Wednesday, October 25th 2017

AMD Reports Third Quarter 2017 Financial Results

AMD (NASDAQ:AMD) today announced revenue for the third quarter of 2017 of $1.64 billion, operating income of $126 million and net income of $71 million, and diluted earnings per share of $0.07. On a non-GAAP(1) basis, operating income was $155 million, net income was $110 million, and diluted earnings per share was $0.10.

"Strong customer adoption of our new high-performance products drove significant revenue growth and improved financial results from a year ago," said Dr. Lisa Su, AMD president and CEO. "Our third quarter new product introductions and financial execution mark another important milestone as we establish AMD as a premier growth company in the technology industry."
Q3 2017 Results
  • Revenue was $1.64 billion, up 26 percent year-over-year, primarily driven by higher revenue in the Computing and Graphics segment (CG). Revenue was up 34 percent sequentially, driven by the Enterprise Embedded and Semi-Custom segment (EESC) revenue seasonality and higher revenue in CG. In the quarter, AMD closed a patent licensing transaction which positively impacted revenue in the segments.
  • On a GAAP basis, gross margin was 35 percent, up 30 percentage points year-over-year primarily due to a $340 million charge related to our GLOBALFOUNDRIES Wafer Supply Agreement (WSA) in the year ago period (WSA charge). In addition, the gross margin increase was primarily driven by the benefit from IP related revenue and a richer revenue mix from CG partially offset by costs associated with the WSA for certain wafers purchased at another foundry. Gross margin was up 2 percentage points sequentially primarily driven by the benefit from IP related revenue, partially offset by costs associated with the WSA for certain wafers purchased at another foundry. Operating income was $126 million compared to an operating loss of $293 million a year ago and operating income of $25 million in the prior quarter. Net income was $71 million compared to net losses of $406 million a year ago and $16 million in the prior quarter. Diluted earnings per share was $0.07 compared to losses per share of $0.50 a year ago and $0.02 in the prior quarter.
  • On a non-GAAP(1) basis, gross margin was 35 percent, up 4 percentage points year-over-year primarily driven by the benefit from IP related revenue and a richer revenue mix from CG, partially offset by costs associated with the WSA for certain wafers purchased at another foundry. Gross margin was up 2 percentage points sequentially primarily driven by the benefit from IP related revenue, partially offset by costs associated with the WSA for certain wafers purchased at another foundry. Operating income was $155 million compared to $70 million a year ago and $49 million in the prior quarter. Net income was $110 million compared to $27 million a year ago and $19 million in the prior quarter. Diluted earnings per share was $0.10 compared to $0.03 a year ago and $0.02 in the prior quarter.
  • Cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $879 million at the end of the quarter, compared to $844 million in the prior quarter.
Quarterly Financial Segment Summary
  • Computing and Graphics segment revenue was $819 million, up 74 percent year-over-year primarily driven by strong sales of Radeon graphics and Ryzen desktop processors.
  • Client average selling price (ASP) increased significantly year-over-year, due to higher desktop processor ASP driven by Ryzen processor sales.
  • GPU ASP increased significantly year-over-year.
  • Operating income was $70 million, compared to an operating loss of $66 million a year ago. The year-over-year improvement was primarily driven by higher revenue.
  • Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment revenue was $824 million, approximately flat year-over-year primarily driven by lower semi-custom SoC sales, mostly offset by IP related and EPYC processor revenue.
  • Operating income was $84 million, compared to $136 million a year ago. The year-over-year decrease was primarily due to higher costs partially offset by the net benefit of IP related items.
  • All Other operating loss was $28 million compared with an operating loss of $363 million a year ago. The year-over-year difference in operating loss was primarily related to the WSA charge in the year ago period.
Q3 2017 Highlights
  • AMD continued driving innovation and competition into the consumer and commercial PC markets with new Ryzen processors:
  • Ryzen Threadripper processors launched for the High End Desktop and workstation markets. Available in 8-, 16- and 12-core variants, Threadripper processors are available from over 90 retailers, OEMs, and system integrators worldwide, including in the Alienware Area-51 Threadripper Edition gaming PC, BOXX APEXX 4 6301 and NextComputing Edge TR workstations.
  • Ryzen 3 CPUs offer exceptional responsiveness and performance at mainstream pricing, completing the Ryzen mainstream desktop lineup.
  • Ryzen PRO desktop solutions have received broad support from top global commercial PC suppliers, including Dell, HP, and Lenovo.
  • AMD expanded its graphics offerings with new consumer, professional, and embedded graphics solutions:
  • Launched the "Vega" architecture-based Radeon RX Vega family of GPUs, marking a return to the enthusiast-class gaming segment. These new "Vega" architecture-based GPUscombine cutting-edge capabilities with 8GB of HBM2 memory to deliver up to 13.7 TFLOPS of peak performance.
  • Launched the Radeon Pro WX 9100 professional graphics card, delivering up to 12.3 TFLOPS of peak single precision compute performance.
  • Launched the Embedded Radeon E9170 Series GPU, which delivers up to 3X the performance-per-watt over previous generations, and is targeted at digital casino games, thin clients, medical displays, digital and retail signage, and industrial systems(2).
  • With new announcements from Amazon Web Services (AWS), and Tencent, AMD enterprise solutions have now been chosen by five of the "Super 7" datacenter and cloud services companies. Previously announced collaborations include Alibaba, Baidu and Microsoft Azure.
  • Amazon Web Services selected AMD Radeon Pro MxGPU technology for the new Graphics Design instance type on Amazon AppStream 2.0, which allows users to run graphics-accelerated applications at a fraction of the cost of using graphics workstations.
  • Tencent announced plans to use AMD EPYC 7000 series server processors in their datacenters.
  • Atari disclosed that a customized AMD processor featuring Radeon graphics technology will power the upcoming Ataribox game console, which is targeted for global launch in spring 2018.
Current Outlook
AMD's outlook statements are based on current expectations. The following statements are forward-looking, and actual results could differ materially depending on market conditions and the factors set forth under "Cautionary Statement" below.

For the fourth quarter of 2017, AMD expects revenue to decrease approximately 15 percent sequentially, plus or minus 3 percent. The midpoint of guidance would result in fourth quarter 2017 revenue increasing approximately 26 percent year-over-year. AMD now expects annual 2017 revenue to increase by greater than 20 percent, compared to prior guidance of mid-to-high teens percentage.

For additional details regarding AMD's results and outlook please see the CFO commentary posted at quarterlyearnings.amd.com.
Add your own comment

43 Comments on AMD Reports Third Quarter 2017 Financial Results

#26
Casecutter
Ryzen sells at competitive pricing and is a good value not bad considering the gargantuan Intel has become. On the GPU side appears they're selling all the chips they can produce even if they aren't getting in on the price gouging. Upside they're not having to offer AIB's any rebates so making full-pop on every chip from the RX 560 on up. Thread Ripper is selling strong and some wins in the server market.

This shows AMD has a path forward. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#27
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
Imsochoboit's simply too expensive?
it could be a 1060 price without any concerns for nvidia when it comes to making money, it could be absolutely awesome PRODUCT while the card is Great ;)
Card uses little power, perfect balance of performance vs watt.

Drop the price 20-40 bucks and it'd be a no brainer and would make a Vega from a decent card to a bad card :)
So a 1080 at the wrong price is a great card but bad ptoduct while a Vega at the wrong price is a bad card and a bad product.

I get your point but I still think it's daft.
Posted on Reply
#28
Vya Domus
ImsochoboDrop the price 20-40 bucks and it'd be a no brainer and would make a Vega from a decent card to a bad card :)
Yeah because someone who drops 500$+ on a card really cares about 20 extra bucks. Definitely makes Vega look like a bad card.
Posted on Reply
#29
Lionheart
The Quim ReaperShame your GPU's still suck donkey balls though...
How? My RX 480 runs all my games pre much maxed out 1080p? Reword your comment & just say Vega was a massive disappointment, would of made more sense instead of a negative baited comment.
Posted on Reply
#30
Easo
It's good to see AMD climbing out of the pit. Even AMD haters, unless they have too much money, should be happy.
Posted on Reply
#31
Fluffmeister
Definitely one of their best quarters for a long long time. Stocks took a bit of a hit, but hey ho... good old Wall Street.
Posted on Reply
#32
evernessince
champsilvaOfc it increased, but still very low margin.

Here in Brazil Ryzen 7 1700 is even cheaper than USA and EUROPE, this never ever happened in the history of my country.

They are trying to gain market based on prices, but shareholders are not very happy, if you see AMD stock decreased after the financial results.
If you watched their shareholder presentation, you'd know it's because of the Semi-custom unit that AMD's margins are low. It has nothing to do with Ryzen. Threadripper costs AMD $50 PER CPU. AMD could slash the price to $150 and they'd still make a ton of money.

It costs Intel more to make it's processors than AMD, because Coffee Lake's larger dies don't yield well at all, as you can see by the low stock
Posted on Reply
#33
ValenOne
TheinsanegamerNOk, woken up. You posted one entire game that is better on AMD! OMGLOLNVDED!!11!!1 HOW COULD I BE SO BLINDED!

:laugh::roll::laugh:

Grow up. One game does not a good GPU make. AMD drug their feet far too long on vega, and even if vega finally catches pascal, volta will be ready to release by then. So they were good in destiny 2. So what? I could post a game with vega 64 not matching the 1070 and say nvidia still cant touch 1080 performance, and it would be just as valid as your claim.

Overall, VEGA fails to match the performance of 18 month old pascals overall in game performance. And pulls significantly more power/creates far more heat, while costing more then the nvidia parts ($650 for vega 64 VS $550 for 1080, yeah great deal there bud :rolleyes:) And are often only available as part of a "bundle" to boot.

AMD dropped the ball on vega. The time has passed, the major sales window for huge vega shipments sailed already. Hopefully AMD can get NAVI right with all the money from ryzen.
D2 has similar results to F1 2016, Call of Duty IW, TitanFall 2 and Killer Instinct Season 3. My point, there's more than one game.

www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/11.html for Call of Duty IW.
Posted on Reply
#34
ValenOne
evernessinceIf you watched their shareholder presentation, you'd know it's because of the Semi-custom unit that AMD's margins are low. It has nothing to do with Ryzen. Threadripper costs AMD $50 PER CPU. AMD could slash the price to $150 and they'd still make a ton of money.

It costs Intel more to make it's processors than AMD, because Coffee Lake's larger dies don't yield well at all, as you can see by the low stock
If you watched it properly, Xbox One X has higher ASP cost.
Posted on Reply
#35
StrayKAT
Does Intel even try to push into the console space much? I think the first Xbox was a Pentium 3, but that's the last I heard of it. Now that both Sony and MS are more or less based on their architecture (but AMD), I wonder why they don't try to make a bid for it. Motorola dominated this space through the 80s and 90s, but now that it's basically x64, why wouldn't Intel want a part of it?

Or maybe they just foresee consoles dying *any day now*. Not sure of that myself.
Posted on Reply
#36
Vya Domus
StrayKATDoes Intel even try to push into the console space much? I think the first Xbox was a Pentium 3, but that's the last I heard of it. Now that both Sony and MS are more or less based on their architecture (but AMD), I wonder why they don't try to make a bid for it. Motorola dominated this space through the 80s and 90s, but now that it's basically x64, why wouldn't Intel want a part of it?

Or maybe they just foresee consoles dying *any day now*. Not sure of that myself.
Intel probably charges a fortune. It's that simple really. They also have no high performance GPU offerings.
Posted on Reply
#37
StrayKAT
Vya DomusIntel probably charges a fortune. It's that simple really. They also have no high performance GPU offerings.
It doesn't seem beyond them. Not sure what they had at the time those machines were released though.

I heard the 630 Intel GFX (in my Kaby Lake) is equivalent to a 740. Xbox is roughly a 750/r7 260x or something. Not sure the Switch's Tegra is even as good as that.
Posted on Reply
#38
Vya Domus
StrayKATI heard the 630 Intel GFX (in my Kaby Lake) is equivalent to a 740. Xbox is roughly a 750/r7 260x or something. Not sure the Switch's Tegra is even as good as that.
Nah , it's slower than a GT 740 by something like 30-40% and that's just with regards to peak GFLOPS figures. Intel has GPU designs weaker by a lot in general than what AMD and Nvidia has. Even the underclocked 256 core Maxwell GPU inside of the Tegra X1 is more capable.
Posted on Reply
#39
ValenOne
StrayKATDoes Intel even try to push into the console space much? I think the first Xbox was a Pentium 3, but that's the last I heard of it. Now that both Sony and MS are more or less based on their architecture (but AMD), I wonder why they don't try to make a bid for it. Motorola dominated this space through the 80s and 90s, but now that it's basically x64, why wouldn't Intel want a part of it?

Or maybe they just foresee consoles dying *any day now*. Not sure of that myself.
Tencent's game console is Intel based.
Posted on Reply
#40
ValenOne
Vya DomusNah , it's slower than a GT 740 by something like 30-40% and that's just with regards to peak GFLOPS figures. Intel has GPU designs weaker by a lot in general than what AMD and Nvidia has. Even the underclocked 256 core Maxwell GPU inside of the Tegra X1 is more capable.
Ice Storm benchmarks, Surface Pro 4 with i7U IGP beats Shield TV with TX1.
Posted on Reply
#41
StrayKAT
Vya DomusNah , it's slower than a GT 740 by something like 30-40% and that's just with regards to peak GFLOPS figures. Intel has GPU designs weaker by a lot in general than what AMD and Nvidia has. Even the underclocked 256 core Maxwell GPU inside of the Tegra X1 is more capable.
Is it that bad? My bad. That's just what I dug up. In practice, it seems like a decent holdover until you get a real GPU. I bet it could run some of those Xbox games well @30 fps and optimized the way console games are.
Posted on Reply
#42
Jism
StrayKATDoes Intel even try to push into the console space much? I think the first Xbox was a Pentium 3, but that's the last I heard of it. Now that both Sony and MS are more or less based on their architecture (but AMD), I wonder why they don't try to make a bid for it. Motorola dominated this space through the 80s and 90s, but now that it's basically x64, why wouldn't Intel want a part of it?

Or maybe they just foresee consoles dying *any day now*. Not sure of that myself.
Nvidia had a role into the console market, Intel had a role as well back in the days (both PS3, Xbox) but they both dropped it due to too low margins i guess.

It was AMD who was the perfect partner who could realize both technology's (An APU rather then CPU + GPU) for a competetive price.

I believe AMD was making exactly a 1 $ margin per sold APU on both current consoles. This does'nt sound like very much but this gives the guarantee developers are spending time on AMD GPU's and maximizing AMD's GPU platform, which indirectly works for the PC market as well. The PS4 got sold for more then 60 million times, that equals to 60 million dollar for AMD at least. I'm not sure what the Xbox did here, but the profit sounds reasonable.

AMD needs a good reputation on their GPU hardware. When you got most developpers who create games working on your APU's it means that more and more games will be optimized for AMD hardware as we speak. This is why there's bin a 50% performance increase on Vega 56/64 cards with games since the last driver update.
Posted on Reply
#43
ValenOne
StrayKATIs it that bad? My bad. That's just what I dug up. In practice, it seems like a decent holdover until you get a real GPU. I bet it could run some of those Xbox games well @30 fps and optimized the way console games are.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Dec 18th, 2024 09:14 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts