Overclock.net banner

[PCPer] AMD Q1 2012 Earnings Analysis: Looking Back and Looking Forward...

1K views 23 replies 14 participants last post by  mikezachlowe2004 
#1 ·
Quote:
AMD announced their Q1 2012 earnings last week, which turned out better than the previous numbers suggested. The bad news is that they posted a net loss of $590 million. That does sound pretty bad considering that their gross revenue was $1.59 billion, but there is more to the story than meets the eye. Of course, there are thoughts of "those spendthrift executives are burying AMD again", but this is not the case. The loss lays squarely on the GLOBALFOUNDRIES equity and wafer agreements that have totally been retooled.
Quote:
In non-GAAP terms, AMD actually pulled a $92 million profit for Q1. This shows us that AMD is moving in the right direction in terms of how they are running their company. The big loss was due to the money given to GF, as well as the liquidation of AMD's stake in that company. In GAAP terms, having a loss of $590 never looks good. But this does appear to be money well spent, and the investment will hopefully pay off in 2013 when AMD releases their 28 nm APUs
Quote:
Looking further ahead we see that AMD will slowly phase out their non-GPU enabled CPUs. AM3+ will get a refresh later this summer with a Vishera based unit that will share silicon with server based products. After that though, AMD will be moving towards APUs exclusively. We can assume that they will do the same for the server side and aggressively promote GPGPU and OpenCL applications for these server based APUs. One of AMD's goals with GCN is to more tightly knit the CPU and GPU together. This will help simplify development, and in moving towards the future with GCN and later graphics technologies, AMD is hoping to carve out a larger marketshare in not only the traditional notebook/desktop/server spaces, but also in the fast growing mobile space. Expect to see AMD start to push out lower TDP products for tablets and eventually units which can fit into handheld devices. The improved Bobcat architecture can theoretically move into those TDP spaces.
AMD Earnings Source

Hope these future gen APUs really work out for AMD and get us back to the very competitive microprocessor market.
 
#2 ·
GPU was always more or less competitive

CPU is a flop but APU can justify it's value by moving floating point operations onto GPU core. So you never know where the performance is going to end up.

and AMD now owns the console graphics market.

I think they are focusing on their strength now and moving towards areas where they can be competitive such low power and cloud (recent SeaMicro purchase).

If I had money, I'd buy some AMD shares. May be I can go do some exotic dancing...

oops I've said too much
 
#3 ·
I see a few holes here.

1) AMD wants to get into the mobile segment. Well to do that they kinda need to be moving on to more power efficient nodes. They won't be < 28 nm for years, so what's their plan? They say Bobcat tcan "theoretically" do this, but Intel would be in a much better position to accomplish this with a more advanced x86 achitecture. So if Intel can't do it then AMD sure can't.

2) They want to use APU's in server GPGPU markets. Great. But why wouldn't a server run a dedicated gpgpu solution at that point. Tesla, Knight's Corner, whatever. Did no one tell them the money makers aren't home brew server boxes running "compromise" APU's?
 
#5 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

I see a few holes here.
1) AMD wants to get into the mobile segment. Well to do that they kinda need to be moving on to more power efficient nodes. They won't be < 28 nm for years, so what's their plan? They say Bobcat tcan "theoretically" do this, but Intel would be in a much better position to accomplish this with a more advanced x86 achitecture. So if Intel can't do it then AMD sure can't.
2) They want to use APU's in server GPGPU markets. Great. But why wouldn't a server run a dedicated gpgpu solution at that point. Tesla, Knight's Corner, whatever. Did no one tell them the money makers aren't home brew server boxes running "compromise" APU's?
1) Possibly, but we're clearly seeing process node gains shrinking now. It's not even close to twice the performance/watt when moving towards a smaller node. We may also see an ARM + Radeon solution, windows 8 will support ARM and Linux has great ARM support now that Android has been out for a couple of years.

2) Latency matters. It may be faster to calculate a lot of simple tasks on a GPU, but if the latency between the GPU and CPU is longer than the time the CPU needs to process the same calculations, why bother? I'm no programmer though, so I don't know specifics.
 
#6 ·
This really seems to me like AMD Is trying for a face-saving way to exit the CPU market, because of how badly Bulldozer flopped as compared to expectations.

No, BD isn't horrible, but when it basically constitutes a side-grade from some higher-end Phenom IIs, and is heavily motherboard dependent (did anyone see the benches showing that a Gigabyte 990FX produces ~20% increases in some benches compared to Asus's Crosshair V?), and needs a patch to the OS scheduler for Win7 (this is reminiscent of people needing some kind of patch from MS to work Hyperthreading properly under Windows 2000).....

Well, it starts to remind me of the car that will only start if you wiggle the steering wheel, pump the gas once, jiggle the key just right in the ignitiion, and then it turns over.

Servers? Ha. Good luck.

Too many people now specify Intel only for their server systems because they hear about AMD flopping here, there and everywhere, but Intel continues to turn out high-speed, quality products that always work as advertised (which includes running very fast) - well, it's a no-brainer.

Opterons are good, but I never see them advertised anywhere.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arni90 View Post

1) Possibly, but we're clearly seeing process node gains shrinking now. It's not even close to twice the performance/watt when moving towards a smaller node. We may also see an ARM + Radeon solution, windows 8 will support ARM and Linux has great ARM support now that Android has been out for a couple of years.
2) Latency matters. It may be faster to calculate a lot of simple tasks on a GPU, but if the latency between the GPU and CPU is longer than the time the CPU needs to process the same calculations, why bother? I'm no programmer though, so I don't know specifics.
You sound like you know more than the other guy
wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

This really seems to me like AMD Is trying for a face-saving way to exit the CPU market, because of how badly Bulldozer flopped as compared to expectations.
No, BD isn't horrible, but when it basically constitutes a side-grade from some higher-end Phenom IIs, and is heavily motherboard dependent (did anyone see the benches showing that a Gigabyte 990FX produces ~20% increases in some benches compared to Asus's Crosshair V?), and needs a patch to the OS scheduler for Win7 (this is reminiscent of people needing some kind of patch from MS to work Hyperthreading properly under Windows 2000).....
Well, it starts to remind me of the car that will only start if you wiggle the steering wheel, pump the gas once, jiggle the key just right in the ignitiion, and then it turns over.
Servers? Ha. Good luck.
Too many people now specify Intel only for their server systems because they hear about AMD flopping here, there and everywhere, but Intel continues to turn out high-speed, quality products that always work as advertised (which includes running very fast) - well, it's a no-brainer.
Opterons are good, but I never see them advertised anywhere.
So moving to APU's signals leaving the CPU market. I guess Intel is leaving too right, since they have HD2000, HD3000, and HD4000 on most of their CPU's.

Also to many, IB is a side grade to SB. Depending on how you look at it.

Silly car story is silly.

The part about people only using Intels. If this were the case, why would anyone use AMD? With the budgets and needs these companies have, buying from a company they like rather than what makes sense for them, doesn't happen. With a comment like that I don't think you know much of anything about how IT departments and servers work. So I won't waste any more time.
I see Opterons advertised on lots of sites. Hm.. perhaps its just your luck. I personally don't see many Dell ads, yet my parents complain about how many Dell ads they see.

OT. AMD is on the right track. Can't wait to see the Earnings Analysis for the quarter after Trinity releases. Looking good AMD.
 
#8 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

So moving to APU's signals leaving the CPU market. I guess Intel is leaving too right, since they have HD2000, HD3000, and HD4000 on most of their CPU's.

Also to many, IB is a side grade to SB. Depending on how you look at it.

The part about people only using Intels. If this were the case, why would anyone use AMD? With the budgets and needs these companies have, buying from a company they like rather than what makes sense for them, doesn't happen. With a comment like that I don't think you know much of anything about how IT departments and servers work. So I won't waste any more time.
I see Opterons advertised on lots of sites. Hm.. perhaps its just your luck. I personally don't see many Dell ads, yet my parents complain about how many Dell ads they see.
-May be hard to believe, but not everyone is running SB. *gasp*. So the "side grade" comment isn't really relevant. IB is going to sell like a mofo, just like every other generation before it.

-I've yet to ever use a public computer that was AMD powered. All the libraries, universities, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, engineering firms I've interned at - every computer I've seen which is probably in the thousands - all Intel. AMD powered servers?
laugher.gif
. Last I saw Intel had 93% of that market all sewn up.

-Even if you remove the "we spent money trying to save money down the road", they still had crappy profit of 50 mil. That's nothing if you want to be a big player when Intel is standing next to you.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

I just don't understand how AMD has all three console makers under their belt and they still aren't making a cent?!
Because they blew over a billion dollars this quarter severing ties with GloFo and acquiring SeaMicro? Duh?

It's actually one of the better quarters they've had in the last few years.
 
#12 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homeles View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

I just don't understand how AMD has all three console makers under their belt and they still aren't making a cent?!
Because they blew over a billion dollars this quarter severing ties with GloFo and acquiring SeaMicro? Duh?

It's actually one of the better quarters they've had in the last few years.
It sounds like an excuse to me. "We wouldn't be failures if we didn't have to deal with GloFo". Yuh-hum, sure...I'll belie it when I see it.
Quote:
In non-GAAP terms, AMD actually pulled a $92 million profit for Q1.
And meanwhile Intel pulled in $2.7 billion this quarter. If we do Income / Revenue, Intel clocks in 20%. Using AMD's $90 million "if only" number, they'd still only manage 6% (meaning Intel runs a less expensive operation in relative terms). It's all marketing spin trying to not look like complete failures.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

-May be hard to believe, but not everyone is running SB. *gasp*. So the "side grade" comment isn't really relevant. IB is going to sell like a mofo, just like every other generation before it.
-I've yet to ever use a public computer that was AMD powered. All the libraries, universities, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, engineering firms I've interned at - every computer I've seen which is probably in the thousands - all Intel. AMD powered servers?
laugher.gif
. Last I saw Intel had 93% of that market all sewn up.
-Even if you remove the "we spent money trying to save money down the road", they still had crappy profit of 50 mil. That's nothing if you want to be a big player when Intel is standing next to you.
lol here goes nothing:
-May be hard to believe, but not everyone is running Phenom II. *Gasp* So BD is a good CPU as well right? oi...

-So because you haven't seen it, it doesn't exist. Since not a single company/person uses AMD, how is it they are a profitable company. I dunno. Must have magic I guess...

-Who cares about being like Intel. Theres one thing AMD is trying to do, make money. They are doing so and this move allows them to continue to do so in a more efficient manner. Your comment is pointless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Domino View Post

I just don't understand how AMD has all three console makers under their belt and they still aren't making a cent?!
Please read the article.
doh.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

It sounds like an excuse to me. "We wouldn't be failures if we didn't have to deal with GloFo". Yuh-hum, sure...I'll belie it when I see it.
Did you read the article?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

And meanwhile Intel pulled in $2.7 billion this quarter. If we do Income / Revenue, Intel clocks in 20%. Using AMD's $90 million "if only" number, they'd still only manage 6% (meaning Intel runs a less expensive operation in relative terms). It's all marketing spin trying to not look like complete failures.
Turning a profit is failure. I'll keep that in mind.
doh.gif
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbaltazar View Post

amd is thinking wrong again.they want to put their rotten apple (cpu)with their good apple (gpu) why ?at least force cpu to be the employe gees .same mistake will happen.havent amd learned from the past
You, omnipresent God of Knowledge, why don't you do economics and go manage a company? (PLEASE not AMD, I beg you!)

If you last more than a week, I'll give you a $2k salary for the rest of your life.
thumb.gif
 
#15 ·
If the APU is more powerful than my current setup and is fairly cheap, why not?
smile.gif
thumb.gif
 
#16 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

Turning a profit is failure. I'll keep that in mind.
doh.gif
Unlike vin Diesel's beliefs that "winning is winning", when it comes to profits there's many levels of winning. Doesn't really matter much here since AMD posted a loss and the rest about spending money to earn money is just speculation.
Quote:
-Who cares about being like Intel. Theres one thing AMD is trying to do, make money. They are doing so and this move allows them to continue to do so in a more efficient manner. Your comment is pointless.
Intel is doing everything right (as indicated by making fistfuls of money). AMD should be taking notes. That's "who cares".
Quote:
Since not a single company/person uses AMD, how is it they are a profitable company. I dunno. Must have magic I guess...
Haven't you heard? AMD has lost more money in the past 5 years than it has earned. No magic there.
 
#17 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

-I've yet to ever use a public computer that was AMD powered. All the libraries, universities, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools, engineering firms I've interned at - every computer I've seen which is probably in the thousands - all Intel. AMD powered servers?
laugher.gif
. Last I saw Intel had 93% of that market all sewn up.
I'm typing this on a school computer that uses and AMD processor
tongue.gif
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by dr/owned View Post

Unlike vin Diesel's beliefs that "winning is winning", when it comes to profits there's many levels of winning. Doesn't really matter much here since AMD posted a loss and the rest about spending money to earn money is just speculation.
Quote:
-Who cares about being like Intel. Theres one thing AMD is trying to do, make money. They are doing so and this move allows them to continue to do so in a more efficient manner. Your comment is pointless.
Intel is doing everything right (as indicated by making fistfuls of money). AMD should be taking notes. That's "who cares".
Quote:
Since not a single company/person uses AMD, how is it they are a profitable company. I dunno. Must have magic I guess...
Haven't you heard? AMD has lost more money in the past 5 years than it has earned. No magic there.
1st point. Speculation? Again, did you even read the article? Do you understand what they are saying? Apparently not.
doh.gif


Intel making money =/= AMD is bad. AMD is making inroads in the mainstream market, you know, where the money is at.

So as soon as a company loses money they have to call it quits right? Have you been following the market the past few years. AMD took a dip, now they are moving up, and at a good pace.

I'm done with you, you clearly have no clue about what you speak of, and I'm clearly wasting my time.

----

Keep up the good work AMD, things are looking good.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuell View Post

1st point. Speculation? Again, did you even read the article? Do you understand what they are saying? Apparently not.
doh.gif
You seem to not understand so I'll bold it for you AMD posted a net loss. It's only if they add back in the "one-time charge related to the 28-nanometer product, limited wafer of exclusivity from GLOBALFOUNDRIES" that they can eek out some black ink. That's just words. In terms of actual cash changing hands, they were not profitable. At this point they're just projecting/guessing/speculating that this will make them more profitable in the long run
Quote:
So as soon as a company loses money they have to call it quits right?
This isn't the first, second, third, or even fourth time AMD has lost money. As I said, they've lost more over the past 5 years in total than they've earned.
 
#21 ·
Guys, you're not going to convince each other because you have different outlooks, both of which have valid points.
Yes, AMD would have made a profit without the one time charge for GF. It's called an extraordinary cost. This cost is not expected to occur again, thus improving the outlook on the company. However, this cost WAS a direct result of a bad managerial decision. You can look at it both ways.

Back to original article - I think AMD is going in the right direction in exploring the APU market. Their big opportunity is to stumble upon a new methodology of executing CPU-related tasks. Their CPUs will be weaker than Intel's offerings, but they may discover a new way of going about computing tasks - although it may not necessarily be for PCs.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strat79 View Post

With our fairly strict TOS, I don't see how he hasn't been banned yet. 99% of his posts are unreadable. I do get a kick out of trying to translate them sometimes though. Mostly I just read past anymore though.
i ll dot the i.bulldozer isnt up to par.yes the apu is great ,the cpu part is a shrunk copy and pasted from older greater design.i ll ignore the gpu .since the issue is cpu.so was i wrong saying the cpu divison spent and spent and spent and what is ending up saving cpu side is a cpy and paste shrunked from another era?
 
#23 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by drbaltazar View Post

i ll dot the i.bulldozer isnt up to par.yes the apu is great ,the cpu part is a shrunk copy and pasted from older greater design.i ll ignore the gpu .since the issue is cpu.so was i wrong saying the cpu divison spent and spent and spent and what is ending up saving cpu side is a cpy and paste shrunked from another era?
mad.gif
 
#24 ·
For those of you who think AMD strategy is wrong and that they aren't making any money, it is obvious that you did not read the article and do no comprehend AMD plans. Stop being such fanboys and do some research. Stop repeating what you hear everyone else saying. It's time to grow up and take some initiative in finding your own answers.

Maybe if I put it on a chart maybe it will be a little easier to see:

334

This is just a summary of what they plan to do. You have to fully understand AMD Bulldozer and GCN architectures to understand why they are doing what they are doing. The architectures, especially BD, are designed to work together as a single APU processor. Learn why AMD made bulldozer the way they did and maybe you'll understand what they are doing.

AMD plans to fully integrate not only a CPU and GPU onto the same die but also integrate onto a single processor rather than two seperate like current gens. This is the whole concept behind their HSA plans and basically make the communication between CPU and GPU 100% efficient.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top