NVIDIA released their earnings report for the fourth quarter of their fiscal year 2015, which ended January 25th, 2015. FY 2015 was a record for the company, with revenues coming in at $4.68 billion, up 13% from 2014. Q4 also had record revenue, following Q3 2014 which was also a record for NVIDIA. For the most recent quarter, NVIDIA had revenues of $1.25 billion, up 9% from 2014 and up 2% from Q3 2015. Gross margin for Q4 2015 was $699 million, or 55.9% which is up 1.8% over Q4 2014, and 0.7% over Q3 2015. Net income came in at $193 million, also up quarter-over-quarter 13%, and year-over-year 40%. Earnings per share were $0.35 (GAAP), up 13% over last quarter and 40% over last year, and beating analysts expectations.

NVIDIA paid back $46 million in cash dividends, and bought back 200,000 shares in Q4, bringing the 2015 fiscal year up to a total of $186 million in dividends and 44.4 million shares repurchased for $814 million, meaning NVIDIA was able to return $1.0 billion during the year. For FY 2016, NVIDIA intends to return an additional $600 million through these methods. The next dividend will be $0.085 per share, paid on March 19 to all shareholders on record as of February 16.

NVIDIA Q4 2015 Financial Results (GAAP)
  Q4'2015 Q3'2015 Q4'2014 Q/Q Y/Y
Revenue (in millions USD) $1251 $1225 $1144 +2% +9%
Gross Margin 55.9% 55.2% 54.1% +0.7% +1.8%
Operating Expenses (in millions USD) $468 $463 $452 +1% +4%
Net Income $193 $173 $147 +12% +31%
EPS $0.35 $0.31 $0.25 +13% +40%

NVIDIA has also released Non-GAAP figures which exclude the stock-based compensation, legal settlements, acquisition costs, investments, and a credit related to weak die/packaging material set.

NVIDIA Q4 2015 Financial Results (Non-GAAP)
  Q4'2015 Q3'2015 Q4'2014 Q/Q Y/Y
Revenue (in millions USD) $1251 $1225 $1144 +2% +9%
Gross Margin 56.2% 55.5% 53.8% +0.7% +2.4%
Operating Expenses (in millions USD) $420 $415 $408 +1% +3%
Net Income $241 $220 $187 +10% +34%
EPS $0.43 $0.39 $0.32 +10% +34%

The GPU business is still the main part of NVIDIA, and they had a nice boost. During Q4, NVIDIA launched the GTX 960 GPU, as well as the GTX 965M. This, combined with the GTX 980 , 970, 980M, and 970M launches recently have propelled the GPU revenue up to $1.073 billion for the quarter. This is an 8% increase over Q3 2015, and a year-over-year gain of 13%. Maxwell based cards have been very popular, and NVIDIA has seen strength in the PC gaming market for their high-end offerings. Notebooks with discrete GPUs have also been selling well, showing sales well above year-ago levels.

Tegra sales fell quite substantially this quarter, after several quarters of strong growth. For Q4 2015, Tegra revenue was $112 million, down from $168 million in Q3, and $131 million a year ago. This represents a decrease in revenue of 33% quarter-over-quarter, and 15% year-over-year. Smartphone and tablet design wins featuring NVIDIA Tegra drove the decline, however automotive Infotainment sales more than doubled. This helps explain why NVIDIA focused solely on the Tegra X1 at CES this year, as it has been a very strong market for their processors.

The remaining revenue is $66 million, which is a licensing fee paid by Intel to NVIDIA every quarter.

NVIDIA Quarterly Revenue Comparison (GAAP)
In millions Q4'2015 Q3'2015 Q4'2014 Q/Q Y/Y
GPU $1073 $991 $947 +8% +13%
Tegra Processor $112 $168 $131 -33% -15%
Other $66 $66 $66 flat flat

It was a great FY 2015 for NVIDIA. Strong GPU sales offset the weaker smartphone and tablet SoC sales, but Tegra in the automotive space continues to perform very well.

For Q1 FY 2016 (yes, NVIDIA’s fiscal year is almost an entire year ahead of calendar year) the company is expecting revenues of $1.16 billion, plus or minus 2%, and GAAP margins of 56.2%, with Non-GAAP margins of 56.5%.

Source: NVIDIA

POST A COMMENT

61 Comments

View All Comments

  • jackstar7 - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link

    I wonder how the 970 factored in there. Reply
  • f0d - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link

    probably made so lttle of a difference it wouldnt even be measurable Reply
  • f0d - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link

    the refunds probably made little difference (if you were talking about that)
    or if you were talking about how well it sold then yes it probably made a bundle of money for them
    Reply
  • Wreckage - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link

    Considering the 970 helped give them something like 80% market share in the 4th quarter. I'm sure it was a pretty big factor. Reply
  • Morawka - Wednesday, February 11, 2015 - link

    returns were less than 5%, (citation needed) and not all of those 5% were due to the ROP and Memory Allocation. Some just took advantage of a 3 month return window, and some just flat out returned and didn't replace with anything. Reply
  • Klimax - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    Here is one of reports on it:
    http://www.kitguru.net/components/graphic-cards/an...
    Reply
  • Samus - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    Who the hell would return their 970 because it turned out to have 1/8th less addressable VRAM? Benchmarks are still benchmarks, and the card is a steal for the price, even if by some unlikely scenario games within the next few years adequately utilize 4GB of VRAM.

    I don't really consider the GTX970 a 4K-ready card, anyway. Not because of the 3.5GB VRAM situation, but because the card can't even run CURRENT games at high detail at 4K let alone future games. I run BF4 at 2560x1440 and can't have everything maxxed without losing 60FPS, and Frostbite 3 is almost a 2 year old engine.

    But the card will run 1080P in any game for many years.
    Reply
  • edzieba - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    "Who the hell would return their 970 because it turned out to have 1/8th less addressable VRAM?"

    Not because of the vRAM, but the reduced ROP count. But I'm running a very non-typical task, pushing 8k and above (sometimes far above) output sizes for testing supersampling methods for VR. That 7/8 ROP count is nearly a 7/8 drop in pixel output rate (not particularly complex scenes). Hard to test that directly with the move to a 980 as the extra SMs make it an only indirect comparison, but I am seeing that range of performance improvement.
    Reply
  • Kjella - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    From what I understand the ROPs can feed the shaders all the data they need, it's 14/16th the ROPs and 13/16th the shaders so it actually has more ROPs per shader than the 980. It's only addressing the last 0.5GB that's borked. Reply
  • dananski - Thursday, February 12, 2015 - link

    I think it's not even an issue of the technical deficiencies - the benchmarks already take these very minor issues into account. What people are annoyed about is NV apparently lying. I never saw it as more than a marketing mishap though, and was happy recommending a 970 with full knowledge of the controversy. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now