Thursday, October 6th 2022

AMD Trims Q3 Forecast, $1 Billion Missing, Client Processor Revenue down 40%, Halved Quarter-over-Quarter

AMD (NASDAQ:AMD) today announced selected preliminary financial results for the third quarter of 2022. Third quarter revenue is expected to be approximately $5.6 billion, an increase of 29% year-over-year. AMD previously expected revenue to increase approximately 55% year-over-year at the mid-point of guidance. Preliminary results reflect lower than expected Client segment revenue resulting from reduced processor shipments due to a weaker than expected PC market and significant inventory correction actions across the PC supply chain.

Revenue for the Data Center, Gaming, and Embedded segments each increased significantly year-over-year in-line with the company's expectations. Gross margin is expected to be approximately 42% and non-GAAP(*) gross margin is expected to be approximately 50%. AMD previously expected non-GAAP gross margin to be approximately 54%. The gross margin shortfall to expectations was primarily due to lower revenue driven by lower Client processor unit shipments and average selling price (ASP). In addition, the third quarter results are expected to include approximately $160 million of charges primarily for inventory, pricing, and related reserves in the graphics and client businesses.
Third quarter operating expenses are expected to be approximately $2.4 billion and non-GAAP operating expenses are expected to be approximately $1.5 billion. Non-GAAP operating expenses are lower than previous expectations of $1.6 billion driven by lower variable compensation expenses in the quarter.

"The PC market weakened significantly in the quarter," said AMD Chair and CEO Dr. Lisa Su. "While our product portfolio remains very strong, macroeconomic conditions drove lower than expected PC demand and a significant inventory correction across the PC supply chain. As we navigate the current market conditions, we are pleased with the performance of our Data Center, Embedded, and Gaming segments and the strength of our diversified business model and balance sheet. We remain focused on delivering our leadership product roadmap and look forward to launching our next-generation 5 nm data center and graphics products later this quarter."

This update does not present all necessary information for an understanding of AMD's financial condition as of the date of this release, or its results of operations for the third quarter of 2022. As AMD completes its quarter-end financial close process and finalizes its financial statements for the quarter, it will be required to make judgments in a number of areas. It is possible that AMD may identify items that require it to make adjustments to the preliminary financial information set forth above and those adjustments could be material. AMD does not intend to update any financial information prior to release of its final third quarter financial statement information, which is currently scheduled for Nov. 1, 2022.

AMD Q3'22 Earnings Conference Call
AMD will hold a conference call for the financial community at 2:00 p.m. PT (5:00 p.m. ET) on Nov. 1, 2022 to discuss its third quarter 2022 financial results. AMD will provide a real-time audio broadcast of the teleconference on the Investor Relations page of its website at www.amd.com.
Add your own comment

150 Comments on AMD Trims Q3 Forecast, $1 Billion Missing, Client Processor Revenue down 40%, Halved Quarter-over-Quarter

#101
ARF
... unless they justify it by saying that they wanna save the company from going under. We are in a deep recession, the manufacturing processes tick-tock is coming to an end in the next 5-10 years.
What are they thinking I don't know? Most Europeans have money now either for the heating bills or for the food... who is going to buy computer parts?
Posted on Reply
#102
TheoneandonlyMrK
RedelZaVednoTBH, you can run Zen4 in eco mode (aka 65W power limit) and get only 3-10% performance hit in games. Zen4 is very efficient, it's the pricing of the whole AM5 platform that sucks big time.
Tbf there is definitely a early adopters tax on everything besides memory, that's not new.
Hopefully Raptor lake brings some price pressure to the market.
Full shelves will also help with the price reduction initiative:).
Posted on Reply
#103
ARF
TheoneandonlyMrKTbf there is definitely a early adopters tax on everything besides memory, that's not new.
Hopefully Raptor lake brings some price pressure to the market.
Full shelves will also help with the price reduction initiative:).
Your PC bottleneck is not in the CPU, it's in the GPU. And definitely not in how wide the PCIe spec is.
In fact, we can't saturate PCIe 3.0 to the max today, most people still use old-fashioned HDDs and SATA SSDs.

PCIe 4.0 is still a dream. PCIe 5.0 is a ridiculous expensive nightmare and will be so for the next 5 years.
Unless MS finds a way to make PCIe 5.0 actually work.
Posted on Reply
#104
Valantar
ARFWhat about scalping, like profit margin going from 30% in 2015 to 230% now in 2022? Let's be honest?
Who has 230% profit margins? Most chipmakers report somewhere in the 40-60% range. And ... scalping? How does that relate to this discussion? MSRPs aren't affected by scalping. You were comparing MSRPs.
ARFNo one has ever asked them for the PCIe 5.0 marketing BS. So now, they have to take it back and remove it in order to cut the costs.
... uh, have you missed how literally the entire PC enthusiast scene consists of people shouting "MOAR PL0X" at the top of their lungs? Yes, there is a growing group taking a step back and saying "perhaps we have enough in some ways?", but the dominant approach is still asking for ever-increasing performance, even when it has no real benefits. Nothing sells new products like having a new, higher number to plaster onto the box. This is just as much of an enthusiast culture problem as it is a business culture problem.
the54thvoid@Valantar - there is a flaw in that logic which is the componentry which was cutting edge back then, also cost a lot. Each new advance in technology carries a cost - we saw it with HBM, but the cost wasn't astronomical. What we're seeing now is being unequally skewed by shareholder appeasement (following what was expected after mining income). If JSH or Lisa Su suddenly became charitable, they'd be kicked off the board.
Not a flaw in the logic, this is already taken into account. Yes, cutting-edge things are always expensive at their time, however, as bandwidths and power delivery needs have increased, the absolute cost of all of this has increased non-linearly. Why? Because as technology has developed, we have picked ever more of the low-hanging fruit, forcing ever more exotic solutions in order to maintain performance growth. It's (far) more obvious in things like external I/O, where USB 3.0 will never reach prices as low as USB 2.0, let alone anything faster than USB 3.0 ever getting there, but the same logic applies to BOM costs for internal componentry as well. High-end GPUs in 2015 had 4-6GB of GDDR5 (launched in 2007), while high-end GPUs today have 16-24GB of GDDR6/X, at 2-3x the bandwidth, memory that's produced on more advanced nodes that haven't seen downward per-bit cost scaling to match the capacity increase. Then you have ever-increasing VRM needs, both in quantity and quality, and the PCB design needs to make all this high speed memory, the high bandwidth display outputs, and the faster PCIe connections all work.

There is also an increasing culture for shareholder appeasement, yes, but that is stacked on top of steadily increasing BOM costs, which are in turn stacked on top of inflation. Corporations very obviously need to check their greed, but they also need to start designing more cost-optimized products and stop chasing performance in a way that throws all cost considerations to the wind, as we've been seeing for the past couple of generations now.
ARFUnless MS finds a way to make PCIe 5.0 actually work.
How on earth would MS "find a way to make PCIe 5.0 work"? Literally none of the issues with PCIe 5.0 are related to OS support. It's unnecessarily fast, no consumer hardware can reasonably make use of it, and it's expensive due to physics. None of that is fixable by MS in any way.
Posted on Reply
#105
ARF
Valantar... uh, have you missed how literally the entire PC enthusiast scene consists of people shouting "MOAR PL0X" at the top of their lungs? Yes, there is a growing group taking a step back and saying "perhaps we have enough in some ways?", but the dominant approach is still asking for ever-increasing performance, even when it has no real benefits. Nothing sells new products like having a new, higher number to plaster onto the box. This is just as much of an enthusiast culture problem as it is a business culture problem.
Maybe they don't listen to me shouting more cores please :D AMD is sitting on the old number 16.
ValantarHow on earth would MS "find a way to make PCIe 5.0 work"? Literally none of the issues with PCIe 5.0 are related to OS support. It's unnecessarily fast, no consumer hardware can reasonably make use of it, and it's expensive due to physics. None of that is fixable by MS in any way.
I think it's something called DirectStorage but maybe I'm mistaken. Yes, definitely it is MS' obligations to make it work.
Posted on Reply
#106
TheoneandonlyMrK
ARFYour PC bottleneck is not in the CPU, it's in the GPU. And definitely not in how wide the PCIe spec is.
In fact, we can't saturate PCIe 3.0 to the max today, most people still use old-fashioned HDDs and SATA SSDs.

PCIe 4.0 is still a dream. PCIe 5.0 is a ridiculous expensive nightmare and will be so for the next 5 years.
Unless MS finds a way to make PCIe 5.0 actually work.
Indeed, that's why I snapped up a 5900X swap in for my 3800X a fair bit more CPU performance not such a high cost and I definitely do need to upgrade my GPU, the Vega plays anything but I am missing features, just waiting on rDNA 3 tbh and I'm set for a bit.

Except I have saturated pciex 3, 4x pciex 3 nvme in one x16 got there in reality though even I didn't. Keep it in use it Was pointless in any of my uses hopefully direct storage helps.
Posted on Reply
#107
R-T-B
R0H1TOh did I mention OPEC
sir this is a tech site.
Posted on Reply
#108
Wirko
ValantarNot a flaw in the logic, this is already taken into account. Yes, cutting-edge things are always expensive at their time, however, as bandwidths and power delivery needs have increased, the absolute cost of all of this has increased non-linearly. Why? Because as technology has developed, we have picked ever more of the low-hanging fruit, forcing ever more exotic solutions in order to maintain performance growth. It's (far) more obvious in things like external I/O, where USB 3.0 will never reach prices as low as USB 2.0, let alone anything faster than USB 3.0 ever getting there, but the same logic applies to BOM costs for internal componentry as well. High-end GPUs in 2015 had 4-6GB of GDDR5 (launched in 2007), while high-end GPUs today have 16-24GB of GDDR6/X, at 2-3x the bandwidth, memory that's produced on more advanced nodes that haven't seen downward per-bit cost scaling to match the capacity increase. Then you have ever-increasing VRM needs, both in quantity and quality, and the PCB design needs to make all this high speed memory, the high bandwidth display outputs, and the faster PCIe connections all work.
I checked if there's more than one Moore's law. Of course there is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_second_law
Posted on Reply
#109
AsRock
TPU addict
cvaldesLOL, I contributed to AMD's revenue quarters ago. They aren't getting anything from me in the immediate future.

Right now there are four desktop PC builds in the house, all Ryzen (three are Zen 3 builds, my daily driver desktop PC is Zen 2, 3700X). AMD has earned plenty from me as an individual consumer.
Yeah i think not to as seen as you have a 5900X lmao.
Posted on Reply
#110
Valantar
ARFMaybe they don't listen to me shouting more cores please :D AMD is sitting on the old number 16.
... And what on earth do you need more than 16 cores for that isn't a workstation task? Then again, thanks for proving my point I guess?
ARFI think it's something called DirectStorage but maybe I'm mistaken. Yes, definitely it is MS' obligations to make it work.
:laugh:
This was a joke, right? DS has nothing to do with PCIe 5.0 - it will work on PCIe 3.0 even. And its main benefit is getting data more quickly to your GPU, bypassing the cpu as a decompression step, not making better use of PCIe bandwidth in and of itself. It'll lead to increases in SSD reads as the CPU's decompression won't bottleneck things any more, but that speedup will be major even on 3.0, and the difference between that and higher speed SSDs is likely to be small.
WirkoI checked if there's more than one Moore's law. Of course there is.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_second_law
Makes sense. And I'd expect it's trajectory to be the opposite of the first Moore's Law, i.e. I'd expect fab cost increases to trend above 2x while transistor counts trend (well) below 2x.
Posted on Reply
#111
RandallFlagg
ValantarUh ... did I claim that these two factors were somehow logically linked? They're both facts, whether you like them or not. PCIe 5.0 costs more to implement, so yes, one would need to pay (extra) for it for boards implementing it. It is also not really useful for consumers. Its lack of a real-world use doesn't have the power to magically remove the costs of implementing it.
The board cost is obvious (though why it is so much more expensive on AM5 vs Z690 remains to be seen), and in any case is not what I meant.

What I meant is you are paying for it on the chip, but can't use it unless you *also* pay for it on the motherboard. It's great that Zen 4 has 24 PCIe 5 lanes, but when the motherboard only uses 4 of those in PCIe 5 mode it's a completely neutered point.
Valantar... and you are doing a backup of a chipset-connected storage device to another chipset-connected storage device? That sounds like a rather unusual use case IMO.
This is not unusual at all. I would bet the most typical configuration *right now* will be 2-3 m.2 SSDs and 1-2 SATA SSDs. SATA SSDs these days would be the most likely target - cheap with larger capacity. Putting them into a RAID 1 config wouldn't be too unusual either.

However, the trend is moving towards having all m.2, and it's moving that way fast. Almost everything now has 3 m.2 slots, and many midrange and up have 5. There's no reason to buy SATA anything now, as $140 gets you a cheap 2TB m.2.

Moreover, not only is all of this traffic going to go across you chipset, most if it will go across your chipset twice.

And this is most likely why Intel has quadrupled the IO bandwidth to the chipset since the Z390/490 days.
Posted on Reply
#112
mechtech
ARFMore awesome would be if we get the graphics cards back to normal. Because they are anything but normal now. :banghead: :mad:

A 335-mm^2 chip today:



vs a 366-mm^2 chip back in 2015:

They charge for transistors............not die area ;)
Posted on Reply
#113
R0H1T
R-T-Bsir this is a tech site.
Well it is related to tech in a way, directly even, so more $$$ spent on gas == less money for discretionary spends like for (PC) hardware.
Posted on Reply
#114
ARF
Valantar... And what on earth do you need more than 16 cores for that isn't a workstation task?
What on Earth do you need PCIe 5.0 more than PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0 which are not being saturated now? :D
Posted on Reply
#115
Valantar
ARFWhat on Earth do you need PCIe 5.0 more than PCIe 3.0 or PCIe 4.0 which are not being saturated now? :D
Exactly. It's all a waste. Completely pointless nonsense driving up prices for no reason.
Posted on Reply
#117
pressing on
ARFI really don't understand what they are thinking. The market is not ready for PCIe 5.0.
I will never put so large cooling on an SSD. It is stupid and underengineered:


ASRock Unveils Blazing M.2 PCIe Gen 5 SSD Cooler With Active Fan Heatsink, Compatible With Z790, X670E & B650 Motherboards (wccftech.com)
The answer is future-proofing. People are willing to buy motherboards loaded with features they cannot currently use because they are planning to keep the boards for some time, maybe five years. For an AMD 600 series board that could well embrace Zen 4, Zen 5 and even Zen 6. BIOS updates might be necessary but not a new board. Who's to say where either PCI-E 5 graphics cards or M.2 NVME drives will be in say three years time. The alternative is to buy lesser spec motherboards more frequently but that's probably more typical of Intel buyers.
Posted on Reply
#118
ARF
pressing onThe answer is future-proofing. People are willing to buy motherboards loaded with features they cannot currently use because they are planning to keep the boards for some time, maybe five years. For an AMD 600 series board that could well embrace Zen 4, Zen 5 and even Zen 6. BIOS updates might be necessary but not a new board. Who's to say where either PCI-E 5 graphics cards or M.2 NVME drives will be in say three years time. The alternative is to buy lesser spec motherboards more frequently but that's probably more typical of Intel buyers.
Are you sure that anyone will care about PCIe 5.0 even after 5 years?
AMD's stupidity is infinite. Just release X670 with PCIe 4.0 and then in 5 years return to the PCIe 5.0. Maybe by then there will be more efficient manufacturing processes, so that everything will run cooler and quieter.

No, it's not the time now to oversupply with something that you don't even know if will work ever.

PCIe 5.0 might be DOA as is.
Posted on Reply
#119
Gaiacheck
ARFAre you sure that anyone will care about PCIe 5.0 even after 5 years?
AMD's stupidity is infinite. Just release X670 with PCIe 4.0 and then in 5 years return to the PCIe 5.0. Maybe by then there will be more efficient manufacturing processes, so that everything will run cooler and quieter.

No, it's not the time now to oversupply with something that you don't even know if will work ever.

PCIe 5.0 might be DOA as is.
People are overreacting, PCIe 3.0 lasted like 10 years and you will still have no problems running it with current gen hardware. I run 1080p144 with rx6600 on 3.0 mb, will I get better performance on 4.0? Probably. Will I notice it? Absolutely not.

I agree that 5.0 might just be pointless. Basically standard for hardware that doesn't exist yet. Future proofing for 10 years into future? bruh
Posted on Reply
#120
R0H1T
It's more useful for PCIe based (NVMe) storage, but even there it's not that useful outside of the 0.1% of users out there! There is one more thing that people here are ignoring ~ the SSD prices are tanking & with high end PCIe 4.0 or PCIe 5.0 drives many of these companies can continue selling around the same or even lower prices on PCIe 3.0 drives. Basically these drives can subsidize the much higher volume but lower margin products. Now admittedly they'll also cut production but the early adopter tax helps the plebs here :pimp:
Posted on Reply
#122
wheresmycar
Valantar......Corporations very obviously need to check their greed, but they also need to start designing more cost-optimized products and stop chasing performance in a way that throws all cost considerations to the wind, as we've been seeing for the past couple of generations now.....
DAMN RIGHT!!!

I'm of the same opinion and have been for a while... although you might disagree with the following: i'm over the mooon seeing AMD being hit hard in the revenue department but for the joy to make sense it has to apply to both Intel/Nvidia too, otherwise it sucks! All these hardware throttlers pinching our hard earned dosh need a slap in the face. I've been waiting for a long time for these tech giants to feel the ripples turning into waves with buyer despondency. NVIDIA is always 1st on that list but it seems the pocket-rich continue to grease that self-indulgence war engine.

With power consumption rapidly increasing and small pockets of performance uptick per each generation (gaming), it was obvious these companies were dead set on winning the performance crown at the helm of anything/everything. Like all mightier-than-thou empires, the empirical demise (ok ok overly dramatic) .......ffs, at this point i dont even know where im going with this lol.... erm, in short let them run themselves into the ground i suppose... if its helps lowering prices, introducing less useless embellished feature boards and delivering cost-effective products within the buyers means, i'm all for it!!
Posted on Reply
#123
lexluthermiester
pressing onTrue but some financial analysts are claiming that AMD is likely to have made a loss for Q3 2022. There is a big difference between loosing revenue and remaining profitable, and less revenue leading to losses.

It might be worth noting that Intel made a loss for Q2 2022, and they will be reporting on Q3 2022 on 27 October. AMD detailed numbers for the quarter come out on 1 November. Watch this space, I guess.
Regardless, this is a situation indicative of the general economy, not the futures outlook for the company.
Posted on Reply
#124
Tech Ninja
Currently the global economic crisis has only impacted consumers. It will hit cloud, server and gaming as well. Look at Nvidia results.
Posted on Reply
#125
Valantar
ARFI really don't understand what they are thinking. The market is not ready for PCIe 5.0.
I will never put so large cooling on an SSD. It is stupid and underengineered:


ASRock Unveils Blazing M.2 PCIe Gen 5 SSD Cooler With Active Fan Heatsink, Compatible With Z790, X670E & B650 Motherboards (wccftech.com)
The thing is, it's not even down to them being underengineered - it's just a form of performance that isn't compatible with consumer workloads, as consumer workloads generally aren't massively sequential. And NAND flash just doesn't have the random performance to even saturate a 3.0x4 interface without a ton of channels - more than you can fit on an m.2 drive.

And then there's the workloads - say you're loading into a game. Even if you're filling the entire VRAM of an RTX 4090 with assets directly from your SSD, that's, what three seconds of peak sequential read with a PCIe 4.0 drive? Or six seconds with a 3.0 drive, or 1.5 seconds with a 5.0 drive. The point being: who cares about those differences? Of course, game loads today are nowhere near saturating even a 3.0 bus, which DirectStorage will hopefully improve upon. But beyond that, who cares? Differences will be negligible anyhow - no game will require you to be streaming in more than 3.5GB/s of assets at any point in the foreseeable future, so anything above PCIe 3.0 will at best cut loading times by a second or two. I'm very much looking forward to DS being widely adopted, but I don't see it making PCIe 3.0 drives obsolete in any way.
pressing onThe answer is future-proofing. People are willing to buy motherboards loaded with features they cannot currently use because they are planning to keep the boards for some time, maybe five years. For an AMD 600 series board that could well embrace Zen 4, Zen 5 and even Zen 6. BIOS updates might be necessary but not a new board. Who's to say where either PCI-E 5 graphics cards or M.2 NVME drives will be in say three years time. The alternative is to buy lesser spec motherboards more frequently but that's probably more typical of Intel buyers.
The thing is, there's no foreseeable future that isn't already covered by PCIe 4.0 (and arguably even 3.0) for consumers. PCIe 5.0 is very useful to enterprise and HPC, but consumers just don't run workloads where those types of drive speeds (or capacities to match the speeds) are relevant, and NAND isn't fast enough in random workloads for that to change.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Nov 22nd, 2024 17:20 EST change timezone

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts