AMD reports small loss despite record $1.65 billion revenue

By Jos
Jul 16, 2010
Post New Reply
  1. AMD's profitable streak came to an end after two quarters with a relatively small net loss during Q2 of fiscal 2010. Despite reporting record revenue of $1.65 billion, up a massive 40% from $1.18 billion a year earlier, the chip designer saw a net loss of $43 million or $.06 per share. Results were still better than expected, according to industry analysts, and excluding a $120 million equity loss related to its manufacturing spinoff GlobalFoundries, AMD actually saw a profit on a non-GAAP basis of $83 million.

    Read the whole story
  2. "company expects to launch their second generation DX11 parts before the end of the year", what does than means?.
  3. Jos

    Jos TechSpot Staff Topic Starter Posts: 1,976   +52 Staff Member

    The follow-up to the Radeon HD 5000 series (which were the company's first DirectX 11 cards).
  4. PaulWuzHere

    PaulWuzHere TechSpot Maniac Posts: 378

    OoOoOo. AMD show us what you can do. I'm very exited to see the fusion chips and if these next gen DX11 cards are as amazing as the 5000 were... we are in for a treat.
  5. PanicX

    PanicX TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 829

    It's nice to see AMD not floundering about, but I'd prefer to see them make Intel sweat again. Intel processors have completely stagnated since the i7 was introduced and their chips made a year ago still cost the same.
  6. teklord

    teklord TechSpot Maniac Posts: 523

    Posting record sales and still having a loss in the books for the quarter smacks of poor business practices to me. Sounds like AMD has taken cues from the government as to how to manage a budget. Hope they don't change their business model of superior price/performance ratio as that is where they really have Intel by the balls.
  7. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,847   +64

    Hey Tek,
    remember this is the paper they are showing. They have ATI,Global Foundries, and reorganization that they are dealing with. Given the situation as it is, I would bet they are running a lean and mean ship at this point to have made it through and gain market share since 2008.
  8. teklord

    teklord TechSpot Maniac Posts: 523

    That should be factored in their business practices. ATI is probably a very big reason for that gain with the success of the HD 5xxx series over nVidia latest series. Like they said in my college accounting class, the debit column has to balance with the credit column, it's that simple.

    I don't want AMD to go anywhere though, believe me. I am still waiting for their 95W Phenom II X4 955 that is compatible with this mobo I have. With no competition from AMD, Intel could raise prices on their CPU's as well.
  9. I dont get it, it is the follow up to the 5000 series, so the 6000 series or a 5890 gpu? (Sorry for the english).
  10. mailpup

    mailpup TS Special Forces Posts: 8,280   +180

    Well, a 5890 would still be part of the 5000 series so you can presume the follow up series would be a 6000 or some other number series. Probably 6000 though.
  11. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586

    @teklord
    Agreed. The ATI division at the moment is AMD's life preserver. I would have expected a better result since the mainstream (volume sales) GPU market has seen them completely dominate the marketplace for two quarters. Obviously they need to work on their HPC and OEM contracts (nvidia strongholds), since I doubt that AMD will see such growth and marketshare again if GF104 is any indication.
    Good to see AMD spending more on R&D...but a little a little worrying that mention of Bulldozer seems conspicuously absent from the transcript of the conference call.
    Intel's just announced record profit, helped by server processors seems to be confirmed by the slow-out-of-the-gate Magny Cours Opteron server CPU uptake also.

    @Guest (post #8)
    Next next iteration of AMD graphics will be the HD 6000 series. The 5890 would have been reserved for a tweaked 5870 (raised core/shader/memory clocks)...but since it hasn't been released by now, then the likelihood is that the current lineup will stand until the HD 6000 series launches
  12. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,847   +64

    you missed my point. I followed the AMD (decent) until the low in 08, and the change of leadership, restructure etc. they were in a big hole. I was surmising that in order to still be here, they have to be running a tight ship. of course they cant run in the red for long, but they also have to invest and reorganize. it may be a while before they are consistently profitable. You may not be able to glean much from this report. Purchasing ATI was also part of the plan, and lots of supposed 'really smart folk' were saying they would be a memory by now. They have managed to stay competitive on the lower mid end of things, however they have taken the k-10 as far as they can. with 'Bulldozer' seemingly disappearing from the radar has indicated that there is a serious problem. They need a new architecture to become competitive as well as work on their HPC and OEM contracts as DBZ said. They may have no option because of that investment but to have a few more reports like this. weather it works or not nobody knows, but you cant tell if their current business practices are being taken from the government budget plan from this.
  13. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586

    Indeed.
    From my reading of the results and conference call, it would seem that the CPU and GPU divisions made a profit. If it were not for the $120m accrued by GloFo and debt servicing the overall picture doesn't look too bad.
    AMD's main weakness (as I see it) is that they don't know squat about marketing and are carrying a large debt burden, whereas Intel and nvidia are debt free and are very successful in getting their products front-and-centre.
    The ATI acquisition at the time (from my recollection) was that the buy was too big and AMD paid too much. Probably correct at the time and still valid to a point now, but as you say, without ATI I think AMD would have had been either broken up or heavily restructured away from it's present form- neither of which would be preferable to what they have now, either from a corporate or consumer viewpoint.
    What remains to be seen is if this prioritization towards Ontario and the mobile sector is a corporate strategy to go head-to-head with Intel, or whether it has been forced upon them by delays in Llano and Bulldozer- I notice Dirk Meyer said that Bulldozer was still on track for H2 2011, a timeframe that seems to have slipped a quarter or two. Bulldozer late, maybe not a huge deal, but Llano (The Future is Fusion!) slipping could have some interesting consequences, since that is the mainstream (volume) sector and likely to be the big revenue earner.
     
  14. Accounting profit means very little in business, most companies try to make it look the they have made a loss because they don't want to pay the taxes (unless they are trying to mislead investors... ie not writing off bad debts). Look at the cash flow statement... it's not as easily manipulated by management, and truly represents the company's ability to continue. Accounting profits don't pay the bills, CASH does.
  15. "It's nice to see AMD not floundering about, but I'd prefer to see them make Intel sweat again. Intel processors have completely stagnated since the i7 was introduced and their chips made a year ago still cost the same."
    Agreed they're floundering less and their graphics department is kickass, but their staggering inability to compete on the CPU front is hurting the market. Intel are resting on their laurels now as AMD still can't beat the near 2 year old X58 i7 line up and thats just embarrasing. Bulldozer (after numerous delays already) is going to be another 12 months and will in all probability barely beat out Intel's (by then) near 3 old X58 platform.
    I think all the AMD fanboi's just have to accept that AMD will never beat Intel again, they may compete on prive/performance but the company has made too many bad decisions, bleed too many funds and botched too many launches, they are condemmed to being the Pepsi to Intel's Coke.
  16. teklord

    teklord TechSpot Maniac Posts: 523

    It is safe to assume they are running a competent ship but not necessarily a tight one, as evidenced by their still being in operation. Of course, their definition of a profitable quarter may not be yours and my definition of a profitable quarter either. Similar to how the government defines budget cuts as not having increased spending from last year by a measurable amount as opposed to actually decreasing spending.

    They are pwning in price/performance ratio. For example, the Q9650 is outperformed by the Phenom II X4 965, at about half the price. There is still a lot of fight in them, even if the fiscal records are in the red. I know they are fully aware of Intel's innovation in CPU technology. We may see AMD pull a rabbit out of the hat one day.

    Intel isn't pushing the i7 line forward, aside from the heptacore that came out recently because the i7 line is already a significant step forward from anything AMD is doing. An i7 is more than enough power for the individual user at this time, so Intel is resting on their laurels somewhat until further notice. AMD hasn't produced anything powerful enough to compete directly with the i7 line, so Intel is free to set prices at their discretion. If it wasn't for no 2 AMD, we would all be paying higher prices for CPUs from the monopoly that would be Intel.
  17. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586


    heptacore = 7....one core to rule them (other six) all?
    /apologies to Peter Jackson
    //I know, it's pedantic.

    Hardly, I would have thought...
    1. New instruction sets
    ii. A proven high yield and very successful transition at 32nm (as was 45nm)...something AMD and Global Foundries are far from certain in attaining at the first time of asking.
    C. A roadmap in place for both 22nm and 16nm
    ยง. A history of execution on time - least with CPU's.

    The only area's Intel seem to be in need of further motivation would probably be a competitor in the ARM RISC category and an Ontario/Llano ULV competitor, although Atom + nvidia ION2 would seem to be the instant fix for the latter, a few hatchets probably need to buried for that one to come to fruition.
    Ladies and gentlemen, introducing Dirk Meyerrrrrrrrrrr.
    So if i7 is stagnating...what precisely is K10 ?, bearing in mind that AMD's next line of CPU's (or APU's) are still based on the same arch.
    Probably only if you live in Turkmenistan. The most notable reductions are probably this and this. But most people who buy system components would be aware that prices fall in CPU's (as with other hardware) as inventory builds and the initial buying spree of "new toys" abates.
  18. teklord

    teklord TechSpot Maniac Posts: 523

    I meant hexacore

    I know Intel is coming out with new and improved CPU chips, I read about them all the time, including this site. I was refering to the interim that is now between the major innovations.
  19. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586

    Ahhhh, I see...but wouldn't too much innovation would most likely result in a deluge of socket changes? I see some people are rather sensitive to that.
    Intel actually publish their specification updates (steppings) -fine tuning and error reduction for their CPU's.
    An example here for Core i7 9xx (small pdf)
  20. teklord

    teklord TechSpot Maniac Posts: 523

    When I'm refering to CPU innovations, it can be things like die shrinks, frequency increases, additional cores being added, etc.
  21. red1776

    red1776 Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe Posts: 5,847   +64

    I really don't understand the kvetching about Intel socket changes. take 775 (2004) for example. It runs from pentuim 4 - core 2 Quad,(and the Xeon) pretty nice range I'd say. if AMD hadn't been milking the k-10 for 3 gens, and "innovated more" we would have the AM2,AM3,AM4 and AM5 in rapid succession. An occasional socket change can, and should be expected for innovation I think. It actually struck me odd while ordering my new components the other day that I could have anything from a Athlon 64 to a Phenom II x6 in my current board, something performance wise has to give with all that compatibility ( where is triple channel???) I would actually be excited to see a new socket from AMD.
    and there has been what? 3 sockets for desktops from intel since 2004?
  22. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586

    No triple channel for you. From my understanding Bulldozer is still dual-channel...DDR3-1866 though. How much influence memory bandwidth and density plays in real world system performance should be answered once 6-8 core CPU's regularly appear in the desktop arena and CPU's start taxing the available bandwidth on offer.
    An 8 core Bulldozer using dual-channel DDR3-1866+ vs an 8 core Sandy Bridge B2 using quad-channel DDR3-1600+ could be an interesting comparison.
  23. @dividebyzero
    "No triple channel for you. From my understanding Bulldozer is still dual-channel...DDR3-1866 though."

    How would that compare with say tri channel DDR3-1333? Im a bit of a noob when it comes to memory bandwith.

    "How much influence memory bandwidth and density plays in real world system performance should be answered once 6-8 core CPU's regularly appear in the desktop arena and CPU's start taxing the available bandwidth on offer."

    I remember seeing a review lately (can't remember exactly where) which indicated that the phenom 2 X4's (let alone the X6's) have already tapped the available bandwith with dual channel DDR3-1333. If that is correct wouldn't a 6-8 core bulldozer need a little more than dual channel even if it is 1866? Perhaps only the "zambezi" quads etc use the dual channel DDR3 and AM3 platform (as a kind of thankyou to the people who bought AM3 boards, like the Phenom 2 940 was a thanks for people on AM2-AM2+) and subsequent releases would be on the AM3+ platform sporting tri or quad channel.
  24. PanicX

    PanicX TechSpot Ambassador Posts: 829

    I think you've trolled me with this statement.
    In what way does AMD's anything got to do with lack of advancement on the i7 platform? Maybe you misunderstood what I was saying. Basically, in the desktop market, Intel is a powerhouse that AMD isn't close to threatening. Because there is no pressure from AMD (or IBM or anyone), Intel has stopped competing and is milking the market. Hense, development of the i7 or X58 platform has "stagnated", ceased to change, failed to improve. At least to the degree at which things moved when AMD was a threat.


    In August 2009, I purchased an i7 920 for $270 US from Newegg (cheapest at the time). Today that same processor now runs for... $295 US on Newegg.
    And last time I checked Newegg isn't in Turkheadupass.
  25. dividebyzero

    dividebyzero trainee n00b Posts: 4,700   +586

    Really? .....Seems that the thread regards AMD's Q2 financial statement, your post was the first to mention Intel and invite comparison.
    Ummm...maybe this... "It's nice to see AMD not floundering about, but I'd prefer to see them make Intel sweat again"
    No speaking engagements at the AMD Appreciation Society in your future then...
    So ...the future isn't fusion ?
    I think you'll find that IBM market workstation systems using both Intel and AMD components, and Power7 isn't likely to find it's way into a desktop anytime soon...so you're better off just using the AMD v Intel analogy, however much you wanted to avoid it.
    Answer me this...How would YOU have Intel improve the the X58 platform? -this isn't a rhetorical question. Would you say for instance...
    Develop a short-lived ICH11R I/O controller to support native USB3 and SATA 6G ? (which in turn would require Intel to validate every USB3 device as compatible with it's I/O hub)
    Native support past DDR3-1066, even though mainboard manufacturers already support DDR3-1600/1866/2000/2133 ?
    So, in one corner we have a segment of users that want increased feature-sets, and in the opposite corner a vocal group of consumers having trouble coming to grips with multiple socket options and ever growing feature sets that go mostly untapped by the vast majority of users.
    The last time AMD was a creditable threat to Intel, the latter was fielding the Pentium 4 as it's desktop CPU.
    MSRP for the Core i7 920 (SKU BX80601920) at launch was $US284 Since the 920 is effectively EOL after being superceded by the (cheaper) 930 at the same pricing point, hardly surprising that stock is both low (and hence overpriced) at newegg. You'll find no end of cheaper prices for the same SKU at $250 and $250 for example. While Intel are far from being a philanthrophic organisation, cherry picking numbers (one of which is unsubstantiated) to suit an argument that can be easily rebutted probably doesn't advance your cause.
    A little disappointing to see a senior member (an "Ambassador" no less) of an international forum exhibit such xenophobic prejudice.

    And just a parting thought -tho I still await your input regarding improving the X58 platform, hopefully sans your geographical "humour"
    Intel's foundry/CPU process is by a large margin more efficient than AMD's. Intel, if they wanted to could quite easily price AMD into bankruptcy, but of course it is required that Intel cannot have a monopoly in the market, so AMD stay in the game. Entering a price war with AMD would gain Intel nothing since it has to have competition in the marketplace, and would result in either AMD receiving financial assistance/bailout/loan restructuring, sold off to another buyer who would likely invest further funds, or broken up (AMD server, desktop, ATI, GloFo stake, IP) and sold off to other entities....unknown entities, as opposed to the nice-guys-who-play-fair-but-don't-know-how-to-market that presently run it.

    Why try for the whole nine yards when pounding it up the middle an inch at a time is more beneficial?


Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.