AMD beats revenue forecast, still posts a loss

Hot on Intel’s heels, AMD has posted its earnings for the first quarter of 2013. Although the underdog posted a net loss of $146 million, Reuters says its revenue came in above analyst predictions. Also, AMD lost less money than it did last quarter and a year ago, which I suppose is better than losing more. See for yourself:

  Q1 2012 Q4 2012 Q1 2013
Revenue $1.59 billion $1.16 billion $1.09 billion
Net income -$590 million -$473 million -$146 million
Gross margin 2% 15% 41%

(Yes, those gross margin figures for Q1 2012 and Q4 2012 are correct. They were both due to special charges related to AMD’s manufacturing partnership with GlobalFoundries. Excluding the charges, AMD’s gross margins for those quarters would have been 46% and 39%, respectively.)

AMD’s earnings release also includes figures for the chipmaker’s business units. Apparently, the Computing Solutions business didn’t fare so well: it saw revenue drop 9% compared to last quarter and 38% compared to last year. (AMD blames lower shipments for the decline.) The Graphics business enjoyed a modest 3% sequential increase, but its revenue fell short of last year’s figure by 12%.

Oh, and AMD discusses average selling prices, too. It says processor and graphics ASPs were both up sequentially in Q1 2013, and GPU ASPs were also up year-over-year. However, processor ASPs shrank compared to a year ago. The fact that AMD’s fastest desktop CPU now costs less than $200 probably has something to do with that.

Here’s what AMD CEO Rory Read had to say about the numbers:

Our first quarter results reflect our disciplined operational execution in a difficult market environment . . . We have largely completed our restructuring and are now focused on delivering a powerful set of new products that will accelerate our business in 2013. We will continue to diversify our portfolio and attack high-growth markets like dense server, ultra low-power client, embedded and semi-custom solutions to create the foundation for sustainable financial returns.

For the ongoing second quarter, AMD expects revenue to "increase 2 percent, plus or minus 3 percent, sequentially." Translation: revenue might go up or down slightly. Even in a best-case scenario with a 5% revenue increase, though, AMD would fall short of the $1.41 billion revenue it posted for Q2 2012. I’m curious to see how next-gen consoles will affect the chipmaker’s bottom line, but we may not find out for at least another couple of quarters. The PlayStation 4 isn’t due out until the holiday season, and the next Xbox, which is rumored to have a similar custom AMD APU, will probably turn up around the same time.

Comments closed
    • Kretschmer
    • 6 years ago

    It’s silly to say that the 8350 is competitive with Intel based on an aggregate test suite biased towards heavily multithreaded applications. 7zip might be a great way to test certain parts of an architecture, but I doubt any of us spend enough time in it to sway our CPU purchase.

    Games are the most stressful task that most of us will throw at our computers, and the 8350 generally gets thrashed by an i3. (https://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/5 etc)

    As for AMD’s viability? They don’t appear to have a competitive edge in enough of their current product scope nor the R&D to compete in future offerings.

    • blastdoor
    • 6 years ago

    Maybe Sony should buy AMD

      • ronch
      • 6 years ago

      Maybe Ford should buy Kraft foods.

    • Deanjo
    • 6 years ago

    Don’t forget that 164 Million of that came from selling their campus. So things are not as rosy as they seem.

    [url<]http://www.amd.com/us/press-releases/Pages/amd-executes-purchase-agreement-2013mar11.aspx[/url<] [quote<]Upon closing, net of all fees, the sale is expected to generate approximately $164 million in cash. The proceeds are expected to be reflected in the company’s first quarter 2013 financial statements when reported on Apr. 18, 2013. [/quote<]

      • GeneS
      • 6 years ago

      So, Rory’s not Rosy?

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      Didn’t they also get some one time deal selling their written of inventory for 100 million ?

      This quarter was actually just devastating news for AMD 🙁

        • clone
        • 6 years ago

        in regards to a company that’s lost 7 billion in the last 12 years…. this quarters results are wonderful in comparison. 🙂

          • Deanjo
          • 6 years ago

          You can only cash in on assets for so long.

            • clone
            • 6 years ago

            have never said otherwise but seriously AMD’s been doing it for almost 44 years….. it’s a part of the company’s essence and their have been ppl saying they will die for almost all of them.

            AMD, the company that knows how to survive in the abstract.

    • Silus
    • 6 years ago

    It’s funny how when reading AMD’s results the best that can be said is “they’ve beat the worst analyst predictions…but are still in the red”

    Still, this is not too bad when doing all those comparisons with the previous quarters. They are improving somewhat, but it’s more or less clear (although the next quarter will be an even better testament to that) that AMD’s console wins won’t help that much, when everything else is still in dire straits. The graphics division numbers have shown this for a while (and still do) especially to those that claim AMD is still “living” because of the graphics division, that that is not true at all.

    So this is almost 7 years after the ATI purchase and IIRC, AMD only posted profits in a couple of quarters since then. Everything else was either flat or a loss (sometimes quite a big loss)…and they still have a huge debt…

      • superjawes
      • 6 years ago

      I hate the stock market. AMD being in the red but beating predictions is good, don’t get me wrong, but I remember a few months ago, Apple posted substantial profits, but the stock fell because they didn’t grow profits as much as analysts predicted…

      Utter nonsense.

        • jensend
        • 6 years ago

        It’s not nonsense. Stock prices rise or fall when companies do better or worse than the expectation based on previously available information. If everyone can tell Apple will make a profit, that information is already present in their high stock price. If that profit turns out to be lower than expected, the price should fall to reflect the new information.

        What you’re asking for is an absurd market filled completely with arbitrage opportunities. Such a market would implode very quickly.

    • beck2448
    • 6 years ago

    Revenue down 30% from a year ago is hardly good news. That is a massive haircut. Losses quarter after quarter are not good news either.

      • smilingcrow
      • 6 years ago

      If the profits were boosted by a one off item then that large drop in revenue is a potential worry for ongoing profits.

      AMD have their best product range for a while with the current and next Generation APUs so please hang around guys.

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      Revenue are declining about 10% a quarter, at a steady pace.

      AMD CFO claim that he will tap into the equity market next quarter to keep AMD a float.

      so ,yea, really bad news actually.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    Revenue from Sony and M$ can’t come soon enough. Paying just $190 for a 4.0GHz 8-core (which has roughly the same aggregate performance as a $320 3770K) is a sweet deal but you know the company selling them is bleeding.

    Edit – Hmm, there seems to be some sort of disagreement as to whether the FX-8350 is faster than the 3770K or not. In this regard, I do believe and see benchies that suggest that the FX-8350 has higher overall throughput than the 3770K. Of course, you could probably see this sort of performance only in a few select apps, but [i<]it's there[/i<]. Devs need to know how to use the FX properly (and I'm not saying it's their fault if they can't use the CPU optimally). You might argue that the end user experience is paramount, and to that I would agree. But when I made my original post above, I did so knowing what the FX is. It is what it is and you need to understand what sort of processing beast it is. It may not be the best choice for many folks out there but it is probably true that it does offer more compute resources and higher overall throughput than a 3770K, which is subject to endless debate and countless benchmark numbers. In terms of power efficiency I will readily concede that the 3770K is better but buying the FX-8350 isn't gonna send you to the poor house either.

      • Farting Bob
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]Paying just $190 for a 4.0GHz 8-core (which has roughly the same aggregate performance as a $320 3770K)[/quote<] No it doesnt. In a few very highly paralleled programs that have been optimised for AMD's architecture it might, but on average the 3770K is better than anything AMD sells in the consumer market. On tech reports own "average performance" summary the 8350 sits in between the 3570k and 2600k, and TR's benchmarks use quite a lot of heavy multithreaded programs. In games it sits about even with the i5-760 and even in multithreaded stuff it often loses to the 2400. And thats before you get to the fact the AMD's use about twice as much power as Intel CPU's.

        • MustangSally
        • 6 years ago

        Depends on your definition of ‘roughly’ – [url=https://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14<] "The overall performance scatter offers some good news for AMD fans: the FX-8350 outperforms both the Core i5-3470 and the 3570K in our nicely multithreaded test suite. As a result, the FX-8350 will give you more performance for your dollar than the Core i5-3570K, and it at least rivals our value favorite from Intel, the Core i5-3470"[/url<]

          • Deanjo
          • 6 years ago

          That’s still a far cry from a 3770k.

            • jensend
            • 6 years ago

            It’s 12% slower than the 3770k (which costs 70% more) in TR’s overall general performance chart. You can call that ‘a far cry’ if you like, but I think most people would call that ‘roughly the same.’

            • MustangSally
            • 6 years ago

            AMD: the Rodney Dangerfield of CPUs.

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            On selected loads it is only 12% slower, on others it is much slower. Factor in the power consumption and thermals and it starts trailing pretty bad.

            • sschaem
            • 6 years ago

            Povray:
            fx-8350 – 1504
            i7-3770k – 1363

            The i7-3770k is about 10% slower

            x264:
            fx-8350 – 15.1
            i7-3770k – 14.6

            The i7-3770k is slower

            7zip
            fx-8350 – 2300
            i7-3770k – 2280

            The i7-3770k is again slower

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            As I said, in a few select benchmarks. Overall, the 8350 is about 20% slower and gobbles up a heck of a lot more power.

            [url<]https://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed/14[/url<]

            • MustangSally
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]Overall, the 8350 is about 20% slower[/quote<] ...and 45% less expensive (using the figures from the linked article; I know both of them fluctuate, and I also know that there isn't a linear relationship between price and performance. That's the whole point of that graph).

            • sschaem
            • 6 years ago

            As you said ” On selected loads it is only 12% slower”

            I just wanted to show you that in selected load the FX-8350 is not 12% slower, its actually 10% faster then the i7-3770k.

            And yes, no question, the ‘overvolted’ FX-8350 is a power guzzler under full load.

            But if this is a concern, you can dramatically reduce peak power usage for maybe 10% reduced compute. Make yourself a 95 watt FX-8340 part.
            This wont bring it to IV bridge efficiency (crappy GF 32nm process vs tweaked Intel 22nm), but the delta look so much better.

            Look at the A10-5700 (65w) and the A10-5800k (100w) ,
            small tweaks and poof 50% less power consumption.
            What kills AMD is the way they overvolt their chip to insane level to get that extra 100-200mhz clock.

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            Again, on some loads. I could just as easily cherry pick results that show the 8350 drastically slower. Even in areas like h264 encoding, overall the 8350 is slower when totaling the entire time to encode first and second pass (which btw is considered bad practice from the guys at handbrake. To them the only way to encode is Quality base that doesn’t use multiple passes).

            Also if one wanted, the i7-3770k overclocks easily on stock voltages (4.2-4.4 Ghz) and easily blows by the 8350 once you start doing that.

            • ermo
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]̣» Also if one wanted, the i7-3770k overclocks easily on stock voltages (4.2-4.4 Ghz) and easily blows by the 8350 once you start doing that. «[/quote<] This is true of the i7-2600K as well, so if money is all that matters, you're still better off getting a used SB part than an FX-8350, [i<]unless[/i<] you need ECC [i<]and[/i<] your workload is both highly threaded and difficult to get to work well with intel's HT implementation. That said, for e.g. virtualization, a slightly downvolted and downclocked FX-8350 might make sense. It might also be nice if you run a specialized Java application, as dpaus found out when his shop last benchmarked AMD vs. Intel CPUs at the same price point. To me, the bottom line is that you'd have to either be a fan [i<]or[/i<] have a specialized (set of) application(s) where the FX-8350 is competitive. Otherwise, you'll be better off with an intel CPU in most cases. But boy, oh boy, do I hope that Steamroller ends up changing that equation. AMD probably does too... EDIT: A preview functionality would be great (re. formatting)

            • clone
            • 6 years ago

            power consumption and thermals matter in the world of mobile, it’s not like the days of Prescott when they’d clock throttle 10 minutes after post leaving the Cad department sounding like a room full of turbines and cursing engineers.

            the single threaded perf is an annoyance but once turned on unless you’ve got a meter beside your screen telling you emphatically with alarm and digital indicator set on full brightness the differences including a second display telling you what an Intel cpu would be using…….. the consumption doesn’t matter.

            • chuckula
            • 6 years ago

            Except for one metric the 3770K is a *vastly* superior chip to the high-end Bulldozers/Piledrivers of the world. The one and only metric in AMD’s favor is sale price, and even then the 3470 is cheaper than an 8350 while also being faster in many workloads, like games, that people on TR care about. Additionally, it doesn’t take a PhD to cut sales prices, but I don’t see a minimum wage clerk with a price gun fixing the inherent flaws in AMD’s cache architecture anytime soon.

            Here are a few engineering comparisons to remember about Piledriver:

            Transistor counts:
            8350 (according to AMD’s latest estimates): 1.25 Billion.
            3770: About 700 million not including the on-die GPU, PCI express, and other logic that AMD doesn’t even try to integrate into the 8350.
            Advantage: AMD by a huge margin

            TDPs:
            8350: 125 watts
            3770K: 77 watts [b<]including the GPU[/b<] Advantage: AMD by a huge margin Cores: 8350: 8 "coars" 3770K: 4 cores + hyperthreading, which according to the AMD squad is a useless marketing gimmick that shouldn't count for anything (the benchmarks tell a different tale). Advantage: Call it a wash, but I've never seen an AMD fanboy eager to see a direct comparison between a true 8-core Xeon and an 8350.... [EDIT]: Cache (how could I forget?) 8350: 8 MB L3 + 8 MB L2 + ~ 0.5 MB L1 (L1 numbers are fuzzy based on AMD's own figures) == 16.5 MB. To put it into perspective, the supposedly over-the-top 3970X CPUs are barely ahead of the cache on the 8350 with at approximately 17 MB of cache. The 3930K has almost 3MB less cache than the 8350! 3770K: 8 MB L3 + 1 MB L2 + 0.5 MB L1: 9.5 MB Advantage: AMD by a huge margin. Die area: 8350: 315 mm^2 3770K: 162 mm^2 Advantage: AMD by nearly 2:1 over Intel. Clockspeed: 8350: 4 GHz + turbo 3770K: 3.5 GHz + turbo to a lower ceiling than the 8350's base. Advantage: AMD again. Benchmarks: OOH! Uh... the 8350 sorta-kinda beats the 3770K at the second pass (and only the second pass) of x.264 while being slower overall in the benchmark! COMPLETE DOMINATION! As I said when Bulldozer was launched and reiterated when the 8350 came out, it's not that these chips are amazing because they occasionally beat smaller, lower clocked, and lower power chips from Intel in a couple of cherry-picked benchmarks. Instead, it's a disaster that they aren't absolutely wiping out Intel's chips in every performance metric given the massive transistor budgets, power budgets, and die size budgets that AMD targeted with these designs.

            • ermo
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]»(...) fixing the inherent flaws in AMD's cache architecture anytime soon. «[/quote<] In a different context, AMD is looking to be quite serious about fixing the bottlenecks (flaws?) in their cache architecture in the Steamroller iteration. Here's hoping, but we'll see I guess. [quote<]Instead, it's a disaster that they aren't absolutely wiping out Intel's chips in every performance metric given the massive transistor budgets, power budgets, and die size budgets that AMD targeted with these designs. [/quote<] 'Disaster' is putting it strongly, but it's certainly not good. In your terminology, what sort of advantage would 'absolutely wiping out' constitute? +50%? It'll be interesting to see if AMD's projected +30% gain in overall clock-for-clock throughput with Steamroller will hold. One certainly hopes so...

            • clone
            • 6 years ago

            chukula you are oversimplifying.

            1 AMD’s design is optimized for multi tasking which is why it does so well compared to Intel in multi threaded software…. not entirely wins but does very well and it’s a new design vs Intel’s being on it’s 4th generation…. 5th?

            your claim that AMD has a huge advantage is brutally superficial in this regard, CPU’s are complex things, spend some time reading a white paper on one and you’ll end with putting a gun to your head.

            2 comparing TDP and claiming because AMD’s is higher =’s better is ridiculous, TDP’s are a by product of manufacturing & design, for you to imply or heaven forbid for you to actually believe a higher TDP =’s superior is as dramatic as it is a brutal example of how little you know about the topic at hand.

            3 8 cores via 4 modules vs Intel’s 4 cores + 4 efficiency enhancements to simulate 4 additional cores, the benefits of either design is dependent upon software optimization which is why in some cases AMD’s FX 8350 does so well, in other Intel benefits.

            4 if clock speeds meant anything then Intel should have bankrupted AMD when they introduced Pentium 4…… clock speeds are just one element of a very complex product…. again for you to imply or believe what you are saying only showcases in dramatic fashion what little you know.

            5 regarding benchmarks…. it depends on the bench and more to the point the state of the industry atm, if I was to wager a guess it’d be that AMD took a huge gamble, they knew like we’ve all been told that multi threaded is the future and given AMD’s limited resources they couldn’t afford to release a cpu for the new generation that wasn’t ahead of it’s time, it took them 10 years to come up with this cpu and in 10 years few will care about single threaded performance if it costs them multi threaded….. if AMD is guilty they are guilty of possibly coming out too early but that will be revealed in a few more years.

            1.25 billion transistors is a lot of ducks to get in a row for every situation and task asked of them…. takes time which is why it took Intel 7 years to finally beat Athlon even with Intel having every advantage in their favor.

            as for the rest of your post instead of demanding a lot from a little company… AMD before the layoffs was 1/10 the size of Intel, they are likely down to being 1/20th now, why not do some real research and understand what’s actually happening.

            • ermo
            • 6 years ago

            The way I read it, chuckula is stating that in every dimension (except process), AMD has more theoretical performance headroom available to it, be it TDP, amount of cache or number of transistors.

            So chuckula’s argument boils to this: Given the available budget in these dimensions, AMDs CPU design and implementation is not as efficient as it could/should have been compared to intel’s design.

            Even under Linux and using AMD’s own compiler + compiler settings and AMD-supplied Linux kernel scheduler tweaks, this is [i<]still[/i<] true, which somewhat negates your point about optimization. In all honesty, AMD's own roadmap for Steamroller is basically proof that chuckula is spot on -- they're doing some fairly heavy tweaks to the architecture compared to both BD and Piledriver. I for one hope that AMD manage to realize their projected performance improvement for Steamroller, because if not...

            • clone
            • 6 years ago

            the problem with Chukula’s analysis and your support of it is that he brought up but 5 incredibly simplistic “dimensions” when their are waaaayyy more of them.

            Chukula’s analysis would be equally bang on if he’d limited his comment to “Intel is better than AMD at the moment in almost every way.”… while true the analysis is neither prophetic nor enlightening and just another case of armchair quarterbacking…. yet another wonderful example of The Dunning–Kruger effect.

            that said I’ll throw in a cppl more dimensions that got ingored, engineering resources, Intel has 100 X’s more engineering resources on hand, 10 X the number of engineers…. think of it this way, you have 2 teams, both can field whatever they have at the same time, AMD has 100 engineers (metaphorically speaking), Intel has 5000….. who has the advantage?

            next up is research and development money, for every $1.00 AMD has Intel has $30.00.

            Intel uses the additional development coin to improve it’s cache algorithms and because they are more efficient their are fewer page misses that gobble up cpu cycles during operation…. that would be a fundamental “dimension” that got missed. Intel also is able to maintain compiler development, AMD in comparison has almost none, they occasionally release an “optimized” app but even that is in the beta stage compared to what Intel has.

            Intel can afford to design their cpu’s vs AMD’s automated process, the automated process is wasteful by about 20% over and above Intel’s method.

            ermo when someone says “amd has the advantage because their cpu has more transistors” what they are saying is they have no clue what they are talking about just like “because AMD’s cpu’s generate more heat they have an advantage”… umm no that’s a negative byproduct and the truth is Intel has every advantage over AMD in every way from design to fabrication AMD is a fraction the size of Intel and it shows when you compare Intel’s cpu to AMD’s.

            I could go on and on but deaf ears and white paper boredom would be the only result…. the point is throwing out 5 criteria that just happen to be the most brutally superficial of them does not make an insightful analysis.

            note: yeah it’s heavily edited, first it was short and to the point, then I added some detail, then changed some wording and that went on forever and here we are…. meh, need me meds.

            • jonjonjon
            • 6 years ago

            you are funny. i never knew that a higher TDP was an advantage. you do realize its harder to get a cpu with lower TDP.

            as for the hyperthreading amd doesn’t have a true 8 core cpu either.

            [url<]https://techreport.com/review/23750/amd-fx-8350-processor-reviewed[/url<] These "modules" are a fundamental structure in AMD's latest architectures, and they house two "tightly coupled" integer cores that share certain resources, including a front-end, L2 cache, and floating-point unit. Thus, AMD bills a four-module FX processor as an eight-core CPU, and we can't entirely object to that label. 3770k is better there is no arguing it. if the 8350 competed with the 3770k amd would raise the price. look at the single threaded performance thats were amd gets killed. considering a lot of stuff is singlethreaded thats an important factor. [url<]http://www.anandtech.com/bench/Product/697?vs=551[/url<]

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      They already are recording revenue from M$, and actually the revenue might go down.
      The reason is that right now they are collecting xbox 360 revenue + development revenue
      When the xbox is out, the development revenue will stop, xbox360 revenue will plummet.
      and its unclear if the new xbox will really up sale the 360. And if MS negotiated a lower license fee the revenue drop could be dramatic.

      Also AMD still own Global Foundry 240 million. 40 million paid next quarter and 200 million in Q1 2014.
      It would have been cheaper for AMD to burn their dresden factory to the ground and carry the debt then paying the ‘Saudi’ to take control.
      They had I believe a $370 milliom penalty for the non exclusivity contract with GF so they could make 28nm CPU at TSMC (since GF couln’t make them)
      And because that cause a decline in volume they paid over 700 million in penalty for that.
      And AMD is still sitting on hundreds of million of llano inventory… no OEM want to use them.

      And this is not ending. AMD CFO just said that he next quarter will show a major loss and he will need to tap into the equity market to keep AMD a float. (increasing AMD multi billion $ debt)

      In contrast nvidia will return over 1 billion $ to shareholder in cash and share purchase.
      And instead of closing and selling its campus, nvidia is building a new massive campus in the center of silicon valley. need I say more ?

      AMD is managed by amateur and as long as this is the case it will decline to oblivion…

        • jossie
        • 6 years ago

        Tapping into the equity markets does not increase debt – it increases equity.

    • Halnerd
    • 6 years ago

    I was thinking the same thing about next-gen consoles. I really hope that market keeps AMD afloat and gives them some much needed R&D funds.

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    These are solid results that AMD should be proud of. Now that the painful restructuring is over, Read will have them back with Kaveri and Steamroller at the high-end and Kabini will absolutely dominate the tablet market.

    I probably shouldn’t be saying this just yet, but you’ll all know soon enough: A certain company who is known for fruity logos has signed off on using Kabini for a whole new range of products that will be… shall we say.. [i<]insanely[/i<] great.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 6 years ago

      Are you on drugs? What have you done with Count Chuckula?

        • ronch
        • 6 years ago

        So you noticed it too? This isn’t the real Chuckula. Or maybe there are several of them?

          • dpaus
          • 6 years ago

          I saw a whole bowl of Count Chuckula just yesterday morning.

            • ronch
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t even wanna know how it tastes like.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 6 years ago

          Yes, your army of chuck-clone-ulas has one fatal flaw which gives them away as not the real deal.

            • LoneWolf15
            • 6 years ago

            Is it in the Translation Look-Aside Buffer? *ZING*

            • derFunkenstein
            • 6 years ago

            LOL that’s it, all the chuck-clone-ulas were built with Phenom 9600s. Incidentally that’s also how they maintain a reasonable body temperature.

            • RDFSteve
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]a reasonable body temperature[/quote<] For the surface of Mercury, maybe...

        • Penut
        • 6 years ago

        I can’t tell if he’s being sarcastic, and that really bothers me.

      • dpaus
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]These are solid results that AMD should be proud of[/quote<] I have to agree with that. In a brutal quarter, with virtually everything external going against them, they managed to hold their own and stem their decline to no more than that suffered by mighty Intel, who has everything external going for them. Not bad, not bad at all.

        • sschaem
        • 6 years ago

        Do you really have to sarcastic about AMD situation, its sad enough as it is .

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      AMD got such a sitgma associated to them, I can see apple doing any deal with AMD beside some GPU.
      And even so, didn’t apple dump AMD from all their latest products ?

    • MadManOriginal
    • 6 years ago

    No mention of Microsoft’s results which came out after market close yesterday?

    • MadManOriginal
    • 6 years ago

    So it’s not quite as straightforward just going by revenue, but it looks like the analysts were wrong with their PC shipment decline. This sequential rev decline was about 6%, about the same as Intel’s shipment decrease and half of the analysts estimates.

    • yogibbear
    • 6 years ago

    Do they have anymore upcoming payments that they owe for all their shenanigans? Or are they now finally in the clear and all their revenue will be spent on making them more money in the future?

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      It remains to be seen how the new console deals will help them.

    • marvelous
    • 6 years ago

    Time to buy AMD

      • My Johnson
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t know. It all comes down to growth and I don’t really see it. Another factor is whether the CEO has the wits and creativity to make that growth. I have no clue myself about who the CEO is.

      • Tristan
      • 6 years ago

      Who want to compete with Intel ?
      More important – AMD is focused on survival, than on fight and innovations. Poor attraction for buyers.

      • OneArmedScissor
      • 6 years ago

      Plenty of people said that when it went from $40 to $30…seven years ago.

        • nanoflower
        • 6 years ago

        I would say if you have money that you are willing to burn then putting money into AMD stock now might be a good idea. Just realize that there’s a fair chance the stock price will go down but if things go right the stock could easily double over the next year. I just wouldn’t risk any money that you can’t afford to lose.

      • esterhasz
      • 6 years ago

      I did some in/out on AMD stock over the last years (since 2008 basically), did pretty well and was temped to go back in at around $5 some months ago. Good I didn’t. But with the general market environment being what it is, it’s less and less clear that the company will even survive… it’s still tempting because at this level, if the Jaguar derived products are a success and the general economy picks up, they could go back to something like $10, I guess. But this is a real gamble.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This