AMD for Sale?
 

I didn't see this happening but I do recall AMD losing money, and a percentage of the pc market from a few recent reports. AMD has hired JPMorgan Chase to explore options, including the sale of patents and possibly the sale of the entire company.

AMD does say though it's not actively pursuing a sale of the company or significant assets at this time. Just exploring options. I've heard this before and we all know what comes next.

1. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/…8AC14Z20121113
2. http://gizmodo.com/5960265/

As long as Intel doesn't buy them….

Qualcomm is now bigger than intel.

http://business.financialpost.com/20…-market-value/

They make phone and tablet cpu's of course there sales and percentage will continue to go up. As for AMD and Intel the last links explain more.

I would have never thought AMD or Intel would ever fall or collapse. Both were giants in there fields at least Intel seems to be doing good at least.

Link-http://techreport.com/news/23860/as-…round-to-intel
Link-http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd…cpu,18546.html

I always chuckle a bit when I read the name of "Qualkomm".

Because in German language, the word "qual" means kind of "suffering" : dict.leo.org uses the words "agony" (yes, fits very well), "anguish", "pain", and, depending on context, "torture". The verb "quälen" means "to torture", but in an evil way, like torturing someone for the sheer lust of tormenting.

AMD lost all their momentum awhile back and have never been able to recover. Unfortunately the processor business requires ludicrous amounts of money to operate in. They should have diversified a long time ago.

I hope they stay afloat; they truly offer a sensible pricepoint alternative to overpriced intel cpus - with cross-compatibility. …I just wish they'd innovate like they once did.

Exactly. It's the end-user that's going to pay if AMD goes under. I don't want to see a CPU market where Intel has no legitimate competition.

We can only keep them from drowning by buying their products, that's the only way I know of.
And that's true to *all* smaller firms you know of. Rather supporting the small grocery shop than Walmart, for example.
I always used AMD processors, because I'm used to supporting "the smaller ones". ;)
It fits nicely into my philosophy of "diversity".

The problem is that AMD CPUs can't compete with Intel's counterparts at the moment.

Pricewise, energy consumption and integration they do. I have an AMD A8 (quad core) laptop with integrated HD6620g GPU (on the same chip) that outperforms Intel processor (and their silly integrated graphics) in terms of energy usage and graphic performance. A8 CPU performance is boosted when 1 or 2 cores are used instead. Intel has nothing compared to that.

I would be sad to see AMD (and therefore ATI) go, as they are the only ones maintaining the balance in CPU and GPU technology market.

What SpoonFULL said. AMD CPU are still better for your budget, what most people want to buy. AMD repriced all their CPUs to be under Intel's for the same performance earlier this year. It's why they don't make as much money.

The only reason to buy Intel is if you want the fatest computer on the market. Which is a waste of money right now, my two years old AMD system can run everything on max.

Oh and AMD is just a design house. Since September. The article above is probably linked to those decisions: making their manufacturing another company to reduce cost and debts. Those manufactures are going to make ARM servers soon too.

Actually I have been using AMD CPUs for many years. Nowadays the i5 seems to be a much better deal than everything AMD has to offer.

Certain special purpose CPUs (the ones positioned against Intel's netbook CPUs for example) are still better, but unfortunately they are an exception.

And they do because Intel has the power and the money flow going towards them to get better engineers, better research and so on.

What you say is not surprising for me.

The big ones always get bigger.

Sort of. Processor development is a pretty low prediction technology. Intel's entire current line are based off of the Pentium 3. Despite years and millions of dollars, they could never get P4 to run like they thought it would. What they did learn about P4 allowed them to take P3 (which had been relegated to a 'mobile only' architecture) and go ape?&#@ with it. Without that unlikely collection of circumstances I think the processor 'wars' would be much closer than they are.