AMD reports highest quarterly revenue since 2005

Shawn Knight

TechSpot Staff
Staff member

Operating income for the quarter was $186 million versus $150 million a year ago and $59 million last quarter. Net income checked in at $120 million, up from $102 million in the year-ago quarter and $35 million in Q2 2019. Diluted earnings per share checked in at $0.11 compared to $0.09 last year and $0.03 last quarter.

AMD President and CEO Dr. Lisa Su said she is extremely pleased with their progress as they have the “strongest product portfolio in our history, significant customer momentum and a leadership product roadmap for 2020 and beyond.”

Su added that the first full quarter of 7nm Ryzen, Radeon and Epyc processor sales was largely responsible for the revenue hit. The company also turned in its highest quarterly gross margin since 2012 and a “significant increase in net income year-over-year.”

For the all-important holiday fourth quarter, AMD anticipates revenue of $2.1 billion. If it can hit that mark, it’d represent an increase of 48 percent year-over-year and 17 percent sequentially.

Intel, meanwhile, published its Q3 earnings report last week. Chipzilla posted revenue of $19.2 billion with earnings per share of $1.35 and raised its full-year outlook by $1.5 billion to $71 billion.

Permalink to story.

 

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
2005 was the last year AMD had a clear CPU lead over Intel. I remember the Athlon 64 FX series were top dog, then Core 2 arrived in 2006 and it really shocked AMD I think.

It annihilated everything they had. It really did take them over ten years to recover. That is how long it has taken them to regain that ground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: wiyosaya

Burty117

TechSpot Chancellor
I really want to get one of the new Ryzen CPU's for my new Home Mini-Server build, the extra cores and lower TDP are all very enticing, Just a shame I can't find a motherboard of any use for this scenario.

I have to go ITX and all Ryzen Motherboard's at this size are gaming orientated and have things like WiFi Built-in when really, I want two NIC's and IPMI and no Overclocking options.

Sadly, these don't exist.
 

Adi6293

TS Guru
2005 was the last year AMD had a clear CPU lead over Intel. I remember the Athlon 64 FX series were top dog, then Core 2 arrived in 2006 and it really shocked AMD I think.

It annihilated everything they had. It really did take them over ten years to recover. That is how long it has taken them to regain that ground.
You obviously forgetting why it took them that long to recover, I will give you a hint, there was a lot of bribery going on by Intel in the Athlon XP - Athlon 64 X2 days ;-)
 

Evernessince

地獄らしい人間動物園
I really want to get one of the new Ryzen CPU's for my new Home Mini-Server build, the extra cores and lower TDP are all very enticing, Just a shame I can't find a motherboard of any use for this scenario.

I have to go ITX and all Ryzen Motherboard's at this size are gaming orientated and have things like WiFi Built-in when really, I want two NIC's and IPMI and no Overclocking options.

Sadly, these don't exist.
Gamer's Nexus just did a video on this very subject with an AMD build:

They made a NAS with an AM4 motherboard with IMPI support and dual 10G lan.

It seems to me that Newegg doesn't carry a lot of the prosumer / professional oriented products, you have to go elsewhere to find AM4 motherboard that support these kinds of features.
 

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
You obviously forgetting why it took them that long to recover, I will give you a hint, there was a lot of bribery going on by Intel in the Athlon XP - Athlon 64 X2 days ;-)
I am well aware of Intel's illegal tactics during that period (up to 2007), but it probably wasn't the reason why AMD couldn't build a decent CPU architecture for 11 years after Core 2 arrived in 2006! 🤔 Operating on a smaller budget certainly didn't prevent their competitiveness before.

The ATi acquisition almost certainly weighed them down heavily for at least the first 5 years. Very high debt load, messy company structure and lack of focus.

Taking a long term viewpoint as the management did at that time, the ATi acquisition has finally paid off. The company is much more buoyant thanks to the ability to integrate advanced graphics processors on chips for it's customers.

ATi hurt AMD for the first 5 years or so, since that necessary pain it has been helping them survive ever since.
 

OptimumSlinky

TS Maniac
AMD has a very long way to go and I don't think they have enough time to get there.
Not really.
AMD is snatching up big server clients with its EPYC chips and Intel's inability to get a grip on architecture security vulnerabilities. Ryzen basically makes anything under the 9700K for exclusively gaming a waste of money. Threadripper utterly demolishes Intel's entire HEDT segment.
It will take longer for the market to catch up, but in terms of tech and profitability, AMD's doing just fine.
 

rub900

TS Addict
Not really.
AMD is snatching up big server clients with its EPYC chips and Intel's inability to get a grip on architecture security vulnerabilities. Ryzen basically makes anything under the 9700K for exclusively gaming a waste of money. Threadripper utterly demolishes Intel's entire HEDT segment.
It will take longer for the market to catch up, but in terms of tech and profitability, AMD's doing just fine.
I am glad you mentioned the security holes Intel has still. Intel fan boys will never admit Intel is being out done.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Not really.
AMD is snatching up big server clients with its EPYC chips and Intel's inability to get a grip on architecture security vulnerabilities. Ryzen basically makes anything under the 9700K for exclusively gaming a waste of money. Threadripper utterly demolishes Intel's entire HEDT segment.
It will take longer for the market to catch up, but in terms of tech and profitability, AMD's doing just fine.
Intel just announced 10nm desktop chips early 2020. Can fully meet demand. AMD had a good run, but Ryzen didn't do enough in time. More cores only get you so far.
 

wiyosaya

TS Evangelist
I am well aware of Intel's illegal tactics during that period (up to 2007), but it probably wasn't the reason why AMD couldn't build a decent CPU architecture for 11 years after Core 2 arrived in 2006! 🤔 Operating on a smaller budget certainly didn't prevent their competitiveness before.

The ATi acquisition almost certainly weighed them down heavily for at least the first 5 years. Very high debt load, messy company structure and lack of focus.

Taking a long term viewpoint as the management did at that time, the ATi acquisition has finally paid off. The company is much more buoyant thanks to the ability to integrate advanced graphics processors on chips for it's customers.

ATi hurt AMD for the first 5 years or so, since that necessary pain it has been helping them survive ever since.
Rory Read at the helm of AMD did not help either.
 

OptimumSlinky

TS Maniac
Intel just announced 10nm desktop chips early 2020. Can fully meet demand. AMD had a good run, but Ryzen didn't do enough in time. More cores only get you so far.
Desktop is a smaller segment than servers and laptops, so I'm not sure why you seem to think that's a game changer.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Desktop is a smaller segment than servers and laptops, so I'm not sure why you seem to think that's a game changer.
Smaller segment. How vague. Can you be more specific?

I am glad you mentioned the security holes Intel has still. Intel fan boys will never admit Intel is being out done.
Intel has been implementing hardware and software level fixes since CFL. They also pulled in $19.2B in Q3.
What vulnerabilities are causing the most problems in the wild that you think still need addressing to put customers at ease?
 
Last edited:

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
Intel just announced 10nm desktop chips early 2020. Can fully meet demand. AMD had a good run, but Ryzen didn't do enough in time. More cores only get you so far.
They said there would be 10nm desktop chips. They aren't mainstream if they do actually exist. Realistically mainstream 10nm desktop isn't happening until 2021.

Comet Lake S is the mainstream 10th gen desktop. That's still 14nm plus plus plusssssssssssss. They max out at 10 cores. Everything is multithreaded. Thank AMD for that decision. IPC improvements TBA. Probably not a lot.

New socket, new chipset, no PCIe 4.0 which is kinda sucky.

They should do well against Zen 2 but AMD have pricing, chipsets and momentum on their side.

They also have Zen 3 on an even better process. We know they have 8 core CCX unifying the L3 cache, thereby entirely eliminating the extra latency you still see in Zen 2's current 8 core parts. That should allow probably another 10 percent IPC gain and 7nm+ (allegedly) +200MHz clocks that should arrive by mid 2020. So maybe +15 percent performance over Zen 2.

The gap will almost certainly be smaller in 7-8 months time with Comet Lake vs Zen 3 than it is today between Coffee and Zen 2.

After that Intel's 10nm and Rocket Lake is still a total mystery. I think the Empire strikes back if they do finally fix 10nm. We'll see.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
They said there would be 10nm desktop chips. They aren't mainstream if they do actually exist. Realistically mainstream 10nm desktop isn't happening until 2021.

Comet Lake S is the mainstream 10th gen desktop. That's still 14nm plus plus plusssssssssssss. They max out at 10 cores. Everything is multithreaded. Thank AMD for that decision. IPC improvements TBA. Probably not a lot.

New socket, new chipset, no PCIe 4.0 which is kinda sucky.

They should do well against Zen 2 but AMD have pricing, chipsets and momentum on their side.

They also have Zen 3 on an even better process. We know they have 8 core CCX unifying the L3 cache, thereby entirely eliminating the extra latency you still see in Zen 2's current 8 core parts. That should allow probably another 10 percent IPC gain and 7nm+ (allegedly) +200MHz clocks that should arrive by mid 2020. So maybe +15 percent performance over Zen 2.

The gap will almost certainly be smaller in 7-8 months time with Zen 3 vs Comet Lake than it is today.

After that Intel's 10nm and Rocket Lake is still a total mystery.
Only thing holding AMD back is consistency, being well known to the masses, and their mistakes and struggles.

Average life of an AMD socket is what, three years? Guess what? The average life of someone using one computer is at least three years, meaning the majority of buyers are upgrading when AMD already has. And Ryzen 1000 to 2000 upgrade was a joke. 3% IPC. That's all you got. Ryzen 2000 used a new process, 12nm, and got basically nowhere with it. It was basically a Ryzen 1000 chip with RAM and other fixes. So why would you even want to upgrade? Then comes Ryzen 3000 with good gains over previous gen, but now, some boards we thought were futureproof, are not. Same goes for TR boards. Add to the fact that AMD doesn't really add much to their boards after an all new chipset is launched. The old 790 chipset was practically rebranded for the next 2 years. Point being, AMD doesn't even give you enough reason to upgrade your motherboard if you wanted to. Watch, the next chipset from AMD will be boring af.

And finally, AMD"s more cores approach does NOT benefit the masses that are using their computers to watch videos, facebook, email, and share photos. Unfortunately for AMD, this is where Intel shines. And you don't have to verify your RAM purchases with some QVL list, or be on teh lookout for a new BIOS to get your system to run as it should have when you bought it. And if you're an enthusiast, what do you get out of all core clocks that are below boost clock after overclocking? Ew. That's not overclocking to me. Like, at all.

AMD comes up with ideas and others do it better. Intel has had the best IMC's since AMD did it, and Intel has had the best performance since then. AMD software is not good, and NVIDIA's is far superior. FYI, that should surprise no one considering NVIDIA is a software company and AMD isn't. Yet AMD loses on both fronts. I'm not a fanboy, I'm a realist. And unfortunately a lot of people just care about being on a team.

Wake me when AMD has 3 real solid years in a row of not coming in second to Intel. My life will go on if they go away. Same goes for Intel.
 

Vulcanproject

TS Evangelist
Only thing holding AMD back is consistency, being well known to the masses, and their mistakes and struggles.

Average life of an AMD socket is what, three years? Guess what? The average life of someone using one computer is at least three years, meaning the majority of buyers are upgrading when AMD already has. And Ryzen 1000 to 2000 upgrade was a joke. 3% IPC. That's all you got. Ryzen 2000 used a new process, 12nm, and got basically nowhere with it. It was basically a Ryzen 1000 chip with RAM and other fixes. So why would you even want to upgrade? Then comes Ryzen 3000 with good gains over previous gen, but now, some boards we thought were futureproof, are not. Same goes for TR boards. Add to the fact that AMD doesn't really add much to their boards after an all new chipset is launched. The old 790 chipset was practically rebranded for the next 2 years. Point being, AMD doesn't even give you enough reason to upgrade your motherboard if you wanted to. Watch, the next chipset from AMD will be boring af.

And finally, AMD"s more cores approach does NOT benefit the masses that are using their computers to watch videos, facebook, email, and share photos. Unfortunately for AMD, this is where Intel shines. And you don't have to verify your RAM purchases with some QVL list, or be on teh lookout for a new BIOS to get your system to run as it should have when you bought it. And if you're an enthusiast, what do you get out of all core clocks that are below boost clock after overclocking? Ew. That's not overclocking to me. Like, at all.

AMD comes up with ideas and others do it better. Intel has had the best IMC's since AMD did it, and Intel has had the best performance since then. AMD software is not good, and NVIDIA's is far superior. FYI, that should surprise no one considering NVIDIA is a software company and AMD isn't. Yet AMD loses on both fronts. I'm not a fanboy, I'm a realist. And unfortunately a lot of people just care about being on a team.

Wake me when AMD has 3 real solid years in a row of not coming in second to Intel. My life will go on if they go away. Same goes for Intel.
Bizarre post. You talk as if it's a bad thing AMD don't force a motherboard upgrade on you every new CPU generation. Newsflash, for most consumers it's a very good thing. It's one of the reasons they have picked up new customers starting with Zen.

Then there is the talk about offering more, but slightly slower cores for the money. You seriously think that Intel having a bit higher single threaded performance impacts those daily tasks you listed of browsing the internet, emailing or watching youtube videos?

Nope. It doesn't matter worth a jot! What matters to most people buying Zen 2 right now is a solid platform with a good number of cores that perform within the same bracket as Intel parts for less overall cost.

The vast majority of consumers also don't care about overclocking. AMD wringing nearly everything they have out of their chips automatically is once again, a win for that majority. You see it as a negative. You're in a tiny minority.

Look, I can see from other posts that logic and reason is second to brand loyalty to you. Most others can see the ACTUAL realism about the current PC market. The reason why AMD have been making inroads in every sector; notebook, desktop and most lucratively server is because their price performance is extremely attractive.

For now, that's all they need to win friends and influence people. It is clearly working. This article is testament to that.
 

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
Bizarre post. You talk as if it's a bad thing AMD don't force a motherboard upgrade on you every new CPU generation. Newsflash, for most consumers it's a very good thing. It's one of the reasons they have picked up new customers starting with Zen.

Then there is the talk about offering more, but slightly slower cores for the money. You seriously think that Intel having a bit higher single threaded performance impacts those daily tasks you listed of browsing the internet, emailing or watching youtube videos?

Nope. It doesn't matter worth a jot! What matters to most people buying Zen 2 right now is a solid platform with a good number of cores that perform within the same bracket as Intel parts for less overall cost.

The vast majority of consumers also don't care about overclocking. AMD wringing nearly everything they have out of their chips automatically is once again, a win for that majority. You see it as a negative. You're in a tiny minority.

Look, I can see from other posts that logic and reason is second to brand loyalty to you. Most others can see the ACTUAL realism about the current PC market. The reason why AMD have been making inroads in every sector; notebook, desktop and most lucratively server is because their price performance is extremely attractive.

For now, that's all they need to win friends and influence people. It is clearly working. This article is testament to that.
Point is the reusable mobo thing is just AMD being lazy, because newer chipsets dont offer much. Zen's success won't last as long as Intel is strong. You can preach the save the market thing all you want. Reality is, AMD didn't do enough in the three years its had to make everyone look up. All three launches were plagued with memory compatibility issues, BIOS updates, and chips not hitting boost. It also didn't do the basics better than Intel, which is single threaded performance. AMD can add all the cores they want (beacuse they sucked at raising IPC and clocks simultaneously), but without the software, they are limited to few and expensive products. An Intel/NVIDIA combo will almost always be enough or better than an AMD platform, because of software optimizations and technologies like Quicksync and CUDA.

The hurdles are there if you open your eyes. AMD is good, but far from great.

Intel didn't pull in $19.2B in the same quarter Ryzen 2 was strong because AMD is killing them...
 

candle_86

TS Booster
Point is the reusable mobo thing is just AMD being lazy, because newer chipsets dont offer much. Zen's success won't last as long as Intel is strong. You can preach the save the market thing all you want. Reality is, AMD didn't do enough in the three years its had to make everyone look up. All three launches were plagued with memory compatibility issues, BIOS updates, and chips not hitting boost. It also didn't do the basics better than Intel, which is single threaded performance. AMD can add all the cores they want (beacuse they sucked at raising IPC and clocks simultaneously), but without the software, they are limited to few and expensive products. An Intel/NVIDIA combo will almost always be enough or better than an AMD platform, because of software optimizations and technologies like Quicksync and CUDA.

The hurdles are there if you open your eyes. AMD is good, but far from great.

Intel didn't pull in $19.2B in the same quarter Ryzen 2 was strong because AMD is killing them...
I think your smoking a bit to much, the average desktop user does benefit from cores, the largest desktop segment is Enterprise class hardware. Take a mundane job like accounting, 7 or 8 spreadsheets, 10-15 browser tabs, network drives opened, likely some accounting software, and look you ran out of cpu power. Working in the Enterprise field you notice s few things, for starters i5 is totally inadequate, i7 is still bogged down, the chips we are handing out to accountants, graphics creation, developers, and inventory tracking are the 8700, which they find faster than the 9700 in the newest desktops. It's simple really they need the treads, now I could replace those 8700 with a 3600 and they'd be happy, we could get i9 desktops but why when we could get a 3700 for less or a 3900 for the same cost that would give them even more breads to offload their tasks to. This is what your not seeing, and and Intel don't care about gaming despite what you think, 90% of the desktop market is Enterprise class hardware.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OptimumSlinky

hahahanoobs

TS Evangelist
I think your smoking a bit to much, the average desktop user does benefit from cores, the largest desktop segment is Enterprise class hardware.
Really? I don't remember reading ANY articles EVER about enterprise users or average desktop users NEEDING more cores and not being able to get them from Intel.
 

OptimumSlinky

TS Maniac
Smaller segment. How vague. Can you be more specific?



Intel has been implementing hardware and software level fixes since CFL. They also pulled in $19.2B in Q3.
What vulnerabilities are causing the most problems in the wild that you think still need addressing to put customers at ease?
1. There's a reason Intel cares more about mobile than desktop, and 10nm is coming to MacBook Pros before Alienwares.
2. Disabling hyper-threading and losing up to 40% of chip performance is not a "fix."
3. Intel made an ungodly amount of money this year, no doubt. But that won't last. Here's what happened: Security vulnerability is found in Intel chips, and the "fix" causes noticeable performance loss. So CDNs simply buy more CPUs to offset the performance loss in the short term, as that's easier than transitioning to a new platform. However, then another vulnerability is discovered (MELTDOWN, SPECTRE, and so forth). And another. And the "fixes" are always the same: less performance, buy more chips. CDNs start getting frustrated, and we see Microsoft, Amazon, and Google all put in huge orders for AMD EPYC chips this year (which happened). So, that short term boost in sales will mean nothing in a few years as Intel is abandoned (especially given it can take them almost a decade to patch flaws fully: https://www.techspot.com/news/69152-intel-patches-security-vulnerability-existed-nearly-decade.html).

Ultimately, I don't care who you buy, but your rampant fanboyism and aligning your self-worth with "winning" state of a massive corporation that doesn't care about you is rather odd.
 

OptimumSlinky

TS Maniac
Really? I don't remember reading ANY articles EVER about enterprise users or average desktop users NEEDING more cores and not being able to get them from Intel.
You must be trolling. You think Threadripper exists because AMD, what, just got bored?

Intel is hard capped at 10-cores until they redesign, and those 10C parts generate an absurd amount of heat.

Go look at HEDT reviews and check out the professional software suite tests. TR absolutely THRASHES the best Intel has to offer, which clearly shows these tasks benefit from cores and threads. (https://www.techspot.com/review/1678-amd-ryzen-threadripper-2990wx-2950x/)
 

candle_86

TS Booster
Really? I don't remember reading ANY articles EVER about enterprise users or average desktop users NEEDING more cores and not being able to get them from Intel.
I don't need an article to tell me what I see daily, experience trump's theory anyday, and why yes you can get the cores from Intel it costs significantly more that's the point your missing. At the end of the day 50-100 dollars matters per system when your buying 100 at a time.