Nvidia posts modest revenue growth

The results for Nvidia’s latest fiscal quarter are in. It looks like the company enjoyed modest revenue growth compared to last year, though its net income slipped by about 22%. Still, the numbers are much better than those Nvidia posted last quarter, when both revenue and profits were down substantially.

Here’s how the figures compare to those from prior quarters. Note that the third quarter of Nvidia’s 2013 fiscal year ended on July 29 (i.e. last week).

  Q2 FY’12 Q1 FY’13 Q2 FY’13
Revenue $1,017 million $924.9 million $1,044.3 million
Net income $151.6 million $60.4 million $119.0 million
Gross margin 51.7% 50.1% 51.8%

Nvidia CEO Jen-Hsun Huang is, as always, bullishly optimistic about the results:

"Our investments in mobile computing and visual computing are both paying off," said Jen-Hsun Huang, president and chief executive officer of NVIDIA. "Tegra has achieved record sales as tablets come into their own. Our GPU business made strong gains in a weak market, boosted by our breakthrough Kepler architecture. Looking ahead, we’re optimistic, as our investments position us right at the center of the fastest growing segments of computing."

The man does have a point. Nvidia’s Tegra chips have wound up in not just Google’s $199 Nexus 7 tablet, which is proving very popular, but also the Windows RT version of Microsoft’s upcoming Surface tablet. No wonder Huang is touting record sales.

For the ongoing quarter, which will be the third quarter of Nvidia’s 2013 fiscal year, the company expects revenue to fall in the $1.15-1.25 billion range. That would be an increase from the $1.07 billion the firm posted a year ago.

Comments closed
    • beck2448
    • 7 years ago

    Good job, Nvidia in a very tough economy.

    • Tristan
    • 7 years ago

    Very good NV, serious money for serious company.
    AMD performs like [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olsen_Gang<]Olsen Gang[/url<]

    • Silus
    • 7 years ago

    It’s according to expectations. Tegra is growing every quarter, Quadro and Tesla dominate their respective markets and GeForce is doing well too.

    I think Tegra 4 will be a turning point for NVIDIA’s mobile market push. With Tegra they showed they could. With Tegra 2 they won a few design wins and were the first to dual core SoCs. With Tegra 3, the first with quad-core SoCs and increased their design wins by quite a bit and are on key devices such as the Nexus 7 and Transformer Prime, cementing their position in this market. However, all of these chips used older architectures for both ARM cores and GeForce GPUs. Tegra 4 will bring unified shaders (rumors talk about Kepler based even) and it should be a quad-core / octo-core ARM15. High-end smartphones of today are already small pocket computers, but with a chip like Tegra 4 coming (of course other companies will have a competing chip as well, but NVIDIA seems to be positioned to be the first again, since Tegra 4 ha taped out for quite a while) smartphones will be much more powerful and capable than before!

      • Beelzebubba9
      • 7 years ago

      nVidia also understands marketing – something no other SoC manfacturer seems to (other than Apple). With smartphones becoming so popular, and the underlying hardware even more important, the fact that Qualcomm/TI/whomever hasn’t caught on that MSMQ3838qddi isn’t a useful branding exercise makes me wonder if they have a marketing department at all. It’s not like selling CPUs to consumers is a new market folks….

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        Yeah there’s that too, although I try not to give kudos to marketing, because marketing usually is just a bunch of lies on a pretty wrapper! I judge products solely on its own merits!

          • Beelzebubba9
          • 7 years ago

          The rubrics that the enthusiast community uses to ‘objectively’ determine the merits of a given product rarely reflect what the actual market cares about, so I mostly disregard them when trying to divine the potential success of a device.

        • BobbinThreadbare
        • 7 years ago

        Doesn’t Qualcomm call their soc Snapdragon? Pretty cool name if you ask me.

          • Beelzebubba9
          • 7 years ago

          Yeah, but that’s just the codename for the core. The actual shipping SoCs get much lamer names. How hard would it be to just call the MSMQ8xxx family the Snapdragon R2 or something like that?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            That does make a lot more sense.

            I think they confused the code name and product name.

    • jdaven
    • 7 years ago

    With the PC market dying, money is in Tesla (supercomputing farms) and Tegra (mobile devices and cloud server farms). Nvidia will do well.

      • Grigory
      • 7 years ago

      With the PC market doing what?

        • MadManOriginal
        • 7 years ago

        Didn’t you know that ‘dying’ means mere hundreds of millions per year? :p

          • Beelzebubba9
          • 7 years ago

          Hasn’t the enthusiast GPU market been doing really well lately? I was under the impression that our demographic was still spending as much as ever on computer hardware….

        • rrr
        • 7 years ago

        Probably he meant to write about his brain cells.

    • sweatshopking
    • 7 years ago

    amd should have let him be the cpu in a merger.

    edit. hahahhaahah what i wrote doesn’t even make sense. i meant CEO. as that was the requirement he put forth to let them buy nvidia over ati, and amd rejected it.

      • Silus
      • 7 years ago

      Of course they rejected it! AMD didn’t want someone competent running things! Instead they chose ATI and for over 6 years had probably some of the most incompetent management in tech history!

      • jihadjoe
      • 7 years ago

      Thumbs up just because i want ‘CPU’ to become an official position in a company.

    • jjj
    • 7 years ago

    Actually Nvidia did great, last year the GPU revenue was 638.5 mil and this year 668.3 mil . The thing is that last year more Intel cash was included and the chipset part was some 70 mil while now it’s 0..
    And this quarter they will release more 28nm parts so chances are poor AMD will lose more share.

    • blastdoor
    • 7 years ago

    Does Samsung use tegra in anything?

      • Goty
      • 7 years ago

      Tegra 2 is in most of their tablets, nothing with Tegra 3, AFAIK.

      • Jigar
      • 7 years ago

      Galaxy R

      • Alexko
      • 7 years ago

      They have in the past, but with their own Exynos family of SoCs, they’re not likely to rely on NVIDIA for anything more than alleviating the occasional supply issue.

      I think this kind of vertical integration, by the way, is an often overlooked threat to NVIDIA’s business model.

        • blastdoor
        • 7 years ago

        Agreed — huge threat.

        If apple switches to TSMC, Samsung will have a lot of spare capacity. Might as well use it for their own products.

        • Silus
        • 7 years ago

        LOL why ? Is Samsung the only one that releases devices such as smartphones and tablets ? Toshiba, LG, Asus, Acer, HTC, Microsoft…(you fill in the blanks) are there too. Samsung not using NVIDIA’s chips (which they don’t already on the majority of their devices) is hardly a threat at all.

          • Beelzebubba9
          • 7 years ago

          Samsung is by far the largest manufacturer of Android smartphones – selling more hardware than the next 7 largest competitors combined. Losing access to almost half the entire market is a big deal for nVidia and every other SoC company out there that’s looking to target the Android ecosystem.

          It’s not like nVidia, TI, Qualcomm are DOOOOMED (certainly not Qualcomm), but Samsung is very much the 900Lb Gorilla of the Android world now, and I suspect will be for a very long time.

            • Alexko
            • 7 years ago

            Plus, Tegra has only had any real success in the tablet market so far, not really in phones. And tablets are pretty much Apple, Samsung, Amazon, Google, possibly Microsoft if they’re successful, and then Asus has some market share too.

            Apple and Samsung have their own SoCs, Google might very well decide to go the same way, which would only leave Amazon (with razor-thin margins so far) MS and Asus. But the latter three are by no means guaranteed wins for NVIDIA, because Qualcomm and TI are competing in this market too. I think Samsung still offers Exynos to other companies, although they may not be able to supply anyone other than themselves right now.

            And of course, there are other, smaller ARM SoC vendors out there.

            The bottom-line is that yes, NVIDIA is in a fast-growing market, but their ability to take a large share of it and sustain it is far from certain.

            • Silus
            • 7 years ago

            You’re basically saying that a company that already barely uses anything besides its own chips in its devices (Samsung), is a big threat to NVIDIA’s business if they stop using that very small percentage of chips from NVIDIA ?
            That’s no threat…that’s known by all companies in this business (not just NVIDIA) that Samsung isn’t really a customer to target given their manufacturing capabilities. Sure getting it as a customer would be a big win, but no company makes a business around a single customer, much less one that has all the capabilities to work on its own.

            Plus as you can see, NVIDIA is doing pretty well in getting their chips into high-profile devices from Google/Asus and Microsoft. Samsung is big, but the Android market is much bigger.

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            Samsung moved 44% of all Android Smartphones last quarter – more than the next seven largest handset makers – so I’m not sure how you’re getting that the Android ecosystem is ‘much bigger’ than Samsung when they’re almost half of the entire market.

            I was pretty clear in my post; Samsung’s success will not doom nVidia/TI/etc. Just that being shut out of the largest vendor by a massive margin will mean nVidia and Co will be competing for a slice of a smaller and smaller pie, and that will constrain their growth. nVidia is doing well and they have a good product, but I wouldn’t get too excited when they’re moving about half as many SoCs per quarter as Samsung can sell of a single phone (the Galaxy SIII sold 10M units).

    • sschaem
    • 7 years ago

    Very telling to see how Intel grow revenue, nvidia grow revenue… at the same AMD revenue drop by 11%

    What upset me is that if AMD didn’t acquire ATI, I’m confident ATI would n’t have sold its mobile division and would now be in control of a huge piece of the mobile market.
    ATI didn’t care if they used ARM or not. I would actually bet Apple would have acquired ATI.

    What a waste. What we got out of that 6 billion $ acquisition is llano… Not impressed.

      • Jive
      • 7 years ago

      You sound like a very disgruntled (AMD) shareholder.

        • OU812
        • 7 years ago

        More likely a former ATI shareholder who then became an AMD shareholder because of the acquisition.

        And if so he has every right to be upset with how AMD has squandered what was ATI.

        • sschaem
        • 7 years ago

        Technology disgruntled… I was the same way when I saw Commodore slowly destroy the Amiga.

        Its hard to watch quietly a company destroy itself and see the wasted opportunities.

        So no, you dont need to hold share of a company to be affected by its downfall.

      • blastdoor
      • 7 years ago

      Agreed. Buying ATI was mega dumb. And that’s not just 20/20 hindsight. It was plenty obvious at the time.

        • Goty
        • 7 years ago

        Except for the fact that APUs are essentially what’s keeping the company afloat right now, AFAIK.

          • blastdoor
          • 7 years ago

          wasn’t necessary to buy ATI for that. Apple designed their own “APU”s for iDevices without spending $5 billion on a graphics company — they just licensed tech. AMD could have done the same and saved a lot of money.

            • Alexko
            • 7 years ago

            But Intel would have been able to do the same, just as everyone licenses IMG’s PowerVR GPUs, not just Apple. Throw in Intel’s faster CPUs, and AMD’s APUs would be pointless.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Apple has like 50 billion cash on hand. They could have spent 5 on building an APU and no one would have noticed.

            Also, I notice that Apple has not designed a single piece of technology that goes into their laptops or desktops, why is that?

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            The A5X is a a pretty special SOC. It’s larger than an IVB Quad Core CPU, has a Quad channel LP-DDR controller waaay more GPU horsepower than anything on the market. Of course, Apple licensed most of the IP on it, but the silicon itself is quite unique.

            Apple doesn’t design most of their own hardware because it would be a massive waste of money. Even though Apple has ten times the cash on hand as nVidia’s market cap, they still don’t have the talent or IP to design a GPU anywhere close to what nVidia (or AMD) can, let alone a CPU that can compete with Intel. From Apple’s perspective, it makes a lot more sense to use their massive market share and cash reserves to buy their suppliers favor (see their retina display manufacturers), help finance R&D to get exclusive access (Thunderbolt) or their mindshare to influence the product design process (Intel’s focus on GPU power was rumored to be a result of Apple’s pressure). Unless there was a real shortcoming in the market, it makes little sense for Apple to invest in hardware design and development.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            Ok, looks like you answered for blastdoor, it’s really hard to design a GPU, and Apple has not managed to make a solution to complete with Nvidia, so why would anyone think that AMD could have?

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            I was mostly responding to/rambling about the second half of your post. Emphasis on the rambling. 🙂

        • Geistbar
        • 7 years ago

        Buying ATI was smart. Spending too much on ATI and squandering valuable properties that came with it — that was the dumb part.

      • Alexko
      • 7 years ago

      Llano, and Zacate, and Trinity, and soon Kaveri and so forth.

      Not to mention HSA. Buying ATI is the only reason AMD is still alive.

    • druidcent
    • 7 years ago

    Don’t forget they are in the Ouya: [url<]http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ouya/ouya-a-new-kind-of-video-game-console?ref=live[/url<]

      • tviceman
      • 7 years ago

      nevermind.

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      They *will* be if it ever sees the light of day.

    • OU812
    • 7 years ago

    Read the CFO Commentary on Second Quarter 2013 Results for much more detail on Q2 and Q3.

    [url<]http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTQ5Mzg3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This