AMD fires two execs, starts "Central Engineering" group
By Nilay Patel 
posted May 13th 2008 10:49AM
posted May 13th 2008 10:49AM
AMD's managed to distract us a bit from its troubles lately with some interesting chip announcements and bold predictions, but reality keeps setting in -- the company announced another executive shuffling today as the company keeps losing money and ground to Intel. Out this time are former EVP of Computing Solutions Mario Rivas and "Chief Talent Officer" Michel Cadieux, as well as 1600 workers being laid off worldwide. Former server chief Randy Allen will replace Rivas and Allen Sockwell is getting Cadieux's old job, but the more interesting move is the creation of a new division called Central Engineering, which will oversee all of the company's roadmaps from here on out. Hopefully that means we'll see fewer incomprehensible roadmap updates and more shipping chips -- that's the only way things are going to improve in Sunnyvale.[Via The Register]
Actually, AMD's campus (in Texas) is in South Austin (Round Rock, home of Dell, is north of Austin). 1600 layoffs, exec reshuffling. Huh. Guess I might turn down the job I was offered there yesterday.
they're not laying off janitors
Thank goodness, MeatyPi. I should be safe, then. It would completely suck if I lost my mop. That, and me and the cafeteria lady... mmm, mmm! She got some good puddin'!
They need to fire everyone in the company and sell to Intel.
hell no, then where would all the competition go? Who do you think forced Intel to get off their lazy asses and pump awesome cpu's one after another. Although AMD might be hitting the ground right now. It's existence is absolutely necessary
Right, and create a total monopoly in the PC Processor market.
I don't even think the SEC would let them. Whatever you think of AMD's current chip offering, at least they force Intel and Nvidia to stay competitive.
I'm thinking the Chief Talent Officer was hiring the wrong kind of "talent"
Captain O'
hears fat lady...
dammit AMD get off your ass, you have your the damn platform -- and now your processors suck! call up all your friends and ask them how to do a die shrink without getting your processors to suck more, the only thing that you have going for you is the fact that I can buy you for cheap and spend more on a 8800GT or 512MB 8800 GTS.
AM2 boards and AM2+ processor compatibility is a joke, so much for that nonexistent upgrade path.
I hear the E8400 or E8500 calling to me can... can you hear it... it's beautiful.
honestly, whose going to be Intel's competition? VIA?... UGH!? {shudders}
Nvidia. ; )
Huh. Nonexistant upgrade path, like my AM2 board that got BIOS updates for Phenom processors right *before* the Phenom launch? Their processors don't suck, they just haven't changed much since when they were raping Intel with K8, whereas Intel evolved (or devolved, since Core is closer to PIII than P4) and started owning.
Ok, let's recap:
Single-core AMD Athlon @ 1.6GHz with 1600MHz FSB
OR
Single-core Intel P4 @ 2.8GHz with 533MHz FSB
That was my choice just 2 years ago when I ordered (or correctly, my mom misordered for my birthday) 2 laptops, but Compaq R3000 Laptops. Today, the AMD-based system has 512MB DDR and a 40GB HDD. The Intel-based system has 1280MB DDR and a 60GB HDD. The AMD blows the Intel out of the water on a very, very, very regular basis.
Flip forward 2 years, and Intel has managed to "Innovate" to the point of an 800MHz FSB with 2.8GHz Dual Core low-power P4's, basically. AMD also has managed to make equally comperable CPUs, except they're still "not Innovating" at 1600MHz FSB. They also mesh better with both onboard NVidia and ATI GPUs than Intel ever has.
So, 4 months ago when I walked into the local office depot - with my boss telling me that anything up to $2000 was fine with him (since he was buying, part of my starting package to make up for the measly $100/weak salary) I had a choice between 2 systems (well, ok, probably 15 but 7 were Sonys and any manufacturer who refuses to install an SD reader in favor of MemoryStick to lock you into their brand wasn't even a consideration). One was a Core 2 Duo at 2.8GHz with 4GB DDR2 (upgradeable to 8GB), an ATI X1600 GPU, and dual 320GB HDDs at around $1800. The other was an AMD Athlon 64 X2 at 2.2GHz with 2GB DDR2 (max), an NVidia 6150 Go GPU, and dual 120GB HDDs. I walked out of the store less than 5 minutes later with the AMD based HP Pavilion dv9420us that I'm using at this very moment. Sure, it was half the price (marked down from $1149 to just over $900) of the Intel Box, but it had a 1600MHz FSB, as do all oif AMDs current (and last several) generation of systems, and the thought of running a FSB at 800MHz gives me freaking nightmares.
So yeah, AMD may be having financial troubles because they're not innovating enough, or it may just be that their marketing department isn't as good as the one at Intel at hyping products that cost more and yet under perform compared to the competition. Maybe that's because AMD's products are cheaper and run faster. Maybe that's because they have been outperforming their competition ever since the first 350MHz AMD K6-2 I had back in 1997 that outperformed the brand new 900MHz P3 I had bought 6 years later.
I don't want to rip on Intel any more than needed, but let me just mention one last thing. I worked for a local university 2 years ago and had the pleasure of ordering an iMac G5 2 weeks before Apple switched to Intel. 2 months later another department that we worked with ordered 6 new Intel-based PowerMacs. They delt with poster printing mostly while we delt with faculty tech support. On no less than 7 different occaisions they came over to our lab - over halfway across a very, very big campus - just to use our G5 Mac. Why? Because our G5 Mac ran clearly and obviously faster with 1GB memory than the brand new Intel PowerMacs they had ordered with 4GB. The switch to Intel actually managed to cripple the performance of Apple systems DRASTICALLY - to a point where the first 2 or 3 models afterwards had a 43% return rate from corporate customers (i.e. people who bought more than 100 i.e. people like our university, where 63% got returned) in exchange for refurbished G5s until the Intel chips could match the performance of the then-over-2-year-old G5s.
So no, I don't want to hear about how Intel is supposedly beating AMD all over the place. Intel is outselling AMD because total idiots who can barely operate microsoft word without people like me holding their hand walk into a store and see an Intel logo splashed across the front of a tower and they think of that techno looking guy from the Intel commercials in the early 90's and how they still have a doll of him sitting on top of their 13" CRT in their office and they buy it and take it home and whenever it crashes they place the blame on Windows Vista or XP instead of where at least half of it really belongs - on their freaking 800MHz FSB. Intel outsells AMD solely because they our-PR-blitz AMD. AMD has made superior products for 2 decades now and when the day comes when I have to shell out my own money for something running an Intel I'll buy a set of 6 or 7 VIA C3 Processors in protest just so I don't have to be caught dead running a freaking Intel. I mean, if I'm going to run something with an 800MHz FSB, at the very least it might as well have some real power saving technology instead of a downgrade from "power hungry monster" to "power hungry genetically mutated sea bass" right?
Actually both of our sites are located in Austin not Round Rock. ;) There is a site is SE Austin and another in SW Austin.
AMD needs to get off their collective asses and do something, like quick. Because if they don't they'll go down the tubes. The industry needs them if for no other reason then to drive competition. I've been a fan of their CPUs since the Athlon days. However, this time around I went with a Core 2 Duo because of it's better overall price/performance.