Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

×
AMD Businesses

AMD To Shed 10% of Its Workforce 276

Posted by kdawson
from the hitting-the-streets dept.
stress_life writes "Recent rumors about AMD firing 5% of its workforce proved to be understated. AMD just announced that the company is going to deliver pink slips to 1600-1700 workers, or around 10% of its employees. AMD needs revenue of $2 billion per quarter, but Q1'08 is expected to come in around $1.5 billion. These firings have to be complete by Q3'08, the quarter by which Hector Ruiz promised to be profitable." We most recently discussed AMD's struggles in February.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD To Shed 10% of Its Workforce

Comments Filter:
  • AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by phalse phace (454635) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @01:59PM (#23002960)
    I guess AMD buying ATi didn't help things either (?).
  • Re: And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Black Parrot (19622) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:02PM (#23003016)

    AMD dies, then Intel will jack their rates up about double.
    Of course. But we've seen AMD "lose" the CPU war before, and recover. Hopefully that will happen again.

    Too bad about the layoffs, though. I think this is going to get worse (across the whole economy) before it gets better. Business is so slow that my state's tax revenues have plummeted.
  • Re:And if... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:03PM (#23003028)
    I'm all for supporting the "little guy", even if it costs a little more to get an equivalent product, but in this case, what choice does one have? Intel currently makes a better processor, plain and simple. When buying something as significant as a CPU, I'm not going to pay more for an inferior product, especially if it's supposed to last me a few years.

    Just my two cents.
  • Re:AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moderatorrater (1095745) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:12PM (#23003160)
    In the short term, it was always a bad idea and I think they knew that. ATI didn't have anything to offer against nVidia for dx10 and they wouldn't for a while. In the medium term it looked like it might start being profitable, and in the long term they were hoping to be able to start revolutionizing the video industry with tighter integration between the CPU and video card.

    Right now (heading into the medium term) it looks like they had some missteps but they're doing okay. It's still hard to tell what's going to happen long term, though. Intel's in the entrenched position since they're already the #1 video card maker because of their integrated chipsets. If ATI actually started changing the video card industry, then Intel's in a very good position to start competing with them quickly. I doubt Intel wants to start lagging behind AMD in performance again, especially with their CPUs actually beating AMDs for the first time since the original pentium came out.

    All told, buying ATI was questionable, but it's not to the point yet where I would call it either way. AMD's already come into a market dominated by another company and beat it on its own ground, I wouldn't be surprised if they can do it again.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:23PM (#23003324)
    Compatible? Not really.

    AMD states that AM2+ is downward compatible with the AM2 socket. That's not the whole truth of course. The Phenom processor is so choke full of bugs that the required microcode updates basically need an 8 meg BIOS to hold them. Most AM2 mobos only have a 4 meg BIOS chip, so that claim is a lie when it's applied to reality.

    So if you want a Phenom chip, you pretty much HAVE TO buy a AM2+ motherboard which are pretty new and use the so-so ATI chipsets. Anyway, how about not changing socket every year?

    AMD has been screwing itself all by itself with its bugs and other business inabilities.

    My advice: don't be an AMD customer until they get their act together (if that ever happens.)
  • by Rix (54095) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:24PM (#23003332)
    But Bluray drives dropped in price by almost half when HDDVD kicked it. They were about $250-$300 then, and are about $150 now.
  • Lay off 10%? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mr.Fork (633378) <edward...j...reddy@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:31PM (#23003438) Journal
    I'm not an economist, but I have a good head on my shoulders and I have a masters in business. Help me understand how AMD hopes to turn around their company by laying off 10% of their staff? They're hoping the remaining 90% demoralized, repressed, deflated staff will do it? What are the chances the 10% that walk out the door may be their best and brightest and may have the answers to turn their company around?

    It drives me crazy when companies think that the only way out of their mess is to lay off the staff, when the people responsible for the mess (board of directors and executive), don't give themselves a pay cut of 10%. Chances are, knowing how US exeuctives pay themselves, it would proably equal the amount saved laying off 10% of their staff. But what do I know?
  • Re:AMD and ATi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Chris Burke (6130) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:31PM (#23003442) Homepage
    In the short term, it was always a bad idea and I think they knew that. ATI didn't have anything to offer against nVidia for dx10 and they wouldn't for a while.

    As far as current products go, I think AMD was more interested in ATI's chipsets and embedded graphics, which are quite good, and help AMD build better 'platform' stories. Now they can provide a platform using mostly AMD chips, and that offers high performance, whereas before AMD made chipsets but they were generally not the best performing.

    in the long term they were hoping to be able to start revolutionizing the video industry with tighter integration between the CPU and video card.

    It's a neat idea, and there's a lot of potential there. We'll see if the potential ever becomes reality.

    If they keep shedding people, probably not would be my guess. :P
  • Shed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tthomas48 (180798) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:35PM (#23003506) Homepage
    They're firing 10% of their workforce. Not "shedding" them. Is "lay off" not enough of a euphemism? Now we're going to use "shed"?
  • by clampolo (1159617) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:36PM (#23003510)
    The FED just issued another $60 billion auction to keep the banks alive. This thing won't end until someone figures out what to do with all these lousy loans.
  • Re:And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:42PM (#23003600) Homepage Journal
    Please tell me about all of the successful new entries into the non-embedded CPU marketplace in the last 10 years.

    If you're working on stuff like CPUs, the semiconductor industry has positively WICKED barriers to entry.
  • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by dpilot (134227) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:57PM (#23003784) Homepage Journal
    IMHO here in the US we don't have real managers any more, who know their business. We have a bunch of snot-nosed hothouse MBAs who are comfortable only with spreadsheets and abstract numbers. I'm sure there are more, but it sure seems that Steve Jobs, reality distortion field aside, is the only US CEO who understands his business and can make it grow - the only CEO with a growth plan other than, "Do what we did last week, only cut costs."

    But take what you said for a moment... We need a general expectation around here: Executive suite cuts the workforce 10%, they take a 10% pay cut. They get NO credit for growing profit by shrinking the company. Rather than shrinking the company, an executive worth his pay would figure out how to turn that "idle" resource into more revenue.
  • Re:1929 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by QuoteMstr (55051) <dan.colascione@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:57PM (#23003788)
    You're an idiot. The great depression was caused extreme wealth inequality and a consumer debt spending. (The installment plan first became popular in the 20s). Hoover tried to wait it out. FDR's programs actually made a difference, and the regulations his administration enacted stopped the boom-bust cycle that had plagued the economy for hundreds of years.

    Now that we've repealed a huge portion of the new deal legislation, we're seeing a return to the same extreme wealth concentration, and a return to the same old boom-bust cycle. We need to re-instance the new deal regulation, and even go beyond it, in order to ensure a stable economy.

    Unless you want to return to the gilded age, of course.
  • by King_TJ (85913) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @02:58PM (#23003806) Journal
    I suspect we'll see the economy get a boost whenever the next person is elected President in the U.S. Traditionally, that's been the case, again due to perception much more than reality. (We like to have a scapegoat for our problems. When they're economic in nature, the President tends to be that scapegoat. The fact he's shown the door and someone new comes in is enough to make people believe things "can get better now", even if nothing has really changed yet.)

    The "trend" I've observed in the last couple years is one of businesses trying to be more efficient with the employees they keep. Instead of 3 people, they're always asking, "Can we get by with one higher-paid worker who can then be asked to do the work of those 3?" If not, then they ask "Can we do things differently so we don't need to hire a replacement for employee X who is leaving?"

    The statistics I saw published a few weeks ago bore that out. Despite the 5.9% unemployment rate shown, it also indicated average pay was UP over last quarter.
  • Never. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:01PM (#23003862)
    There is yet one dwarf in Moria who still buys AMD.

    Seriously, though, I realize I'm a bloody hypocrite for laughing at Mac fanboys whilst being an AMD fanboy, but I love AMD. I want to do things illegal in Texas to my Opteron.

    I also realize I'm partially moronic for having brand loyalty in this day and age - but I've never had a problem with any AMD chip. They just work. Perfectly.

    So the rest of you Slashdotters go ahead with your 'logic' and 'benchmarks'. I'll keep AMD afloat so you can enjoy competitively priced Intel chips. :P
  • AMD isn't comatose (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jmichaelg (148257) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:10PM (#23003940) Journal
    AMD's product line can't beat Intel right now but they started out that way and managed anyway. They had gotten along quite well selling a second-rate cpu that was good enough for a lot of applications whereas Intel was always pushing the performance envelope and charging accordingly.

    When the Athlon came along, I think AMD was as surprised as the market was that Intel couldn't compete technically. Those days are gone, at least for awhile, and AMD is back where they started. There'll always be a market for a cheap cpu that does the job.
  • by smooth wombat (796938) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:10PM (#23003948) Homepage Journal
    This thing won't end until someone figures out what to do with all these lousy loans.


    Well, if things were operating as they should in a capitalistic/free market, the bad loans would be written off, the banks/loan originators/brokers/hedge funds would take their lumps and we would move on.

    However, as the Fed has resorted to socialist policies to thwart the free market, the loans will stay on the books as more tax dollars are used to prop up Wall Street firms and banks, we will stay mired in this zero to negative growth situation and people will not be able to save because of the Fed's efforts to prevent saving from occurring.

    After all, debt doesn't matter. Spending every paycheck, borrowing against the value of your house and maxing out your credit cards is the only solution, according to the Fed, that we can get out of this Fed-induced quagmire.

  • Re:Lay off 10%? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Average_Joe_Sixpack (534373) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:14PM (#23003984)
    I'm not an economist, but I have a good head on my shoulders and I have a masters in business. Help me understand how AMD hopes to turn around their company by laying off 10% of their staff?
     
    Not necessarily. There may still be some significant overlap between ATI and AMD especially in the non-R&D positions.
  • Re:And if... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:16PM (#23004018)
    Offtopic I know, but KDE has always been far and away the technical leader, and only recently lost its majority usage standing, and not by much. So that obviously tongue-in-cheek quote doesn't apply to the Intel/AMD situation at all.
  • by pwizard2 (920421) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:36PM (#23004248)

    people will not be able to save because of the Fed's efforts to prevent saving from occurring.
    Many people don't save because there is no real incentive to save anymore. These days, the average bank around me (So Cal) offers roughly 3% or less for savings accounts. CDs are slightly better, but not by much. Am I supposed to be grateful for that? (inflation aside) When I put my money in the bank, the bank makes much more off of it than I do by loaning it out to other people at prime rate or better. Why should I help banks make money in return for a pittance when my money can be put to work more effectively elsewhere?

    The only way to get ahead is to invest in appreciating assets. IRAs and 401Ks are good for supplementing a well-rounded investment portfolio, but there's no way I would stake my entire future in them alone.
  • Re: And if... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:41PM (#23004314)
    Reducing your workforce when your problems are based on Sales and Technical issues is a stupid move. Because those are some of the major areas which need people to get the product back on par.

    Massive Layoffs are usually bad business decisions.
    1. You reduce people who make your products better.

    2. When/if you do start growing you need new people back, and then there is the turn over cost to take account of.

    3. You in the short term raise your profits but don't fix the problem of the declining profits. The people on Top are Fat and Happy because they see the big numbers. But by not fixing the underlining problems The next quarter or fisical year the problem will reoccure again.

    4. Layoffs effect the moral of those who are hired. Causeing them to spend more time and effort in either A. Politicking themselfs to not get laied off. B. Spenind time to find a new job. Niether of these means they are working harder at their actually jobs.

    5. Ex Employees go work for the competition with their own Intelectual Property with them.

    6. For big companies like AMD Layoffs effect the local economies of the areas. Which will normally cause a raise in taxes on the local companies (Including AMD) where if they were a big employeer then they may have tax breaks to incorage the company to attract people and businesses in the town.

    7. Any slowdowns in production or product releases (due to limited labor) will cause customers to switch to cometitors.

    8. Empty offices account to paying for unused property.

    9. Extra workload on existing employees may lead to increase mistakes.

    10. New Employees will be hesident in joining. Making rerecruting difficult if business does pick up.

    See the MBA program is not all about Evil.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:52PM (#23004444)

    This thing won't end until someone figures out what to do with all these lousy loans.

    The fact they they sold a lot of them overseas, likely helped keep us from a deeper recession.

  • Apple and AMD (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chrisgeleven (514645) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @03:53PM (#23004450) Homepage
    I remember when Apple first switched to x86 a few years ago and everyone was screaming about them picking Intel over AMD. Apple's response was that based on Intel's roadmap, they were the better choice.

    The past few years has certainly vindicated Apple on that regard. They absolutely made the right choice.
  • Re:1929 (Score:4, Insightful)

    by javiercero (518708) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @04:09PM (#23004632)
    Yes, indeed the new deal did nothing to rebuilt the US of A and its production infrastructure to the point that it could out produce the 3 power of the axis combined.

    In fact, FDR's plans were so catastrophic that he was elected "only" 3 times, and people cried in the streets when the guy crooked.

    Sometimes, the ignorance of the American populace as illustrated by the anonymous coward above astounds me. The lemming attitude that makes idiots like these proactively handicap their own interests astounds me.

    So let me get this straight, one of the few economic policies with a proven record of success (the new deal for example) are now framed as toxic. Whereas the insane policies that led to the gilded age, the great depression, the crash of the late 80s, the recession of the early 90s, and the current credit crunch... all those things are now gospel. Wow!

    No wonder that capitalism is about making dumb people part of their money, as there seems to be an infinite supply of dumb idiots....
  • by zubikov (1172699) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @04:25PM (#23004860)
    People don't save because all they know is to consume. The American culture is built around debt and consumption. We are at the first point in history since 1945 where Americans have more debt than equity. I don't care if HSBC gives you 10% for your online savings account, the consumer will spend his money like there's no tomorrow.
  • Re: And if... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Cheeko (165493) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @04:39PM (#23005038) Homepage Journal
    Indeed, you're also assuming that the company is running at optimal efficiency and any loss of people will hinder performance.

    Its very possible that they are cutting entire projects that are producing no tangible benefit, or trimming business functions in other parts of the company (IT consolidation, facilities overhead, administrative staff, etc) Sure some engineers/sales/marketing probably goes too, but they could be tied to projects not currently contributing to the bottom line.

    Also if you can change your business models and processes so that fewer people can do more, you could both gain efficiency and increase revenue.

    The key really is how the layoffs are applied. They should be targeted and implemented in each location for a specific reason, not just "every group has to lose 10% headcount".

    Lay-offs are not almost always ineffective as you state. Lay-offs can actually be quite beneficial to even a healthy company. Trimming dead weight tends to always be a good thing. I know I've hated having to prop up poor performers in the past. I'd rather them get laid off and us bring in a good person and pay them the same amount. the net benefit to the company is a gain.

    Additionally companies saddled with all sorts of bloated projects that build over years and years either need to trim that, or they will suffer for it, nothing wrong with cutting your losses wisely rather than carrying a dead albatross along for the sake of seeing something through.
  • by mpapet (761907) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @05:48PM (#23005854) Homepage
    When you take ou a loan, "new money" is created as debt from that loan.

    Even more off-topic, "new money" can be simplified into artificial gdp growth. It elegantly explains the economic expansion that took place a few years ago that had no real wage increases.

    The risk is that the deflation of the asset bubble slows economic activity because the only people with any money will wait around for things to get even cheaper. Hence a downward spiral that is very hard to stop.

    This is one of the rationale behind lowering interest rates and opening TAF's for any red-headed step child in the financial community. The wisdom of these moves will be argued for some time to come.
  • The Idiot Responds (Score:4, Insightful)

    by NEOtaku17 (679902) on Tuesday April 08, 2008 @08:36PM (#23007330) Homepage
    "Yes, indeed the new deal did nothing to rebuilt the US of A and its production infrastructure to the point that it could out produce the 3 power of the axis combined."

    The original stock market crash had a good deal to do with expectations of a poorer business climate brought about by increased taxes and tariffs. The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression by cartelizing key industries. In fact, it was when these policies were repealed in the 1940s that economic growth started to accelerate again.

    "In fact, FDR's plans were so catastrophic that he was elected "only" 3 times, and people cried in the streets when the guy crooked."

    Re-election is not a sign of good economic policy or of good character. See the re-election of GWB as a recent example. You are falling prey to the argumentum ad populum fallacy by saying that because many people thought FDR was doing a good job he must have been doing a good job.

    "So let me get this straight, one of the few economic policies with a proven record of success (the new deal for example) are now framed as toxic. Whereas the insane policies that led to the gilded age, the great depression, the crash of the late 80s, the recession of the early 90s, and the current credit crunch... all those things are now gospel. Wow!"

    The track record of the New Deal is a sad one indeed. For evidence look to the second recession that took place in 1937. If it was working so well why did we have yet another recession and increasing unemployment?

    "No wonder that capitalism is about making dumb people part of their money, as there seems to be an infinite supply of dumb idiots...."

    If believing economic individualism is superior to central planning makes me an idiot than so be it.

Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no substitute for a good blaster at your side. - Han Solo

Working...