I knew there had to be a reason, given that they didn't immediately have a permanent replacement. But, I didn't suspect the reason would be so bromidic. I was *so* hoping for sex scandal.
I still think this is less about what he did in the past vs. his immediate direction for the company's future. I hope the board knows what they're doing, or they're just as likely to replace him with someone that runs the place into the ground.
Oh well, I wish him the best of luck at his next company.
What part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
That's actually a big part of why I question the board's decision. Assuming that AMD had a decent Q4, the company is at best back to 'completely broke.'
In the next 12 months AMD is launching two major product families in critical product segments and finalizing the 'Enhanced' Bulldozer and Bobcat processors currently set to launch in H1 2012. It's also launching two new Opteron processors--Valencia and Interlagos. AMD's Bulldozer server cores are going to have a few tricks that the mainstream/enthusiast flavors won't have, and they'll pack 6-16 cores and offer 4HT links. Let's not forget the mobile and desktop platforms, either--both mobile and desktop platforms are going to see some enhancements/changes.
Then, of course, there's the new 28nm GPU codenamed 'Southern Islands' that'll form the basis of what's tentatively called the Radeon 7000 series. That processor will be built on 28nm--it'll be the first Radeon GPU built by GlobalFoundries instead of TSMC and GlobalFoundries first 28nm high-end GPU. Since the 6970 is based on 40nm and the 7000-series is expected to be 28nm flavors of the same, AMD may also have to tweak the chip both for the die shrink and the foundry swap.
2011 is almost certainly the busiest, most complex, most important launch year in the company's entire history. The schedule above would be respectable even if Intel were the one executing it; it's more than AMD has ever taken on. It's not that I'm underestimating AMD for being AMD—I literally see no room (and no additional funds) for the company to kick-start a new GPU or CPU/GPU SoC based on ARM technology. We know Meyer was backing Bobcat and counting on ramping it into tablets as well as netbooks; the board has stated it wasn't pleased with Meyer's mobile roadmaps.
Planning a Bobcat refresh for H1 2011 is aggressive as it is; firing Meyer now suggests the board wants to launch a project or projects in the near term that he wasn't going to support. It's not just that there's no realistic room on the company's plate to handle yet more work--who's going to do the work, and how're they going to pay the megabucks it'd take to whip out a new architecture in less than 2-3 years?
3vi1:I was *so* hoping for sex scandal
3vi1:Oh well, I wish him the best of luck at his next company.
Dogs are great judges of character, and if your dog doesn't like somebody being around, you shouldn't trust them.
Greed is why he was fired. The BoDs are getting mad that they are losing out to intel and had to take it out on someone. The tablet market may or may not blow up; i mean people are kinda starting to buy them but it could slack off. I would have ignored the tablets too and focused on the upcoming launch. Hopefully AMD can rebound and keep from being bought by intel.
I don't know if I wouldn't have made the exact same decision about Imageon given what was going on at the time and their need to concentrate on core business. I'm sure there's another side to the story, but it certainly does sound like the BoD's doing Monday morning quarterbacking.
Hopefully two things will happen: Dirk will find a company whose vision is more in line with his, and AMD finds someone that can continue to improve the company and give Intel and the ARM producers decent competition.
*Imageon. Not Infineon. :P
I think as someone said in a post they were mad (the BOD), and looking for someone to blame. One thing probably both identifiable, as well as indicative that I see is to look at who heads this board individually, and then what they did in the past.
Yes; many of them were big names at one time in computer history, but most of those big named companies also at best failed eventually as well. This looks like the blame game, and at best one by someone with bad aim. Yes; these technologies sold may have in the future made money, but at that time AMD had no future either, that is unless something they did have was sold. It also seems curious to me that a board would not have to be consulted, and approve the sale of something from a companies patent/idea book like this as well.
So at best it seems like someone looking for some recognition on tough decision making or something. I personally think this was a bad idea, and I think this because the person they let go has been at the head if not directly responsible for many of there successes, at least at the bottom line if not to a greater percentage. As stated in the article this CEO was trying to fix Hectors screw ups, largely on top of that many if not most of Hectors positive actions were led by Meyer, but at that time he was in a different position.
While I do not agree now nor did I when they sold that technology, I also know they would have had to develop there own "Snapdragon" too, for it to have been any use to anyone at AMD at that time.
Superb analysis, Joel... and your follow up comment is insightful enough to justify an additional opinion article so that it can be more readily read.
>> Superb analysis, Joel
/agree. Good info. Keep it up.
Board of Directors are all tools. They rule on stuff that is way to big for their britches. Most people on boards dont know diddly squat about the business they are in and make decisions based upon numbers and charts instead of getting their hands dirty and actually spending time working to make their billions. AMD has never been able to get into the laptop market till they got ATi and they never had anything for the mobile market so selling something that is practically useless unless a ton of money got invested into that mobile sector Dirk made money when AMD needed it.
A+ Certified PC Repair Technician Associates Degree in Computer ScienceBachelors Degree in Computer Information Systems
DFI Lanparty UT NF3 250GB Dead.......Replacement Abit KV-85Learn more about Comp TIA A+ Certification.
One thing I want to add: AMD has one reasonably straightforward option where Bobcat is concerned *if* GlobalFoundries can deliver on it. One of the reasons AMD has fallen behind Intel in fabrication technology is because Sunnyvale can't afford to aggressively tune foundry production. Instead of targeting high speed grades, for example, AMD has concentrated on lowering its cost of goods sold by maximizing the number of CPUs it can sell per wafer.
That's the bread and butter of any CPU manufacturer, but it doesn't allow AMD as much room to focus on ultra-high performance or ultra-low power chips. (The latter is somewhat lessened by the natural tendency of CPU quality to improve over time. Check first-gen AMD CPus going back the last five years, then compare them to later chips at the same frequencies and cache sizes--you'll often find that the company knocks the fastest chips from 125W at launch to a 95W second-gen.
If AMD had enough money, the company could bring its 28nm Bobcat parts to market more quickly if it was willing to accept the corresponding increased in production costs that would come as a result from launching the chip on an early 28nm production line as opposed to waiting 6-9 months. How well this works would depend significantly on how well GF's 28nm production lines are ramping. Best case, it's a great move. Worst case, it's TSMC's 40nm all over again.
It's also possible that AMD hypothetically try to bin a lower-power port from TSMC or make some modifications to that design if it can introduce some small changes that would reduce power consumption further without requiring any sort of significant change. Ultimately though it comes to the same--there are a few production-centric changes AMD could make that might increase its product ramp *if* the company can take the higher production costs.
This would seem to satisfy both the reason Meyer might oppose such an initiative (it's economically unsound for a shoestring budget) and the reason why the board might push for it. Perhaps more specifically, it provides an option that the board might push for that doesn't first require the combined BoD to possess the intellect of a lobotomized sea turtle.
Joel H:possess the combined intellect of a lobotomized sea turtle
Such a way with words!
/Captain Jack Sparrow
NEWS TIPS |
This site is intended for informational and entertainment purposes only. The contents are the views and opinion of the author and/or hisassociates. All products and trademarks are the property of their respective owners. All content and graphical elements areCopyright © 1999 - 2014 David Altavilla and HotHardware.com, LLC. All rights reserved. Privacy and Terms