AMD reports Q3 results, $65 million APU inventory write-down

AMD reported its third-quarter financial results today. The company posted an operating loss of $158 million on revenues of $1.06 billion. Revenues fell 26% year-over-year, while sequential revenue grew 13%. Those results include a $65 million write-down of "older-generation" APU inventory.

  Q3 2015 Q3 2014 Change
Revenue $1.06 billion $1.43 billion down 26%
Operating income -$158 million $63 million
Net income -$197 million $17 million
Gross margin 23% 35% down 12%
Earnings per share -$0.25 $0.02

AMD says a seasonal increase in semi-custom sales, along with strong desktop processor and GPU sales, accounted for the 13% sequential increase. However, decreased sales in the Computing and Graphics segment of the company's business caused the 26% year-over-year decline.

The Computing and Graphics segment took in 46% less revenue compared ot this time a year ago, which AMD blames on lower client processor sales. The Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom business reported a 2% year-on-year revenue decline, due to lower embedded chip and server processor volumes.

Gross margin fell to 23%, down 12% from a year ago, due in part to the $65 million APU inventory write-down. AMD made this write-down due to lower anticipated demand for the affected products.

AMD also announced a joint venture with Nantong Fujitsu Microelectronics that will bring in $371 million. For Q4 2015, the company expects revenue to decrease 10% sequentially, plus or minus 3%.

Comments closed
    • Mr Bill
    • 4 years ago

    The old line used to be: ‘Although AMD is loosing money on every CPU, they will make it up on volume.’

    • Sammael
    • 4 years ago

    We all know amd financials are going to continue to be a blood bath until zen arrives, that needs to be strong and competitive to give them any sort of reprieve. Arctic Islands could be a major boost as well but we’ll have to see whether nvidia tweaked pascal in time to excel in dx12 and lower their latency for vr.

    The biggest thing hurting amd in the gpu market at the moment is the number of people who prefer nvidia recommending inferior products to their friends and online.

    Look at the charts

    [url<]http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/pc/284822/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_pc_1_3_last[/url<] There are three 970 gpus higher in sales rank than the very first 390. The 390 is a better card overall, and it's not winning the sales race. If having a better card is not even enough in a particular segment, that's a problem. Don't give me the 980 ti, that is not the volume mover, The most popular price segment for many people has shifted above the 200 dollar price point to 300-350, exactly where the 970/390 sit. This is why you see people like me, alone in the wilderness arguing in vain against the throngs of nvidia fans lying to people about the 970 being a better card. AMD needs all the help they can get, especially when they have a better part and it is still not winning the day.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      Inferior? Lying? Better part?

      You are throwing unhealthy amount of assertions without evidence with brutal bundle of suppositions and unstated assumptions. Then you essentially project to boot. and do quite few accusations.

      Your post have number of problems. It is just bad post.

        • Sammael
        • 4 years ago

        I am making assertions and suppositions and and assumptions. The evidence is based off sales, most people still prefer buying a 970. Because nvidia made it, and then you see scores of people coming on forums saying it’s because nvidia makes better cards or power consumption is better or x/y/z.

        My basic assertion is that this narrative is in most cases, a lie.

        What kind of lie? The lie of omission.

        They lean towards the 970, not because of presumed performance, or power consumption, it’s because of brand preference. And they pretend as if that is not the primary motivator. Bring on more downvotes, it does nothing negate the the correctness of my point. The 970 performs worse on average, and has far more sales, there is some MAJOR brand preference going into the sales results, and people LIE about that in their omission of their preferences for nvidia when they advocate for a 970 over a 390, or in most cases the 960 over some equivalent amd part.

        nvidia does better with the 950 in that price segment and the 980 ti, the 980 is more mixed. I can say that while still being biased toward amd, I don’t sit here and deny reality and LIE about my preferences like so many others do and apparently the rest of you are oblivious to. I’d still lean towards an amd part even if it performed a bit worse than an nvidia part because I have a brand preference for amd. The difference between me and so many others? I don’t LIE about that and pretend it’s just about x feature or power consumption or other BS that most of the people here want to ignore.

        nvidia is the apple of the gpu world, there is more than pure merit that is going into their current sales dominance, and all I did was point that fact out by showing the sales rankings. I guess the truth bothers people.

    • createcoms
    • 4 years ago

    Well I’ll be AMD loyal to the bitter end. Switched from 7850 to 7870K APU just to keep the faith. Next year will be a nice all out Zen build and probably throw a dGPU in there as well just to splash more AMD purchases.

      • DarkMikaru
      • 4 years ago

      I’m trying my very first Intel build this year with the i5-6600k. Bitter sweet as I just don’t want to let my 8350 go..it’s been great and I honestly don’t need the i5. It just so happened that I had the opportunity to build for half price. But I hear ya…. I love AMD and will continue to use AMD chips for clients who want everyday machines. I’ll build Intel when the client can afford / actually needs that horsepower.

      • Mr Bill
      • 4 years ago

      Does createcoms stand for create commerce? I upvoted your post for sympathy but this is your first post.

      • Kretschmer
      • 4 years ago

      This kind of brand loyalty makes no sense for fungible goods like processors.

    • Dr_b_
    • 4 years ago

    Companies need to be careful about making predictions, its easy to get burned, here is what their marketing slogan should have been:

    “The future may be fusion. but possibly not with our products, and probably not in PCs where CPU and graphics performance still matter”.

    OK, people didn’t have to buy a discrete GPU or off die GPU, saves money, power (well at least on the GPU part, maybe), circuit board complexity, makes sense for a lot of applications. But there was no killer app for this outside of just not needing to have a separate GPU, and when you put that in a package with a CPU that doesn’t perform as well as the competition both in terms of power and energy consumption, it can’t succeed.

    It didn’t replace the CPU, the CPU is still very important. AMD led the market to believe that it had some new idea whereby this combined CPU+GPU would somehow replace CPUs entirely and that there will be some unislab of silicon combined into some sort of bouillabaisse whereby this new combined technology would be great at all tasks.

    “But its sooo cheap…”. Yes, its cheap, but you get what you pay for, and if performance doesn’t matter to you , and power consumption doesn’t matter to you, then AMD APU is for you, and its cheap, they are probably on sale at your favorite etailer..

    “But ZEN is going to blow everyone away, just wait for ZEN!” Yes, Zen will be so good, that the developer, the brain behind it, left the company.

    Some bad decisions, buying ATI, and blaming marketing practices for the failure of products, Hector Ruiz.

    AMD will go bankrupt, breakup, or get acquired, its in a death spiral, and in their current position, no talent is going to want to work there.

    • Dr_b_
    • 4 years ago

    The future is *not* fusion.

    • maxxcool
    • 4 years ago

    Well Bring on ZEN.. I’ve got my popcorn ready ..

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      AMD’s executives have been very very cagey about precisely when we’ll actually be able to buy Zen.

      They sling terms around like “production in 2016 full-year revenue in 2017” which *might* mean a late 2016 launch of Zen or — given the high likelihood of some delays — means that Zen starts to ramp production in 2016 and is only actually available to buy in 2017.

        • maxxcool
        • 4 years ago

        Indeed. And they need to pay the fabs for production. Were I a fab owner I sure as crap would not ‘lend’ to much credit or fab space\schedule to a unproven product from a company in a huge obvious death spiral.

        AMD is like that uncle who is “Just about to get his life in order” .. then the bar or the cops call to have you bail him out gain ..

        edit. the=they

          • blastdoor
          • 4 years ago

          [quote<] Were I a fab owner I sure as crap would not 'lend' to much credit or fab space\schedule to a unproven product from a company in a huge obvious death spiral.[/quote<] Excellent point. Particularly in terms of CPUs, AMD must be a very low priority customer for the foundries. It could be that AMD will only gain access to 14/16nm when Apple moves on to 10nm. And 2017 sounds about right for that...

    • Kretschmer
    • 4 years ago

    I think it’s time for AMD to become a GPU-only firm. These CPU sales figures are abysmal.

    • Unknown-Error
    • 4 years ago

    Question to all the economists here. How does a company bleeding so much money for such long time continue to exist?

    PS: What are APUs written-off? Kaveri? Beema/Mullins?

      • tipoo
      • 4 years ago

      They have 750 million or so in cash, plus they keep shuffling off assets for a quick cash grab. If they keep bleeding at an average of say 50 mill per quarter, they can float for a while yet, but only a while.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      Their (major) debt payments aren’t due until 2019 and they have managed to liquidate enough assets to have the cash on hand needed to keep the lights on.

      If this sounds like a bad long-term strategy, it is. However, it’s enough to keep things going for a while, and they probably hope that they can do some debt refinancing to push off that 2019 doomsday scenario. Of course, debt refinancing requires somebody willing to pay for bonds, and that is why AMD really needs Zen to work well enough for them to look like a worthwhile operation again.

      • Leader952
      • 4 years ago

      Spin off assets

      Do reverse mortgages on property

      Push long term debt out further while increasing that debt

      Get someone to issue a short term $500 million line of credit (that is now maxed out)

      • Silus
      • 4 years ago

      They can’t…not for much longer at least, since they barely have nothing left to sell/loan or to cut (except maybe the fat management paychecks). Investors are surely tired of losing money…

      For a while now, AMD is trying to descrease its operations to a bare minimum, so that it’s more appealing to potential buyers. The problem is that AMD still has a lot of debt and no one wants to buy a stake in a huge debt, even more so when AMD’ potential for the future (given the lack of strategy) is not very good.

      it’s a matter of time until they’re bought in pieces.

    • just brew it!
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]to lower embedded chip and server processor volumes[/quote<] How can they possibly have lower server processor volumes? Opteron sales were already essentially zero.

    • beck2448
    • 4 years ago

    26% year over year decline. Yikes. Only so many 26 %s in a hundred.

      • Pwnstar
      • 4 years ago

      Actually, they could lose 26% every year to infinity, since that’s how percent works. It’s an Asymptote.

      • Meadows
      • 4 years ago

      Have you ever passed a maths exam?

    • torquer
    • 4 years ago

    Yikes.

    • tfp
    • 4 years ago

    I think it’s about time for Intel to ramp IA64 back up on the desktop. AMD is working it’s way out of the picture.

    • oldog
    • 4 years ago

    AMD kept afloat by the Chinese???!!!

    [url<]http://www.wsj.com/articles/amd-reports-a-loss-but-revenue-down-less-than-expected-1444943539[/url<] (behind paywall but pertinent info viewable)

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 4 years ago

    Latest report, latest word of catastrophe, latest lack of any real surprises.

    The ship has a massive hull breach. The crew was designated expendable, so most of them are gone either because they had no name and thus got laid off/flew out the breach; or had a name and abandoned ship in an golden parachute escape pod.

    They dumped everything not nailed down hoping it’d reduce the gravitational pull, but that was silly nonsense exemplified when they got rid of the engineering department to fix the ship.

    Meanwhile, the executives are all above deck eating caviar and drinking fine wines, chuckling as they watch people fly out the breach from their comfortable VIP seating.

    TLDR; nothing new at AMD.

    • MathMan
    • 4 years ago

    For those who see doom in the near future: they have $755M in cash and that amount is only slowly decreasing by about $50M per quarter. (Sometimes more, sometimes less.)

    They can easily hold out until March 2019. That’s when they have their first bond payment of $600M.

    Not saying that AMD is in a good position, but they’re going to be around for at least another 3.5 years. After that, things become interesting, but I assume they’ll just keep on refinancing their debt.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 4 years ago

      No, if Zen or maybe Zen together with K12 is not a success a spin off is almost 100% assured. Or a sale of assets.

      AMD doesn’t have time for a second chance, a chance which couldn’t realistically happen until after 2020.

      • tipoo
      • 4 years ago

      That assumes no larger losses in any quarter. They’re still on thin ice.

        • MathMan
        • 4 years ago

        They’ll soon also receive $380M from Fujitsu due to the spin-off of their testing facilities.

        It’s going to be fine for a while.

      • Demetri
      • 4 years ago

      Didn’t they just lose $197M 3rd quarter, or is net income (loss in this case) not the amount of money they’re losing?

        • MathMan
        • 4 years ago

        I’m talking specifically about their cash, not the accounting loss.

        You can check the CFO commentary slides on AMD’s website to check out the evolution of their cash reserves.

        (AMD.com, About Us, Investor Relations, CFO commentary. I would have provided a link if AMD had managed to make their website work on mobile. But that a little to much to ask.)

          • Demetri
          • 4 years ago

          Thanks, I’m starting to understand. Not as bad as I thought, but according to the cash balance slide, they still dropped almost $300M in cash this year.

            • MathMan
            • 4 years ago

            They still have $750M in the bank. They’ll add $380M from the spin-off. So that’s $1.135B.

            At $300M per year, that works out to just about 4 years.

            Now they’ve been spending quite a bit on opex reduction, which is now $70M lower per quarter compared to a year ago. But the opex reduction itself has cost quite a bit of money as well. Hopefully, they won’t need to repeat that.

            None of this is great position to be in: you’re not supposed to be able to count the number of quarters a company can survive on its cash in the bank. 😉

            All I’m trying to point out is that we’re not going to see AMD running out of money anytime soon. A lot can happen in 3 years.

            And even if they run out of money eventually, then there’s still the option of a chapter 11 bankruptcy where they restructure the company but wipe out some or all of its debt.

      • w76
      • 4 years ago

      I agree, except the refinancing debt part. At this rate, if Zen doesn’t perform magic and get them in the black they’ll be a much smaller company in 2019, and I can’t see anyone willing to loan them money. Those bonds maturing in 2019 have a yield to maturity over 18% at the moment according to trade data at FINRA, which tells you plenty of smart folks don’t think that bond will ever get repaid at par. If you feel strongly otherwise, you can lock in some annual gains that’d make any hedgefund manager weep for joy. 😉

      I mean, even Greece isn’t paying that high of a yield, and they’re run by Syriza. That says a lot.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        Zen doesn’t need to have magic. Just be about as fast as Haswell clock per clock and be able to clock in the 3-4Ghz range.

        Keller has done half of that before, now we’ll see if he could do it again and if Samsung 14nm/GloFo/TSMC can deliver the performance with their lower power aim processes.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Which is nearly terminally hard. Intel needs advanced process, large amount of on-die resources (just check evolution of various structures) and very advanced blocks just to get some increase without losing mobile TDP and full AVX units to actually extract something extra.

          What you described is “requiring magic”, because in all areas AMD is behind by lot more then quoted increase (contextless 40% to remind you).

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Being as fast as Haswell perf/Mhz has been done twice now.

            AMD isn’t trying to make Zen do 5-150W of power. Zen is likely aimed at 60-150W or so at first launch.

            I’m certain it won’t clock as high as Intel will, and, I’m certain the IPC won’t match Intel’s.

            What it will be, is x86 compatible while offering more performance than anything ARM has for high margin markets to buy, as well as history and knowledge of how to make parts for the server industry and everything regarding that. And, it will be cheaper.

            Zen was never a “we need to beat Intel” it has been a “we need to be fast enough”. Bulldozer didn’t fail because it was slower than Intel, it failed because it wasn’t fast enough.

            If you think that Apple is magic, there. It requires magic. Although, that VISC architecture may also hit the perf/clock of Haswell. So, I guess that could also require magic.

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            You can have IPC on par of Haswell, but without frequency you are dead anywhere outside of smartphones. And getting IPC and frequency at the same time is hard. Extremely hard, because physics is killing you. Like various latencies and heat generation or amount of stuff to fit inside one clock tick versus length of tick. That’s why frequencies of Intel processors didn’t go anywhere.(And that ignores various problems found at current nanometers)

            So far the only remotely successful design which has comparable IPC and high frequencies is POWER. TDP begins at 150W or so (IIRC)

            Cheaper? Likely, but not by choice.

            As for Apple, they have high IPC, LOW frequency parts. They can’t clock them much higher then we see hem now. Because design. Nothing magical, just required trade of for given usage and ROI of CPU, which is decidedly different from Intel. No magic, but nothing relevant either.

            VISC is frankly only paper-based and not really that interesting. (Already covered my impressions back there)

            You wrote a lot of text, yet you failed outright to understand things. Just bit too much of ignorant argument.

          • w76
          • 4 years ago

          I was ignoring the technical aspect, I’m not an engineer though it strikes me as hard to even match Haswell. I meant sales magic; it has to somehow take and invert the rapidly declining and unprofitable sales and make them rapidly increase and generate profits — big profits, because they need to replenish their capacity for long term R&D, since Intel won’t be a sitting target. And, obviously, even if Zen is performant, it has to have deals with its trade partners to allow it to manufacture enough to sell, otherwise Zen would leave Skylake in the dust and it’d be irrelevant. If AMD pulls all that out of its hat, it’ll become legendary.

          And you mentioned Keller: Yeah, well, Keller bailed. Only Keller knows what that means, but still. It’s also risky, and a failure of management, to have a companies fortunes attached to just a handful of names.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Keller “bailed” but, the timing of his leaving and Zen tapeout suggests he left ONCE ZEN WAS FINISHED. His leaving is not good for AMD, but, if anyone expected him to stay they were crazy.

            Maybe you don’t understand it, but, Keller led a design team that made two chips that are competitive with Haswell in IPC. The CPUs in the A8 and A9 lineup.

            He left Apple in 2012, Apple’s competitive chip in IPC came ~2 years after. Maybe sooner, hard to know when Apple had enough capacity for it to be able to make enough A8/A8X chips.

            The A10 must be doomed because the A9 was the last chip that Keller certainly worked on. Apple’s product lineup is dead!!!!

          • chuckula
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah, so when Haswell comes out people like you are like: OMG WORTHLESS INTEL HATES INNOVATION DON’T UPGRADE.

          And Haswell came out in 2013.

          So in 2017 [being realistic here] AMD comes out with basically a clone of Haswell.

          And it will be a miracle that saves the company… because a clone of a piece of crap chip from 2013 that was useless and that nobody should have bought launching 4 years later is the same thing as a miracle.

          Or not.

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 4 years ago

    Well, anyone saying this is anything remotely close to good overall needs more than just a few knocks on the head, but, higher cash flow is good.

    Given it is not increasing the margin with cash flow at least it is helping with spreading R&D costs.

    So, pretty bad but not terrible and one very very small glimmer of good.

      • Leader952
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]but, higher cash flow is good[/quote<] Cash flow was negative $74 million. Not sure where you got "higher cash flow is good" from. [quote<]Cash and cash equivalents were $755 million at the end of the quarter, down $74 million from the end of the prior quarter, due primarily to a $69 million debt interest payment. [url<]http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?t=1&item=VHlwZT0yfFBhcmVudElEPTUyMDY1Mzl8Q2hpbGRJRD01OTgxNjA=[/url<] [/quote<]

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        my brain is hurting. Revenue flow. Down from last year, yes. but, with any quarter where AMD doesn’t get less revenue is good. Even if a bit higher loss.

        I think at least.

    • uwsalt
    • 4 years ago

    Eh, better results for the quarter than expected. Good news, at least in the short term, for AMD stockholders.

    • NeelyCam
    • 4 years ago

    Wow. [url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v66sQ3S6vS0<]Total brutal.[/url<]

      • Ninjitsu
      • 4 years ago

      GET TO THE CHOPPPAAAAA

    • Deanjo
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]Gross margin fell to 23%, down 12% from a year ago, due in part to the $65 million APU inventory write-down. AMD made this write-down due to lower anticipated demand for the affected products.[/quote<] Lol, the only ones that seemed to think that APU's were going to be a cash cow was AMD and Charlie.

      • TruthSerum
      • 4 years ago

      … I’m going to find myself sitting on the bandsaw in short order, but…

      Pc sales are down. Low end PC’s cannibalized by glut in tablets and phones, with low end pc’s not really… adding much but a bigger screen and battery in the form factor, for same money.

      So if going by the projections du jour when these things were being designed, engineered, proto’ed, tested, re-tested, fabbed, re-fabbed and eventually marketed and sold?
      If they’d hit their sales marks they’d be right. They are, even with reduced sales, a cash cow.

      They got the market predictions wrong big time. When you make x amount of chips at y time, they have to sell within z period.
      Smores law.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 4 years ago

      How much money is Intel making on their processors with GPUs on them?

      AMD was right about “APUs” just not AMD APUs! Lol.

        • Deanjo
        • 4 years ago

        Actually intel just proves the point. While AMD has the better graphics capabilities on their APU, intel sells a ton more because of their CPU performance. Nobody but a very very very small group really cares about APU performance. There are basically two groups of people, ones that just need graphics for everyday non gaming stuff and others that demand a graphics solution that an APU can’t deliver. If intel kept IGP’s on their chipsets instead of integrating they would still smoke AMD in sales.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          ah ah ah. Intel made their iGPUs fast enough for most users. Do you think that the millions of people playing Dota2, LoL and various other F2P games would be using Intel CPUs in that case?

          I don’t think so. It would also kill the design wins for the MacBook Air products to AMD instantly. Maybe even for the 13″ MBP.

          AMD would have a much larger marketshare given what you say is true. Of course Intel would be smoking AMD in sales. They always have looking at the whole market.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            Again you are just proving my point. The vast majority of non-discrete graphics users just need a screen for everyday tasks. Before APU’s came out they were using the iGP’s in the chipsets. In Apples case, when they transitioned from nvidia IGP’s to intel’s version of the APU, the graphics performance actually dropped and people did not complain and they still sold a ton of Mac’s.

            AMD doesn’t have a larger marketshare because their CPU performance sucks and no amount of APU capabilities will trump that fact.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Apple made the move because adding a dGPU to wheneverTheyFirstSwitched would be required.

            Nvidia lost it’s chipset license effectively, Apple stops using iGPU…

            Putting a dGPU in for that case would have a large negative impact for many of the products it would have been put into. For heat/power/etc issues.

            CPU speed? Are you kidding me? OEMs are pushing people to upgrade their 4-6 year machines now. Mostly laptops with a few desktops. These are Westemere and earlier products.

            Kaveri and XV in laptops given extra clockspeed fit that same performance. Hell, I threw a SSD into an old C2D + NVS laptop I had around. Almost as usable as what I’ve switched to (excluding gaming! 960m >>> some weak Tesla Quadro).

            AMD is fast enough today, AMD typically offers better graphics performance today, AMD is generally cheaper today.

            Want to buy a $350-450 laptop or AIO today? AMD has products which are very competitive on the CPU side for what OEMs sell and flat out win the GPU side.

            AMD’s problem isn’t that the APU isn’t fast enough, it is that there is no reason for people to upgrade. And, when people upgrade, for mobile, it typically is towards “ultrabooks” or “utlra thing” or “super light” and all that sh*t. Where OEMs have pretty much not used any AMD chips. Which, until XV made total sense, Intel could offer the baseline performance needed in under 20W. AMD couldn’t.

            As we get into more and more video consumable content the GPU will be more and more important, APU-type devices are the way of the future. AMD was the one who stood up and spelled it out, but, it’s what ARM has always been working towards. And many others.

            APUs are the future. CPU performance was good enough 4-5+ years ago for normal users.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            [quote<]Apple made the move because adding a dGPU to wheneverTheyFirstSwitched would be required. Nvidia lost it's chipset license effectively, Apple stops using iGPU...[/quote<] They also had intel IGP graphics, it wasn't only nvidia. Intel stopped making them so yes they had no choice but to go with them. [quote<]Putting a dGPU in for that case would have a large negative impact for many of the products it would have been put into. For heat/power/etc issues.[/quote<] Again, IGP's were covering that fine. [quote<]CPU speed? Are you kidding me? OEMs are pushing people to upgrade their 4-6 year machines now. Mostly laptops with a few desktops. These are Westemere and earlier products[/quote<] Which are in most cases faster than AMD's APU offerings still. [quote<]Want to buy a $350-450 laptop or AIO today? AMD has products which are very competitive on the CPU side for what OEMs sell and flat out win the GPU side.[/quote<] Or I can take that same money and get an intel i5/i7 system and get better CPU performance for about the same price. Heck I bought an Asus IB i7 K55 two years ago for $370 CAD. [quote<]As we get into more and more video consumable content the GPU will be more and more important, APU-type devices are the way of the future.[/quote<] All of which uses dedicated circutry and has nothing really to do with the graphics itself. This why your video decoding performance on a low end sku is pretty much identical to a high end sku despite the high end sku having a more powerful graphics solution (same goes with encoding).

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            What does the majority of the market buy? LAPTOPS. and cheap ones. Same for the desktop market.

            /yawn.

          • Andrew Lauritzen
          • 4 years ago

          The argument doesn’t really mesh with how much die area Intel is devoting to the GPU these days, as posters on these forums endlessly lament 😉

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Intel’s huge move to iGPU really started due to Apple demanding it. I expect they would be doing it anyone to be able to get higher ASP and hence increase revenue/margins, but, Apple probably sped it up a good 2+ years and is why eDRAM is a thing.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 4 years ago

            Sure but ultimately it doesn’t matter *why* Intel and AMD are doing it to the point here – die space = $$ and neither would be doing it if they thought using that space for something else (i.e. more CPU or just more CPUs per wafer) would be more profitable.

            … and that’s including the fact that GPU die space pays significantly less well than CPU die space, so it’s quite a pronounced vote on market directions from both Intel and AMD.

          • TheJack
          • 4 years ago

          Wrong.
          The big majority uses integrated GPUs. They are so much better than low end cards in every thinkable respect, and who knows, maybe some day they will be good enough even for gamers.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            The large majority of the market used IGP’s as well when they were the option. The VAST majority of those users couldn’t care less if the graphics was on the CPU or not as they are not using the extended capabilities of the APU’s that are offered now days.

            What killed AMD was the performance of the Core 2’s and that is something that AMD has never recovered from and APU’s in no way has been as profitable as a competitive chip in terms of CPU performance.

            • TheJack
            • 4 years ago

            While the second part of this post is correct, the first part is not. Low end cards generate heat and noise. Use more power, are bulky and buggy, and above all, they keep dying.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            You you know what an IGP is?

            • TheJack
            • 4 years ago

            You are a hard core gamer, right? There is a world outside of gaming. Just saying.

          • Ninjitsu
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah, I’ve thought the same for years now. GPU-first APUs don’t really have a market.

          I mean, yeah, I know of people who used to game only on CPU graphics on their C2D PCs, and refused to buy a GPU, but there’s no point of recommending an APU that’ll be hampered by the CPU and memory interface.

      • tipoo
      • 4 years ago

      Weren’t APUs floating them in prior years?

        • Deanjo
        • 4 years ago

        They haven’t made profit on them since they debuted.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          Huh? I’m almost certain they have. Bobcat kept AMD afloat when Bulldozer disaster struck.

            • Deanjo
            • 4 years ago

            Lol, you best go look at those financials again. During that time it was their discrete graphics that was keeping them afloat.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            if AMD took their APU/CPU sales and took out Bobcat products their GPUs wouldn’t have done shiet.

            Although, I should have modified the statement to say that AMD most certainly has shown APUs can make money. Bobcat was very positive (and developed with a Tiny team) and Jaguar was also very positive. Before the console wins.

            AMD would be bankrupt if not for the Cat lineup. GPU sales or not.

      • w76
      • 4 years ago

      I disagree! Brazos for example promised the start of a great future. I believe it also sold very well. They’ve got decent graphics technology. It was just all wasted by being paired with terrible management and an awful CPU architecture. The concept was smothered while still an infant.

        • Deanjo
        • 4 years ago

        APU = CPU with Graphics onboard

        You cannot have an APU without the CPU.

          • w76
          • 4 years ago

          Obviously. I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Graphics hardware wasn’t wasted by the fact it was matched up with x86 cores, it as an APU product was a waste because the x86 parts were awful. Their failed execution doesn’t mean the idea had no merit, that was my main point, and Brazos was popular and very well received.

            • swaaye
            • 4 years ago

            I apparently missed the Brazos excitement and cheers. What products was it popular in?

            Isn’t it the same story as their current Kabini, Beema, and Carrizo-L stuff? Various boring bottom end value machines? Though at least Brazos was in a couple of early Windows tablets….

    • Deanjo
    • 4 years ago

    [url<]https://techreport.com/news/28130/amd-posts-180-million-loss-shutters-seamicro-business?post=899932[/url<]

    • Kretschmer
    • 4 years ago

    Can we finally just call APUs “CPUs?” The majority of Intel and AMD chips shipped (or not shipped, in AMD’s case) contain an IGP. Trying to differentiate based on a non-unique feature is just hoodwinking investors at this point.

      • NoOne ButMe
      • 4 years ago

      APU is a better term. Ideally once everything in integrated into one chip on the package we can drop that all and just be SoCs.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 4 years ago

      Well, Intel does still call APUs CPUs – because APU was an AMD marketing term.

        • jihadjoe
        • 4 years ago

        [url<]http://img.hexus.net/v2/cpu/amd/Trinity/APU.png[/url<]

          • Meadows
          • 4 years ago

          I’ve been told “apu” also means “daddy” in Hungarian.

    • chuckula
    • 4 years ago

    Oops.. posted in the wrong article 😉

      • TruthSerum
      • 4 years ago

      +1 for admitting it 😀

    • Duct Tape Dude
    • 4 years ago

    Those are some scary numbers. Regardless of what everyone thinks of AMD, is anyone else wary or afraid of a monopolistic Intel+Nvidia market?

      • TruthSerum
      • 4 years ago

      Who wouldn’t be. That’s no moon..

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      If it makes you feel better, Jen-hsun hates Intel more than AMD, so Nvidia isn’t teaming up with Intel.

        • Duct Tape Dude
        • 4 years ago

        I do feel a bit better already.

        • jihadjoe
        • 4 years ago

        Was that because Intel refused to give Nvidia an x86 license?

        • tipoo
        • 4 years ago

        A lot of people hated a lot of things before a lot of money became a factor. Look at Notch and Microsoft.

      • Meadows
      • 4 years ago

      Must we revisit this question every quarter?

        • TruthSerum
        • 4 years ago

        Capitalism old rules, there can be only one. Until then, swordfights and lightning.

        • blastdoor
        • 4 years ago

        There can’t be too many quarters left at this rate.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          We’ll know if there is a definite closing time 1Q2017 at the latest.

        • Duct Tape Dude
        • 4 years ago

        Yes, because AMD is somehow still around.
        +1

        • jihadjoe
        • 4 years ago

        It’s just like that fight with the Black Knight, only AMD seems to have a lot more limbs.

      • madmanmarz
      • 4 years ago

      I buy AMD pretty much for that reason. Not that I encourage the idea to anyone else though.

      • Ninjitsu
      • 4 years ago

      Would it benefit them, though? Intel CPU sales are slowing as it is, increasing prices would kill their market even more.

      Same for Nvidia.

      • Klimax
      • 4 years ago

      Not really. We are already mostly there. With Intel definitely and Nvidia is almost there too. Prices already stabilized at their final points.

      • NovusBogus
      • 4 years ago

      Monopolies are never a good thing, but I’m not worried because ARM devices will be enough of a persistent threat to keep Intel/NV from abusing their position. It wouldn’t be anything near a true monopoly anyway since x86 is being slowly whittled away by those other choices. It’s like being worried that Apple might abuse its position as the only iOS vendor, when in reality they’ve never had more than about 20 percent market share.

    • Roo5ter
    • 4 years ago

    Not sure how long they can hemorrhage cash like this. Hopefully there is a turnaround and competition in the GPU market at the very least.

    We need something to hedge against the Intel/Nvidia dominance simply for competition’s sake.

      • DPete27
      • 4 years ago

      Enter: Samsung vs Intel

        • Roo5ter
        • 4 years ago

        Someone would fill the void eventually but I wouldn’t count on it happening quickly and I wouldn’t count on Nvidia to rush out new technology so they could beat themselves.

      • blastdoor
      • 4 years ago

      For some reason Apple keeps using AMD GPUs in Macs. I don’t think they have Nvidia anywhere in the lineup. I guess AMD must be giving them an incredibly good deal, because I can’t think of any other reason to be so devoted to AMD.

        • NeelyCam
        • 4 years ago

        The “good deal” might be why quarter-to-quarter revenue goes up but operating profit goes down.

        Maybe AMD should call this contra-revenue

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        Nvidia threatened to sue their mobile GPU supplier.

        Saying PowerVR infringes on their patents is basically saying Nvidia at some point plans to use ImaginationTech and/or Apple.

        Any money Apple makes on their x86 product lines with dGPUs is minuscule compared to their Products with PowerVR.

        And, anything they buy from Nvidia can be at least partially seen at causing (potential) harm to their iPhone, iPad and iPod Touch lineups. AMDs OpenCL drivers being far better than Nvidia’s and Apple pushing OpenCL hard probably doesn’t hurt either.

    • TruthSerum
    • 4 years ago

    ” …along with strong desktop processor and GPU sales, accounted for the 13% sequential increase. However, decreased sales in the Computing and Graphics segment of the company’s business caused the…”

    Desktop and GPU sales strong… decreased sales in Computing and Graphics?

    40% confusing.

      • chuckula
      • 4 years ago

      It’s because Lisa Su is being misleading while not lying in a strict technical sense.

      Q3 of 2015 vs. Q2 of 2015: There was some revenue growth.

      But anybody who knows anything about the chip business knows that it’s seasonal and Q3 is *supposed* to be stronger. It’s like saying that Q4 each year shows a great increase in the singing of Christmas carols compared to Q3 of each year… not useful.

      The *real* number that matters was Q3 of 2015 vs. Q3 of 2014 where AMD’s revenue is off by almost 40%. That is very, very bad.

      From my other post:
      I have ongoing and deep issues with Lisa Su’s honesty that are only reinforced by this farcical statement that anybody who truly understands the chip business would never make with a straight face:
      “AMD delivered double-digit percentage sequential revenue growth in both of our segments in the third quarter,” said Dr. Lisa Su, AMD president and CEO.

      I understand she needs to be upbeat, but there’s a difference between being upbeat and being intentionally misleading. AMD has already been sued once for lying during one of these earnings calls.

      [url<]http://www.marketwatch.com/story/amd-reports-2015-third-quarter-results-2015-10-15[/url<]

        • TruthSerum
        • 4 years ago

        She’s being specific in how she polishes this one. It’s tactical.

        “Clean air act” comes to mind.

          • chuckula
          • 4 years ago

          Her “specific” statements were enough to have you confused until I explained what all the numbers really meant.

          That’s not a good place for an officer of a company who can be held accountable for her statements in court to be.

            • TruthSerum
            • 4 years ago

            I wasn’t confused I just said the way it was worded was confusing 40% ;D

            Specifically because CPUs = computing and GPUs = graphics, at least in my language!
            But you can’t read a financial statement by the text alone. Certainly not by a CEO’s quote.

            They got sued for specifically downplaying the write-downs they’re still making now.

            “The lawsuit alleges that AMD execs “deceptively dismissed” the notion that the company’s future gross margins would be “adversely affected by the large amount of unsold Llano inventory, when such inventory was unsalable, even at heavily discounted prices.”

            That’s more than just a misleading quotation, to be sure.

        • maxxcool
        • 4 years ago

        So, Chuckula… as someone (me) who thinks the stock market is a bunch S%^T, voodoo and microsecond market manipulations … how much revenue has AMD *really* lost since 2011 (last real profit year?) ?

        I took a look at the pdfs on the amd financials page buy ultimately think my math is terrible.

      • ET3D
      • 4 years ago

      If you deliberately leave out that the first is about the quarter and the second about the year, then yes, it’s confusing. However, that’s just you deliberately trying to confuse what was very clear in the report.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This