AMD hosted their quarterly earnings conference call this afternoon to announce their financial results for the quarter ending June 2014. In a similar story to last quarter, AMD has inched closer to profitability yet again. Revenue for the quarter came in at $1.44 billion, an increase of 3% over Q1 2014 and up 24% year-over-year.

AMD Q2 2014 Financial Results (GAAP in USD)
  Q2'2014 Q1'2014 Q2'2013
Revenue $1.44B $1.40B $1.16B
Operating Income $63M $49M -$29M
Net Income -$36M -$20M -$74M
Earnings per Share -$0.05 -$0.03 -$0.10

Once again, gross margins were flat over the preceding quarter at 35%. Operating income for the quarter was $63 million, up from $49 million in Q1, however the GAAP results still ended up with a $36 million net loss. The Non-GAAP numbers come in higher due to the exclusion of $49 million in loss from debt redemption.

Non-GAAP operating income was $67 million, with a net income of $17 million or $0.02 per share which missed analyst’s expectations of $0.03 per share.

AMD Q2 2014 Financial Results (Non-GAAP in USD)
  Q2'2014 Q1'2014 Q2'2013
Revenue $1.44B $1.40B $1.16B
Operating Income $67M $66M -$20M
Net Income $17M $12M -$65M
Earnings per Share $0.02 $0.02 -$0.09

Cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities were $948 million at the end of the quarter. AMD has a target for cash on hand of $600 million minimum with $1 billion as an optimum target, and is within that window. Total debt went up from $2.14 billion to $2.21 billion.

Once again, the Computing Solutions segment of AMD performed poorly, with a revenue decrease of 1% from Q1, and 20% from Q2 2013. AMD attributes this to a decrease in microprocessor unit shipments. However higher margins and an increase average selling price (ASP) meant that the increased the operating income to $9 million for the quarter, up from the $3 million loss last quarter, and also up from the $2 million in income at the same time last year.

 

AMD Q2 2014 Computing Solutions Division Financial Results
  Q2'2014 Q1'2014 Q2'2013
Revenue $669M $663M $841M
Operating Income $9M -$3M $2M

Graphics and Visual Solutions continued its strong performance from last quarter with an increase in revenue of 5% from last quarter, and 141% year-over-year. AMD once again attributes this gain to semi-custom SoC shipments which likely mean Game Console sales. GPU revenue was down both sequentially and year-over-year but slightly offset by an increase in professional graphics and desktop OEM GPUs. Overall operating income for the segment was $82 million, down from $91 million last quarter and up from a breakeven point in Q2 2013. GPU ASP decreased compared to both last quarter and Q2 of last year.

AMD Q2 2014 Graphics and Visual Solutions Division Financial Results
  Q2'2014 Q1'2014 Q2'2013
Revenue $772M $734M $320M
Operating Income $82M $91M $0M

AMD has reorganized its reporting structure for upcoming financial results. As of Q3 2014, the segments will be Computing and Graphics which include desktop and notebook processors, chipsets, and GPUs, and Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom segment which will be servers, embedded systems, and game consoles.

AMD is expecting a 2% revenue increase plus or minus 3% for the 3rd quarter this year.

AMD still has some work to do in order to get to profitability, but so far 2014 has been a lot easier on them than the last couple of years.

Source: AMD

POST A COMMENT

31 Comments

View All Comments

  • Loki726 - Thursday, July 17, 2014 - link

    Interesting to see the GPU division surpassing the CPU division in revenue.... Reply
  • eanazag - Friday, July 18, 2014 - link

    Not a total surprise as their products match up this way also. Reply
  • nunya112 - Saturday, July 19, 2014 - link

    No surprise at all.
    The CPU side SUXS BALLS... HAIRY BALLS.... BIG HAIRY STINKY BALLS

    And the GPU division ABSOLUTELY KILLING IT !
    Reply
  • Samus - Sunday, July 20, 2014 - link

    To most people its just as obvious Intel CPU's are superior to AMD CPU's just as nVidia GPU's are superior to AMD GPU's.

    However, the superiority of nVidia GPU's are AMD GPU's aren't nearly as substantial as Intel's CPU's over AMD. The real problem with AMD GPU's are with OEM's, software quality and product cycle alignment with nVidia.

    Unlike AMD CPU's, AMD GPU's are exceptionally well engineered, just as well as nVidia's, albeit entirely different approaches. This makes AMD GPU's superior for datamining (Bitcoin, etc) where a competing nVidia GPU would need to be TESLA-based, and even then not as effective at mass execution. But the downside is AMD's less powerful but more plentiful cores are no competition to nVidia's more powerful but less plentiful core's in raw texel throughput, making them better for gaming.

    Which is interesting when you consider AMD GPU's are in all the game consoles. The answer to that: they're cheaper. Just like their CPU's. Console OEM's would never hit their price target using Intel CPU's and nVidia GPU's. That approach is why the original XBOX wasn't as successful as the XBOX 360. It was just too expensive compared to the PS2 and Gamecube, and even at that price Microsoft lost tons of money on it, somewhere in the order of $100/ea at launch.
    Reply
  • hardrock_ram - Monday, July 21, 2014 - link

    What an insight .. Reply
  • samirotiv - Wednesday, July 23, 2014 - link

    People who don't know where not to put apostrophes shouldn't be allowed to exist. Reply
  • Demiurge - Friday, July 25, 2014 - link

    I would agree that nVidia's software and marketing are superior, but GCN is pretty close to the exact same µarch that nVidia has been using. Personally, I like aspects of both GPU competitors. There are things that you can find to dislike about both of them if you look hard enough. Anyone remember the 5000-series? Everyone has their 5000-series at some time... no one hits 100%.

    I wonder hypothetically if the K10 would have had 2x the number of modules it does have, would it have been enough? I figured that's where they were going trying to save space and utilize resources more efficiently. It seemed like a key component like a process shrink or new silicon technology was missing from K10. It's a shame, but Intel went through the same growing pains with P4 and now we have enhanced Pentium-like micros returning in Core to the far foreseeable future. It really is a shame, we could've used some upstart to kickstart a performance race again just like the K6 vs. P2 (P3), and the K7 vs. P4... Those were the days...
    Reply
  • Gizmosis350k - Saturday, July 26, 2014 - link

    Nvidia GPUs are not better than AMD - AMD is the best Reply
  • aryonoco - Thursday, July 17, 2014 - link

    That's only because they are writing the revenue from the game consoles for the GPU division, where in reality those SoCs both have a GPU and a CPU and AMD would not have won those contracts without its Jaguar CPU.

    Which shows the absurdity of the current reporting, and why the reorganisation in reports coming from next quarter is necessary.
    Reply
  • Kjella - Friday, July 18, 2014 - link

    True, but we'll no longer see the split between machines where AMD is the central processor and add-on cards as it'll be CPU/APU/GPU lumped into one big "traditional" sack, I wish they'd just split out the new business from the GPU instead. In any case, I hope they manage to sell that inventory. It keeps going up... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now