Little profit is better than no profit, any day of the week.

Also, having an architecture out there is very important, as it creates development support. If you're using the same general architecture for console and desktop, it can only help ports to the PC where your video architecture is used.

Also, if you start using tools in the game console to use the GPU for more tasks than just graphical, it certainly helps on the desktop that those tools and competency exists. Using the GPU on the desktop is important for AMD, as applications that use them can show AMD processors outperforming even the best Intel chips.

I'm very happy, as an AMD investor, that AMD chooses to compete effectively for the game consoles. I'd be very disappointed if they were not in either of the next products from Sony and Microsoft.

March will be the month Sony and MS give official information on the PS4 and XboxNext

Current Rumored specs based off Software Development kits sent out have midrange 32/28nm CPU's and GPU's from AMD in both consoles.

We will no for sure soon i guess.
Fingers crossed for at least a GCN HD7850 equivalent GPU

You can be assured IF AMD is making it for Sony and Microsoft the profitability will be healthy and the gross margins will not be as small people may think.

Yes, because companies often make healthy profits from Microsoft.

It never happens. Microsoft is incredibly cheap and thinks they are the only ones that should make money.

AMD is not interested in low margin business, the margins need to be sufficient to pay for equipment and head counts. Many personal in active testing roles, DFT, design etc in various parts of the flow have been let go and the positions have been closed they are not replaced. IF AMD is making it, its only after getting a fair deal on margins. There is no compelling reason to hold onto any market unless it makes them money. AMD is no longer interested in hallow product wars to maintain an image. Profitability is all that matters. Some don't like this approach but its the right one from a business point of view. Especially given's AMD recent earning.

Thus low margins, not no margins.

Also, if the development for the products has already been largely done, AMD would take the business because it helps get their products out there, and improves support.

Again, who ever made a lot of money from Microsoft? It doesn't happen. Microsoft is known for wanting things for free.

Low margins plus high volumes still make for reasonable profits.

Microsoft knows they can dominate AMD, and they have, and there is just no reason to give them healthy margins. It is well known they are ruthless negotiators, and AMD is used to bowing to them, and hoping for good will.

There are a lot of ways Microsoft can help AMD, besides paying reasonable prices for the processors in the X-Box. If you think both Microsoft or AMD aren't aware of this, and Microsoft isn't using this leverage to their advantage, I think that's a naive outlook.

Microsoft isn't anyone's friend. Nor have they ever been. They have always used their position in the market to extract every last concession, and to think they aren't now is a strange outlook, to me.

No, you have an incorrect understanding of the flow of development then. Products for contracts for the customer's specific usage is done from the start even if it is re-using existing IPs in terms of core or GPU families.

I shall give you the over simplified flow for most companies. I know of AMD's exact flow but wont talk about any specifics as its not for public consumption.

Simulation models--->Design-->Verification->GDS/Tapeout-->Fabing>First silcion-->Post-silcion bring up-->Test program developments-more design changes if needed-more revs of silicon and fabing/testing - ATE/Yeild->Fusing->Ship

People have the misconception that you can just slap in cores and GPU families as they want and/or do process shrinks and ship a product. There is way much more to it than that.

The test program development phase for example it self takes almost a year in some extreme cases or as short as say 6-7 months if things go good (rarely it does), because test points for JTAG, SCAN, BIST their patterns, levels timing etc is different for the exact same core or GPU IP when mixed with other IPs.

When its a brand new project it takes about 4 years, when its re-using existing IPs it takes 2-3 years.



Thats your assumption. It would help to know how you arrived at this.

No one is forcing anyone to sign a business loss generating or low profit deal with MS.



Reasonable profits have been happening with their GPU division already, that was not enough as they have been bleeding out due to high investments into GPU/CPU divisions to keep their advantage and/or advance forwards while the CPU division was not bringing in the profits, infact now losses. You need much more to fund R&D developments constantly to maintain you technology edge. Having barely enough profits and continuing to move forward with limited R&D expenditure leads to complete loss of technology value in a short time.

Many research and development efforts are exploratory and are never productized but that doesn't mean you stop research to avoid looses to projects that never see the light of day. This all must be born from another misconception that engineers in what ever they do always result in productizable research.



You make it sound like AMD is desperate for anyone to take up their products. Again as I said above they don't have a ready product until the customer gives their requirements. So there is no need to assume there is an automatic loss if MS doesn't sign a contract.

Secondly MS doesn't dominate AMD, if you are getting this impression from their move into tablets with Windows 8 only thats because the world hasn't yet heard of some key developments. All in due time.

They have been doing favors for OEMs who place orders at first and when the Llanos are ready to ship they cancel the order resulting in the last 100 million dollar worth Llano write off.

No more again, they wont horde units for anyone anymore until firms orders are received. Their BU is working with the OEMs on how the new business model will work. No more anticipation in orders.

MS's supposed ruthlessness is of no use, AMD is not interested in a deal where the gross margins do no meet their minimum requirements.

You are an investor in AMD shares? You of all people should know making a small profit is not enough to sustain a large operation and team of people for a project when they should be using gained profits to fund further innovations apart from paying for head count on the project and cdovering capex. AMD isn't a grocery store where the small margins are fine as they don't have to fund development of anything they just sell. AMD is not a grocery seller, they develop their technologies.



This is all street gossip with not much truth to it. MS is not scary tyrant people make them out to be. They are struggling in several markets and none of their alleged ruthlessness is helping to gain a foothold.



Yes and that is because your initial assumptions on how things get done where incorrect. Now that you know the flow you must re-analyze your findings.

None of this is confirmation or denial that AMD has snagged console orders, let me make that clear. I believe some posters in here who already know me, know that I am aware of who are the real companies and what the specs are of these consoles.

I think Mr. Huang may have unintentonally forgot a few words in his statement. Here's what I think we should have read:

"When it emerged, PS2 had a 100 times higher performance than the most powerful PC integrated graphic solution available."

Don't be such a fool, the profits would only start to show Q3 of 2013, if the consoles make it to market for Q4 2013.