• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD Announces Q4 2015 Earnings, Posts 10% Loss – Full Year Results in 2015 Show 28% Decline in Reven

Gregster

Gregster

Gregster

Caporegime
Joined
24 Sep 2008
Posts
38,284
Location
Essex innit!
AMD’s computing and graphics segment saw an 11% increase in Q4 with a reported revenue of $470 million as AMD shipped more high-end notebook processors, most notably their Carrizo based APUs and FX processors. On the other hand, the Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom side of business didn’t do as well as the graphics business and posted a revenue of $488 million which is a 23% decline over the last quarter.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/amd-q4-2015-yearly-financial-earnings/#ixzz3xlEVtTGk
Click to expand...



The GPU segment did well though :)
 
Not really a surprise, no one really wants to buy AMD CPUs considering they're basically ancient at this point.

Buying out ATI was a disaster, for both companies.
 
StriderX said:
Not really a surprise, no one really wants to buy AMD CPUs considering they're basically ancient at this point.

Buying out ATI was a disaster, for both companies.
Click to expand...

That and there are to many CPU company's in the markets. Outside the PC market we have at least 5 CPU company's fighting over market share many of which compete against AMD.
 
StriderX said:
Not really a surprise, no one really wants to buy AMD CPUs considering they're basically ancient at this point.

Buying out ATI was a disaster, for both companies.
Click to expand...

If AMD didn't buy out ATI they'd likely have folded, so it's literally as wrong as you could possibly be about it.

The reason they won all the console contracts is the merger, the reason they are making decent money is the merger.

Also the results are excellent, not like "hey, we want to continue like this "excellent, but " we made a decision to have a huge change in direction with the CPU business, we know this will create 2-3 bad years..." excellent.

AMD has been in survival mode for 2-3 years leading up to the release of Zen bringing with it new chips for every segment. They were ALWAYS going to be bad years, always. The question was HOW bad, how little they could lose and if they could actually stay alive till Zen was out. As the company was when this decision was made, since then their performance has been IN THIS SITUATION, excellent. They reduced losses, they put R&D where it was needed, they brought in the right people to take charge of Zen design and GPU moving forward. They've won huge contracts with consoles which has kept their revenue going and have more semi custom wins that begin production this year.

People also need to remember that a huge proportion of their losses are 'book' losses. The company is valued at lets say 4billion one quarter and deemed to be worth 3.5billion a year later, that goes on the books as a half billion in losses but isn't a 'real' loss. They didn't spend 500billion more than they brought in. If after Zen the company value goes up to 4billion again then they gain that half billion back. They have made real losses, but again the majority of their losses listed aren't a big problem.

If Zen sucks this is a different matter, but any company who decides to effectively shut down the CPU line for 2-3 years before a huge different architecture is going to have a bad time. You can have a really bad time, losing 30% a quarter, or lose 5% a quarter. Losses weren't ever in question, how big they were was, they've been kept relatively small. 28% revenue loss, think about that, with no real new GPU lines and absolutely no new CPUs for years that is genuinely a good job.

Consoles, Apple contracts, regardless of how old they are the 390 is still a great card.
 
drunkenmaster said:
If AMD didn't buy out ATI they'd likely have folded, so it's literally as wrong as you could possibly be about it.

The reason they won all the console contracts is the merger, the reason they are making decent money is the merger.

Also the results are excellent, not like "hey, we want to continue like this "excellent, but " we made a decision to have a huge change in direction with the CPU business, we know this will create 2-3 bad years..." excellent.

AMD has been in survival mode for 2-3 years leading up to the release of Zen bringing with it new chips for every segment. They were ALWAYS going to be bad years, always. The question was HOW bad, how little they could lose and if they could actually stay alive till Zen was out. As the company was when this decision was made, since then their performance has been IN THIS SITUATION, excellent. They reduced losses, they put R&D where it was needed, they brought in the right people to take charge of Zen design and GPU moving forward. They've won huge contracts with consoles which has kept their revenue going and have more semi custom wins that begin production this year.

People also need to remember that a huge proportion of their losses are 'book' losses. The company is valued at lets say 4billion one quarter and deemed to be worth 3.5billion a year later, that goes on the books as a half billion in losses but isn't a 'real' loss. They didn't spend 500billion more than they brought in. If after Zen the company value goes up to 4billion again then they gain that half billion back. They have made real losses, but again the majority of their losses listed aren't a big problem.

If Zen sucks this is a different matter, but any company who decides to effectively shut down the CPU line for 2-3 years before a huge different architecture is going to have a bad time. You can have a really bad time, losing 30% a quarter, or lose 5% a quarter. Losses weren't ever in question, how big they were was, they've been kept relatively small. 28% revenue loss, think about that, with no real new GPU lines and absolutely no new CPUs for years that is genuinely a good job.

Consoles, Apple contracts, regardless of how old they are the 390 is still a great card.
Click to expand...

But why merge though?

Why not just have gentlemanly agreements instead when it came to CPU-GPU connectivity.
 
drunkenmaster said:
If AMD didn't buy out ATI they'd likely have folded, so it's literally as wrong as you could possibly be about it.

The reason they won all the console contracts is the merger, the reason they are making decent money is the merger.

Also the results are excellent, not like "hey, we want to continue like this "excellent, but " we made a decision to have a huge change in direction with the CPU business, we know this will create 2-3 bad years..." excellent.

AMD has been in survival mode for 2-3 years leading up to the release of Zen bringing with it new chips for every segment. They were ALWAYS going to be bad years, always. The question was HOW bad, how little they could lose and if they could actually stay alive till Zen was out. As the company was when this decision was made, since then their performance has been IN THIS SITUATION, excellent. They reduced losses, they put R&D where it was needed, they brought in the right people to take charge of Zen design and GPU moving forward. They've won huge contracts with consoles which has kept their revenue going and have more semi custom wins that begin production this year.

People also need to remember that a huge proportion of their losses are 'book' losses. The company is valued at lets say 4billion one quarter and deemed to be worth 3.5billion a year later, that goes on the books as a half billion in losses but isn't a 'real' loss. They didn't spend 500billion more than they brought in. If after Zen the company value goes up to 4billion again then they gain that half billion back. They have made real losses, but again the majority of their losses listed aren't a big problem.

If Zen sucks this is a different matter, but any company who decides to effectively shut down the CPU line for 2-3 years before a huge different architecture is going to have a bad time. You can have a really bad time, losing 30% a quarter, or lose 5% a quarter. Losses weren't ever in question, how big they were was, they've been kept relatively small. 28% revenue loss, think about that, with no real new GPU lines and absolutely no new CPUs for years that is genuinely a good job.

Consoles, Apple contracts, regardless of how old they are the 390 is still a great card.
Click to expand...

How does a company about to fold suddenly become worth $5.4 billion ?
 
AMD have been bleeding for years, we all know this won't change until they get some new exciting products out. Which they are working on.

This is the best bit about the link, Zen on track for later this year with greater than 40% IPC increase. Polaris about to shake things up in GPU space.

image.png
 
They'd had it down and stable below 2bn though - now its rising albeit slowly - the real devil is in the detail though without knowing what that increase comes from.
 
StriderX said:
But why merge though?

Why not just have gentlemanly agreements instead when it came to CPU-GPU connectivity.
Click to expand...

A gentlemanly agreement, okay, APUs require a huge amount of IP, R&D and general work to make them work well together, ATI as a discrete GPU maker needs none of it, AMD as a CPU maker needs none of it... which of them pays for the R&D to make them work together under a gentlemanly agreement.

Nope, the only way forward when you need both IP and new IP to make both work is merge otherwise you are paying big money for the other company to benefit.
 
results to be expected, since they dont really launch any new product cpu, apu wont be good untill they come with HBM, and GPUs 2 last launchs kinda screwed, weak mid range, followed by chaotic Fury launch, i just hope in 2016 they launch a full line up of gpu, end 2016 good APU, then Zen 2017, all depands on the quality of the products, their future is not bleak, they just need to handle it carefully, and stop screwing up.
 
LambChop said:
How does a company about to fold suddenly become worth $5.4 billion ?
Click to expand...

They aren't about to fold, you're a troll and where on earth did you pull 5.4 billion? The number was for an example, hence saying "lets say", it's an arbitrary number to make a point. But it still leaves me with where you got precisely $5.4 billion... which wasn't a number I used?
 
No need for that DM. Calling people names is certainly not needed and by all means, explain it but don't go to the gutter.

I posted the good news bit as you will see and the increase of 11% in the Compute and GPU sector is certainly a good sign and with Zen coming, I imagine the CPU sector will also see an uplift.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They aren't about to fold, you're a troll and where on earth did you pull 5.4 billion? The number was for an example, hence saying "lets say", it's an arbitrary number to make a point. But it still leaves me with where you got precisely $5.4 billion... which wasn't a number I used?
Click to expand...

I'll quote you again....

"If AMD didn't buy out ATI they'd likely have folded, so it's literally as wrong as you could possibly be about it."

So.....

If ATI didnt get bought out, they would have likely folded....... my question, how does a company in your opinion about to fold suddenly become worth $5.4 billion (thats what AMD purchased ATI for)
 
drunkenmaster said:
They aren't about to fold, you're a troll and where on earth did you pull 5.4 billion? The number was for an example, hence saying "lets say", it's an arbitrary number to make a point. But it still leaves me with where you got precisely $5.4 billion... which wasn't a number I used?
Click to expand...

Didn't AMD pay something in the region of 5.4 billion for ATI? Either ATI weren't in as desperate position as has been previously reported or someone as AMD really was asleep at the wheel.

Although ATI was apparently cash strapped ATI would have been able to get a debencher loan to sort any short term problems they had or sold some stock it wasn't as if they were out of options IMO. I think the fact that they had problems and AMD same along with a huge cheque, the shareholders just couldn't say no.
 
Freddie1980 said:
Didn't AMD pay something in the region of 5.4 billion for ATI? Either ATI weren't in as desperate position as has been previously reported or someone as AMD really was asleep at the wheel.

Although ATI was apparently cash strapped ATI would have been able to get a debencher loan to sort any short term problems they had or sold some stock it wasn't as if they were out of options IMO. I think the fact that they had problems and AMD same along with a huge cheque, the shareholders just couldn't say no.
Click to expand...

AMD were about to buy nvidia but they couldn't agree on petty details like CEO. AMD then got desperate and paid massively over the odds for ATI in panicked move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom