AMD Reports Third Quarter 2017 Financial Results

[thesmokingman]

the figures reflect exactly the used low margin in order to battle with competitors

Yea, it's all AMD's fault. They should just pack it up and go home right?

 

[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.

 

[Frick]

it'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.

 

[Vya Domus]

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

Yeah because someone who drops 500$+ on a card really cares about 20 extra bucks. Definitely makes Vega look like a bad card.

 

[Lionheart]

Shame 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.

 

[Easo]

It's good to see AMD climbing out of the pit. Even AMD haters, unless they have too much money, should be happy.

 

[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.

 

[evernessince]

Ofc 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

 

[ValenOne]

Ok, woken up. You posted one entire game that is better on AMD! OMGLOLNVDED!!11!!1 HOW COULD I BE SO BLINDED!



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 ) 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.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_64/11.html for Call of Duty IW.

 

[ValenOne]

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

If you watched it properly, Xbox One X has higher ASP cost.

 

[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.

 

[Vya Domus]

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.

Intel probably charges a fortune. It's that simple really. They also have no high performance GPU offerings.

 

[StrayKAT]

Intel 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.

 

[Vya Domus]

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

Tencent's game console is Intel based.

 

[ValenOne]

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.

Ice Storm benchmarks, Surface Pro 4 with i7U IGP beats Shield TV with TX1.

 

[StrayKAT]

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.

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.

 

[Jism]

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.

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.

 

[ValenOne]

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.