Ryzen can’t put AMD into the black for its fiscal Q1 2017

AMD reported its financial results for the first quarter of 2017 today. Despite an 18% year-over-year increase in revenue to $984 million, the company still reported an operating loss of $29 million. AMD further recorded a net loss of $73 million for the quarter.

  Q1 2017 Q1 2016 Change from Q1 2016
Revenue $984 million $832 million up 18%
Operating income -$29 million -$68 million
Net income -$73 million -$51 million

The Computing and Graphics division hauled in $593 million of that revenue after the launch of the Ryzen 7 and Ryzen 5 CPU lineups. That figure is up an impressive 29% year-over-year, and the company said it led to a better-than-expected sequential seasonal decline. Client-product average selling prices were up both year-on-year and sequentially, a change the company attributes to higher desktop processor ASPs. Still, the division lost $15 million, although that figure is down from $70 million a year ago.

The Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom business took in $391 million in revenue, up 5% year-over-year, and delivered $9 million in operating income, down 44% from a year ago. The company said the decline in profits was related to higher R&D spending for server products, though it was offset by payments from the company's joint venture with THATIC for IP licensing.

AMD's cash on hand declined to $943 million at the end of the quarter, compared to $1.26 billion on hand at the end of last quarter. The company attributed this decline to inventory increases ahead of "new product ramps and semi-custom SoC sales." The company also says cash on hand declined due to debt interest payments.

For the second quarter of its fiscal 2017, AMD expects revenue to increase 17% sequentially, or to about $1.15 billion, plus or minus 3%. If the company hits the midpoint of that projection, it would enjoy a year-over-year revenue increase of 12% for Q2. For its full fiscal 2017, AMD expects to increase revenue by a "low double digit percentage" year-on-year and to achieve "non-GAAP net income." The company claims its Naples server CPUs will launch next quarter, and it says its Vega GPUs are still on track to launch during that timeframe, as well.

Comments closed
    • TwoEars
    • 3 years ago

    AMD is kind of between a rock and a hard place. Intel has the upper hand on the CPU side, Nvidia has the upper hand on the GPU side. AMD is trying to fight both at the same time but doesn’t have the resources of either to do it with.

    Nvidia knew Vega was coming, so they launched the 1080 ti, lowered the price of the 1070 and 1080 and are now re-vamping the 1080 with better memory as well. Will Vega still be competitive/profitable. I think it’s going to be a close call. And then there are rumors of nvidia Volta in early 2018 as well, not good for AMD.

    Meanwhile intel is still the performance king in most real world scenarios with the i5 and i7, and the prices for those two aren’t bad these days. You really need to be doing pretty special stuff to really KNOW that you’ll be using all of Ryzens cores. I think maybe only 1-3% of the total market will really KNOW that they will be running heavily multi-threaded application and that Ryzen is better for them. If you don’t know what you’re going to be doing single-threaded performance is typically the best bet and that’s the i5 and i7.

    I’d really like for AMD to do well, and they have been trying, but right now it’s still not enough. As it is all they’ve done is forced intel and nvidia to become more competitive. Which is admirable but it’s not going to help AMD’s bottom line.

    • WaltC
    • 3 years ago

    Yawn, Ryzen will put them into the black next quarter…;) People always like making mountains out of molehills…for some reason.

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Stop buying Intel!! From now on, let’s ALL buy ONLY AMD!!! 😀

      • Redocbew
      • 3 years ago

      I upvote you for this, because I know this is what you’ve really wanted to say all along.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 3 years ago

      But then won’t AMD be the monopolizing behemoth? You can’t continue to be the plucky underdog *and* achieve world domination…

        • BurntMyBacon
        • 3 years ago

        That’s OK. It would take at least a decade of AMD selling chips as fast as they could make them before they could reach monopolizing behemoth status.

    • swaaye
    • 3 years ago

    Maybe once they get an APU out and can get into notebooks. But of course they’ve been there before.

    For that matter, get discrete Radeons selling in notebooks too. NV totally dominates. It’s essentially been that way since ATI lost their grip on the notebook market back in the GF 6800 / X800 era.

    • w76
    • 3 years ago

    AMD can’t keep bleeding money and still get a proper hearing from the corporate market. Any CTO/CIO/COO can look at them as a vendor and rightfully think, how can AMD provide after-purchase support if they go out of business? They need to print money in Q2 and Q3 or, IMO, it’s a slow walk in to the night, waiting for the day to come when the bond matures that finally exhausts their capacity to repay.

      • maxxcool
      • 3 years ago

      Funny when I say that i get down votes from the fanbois… but that is EXACTLY the issue along with dot-0 release firmware and silicon issues.

      • the
      • 3 years ago

      The problem for AMD is that they’re a player in a market that is shrink. AMD has been able to cut spending but by the time their changes are place, the market has shrunk even further resulting in a cycle where AMD is perpetually playing catch up. AMD has for the past coupe of years would have been OK had the market not remained at its previous level. With Ryzen, AMD has a case to actually catch up. The question now is how will they fair in the next couple of quarters.

        • ptsant
        • 3 years ago

        How is the market for CPUs shrinking? You mean relative to the expansion of iPhones and iPads some time ago? You do realize that all this “cloud” stuff that powers 99% of what iPhones and iPads do is actually in a server running an x86 chip? Both major consoles are also running x86 (AMD) chips.

        I agree that there is no PC buying spree, like in the 90s, but this is far from a dying market.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          Well, AMD has been a player in a shrinking [i<]desktop[/i<] market.

          • the
          • 3 years ago

          The CPU market is tied to the PC market and that [url=http://www.businessinsider.com/pc-market-shrinking-five-years-straight-good-news-for-dell-hp-2017-1<]has been shrinking for 5 years straight.[/url<] Even the server market isn't [url=https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS41969816<]doing that great either.[/url<] The server market in 2016 wasn't that exciting though so it could recover later this year as a slew of new platforms are due. In the context of AMD, it is really just the PC market right now. They effectively left the server market after Pile Driver. Naples is their return effort which hasn't begun shipping.

            • jts888
            • 3 years ago

            Long term sustained/growing sales in a product category are driven primarily* by incremental improvements over prior offerings, and for a variety of mostly agreed upon reasons, desktop and server CPUs have been pretty stagnant in integer perf/$ for several years.

            AMD and Intel can grow volume in the server sector simply by offering more integer IPS per socket at equivalent or lower prices, just by bringing more categories of computational work across the line of profitability for customers.

            Growing desktop sales is trickier and dependent on new multi-threaded software providing new and meaningful functionality to users, but at least gaming usually seems to find a way to gobble up processor cycles and push demand.

            *barring Jevons Paradox style externalities

      • alphadogg
      • 3 years ago

      However, AMD has been in business as long as Intel, since the late 70s. I doubt they go out of business next Q. Possible, but unlikely.

    • dikowexeyu
    • 3 years ago

    This is how you evade taxes like a champ.

      • ronch
      • 3 years ago

      Wat

        • tipoo
        • 3 years ago

        [url<]https://imgflip.com/i/1oc8gi[/url<]

      • BIF
      • 3 years ago

      I got your humor. Funny.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    These reports are always so silly. I have a hard time believing that AMD is losing that much money for as long as they have been. They’ve got some creative accounting going on over there.

    • just brew it!
    • 3 years ago

    “Hooray, we lost less money this quarter!”

    Hopefully they can continue the trend and actually make a profit next quarter.

    • yeeeeman
    • 3 years ago

    They should start diversifying their offers. They really don’t know how to make the most out of a product. Just look at what Intel is doing with their CPUs. They push them in all sorts of formats, tablets, all-in-ones, laptops, ultrabooks, desktops, set-top boxes, industrial and commercial applications, medical, ATMs. Everything springs to mind has an Intel CPU inside. So, in the end, that is why Intel manages to do so much more.
    They should focus on releasing that Ryzen APU as fast as possible. Also, the 32 core server part should be outed as soon as possible. Even the graphics division which executed like clock work in the 4000-7000 generations, now it is stalling and working like a novice student. Vega has been hyped, announced and praised for months now, but still no sight of it. Meanwhile nvidia is pushing Pascal cards to consumers like there’s no tomorrow. Everything from desktops/laptops/AI is nvidia GPU. And lets not forget that nvidia relies on TSMC as AMD does. So, in the end, the only blame is on them because they execute very slowly.

      • jihadjoe
      • 3 years ago

      Aside from desktop all those other form factors emphasize strongly on efficiency, which hasn’t been AMD’s strong point until now. On the GPU front they’re still actually behind Nvidia on that, which is why it’s rare to see an AMD GPU on mobile form factors.

      Since Ryzen is now quite power efficient, I think a good bet for them would be a Ryzen APU with minimal GPU resources, so system builders can pair it with a stand alone Pascal GPU.

      • maxxcool
      • 3 years ago

      no, no way. not yet. they should focus on testing the chip further as they are. you don’t push a chip to partners and then tell them ”opps you need a custom power profile’ or ”oops, we have ram issues because mobo vendors are being dorks”..

      AMD is acutely aware that partners and vendors don’t spend a lot of time tuning for less than 15% of the TOTAL market share. so for right now, despite irking their enthusiast buyers, we ARE the BEST people to sell the initial batches of cpus too, and find the issues BEFORE going all out.

      • BurntMyBacon
      • 3 years ago

      [quote=”yeeeeman”<]And lets not forget that nvidia relies on TSMC as AMD does.[/quote<] Yes, nVidia uses TSMC. AMD, however stopped using TSMC for Polaris. While I can't find a 100% certain foundry source for Vega, there are many mentions of 14nm, suggesting it will be either Global Foundries or Samsung. Some blame the frequency and efficiency deficit of Polaris (vs Pascal) on the Global Foundries process being inferior to TSMC. While there isn't enough evidence to conclude this and AMD could not have know this ahead of time anyways, one could certainly suggest the switch from TSMC to Global Foundries contributed to the delays. AMD is using a new process, switching from a half node to a full node, built with new methods targeting different performance goals with a significantly new set of intrinsic silicon characteristics. They have to work with new business contacts working to a different and new to AMD schedule with different expectations of support and differing definitions of success. Only a few of these traits would be true if they had used TSMC, so delays are unfortunate, but unsurprising. Apparently AMD either didn't expect the amount of delay they got, or they thought they had more to lose from Global Foundry contract payments than they could make up with video card sales over the delay period.

      • cynan
      • 3 years ago

      They don’t have the resources to support Intel-like diversification. Considering where they’ve coming from over the past few years, they’re currently on the right track. Status quo with the GPU side of the business. Test new Zen architecture in stand-alone enthusiast retail parts (Ryzen). Then get this out in server format (Naples). Finally, release a compelling APU – the one thing that Intel and Nvidia can’t quite compete with them on. This is already spreading themselves thin.

    • blastdoor
    • 3 years ago

    The market addressed by AMD so far with Ryzen is not big. If it were, intel wouldn’t have 60% margins.

    I’m guessing the last quarter of this year is when we might start to see ryzen affecting earnings in a more noticeable way.

    • Leader952
    • 3 years ago

    AMD is stating that margins are going down next quarter even as they release Vega and then Naples into the corporate market. That is a big red flag and the reason that the stock price is down 11% after hours.

    [quote<]AMD said it expected adjusted gross margins to be about 33 percent in the current quarter, compared with 34 percent in the first quarter. "Semiconductor companies, and, particularly, one that's trying to turn around and become profitable, trades on gross margin and I think there's concern," Stifel analyst Kevin Cassidy said. "I think that's the hang up - that these new products should be ramping production and they're not as profitable as the Street was expecting." [url<]https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chipmaker-amds-quarterly-loss-narrows-202149956.html[/url<] [/quote<]

      • synthtel2
      • 3 years ago

      That sounds a bit like Vega, doesn’t it? As jts888 pointed out elsewhere in this comment section, CPUs have pretty massive marginal profit compared to GPUs, and AMD’s situation right now has them selling a lot more of the former (at particularly high margins, since the 8C chips were the first out the door) just as their sales of the latter are particularly low. Prep for strong predicted sales of Vega seems like it might pull that number back down a bit.

      (Disclaimer: I don’t know much about the details of how this is all calculated, and I did no research beyond reading your post. AMD’s gross margins for 2016Q4 seem particularly relevant, but I don’t know precisely where to find that and am feeling lazy.)

      • Bumper
      • 3 years ago

      ramp of semi custom sales. also one reason why cash Is low and inventory high. year on year margins will still be higher q2.

      • Amiga500+
      • 3 years ago

      They have releasing the mid range of the Ryzen lineup in Q2. Therefore you’d expect reduced ASPs for these products relative to Ryzen7 in Q1. The die is the same, so same manufacturing costs, and thus reduced gross margin.

      Doesn’t take too much brains – no surprise then that its beyond the fkwits on wall street!

      I’d be worried if AMD’s reports in Q4 (on Q3) return similar gross margin figures. I’d be very worried if this continued into 2017Q4 (which would be published in the 2018Q1 reports).

    • ronch
    • 3 years ago

    Those cheap Ryzen prices and presumably huge Summit Ridge dies probably don’t help AMD’s bottomline. They really need Naples to claw back server market share, and fast.

      • jts888
      • 3 years ago

      A Zeppelin die is somewhere in the range of 200-205 mm^2, smaller than a Polaris 10 (~230 mm^2) that sells for $200 on a PCB including among other things a heatsink, fan, VRMs, and several tens of dollars of GDDR5 chips.

      Assuming comparable fab yields and already sunk R&D costs, even the horribly cut 4c R5 1400 should be a more profitable part to manufacture and sell.

        • guardianl
        • 3 years ago

        This comparison with Polaris 10 is excellent. Some people haven’t fully appreciated yet that AMD is utilizing a comparably small die (~200 mm2) to Broadwell-E 10C (246 mm2), yet the performance to Intel is very competitive.

        AMD shipped Ryzen for revenue for less than half the quarter and it impacted their computing revenue by 29%. Overall AMD may very well double their revenue, gross margin etc. over the next 12 months…

          • Klimax
          • 3 years ago

          All those missing 256-bit units and half of memory controllers do make it smaller. And of course “abuse” of high clocks against conservative clocking by Intel

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            I’ve been wondering if the more sparse hardware choices made by AMD were actually superior choices for much of the market.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          Broadwell-E is a 10 core die that Intel sells for plenty of profits. On a core-for-core basis despite all the hype about how tiny Zeppelin is, it’s about the same size as Broadwell-E (while having half the memory channels and fewer PCIe lanes).

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            The fact that anyone needs to stoop so low while defending Intel as counting PCIe lanes or memory channels shows just how impressive AMD’s delivery has been.

            They delivered IPC, they delivered clock speeds, they delivered efficiency, they delivered on die size, they delivered on price, they delivered actual product. Holy crap.

            • chuckula
            • 3 years ago

            Yes, observe the AMD fanboy in action: Pointing out indisputable facts that are inconvenient to the narrative is now “stooping so low”.

            Fact: Zeppelin is an 8 core die that’s about 205 mm^2 (note that AMD couldn’t even be arsed to actually disclose that number at launch, BTW).

            Fact: A 10 core broadwell die is 246 mm^2 (Intel actually disclosed this number and plenty of people have measured the dies too).

            So is an 8 core AMD part a little smaller than a 10 core Intel part? Sure!
            Guess what: Intel makes money on its 10 core parts.
            AMD on its 8 core parts? Well, they’re working on it.

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            Eh? Financials? I have to take that as an admission from you that AMD pretty well has embarrassed Intel on the technical points. And I’m counting a tie as embarrassment for Intel, to be clear.

            • jts888
            • 3 years ago

            Zeppelin’s closest counterpart isn’t Broadwell-E, it’s 8-core Broadwell-DE. Only ~45% of Zeppelin is even cores/L3, with more than half the remainder not going to DDR4/PCIe IO but to various device controllers that are mostly unexposed on AM4.

            AMD’s strategy is clearly to design, validate, and manufacture a single jack-of-all-trades die and to tolerate less than absolutely maximized manufacturing margins by virtue of Intel’s arguably bloated margins. A 200 mm^2 CPU on a mature 14 nm node is nowhere near unprofitable as $250+ R7 1700s or Xeon-D SoC competitors, and probably not even in $150+ defect binned R5s either. ([b< ]Edit:[/b<] Broadwell-D starts at around $600 for 8c@2.0GHz, $800 for 12c@1.5GHz, and $1200 for 16c@1.3GHz)

            AMD doesn’t have a margin problem with Ryzen, they have a volume problem, which is at least theoretically easier to solve.

            • the
            • 3 years ago

            True but we have yet to see a Xeon D competitor from AMD. So far the only two parts are a desktop chip to fight Core i3/i5/i7 and an announced Xeon E5 competitor.

            • jts888
            • 3 years ago

            It seems like AMD wants to get the Naples and mostly likely HEDT platforms out the door before going after the SoC market.

            It could be anything from constrained engineering resources to needing more respins for ironing out peripheral controller problems to just not wanting to cloud the market with platforms all at once, but the release has got to be coming in the not-too-far future.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    So AMD’s biggest unit including its flagship CPUs and GPUs did $593 million in revenue.

    To put things in contrast, Intel’s IoT division did $721 million and the non-volatile memory division did $866 million in the same quarter. If either one of those divisions — which are regularly discounted as being useless on these boards — were to drop onto AMD either one would be the predominant business unit for the whole company. Plus, at 55% annual growth the non-volatile memory division at Intel is not only bigger but growing substantially faster than AMD’s post-RyZen annual growth rate at 29%.

      • tipoo
      • 3 years ago

      Yep. Several of Intels duds and hobby projects are bigger than AMD. Makes it pretty crazy that they can put out a remotely competitive uarch.

        • blastdoor
        • 3 years ago

        Conversely, it’s pretty crazy how awesome intels CPUs are in the parallel universe where they lifted a finger.

        One hint of how much better things are in that parallel universe is the decline in Intel’s die size over the last ten years.

        • maxxcool
        • 3 years ago

        I imagine their beer budget for the sales division is damn close as well..

        • the
        • 3 years ago

        Pretty much [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks%27s_law<]Brook's Law[/url<] but for hardware development. A small team of good engineers given plenty of resources can out do a larger team of average engineers.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 3 years ago

          Which begs the followup question: is Intel maintaining the best engineers? Perhaps the brightest minds get bored and move on.

            • the
            • 3 years ago

            The answer to that question is both yes and no. Apparently senior management management has been spend happy on acquisitions to get new talent into Intel while simultaneously cutting their ‘legacy’work force. I wonder how many of those incoming acquisitions this year and next will be start ups from former Intel engineers….

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 3 years ago

            Its a shame when an innovation engine stalls.

            • the
            • 3 years ago

            Intel will just buy a new one.

            They did acquire Soft Machines….

      • alphadogg
      • 3 years ago

      “Apples did $500mil, Oranges did $700mil. Yay! Oranges taste better!”

    • maxxcool
    • 3 years ago

    Once the Mobo makers get the ram issues sorted, and issue support for ECC the sales will exceed the 12% listed.

    Add to that more boards in stock, new BIOS performance tweaks, better support in windows10 and it’s gravy for them.

    No there not going to win the day and dethrone intel with 2x increase in share, but I expect really good gains.

    • synthtel2
    • 3 years ago

    Wasn’t Ryzen only on sale for a very small part of 2017Q1, during which mobo availability and quality hampered sales substantially? I think I’ll wait for Q2 results to make any judgement here.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      A full month of Q1 and AMD booked plenty of revenue based on both the R7 and the R5 launches.

      AMD doesn’t book revenue on the day you buy a chip at a store. They book it when the store makes the order for the chips, and there was plenty of that in Q1.

        • synthtel2
        • 3 years ago

        Good point, I forgot about that offset from release day.

        • Welch
        • 3 years ago

        True, but at the same time it still isn’t the same thing if they had chips out for Q1 and Q2 where retailers are buying multiple lots of these. Retailers ran out of some of these chips and obviously motherboards because there was a limited supply, as well as retailers don’t want to buy massive quantities until they see how well an item sells.

        I believe we will have a much better picture of Ryzen’s impact Q1 or 18′. It’s just a shame Vega and Naples are taking so long to get out the door. It would have been nice to see both of those released in the 1H of 17′ and matured leading up to Q1 of 18′.

        Also, we need to be seeing R7, R5 and especially some R3 wins in the OEM space. There is no way you take on Intel by only going through enthusiasts. OEM is bread and butter.

    • zzz
    • 3 years ago

    I don’t find this totally unexpected: they released a competitive CPU architecture for the first time in, well I forget the timeline. Regardless, it’s new and even while selling in volume it’s new. Low yields leading to high over-head. With Ryzen becoming more mature and the new stuff released soon maybe in a year AMD will start having balance sheets in the black, maybe. This is a long crawl: nothing AMD can produce will instantly bring them into the black on the balance sheet.

      • Klimax
      • 3 years ago

      As long as Intel declines price war.

        • chuckula
        • 3 years ago

        Now Witness the Pricing Power of this fully Amortized and Operational Fab facility.

          • Amiga500+
          • 3 years ago

          Don’t be too proud of this technological terror you have constructed. The ability to crunch AVX512 is insignificant compared to the power of the GPU.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            Sooo you need thousands to stream processors to conduct a price war at star killer levels?

            • Redocbew
            • 3 years ago

            Only if you wish to do so at Ludicrous Speed.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            Fast forward through this quarter. In fact, never look at this quarter again.

            • Concupiscence
            • 3 years ago

            Careful. If the competition heats up too fast, one of them could wind up [url=https://youtu.be/mk7VWcuVOf0?t=127<]going to plaid.[/url<]

      • Tristan
      • 3 years ago

      ‘Low yields’ – surely yield is big enough, some 90% if we count 6C and 4C variants

        • Leader952
        • 3 years ago

        No way is it 90% even for a mature process that is not obtainable. Also the reason that the 6C and 4C parts are the same die as the 8C parts is because of poor yields.

    • Tristan
    • 3 years ago

    ‘better-than-expected sequential seasonal decline’ – they have seasional decline every quarter. Intel had record revenues / profits.
    Ryzen is too weak to bring back AMD.

      • ImSpartacus
      • 3 years ago

      Good thing they have Vega, amirite?

      Early benchmarks look great!

    • whoistydurden
    • 3 years ago

    The Napples server parts should be a nice revenue boost. Is AMD still saying it will be ready this quarter?

      • Demetri
      • 3 years ago

      Press release says both Naples and Vega are on track for Q2 launch.

        • Anonymous Coward
        • 3 years ago

        I wonder to what extent customers will wait for Naples to be proven before they jump on board.

          • anubis44
          • 3 years ago

          Well, this is only anecdotal, but judging by the piles of reserved Asus Crosshair VI motherboards and Ryzen 7 chips I saw sitting behind the counter at several Canada Computers stores waiting for customer pickup (like dozens of each), I’d say nobody’s ‘waiting and seeing’ with Ryzen 7 right now. I even bought two Ryzen 7 1700s myself – one for my personal rig and one for my HTPC (the 65W TDP was just too tempting, and I’ve O/C’d the HTPC Ryzen using the stock Spire cooler to 3.65GHz so far while maintaining utter fan silence), my friend bought a Ryzen 7 1800x, and my other friend is about to upgrade his ancient AMD Phenom II 945 system to a Ryzen 5 1600. I don’t think AMD’s next earnings report will look this sombre. I think Lisa Su is simply being conservative so AMD can surprise on the upside with the next earnings reports.

          I had sold all my AMD shares above $13 late last week and waited for the fallout from this earnings report. With the price plunging down to stupidly low levels, I just bought back a 50% stake at ~$11.00.

            • K-L-Waster
            • 3 years ago

            The problem with this theory is that people building their own PCs is a drop in the bucket in terms of volume. To get return-to-profitability numbers they need to get into name brand laptops and servers — the kind consumers get from Best Buy and companies buy direct by the thousands.

      • rudimentary_lathe
      • 3 years ago

      AMD say this new CPU architecture was built for the server, so let’s see how it sells. It’s a huge addressable market, so even a slice would be a significant boost to their earnings. It looks like they’ll be cheaper and use less power than comparable Intel parts, but will the performance be good enough to make it the best option?

    • LostCat
    • 3 years ago

    Long term debt is still going down, so that is progress. Needs laptop presence for the new chips.

      • the
      • 3 years ago

      That won’t happen until Raven Ridge later in the year. Though it looks like AMD can be profitable before that launches.

    • chuckula
    • 3 years ago

    I was honestly expecting them to cleanly beat their own revenue forecasts. Nothing miraculaous but I figure the pent-up demand for the first new CPU line since 2011 would have been worth $100 million or so.

      • tacitust
      • 3 years ago

      I don’t see why. The big numbers will only start rolling in once the corporate sales (business sales and server farms) ramp up, and that was never going to happen right away.

      Only enthusiasts have pent up demand. For everyone else it’s “show me what you’ve got and we’ll plan accordingly next budget cycle.”

        • ImSpartacus
        • 3 years ago

        Are you saying that everyone else [url=https://youtu.be/m1fZ7Ap6ebs<]wants to see what you (AMD) got[/url<]?

    • derFunkenstein
    • 3 years ago

    AMD didn’t do itself any favors with platform shortages all throughout March.

      • DancinJack
      • 3 years ago

      Yeah, that was easily the worst part of the launch. I wager they would have made a bit more had all that been in line launch day.

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        I wonder if the bean counters weren’t pushing the buttons, though. Imagine what Q1 would have looked like if they’d shipped zero units as opposed to whatever they shipped for launch.

        Maybe I was wrong. Maybe they did do themselves a favor.

          • chuckula
          • 3 years ago

          Something is better than nothing.
          If the full supply chain had been working up to snuff then maybe it could have been better, but they clearly wanted Q1 revenue.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This