POST A COMMENT

19 Comments

Back to Article

  • S20802 - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    Right, So nVIDIA is quite futuristic, they gave the FY2013 results already. Reply
  • quiksilvr - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    I don't like how Fiscal years don't just match years, but it is what it is. Reply
  • Wreckage - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    So they made a profit. AMD has to be pissed after losing over $500,000,000. Reply
  • silverblue - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    You'd be pissed too if you had to buy yourself out of an agreement with your former fabrication side. Still, they're nearly free of GF. Reply
  • Jamahl - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    The whole of Nvidia made a massive $26 million profit more than AMD's gpu division. Great stuff indeed. Reply
  • sirroman - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    You are wrong. First of, it was 590M losses on GAAP figures, but those include payments to GF that will only be actually transfered much later. Those losses are only on the paper.

    Non-GAAP, AMD earned 92M. Their Graphic's division earned, alone, 34M. That's with only 382M revenue on top of that.

    So, AMD's "consumer GPU" alone (since AMD has very little share on professional markets as of now) has earned more than 56% of the entire Nvidia... While Nvidia had 791M revenue on it's GPU segment (consumer + professional) and only 132M revenue on it's Tegra segment.

    So... Sry, the one who is bleeding money is Nvidia. They don't have TSMC's "pay for good die only" safety net anymore.
    Reply
  • Ryan Smith - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    Note that you can't compare operating income (AMD) to net income (NVIDIA). It just doesn't work like that. Reply
  • sirroman - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    NV doesn't break operating income by their business segments. Besides, I mentioned AMD's net income, so this is the best we can compare them.

    What we can see, however, is that nvidia sure got hurt, they simply are not as profitable. And based on their own words it's mostly related to manufacturing with TSMC. This is expected? Yes, but so it was with AMD.
    Reply
  • RussianSensation - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    You realize AMD sells CPUs and GPUs while NV primarily sells GPUs and Tegra for smartphones/tablets.

    For Q1 2012, AMD's revenues were $1.59 Billion.
    For Q1 2012 (Q1 FY2013), NV"s revenues were $0.924 Billion.

    NV has far higher gross margins and is doing very well considering the street expected this cyclical quarter to earn them $0.10 a share and they managed $0.16 cents a share after stripping out items like acquisition-related costs.

    NV has done much better than AMD and they also raised guidance for Q2 2012. Not to mention, the company has almost no long-term debt and HUGE potential for long-term profits if Tegra takes off.
    Reply
  • sirroman - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    Yes, I realize. But no, I never intended to compare AMD's whole business segments with Nvidia's whole segments. Just show that Nvidia has taken a major hit in their profitability, probably related to changes on their relation to TSMC.

    For instance, AMD should be preparing their best shot into the professional market with GCN, how would Nvidia's profitability be without that market? You mention Tegra, but nvidia doesn't expose their gross margins at that market, but neither does AMD in their low power (bobcat) segment. So, who knows where they are compared?

    Besides, a last point, AMD's graphic division "could" be even more profitable than it shows if internally AMD use R&D resources from their graphic division to make Fusion products on their computing division (which is possible).

    I don't wanna drag this anymore, but Nvidia took a major hit on their profitability, thus the "bleeding money" (which may have been too harsh in retrospect, but still rings true). This is undeniable. The next few quarters will be interesting to see, since AMD and Nvidia are now at comparable contracts under TSMC.
    Reply
  • StevoLincolnite - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    AMD also sell chipsets, a market nVidia exited out years ago. Reply
  • tipoo - Friday, May 11, 2012 - link

    60 million seems like a pittance when you think about all the engineering work that goes into the stuff they make, even if you look at the previous quarter with ~40% more. But I guess CPUs are still far more important to most of the world than graphics, so Nvidia has the right idea with trying to design a high performance ground-up ARM CPU (not like the licensed Cortex cores). I think ARM Holdings made something like 200 million in a single quarter, and of course the behemoth Intel is in the billions. Reply
  • madmilk - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    Costs are included in the $924 million part, not the $60M number. $60M is how much is left over as "extra". Reply
  • tipoo - Saturday, May 12, 2012 - link

    And? It's how much that's left over after operating costs that matters. Reply
  • C'DaleRider - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link

    And that's why that $60M is called "PROFITS." It's the cash that's left after operating costs have been deducted from revenue, among other things. It's their PROFIT.

    Get a dictionary, look up the word, learn the concept.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, May 15, 2012 - link

    Did I say otherwise? Take your meds, calm down. Reply
  • raghu78 - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link

    Nvidia's comments on yields in Q4 FY 2012 were that it was below their inital expectations. You can look up their earnings call transcript at http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/nvda/transcripts.

    From Q4 2012

    "The gross margin decline is contributed almost entirely to the yields of 28-nanometer being lower than expected"

    Now they say yields at TSMC 28nm are the best

    "Yields of 28 are probably the best of any new node that TSMC has ever done. They've done a great job with 28, and I think that it also explains the demand on their 28."

    Both statements seem to contradict each other. Is it that in in 1 quarter Nvidia's yields have gone from below expectations to great yields. We will know the situation truly from Q2 2012 (May - July) results when they expect 30% of their production on 28 nm.
    Reply
  • C'DaleRider - Sunday, May 13, 2012 - link

    You have to remember, the pessimistic comment about yields being poor was made in relation to a cautionary statement about lower earnings this quarter.

    Now that the quarter's numbers have been posted, the second optomistic comment was made as a way to distract investors from the underlying problems with TSMC and boost investor confidence....so they don't bail on lower earnings and subsequently drop the stock price further.

    Just games being played, like most businesses play when earnings are lower than expected.
    Reply
  • dmnwlv - Sunday, May 27, 2012 - link

    The fiscal year logic (2013? wtf) is a little rubbish. Anyway anyone knows are they cancelling or delaying gtx660? It seems to have gone silent. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now