5.13.2007

What Happened to the Lean Mean AMD of Yore?

“All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.”

- Sun Tzu, the Art of War

This is an extended version of the article that I wrote for print. Admittedly it’s one of the hardest articles I’ve written in awhile as I wanted to ensure that what I say comes across exactly as intended. It’s no secret that I have been a fan of AMD for years and years – and I wrote this article with nothing but good intentions.

I can’t tell you how many times great things were said about AMD and their meaningful execution over the last few years. They were doing so well, they cracked into the mainstream, they acquired ATI, they landed some huge deals, and they even caused Intel to fundamentally change for the better.

Yes, no matter what anyone says, I believe (as do many others) that AMD caused Intel to transform into a much stronger, much leaner company. Things were great for AMD for awhile, but that was only the first round and it wasn’t quite a knockout – there are 11 more to go – and Intel is currently wailing on AMD like Mike Tyson did to that pizza guy.

Not only did they lose the performance crown, but AMD experienced a few missteps since they “souped with the devil”. They allegedly alienated their channel customers, arguably their most profitable segment. It seemed as if they weren’t able to meet the additional volumes required to support another major OEM while managing their other relationships. They were late buying ATI, and they sparked a price war which ultimately killed their margins. Such missteps have turned even their staunchest fans in a tizzy (except for that guy who writes the Journal of Pervasive 64 bit Computing blog, what on earth is he smoking?).

I was worried when I heard they had to go for more financing – I made some calls all the way up the ladder. I have spoken with key people on the inside who (thankfully) recognize the problems and they are working hard to change the company. The bottom line is AMD recognizes the need to change the way they do business - very much like Intel did in the last couple of years. Essentially I believe AMD bit off more than they could chew, and many months ago I thought things would be much better for them today than they actually are.

Let’s face it, this isn’t just a mountain stage – as it were in the Tour de France – this is like one giant mountain after another. Where’s the EPO when you need it?

AMD must change the way they do business. Odd that I said the same thing about Intel a couple of years ago.

AMD must now leverage large volume in new ways, streamline its sales teams, and change the way it innovates. The company should no longer be laser focused on chips; it needs to start delivering easy-to-configure, easy-to-understand platform solutions, platforms that actually make sense to the end user.

As an example, people don’t buy notebooks because of the chip inside – they buy notebooks based on the screen size, battery life, features, etc --- this is why innovating at the platform level is CRUCIAL. They should also put more emphasis on sales – like old school feet on the pavement sales.

AMD should also save the marketing jargon for another industry; in press briefings for Barcelona in April, the company was still harping on Intel's use of FSB technology-despite the fact that at the time, Intel's FSB-equipped CPUs were taking AMD chips to the woodshed! The company needs to start building great products again and focus its message on what those products can do, not on their competitor's shortcomings.

AMD also needs to recognize that Intel does not have their legs yet! Intel has so much more room for improvement it’s scary – and even scarier is the fact that they recognize that more improvements are needed. Let’s not forget that Intel was still profitable even in the worst of times.

Onwards and upwards, I always say, and the R600 is the next major product in the newly formed AMD+ATI merger. The R600 is the card will go down in history as the one with the most screwed up launch schedule since the R520. I can’t tell you how many times I heard we were receiving samples and never did. It became almost became a joke internally, although we understand that the integration with AMD has been challenging at times, there is no excuse for the mega tardiness.

When we finally received boards we were *initially* disappointed, as I’m sure you’ve read some preliminary assessments of the cards on the internet. However, I have to tell you, the R600 is like a fine red wine, it actually gets better with age. Much better…

There is no question that AMD(ATI) Vista video drivers are excellent, and AMD keeps sending out new versions which increase performance in pretty much every area. I think the R600 is a very interesting series overall – I also believe that AMD understands what they need to do to compete with this product.

As long as they understand that it’s great in some areas and challenged in others, they should be able to come up with a strategy that makes their boards very compelling. That said, if they do what I think they’re going to do the R600 should do very well for them.

Rumour has it that AMD is also announcing new processors in the extremely near future – that is the Phenom, a processor features four native cores on one chip. As their marketing suggestions, native=better – but at this point it’s meaningless unless we see noticeable performance or incremental value gains. I have high hopes, because I believe coupled with new chipsets and some “platform innovation” we could have a new flagship for AMD.

In a nutshell, AMD accomplished quite a bit in the last few years – their most notable accomplishment was becoming an accepted alternative to their competition. Now the battle gets only harder, because no longer do “horse races” matter. Horse races only make things more difficult for a "tiny" company (it's all relative) like AMD. The ONLY way AMD can compete with giants is to out innovate, out think, and out sell.

Anyways, enough said this month – I wish both AMD and Intel well – good luck guys – and keep innovating!

7 blogger comments:

KY said...

Hi Rahul,

Great article and comment about AMD and Intel. what advice you will give to Intel senior management now? where do you think they need to focus and excel? love to read your comment again.

regards,
KY

Anonymous said...

"AMD should also save the marketing jargon for another industry; in press briefings for Barcelona in April..."

Amen! AMD needs to take a page from Intel's recent openness and demo the performance of the chips a bit earlier as opposed to explaining (read spinning) why it theoretically is better.

AMD is afraid of Intel adjusting their roadmaps and products if they announce data/demo early? Come on that is worse than the crap AMD was selling about delaying the R600 release so it would be a "hard launch". (Really, there are no issues with some of the products, we are just deciding to delay the introduction, because we have plenty of money and no need for additional revenue...)

I can just see their view of things of how Intel works:

"Hey Tom the K10 is looking better than expected."

"Yeah Bill, better pull Nehalem in by a year and oh, what do you say you sprinkle in some of the K10 improvements as well?"

"Thank goodness we saw the demo data otherwise we would have waited an extra year and not done some of these improvements"

AMD needs to grow up a bit and learn that the CPU business is more than just having the best theoretical design. There are plenty of fantastic CPU designs that have never even seen the light of day.

Jeach! said...

Hey Rahul,

I'd have to agree with you in general to the exception of:

"[...] and they sparked a price war which ultimately killed their margins."

Wasn't it Intel that started this price war by releasing a new architecture and thus faster chip at very low prices.

In the past, Intel would have sold low volumes of these chips at $2500 a pop. Decreasing the price slowly as production ramped up.

Anonymous said...

Jeach said...

"Wasn't it Intel that started this price war by releasing a new architecture and thus faster chip at very low prices."

What came first, the chicken or the egg? :)

Intel actually kept prices steady for 9 months before finally cutting prices late April 07. I wouldn't call initial C2D prices 'very low' considering the low end E6300 was $183 at launch, and the rest of the C2D lineup was between $200 to $1000.

In comparison, AMD prices tumbled over 50% across the board in the same 9 month period.

This 'price war' is due to AMD being uncompetitive in performance, and hence only being able to sell their top end CPUs at mainstream prices. ($240 X2 6000+ anyone?)

*Hopefully* K10 lives up to the hype (unlike R600) and can deliver the higher ASPs and marketshare AMD so badly needs.

Anonymous said...

"Wasn't it Intel that started this price war by releasing a new architecture and thus faster chip at very low prices."

The top model Core2 was priced about where the top model P4 was. Also, in the desktop area, Intel went from July'06 to Apr'07 with no change in pricing on Core2 - AMD slashed prices MULTIPLE times during that period. Yes Intel slashed P4 prices to clear inventory, but AMD didn't have to respond to P4 pricing, they had to respond to the Core2 pricing.

You need to keep in mind that Core2 is actually SMALLER than P4 and is thus (slightly) cheaper to produce. So while it seems like Intel is involved in a "price war" and it makes real good press; they simply set their prices for a new product which is cheaper to produce than their legacy product and left it there for 9 months! That is not a price war... they didn't even respond to the multiple AMD prices cuts after Core 2 was introduced.

What sparked the "price war" was AMD's absurd "30% market share at all cost to break the monopoly" strategy, especially when they had a product that was no longer competitive with top end Intel chips. The only (legitimate) way to increase market share when you have a less competitive product, is to slash pricing, unless you have some ridiculously good sales and marketing (which clearly AMD does not have)

Your argument on changing the price slowly as volume ramped sounds good, but as Intel was already on 65nm and the dies sizes were so similar, Intel's costs are not changing as production shifts from P4 to Core2 (excluding quad core)so there is no need to ramp down prices unless you are trying to gouge early adopters...

It is humorous to hear AMD fans argue that Intel is charging too much for the top end chip a little while ago and now they are charging too little...

Jeach! said...

It is humorous to hear AMD fans argue that Intel is charging too much for the top end chip a little while ago and now they are charging too little...

I don't think anyone argued that, certainly not me! The market itself will be the judge of that.

But, I DO argue just the opposite! That Intel is charging less for its processors when it could ask for higher prices. By doing this, they prevent AMD from making sales, thus no profits, resulting in CAPEX cuts and limited capacity growth.

YKhan said...

You mentioned:
Let’s not forget that Intel was still profitable even in the worst of times.
I don't think this has anything to do with Intel's recent spate of cost-cutting, nor its newly refurbished processor lineup. This has more to do with the fact that Intel has so many fabs, that it can spread the fixed costs around amongst many of them at the same time. Fixed costs are the majority type of cost in chip fabs. Really, AMD's salvation will not be coming from innovations in product, but creating its own cluster of fabs.