core 2 Duo you mentioned).

Nevertheless, I'm still extremely happy with my Athlon 64 X2 3800+. I haven't upgraded in so long because up until now, I have simply refused to let go of AMD. I keep waiting for them to come out with something that completely blows my socks off (in much the same way the Athlon 64 did compared to my older Athlon XP, and the Thunderbird before it). The news about the flaws of the Barcelona architecture hasn't been very reassuring, though.

Score: 0

By sx66gns

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 8:54 AM

Dammit , I"m still not bying an intel product , I'll stick by AMD till death.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 10:58 PM

...or until AMD's death.

I stuck by 3dfx until shortly before theirs.

Score: 0

By gdiza

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:07 AM

Shame, poor AMD.
But, even though I'm a Intel fan to my death, I need AMD around or prices on my Intel chips will be too high... so - Good Luck AMD! :)

Score: 0

By sx66gns

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 9:02 AM

The worst thing that could happen is for them to go under . for obvious reasons , you'll see the high performance products from intel increase in cost probably tomorrow.

Score: 0

By yountmj

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 12:36 AM

"The lion's share of the market opportunity isn't looking for the highest-performance CPU. They're looking for value, energy efficiency, a great visual performance, and affordable Internet connectivity."

I believe Mr. Meyer is wrong. People want all of those things and the highest performance. Higher performance in newer processor technology is what it's always been about, price be damned sometimes. Sorry, but when I spend loads of cash upgrading my system to the next major leap in processor technology, I don't benchmark it afterwards to see if it uses lower power consumption or generate less heat (even though those are admirable qualities)... I'm judging the amount of performance increase, plain and simple. If it doesn't perform better, time and money was wasted.

It doesn't make much sense to me to offer a quad-core solution and suffer a performance hit in the process. Someone screwed up by letting a known problem proceed into production... and the 'fix' is to disable the very thing that was supposed to yield better performance? Forget the band aids. Amputate and start over. Do it right.

Over the years I have been extremely satisfied with AMD's products, but I believe there needs to be a serious change of attitude at the higher level... or at the very least, a show of concern for what consumers are wanting. How about giving the consumer a reason not to feel shafted after the expense of a platform upgrade to accommodate these 'better' processors.

Score: 0

By Vimm

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:56 PM

Have you ever actually looked at how much processor you're using? Honestly, I've let the task manager run in the background and even though my system's a couple years old I'm amazed that it rarely ever spikes to 100%, even while gaming! Why pay for a huge processor when you never use half of it? It also gobbles the same power whether it's chugging along at 50% or 100%. I was thinking of upgrading my processor for Christmas but... what's the point? I'm not using the one I have!

These days processor isn't usually the bottleneck so why waste money on it? I'd rather put my money into a good video card or more RAM than an overpowered CPU. If AMD can save me money on my processor, my power bill, and reduce fan noise by running cooler, they've got my business.

Score: 0

By yountmj

edited Dec 14, 2007 - 10:46 PM

"It also gobbles the same power whether it's chugging along at 50% or 100%"

That is almost embarrassingly wrong.

Quite simply, a processor under heavy load gets hotter for a reason.

Score: 0

By Morsel

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 11:09 PM

Sad indeed for Mr.Meyer & AMD. This weekend I'm off to the computer store to upgrade my Athlon64 to the Intel Q6600. I feel a bit sad doing this after being a loyal AMD user for the past 8 years but now I have no choice; Intel's CPU (and price) is simply too irresistible.

Score: 0

By NULLedge

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 4:34 PM

wasn't it not but 6 months ago they were talking about focusing more on R&D and outsourcing the manufacturing bits? now a complete reversal? I have no idea what AMD is doing and I don't think they do either. Only time will tell, but that's just one man's opinion. If they can make it work, more power to em. I don't know enough about making chips cheaply to know if they'll be hurt overall by the 45nm vs 65nm and 32nm vs 45nm battle they seem to be having to do.

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:26 PM

"We're going to slow down that pace of growth [in R&D]," COO Meyer said, "and focus increasingly on the efficiency of our R&D operations as opposed to just simply the capacity of our R&D operations."

Is that managerial speak for, "we're going to prune down the departments that actually made us successful for awhile, and increase our marketing and managerial staff"?

Score: 0

By vinunleaded0301

edited Dec 13, 2007 - 1:26 PM

before anyone rush to bad mouth AMD or Intel please keep in mind that these company's keep the prices of our processors down. I myself bought an intel core 2 duo processors and a radeon 3850 even though i was more interested in nvidia. Bottom line: you dont want any of these guys drop the competition, so support both of them!

Score: 0

By MikeTechno

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:11 PM

Just curious, what ever happened to Cyrix and National Semi Conductor? Weren't they also players in the clone/Intel x86 CPU scene for a while? Are they still in business producing x86 CPU's or did they get bought up by someone and folded into some other company's operations?

Score: 0

By 4wd

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 5:45 PM

And I believe that AMD acquired National's CPU stuff - it's what they use in the Geode processor.

Score: 0

By yokozuna

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:22 PM

Cyrix was acquired by VIA. Actually they still produce processors, mainly for office sector/low energy consumption CPUs in Asia and integrated solutions. They are quite successful in the niche production.

Score: 0

By Hellcat_M

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:46 PM

It looks like AMD is in trouble and their just trying to cover their loss. I think it would be smart for someone to buy them out and give the company some new breath. I don't think they should have bought ATI, 2 number 2 companies don't make a number 1. slinkys_delsol is right, if they would have gone in with Nvidia it would have been a lot better. Nvidia has the brains and the money, but they didn't, so now the bad news is if Intel goes in with Nvidia, then AMD will for sure be in trouble. If someone else bought them out, or if there is a startup CPU company that they can go in with that has some fresh ideas I think it might work out better. I agree, I don't think IBM wants to be a public CPU company again, they get into it, then they exit, then they get into it again and now their out again. BUT I think if IBM could some how bring CELL architecture into PC CPU's that might work, I'm not sure if it could be done or not though. The CPU's IBM made for the Xbox 360 and PS3 are awesome, if that power could be made into a PC desktop I think it would be a winner.

Score: 0

By photonboy

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 4:12 AM

The "Cell Processor" equivalent in the PC world will be GPGPU computation via Stream Processors. AMD plans to join the CPU and GPU on a single chip, and, as software starts to surface to take advantage of parallel compuation via Stream Processing we'll see the core processing unit comprise the CPU, GPU, Stream Processors and probably some sort of RAM.

I think the next two years is crucial for AMD. Their plan is based around the merging of the core chips. I wish them luck; at the very least this should stimulate competition but AMD had better look at the big picture including Mobile devices.

Score: 0

By kholdstare

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:08 PM

I don't think IBM wants to be a public CPU company like intel or AMD and so i don't think they will buy therm out.It looked like with there new quad-core CPU they would have been able to go neck and neck again witgh intel but after this big bug the CPU has it will be another couple years before AMD is able to compete again. Besides with this Fusion CPU/GPU i don't think there will ever be one that will be attractive to the gaming and performance crown and be thrown into the onboard video crowd

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 2:54 PM

About the Fusion project they can do it very atractive by improving A LOT gpu/cpu cooperation or make another low end crap like current IGP.
For the current news it seems like they are focused on focusing low end, but they still have a chance intel does not: They have decent CPUs and pretty good GPUs (intel does not). They "only" thing they need is to put the good thinking boys to work to make a successful product and not more garbage.
I think that integrating the memory controller on the CPU was a great advance for the time. If they can integrate GPU taking advance of near zero latency times, improve the memory controller to make data available to both GPU and CPU at the same time, among other nice things they could make a revolutionary product. But again, they need to put a lot of work there, I am not sure if they are up to it...

Score: 0

By amroliwala

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 12:56 PM

Look, I think it's important for a company to face reality. We are accustomed to an AMD-Intel war in terms of performance, but that may have to be on hiatus for the time being.
I think AMD will have to learn to be dynamic, and once they become leaner and profitable, only then can they refocus on performance and R&D.
I would rather have a strong AMD in the future than one that hemorrhages money and still cannot keep up pace.

If AMD has progressed from a lean company to a performance lead once, I think they can do it again.

Score: 0

By Vimm

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:44 PM

I can understand AMD's position. If they don't feel they can compete on the performance level with Intel it's a waste of resources to keep trying only to constantly be one step behind. If they can funnel those resources into being more efficient than Intel they'll capture a different segment of the market. After all, what's the point of having two companies making the same product with the same specs? I for one don't mind having choices.

Score: 0

By slinkys_delsol

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 12:54 PM

All seemed ok until they bought ATI... They should have partnered with NVIDIA and they still would no t have had the fastest processors, but it would have been a much better partnership which would have lead to more sales!

Score: 0

By amroliwala

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 1:01 PM

I agree. Even during the time of purchase, I saw no real benefits to the AMD-ATI merger since ATI was having trouble keeping up with nVidia at the time. AMD and ATI both operate in industries in which they are not leaders.
In my mind, two losers (not as companies, but relative to the industry) cannot combine to be leaders in both their environments. They have to focus on either graphics or microprocessors, but you certainly can't have it all right away.

Score: 0

By dan-0

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 1:37 PM

I thought it was smart to buy a graphics company, but I really thought it would have been via. Doesn't matter now, but once they get the all in one, 2 core cpu, 1 core gpu into a single die, problably in 09, then we will see why they bought ATI. Until then, it will just be speculation.

Score: 0

By 4wd

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 5:40 PM

I believe the only GPU stuff VIA does these days is the S3 GPU they incorporate into their Epia, Nano and Pico products.

AMD already has integrated low power CPU/GPUs, (the Geode), used in many of the same applications as VIA's EPIA range.

With ATI, they got a far better GPU core (compared to VIA).

And they also got a decent motherboard chipset.

Score: 0

By Vimm

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 5:00 PM

I'm not speaking with any technical knowledge on the matter, but it seems like video cards have a full-fledged processor of their own now. And here we have a new generation of processors with multiple cores on them. Hmm... Wouldn't it make sense to simply dedicate one of those cores to graphics?

Score: 0

By Floodland

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 12:16 PM

Bad news... Seems like AMD is going back where they came from: Being a lower end processor company. Another company that slept: They did not see that EV6 bus was not enough to stop intel for more than a couple of years.
Only if they can integrate a GOOD GPU in the core before intel... I hope they do it right and on time.
Processor market need you AMD!!

Score: 0

By imafurby

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 12:11 PM

This guy looks and sounds like the grim reaper. Maybe next time they should have Pamela Anderson deliver bad news, at least for the eye candy.

Score: 0

By cranbers

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 11:20 AM

Why do I get the feeling Amd will either be getting bought out by Ibm next month or filing for bankruptcy protection?

I have no doubt intel will be having a party in the corporate office tonight after reading the please don't judge us wrongly plea from Amd.

Score: 0

By MikeTechno

posted Dec 13, 2007 - 3:15 PM

Wow, this is sad to see really. AMD did so well for so long with their 64-bit CPU's. They were out of the gate with them WAY before Intel was and they were doing so well for so long. Now it seems like nothing but trouble for them.

I just read an article somewhere where someone was saying that their new Spyder multi-cpu core architecture was just simple amazing and would put them WAY out in front of anything Intel has again. Has anyone heard anything more about that? I think the article said that this new multi-core architecture was going to let them ramp up into the multi-core market (x4, x6, x8) far faster and far easier than Intel. Can anyone expand on this?

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

posted Dec 14, 2007 - 3:44 PM

To be honest, I've never even heard of "Spyder" before you mentioned it here. I probably should have heard of them, but I haven't.

Score: 0