News AMD Sees Highest Quarterly Revenue Since 2005 with 7nm Ryzen, Radeon and Epyc

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
40
19,010
0
Only $120 million net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue? Last quarter Intel made about $67 million a day in net profits. So Intel generated more profits in 2 days than AMD did all quarter.

AMD's Ryzen processors now command the pricing we'd expect of premium processors, leading to an increase in average selling prices (ASP).
No, they don't. As mentioned multiple times in this article, AMD has seen shortages of multiple models which left money on the table. They aren't charging enough. Intel saw 31% net profit last quarter. This "amazing" quarter from AMD saw under 7% net profit. It makes no sense to undercut Intel by so much that you can't meet demand.
 

hannibal

Distinguished
Apr 1, 2004
2,271
27
19,840
14
Intel is Also having shortage, so Intel is Also selling stuff too cheaply...
But yeah... Intel is big, very big. Amd income pales compared to it. Hopefully amd can keep up Many years, because if it does not. Intel starts again pushing prises up...
 
Only $120 million net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue? Last quarter Intel made about $67 million a day in net profits. So Intel generated more profits in 2 days than AMD did all quarter.



No, they don't. As mentioned multiple times in this article, AMD has seen shortages of multiple models which left money on the table. They aren't charging enough. Intel saw 31% net profit last quarter. This "amazing" quarter from AMD saw under 7% net profit. It makes no sense to undercut Intel by so much that you can't meet demand.
Actually it does. Amd is also fighting a mindset share. Remember the early Lexus? The early Hyundai? They could have charged significantly more but didn't to grab a foot hold. And AMD is saddled by tremendous debt still. So the fact they pulled this off and pulled out of a lot of debt says a lot. The fact intels asp and margin is down also says a lot to investors. Look at amazon. They make squat for margin. Its about reading the tea leaves and where you place your bets.
 
Reactions: panathas

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
40
19,010
0
Actually it does. Amd is also fighting a mindset share. Remember the early Lexus? The early Hyundai? They could have charged significantly more but didn't to grab a foot hold. And AMD is saddled by tremendous debt still. So the fact they pulled this off and pulled out of a lot of debt says a lot. The fact intels asp and margin is down also says a lot to investors. Look at amazon. They make squat for margin. Its about reading the tea leaves and where you place your bets.
Lexus isn't a company, it's a brand under Toyota. Toyota was making plenty of money and could afford to generate lower profits with Lexus while getting their foot in the luxury market. AMD doesn't have a profitable parent company to absorb the low profit margins they're generating. Early Hyundai's were absolute garbage. That's why they were cheap. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that they started selling desirable vehicles.

Again, AMD saw product shortages. At their current prices, they aren't fighting any mindshare game.

AMD is not in a financial position to start a price war with Intel. They need to maximize profits as much as possible while they have the advantage. Intel pocketed $67million a day last quarter with their lower margins. Their margins can drop magnitudes more before experiencing any affect on their business.
 
Lexus isn't a company, it's a brand under Toyota. Toyota was making plenty of money and could afford to generate lower profits with Lexus while getting their foot in the luxury market. AMD doesn't have a profitable parent company to absorb the low profit margins they're generating. Early Hyundai's were absolute garbage. That's why they were cheap. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that they started selling desirable vehicles.

Again, AMD saw product shortages. At their current prices, they aren't fighting any mindshare game.

AMD is not in a financial position to start a price war with Intel. They need to maximize profits as much as possible while they have the advantage. Intel pocketed $67million a day last quarter with their lower margins. Their margins can drop magnitudes more before experiencing any affect on their business.
Your completely missing the point.

They are priced appropriately based on where they are. AMD needs foothold in the server market to claim business victory. 3700/3800/3900 are priced appropriately given competition and AMD's position, the performance, and product stack pricing
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Olle P
Lexus isn't a company, it's a brand under Toyota. Toyota was making plenty of money and could afford to generate lower profits with Lexus while getting their foot in the luxury market. AMD doesn't have a profitable parent company to absorb the low profit margins they're generating. Early Hyundai's were absolute garbage. That's why they were cheap. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that they started selling desirable vehicles.

Again, AMD saw product shortages. At their current prices, they aren't fighting any mindshare game.

AMD is not in a financial position to start a price war with Intel. They need to maximize profits as much as possible while they have the advantage. Intel pocketed $67million a day last quarter with their lower margins. Their margins can drop magnitudes more before experiencing any affect on their business.
AMD can't just simply start charging more because they are doing well. They're going to have multi-year contracts with desktop, laptop, server, workstation, &c manufacturers. In order to entice someone like Dell or HP to take a chance at producing more products with AMD inside. They would have to provide them specified pricing levels for however many years was agreed upon. Along with time tables for expected new products.

In turn those companies promise to purchase X number of units from AMD. There will also be contractual details about order increases, penalties, &c .

Whenever it comes time to set a new contract. If the AMD products are still doing well. They'll be in a position to negotiate more favorable terms.
 
I believe AMD has the right pricing and approach. The desktop chips are not low balling Intel but the EPYC chips are. AMD is trying to get its foot into the datacenter and as such they simply have to go with razor thin margins. Frankly Intel's 14nm process is still better than TSMC's 7nm when it comes to high end desktop or server CPU's. Until AMD gets on TSMC's 7nm+ node I don't feel AMD's chips deserve a premium and I think the market would agree. If they get ahead on IPC and single threaded performance then they can start charging a premium.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
40
19,010
0
Your completely missing the point.

They are priced appropriately based on where they are. AMD needs foothold in the server market to claim business victory. 3700/3800/3900 are priced appropriately given competition and AMD's position, the performance, and product stack pricing
If I completey missed your point then your response had zero relevance to my original post.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
40
19,010
0
AMD can't just simply start charging more because they are doing well. They're going to have multi-year contracts with desktop, laptop, server, workstation, &c manufacturers. In order to entice someone like Dell or HP to take a chance at producing more products with AMD inside. They would have to provide them specified pricing levels for however many years was agreed upon. Along with time tables for expected new products.
No. They can charge more because they have a better product to sell. Your contract speil makes no sense. Zen 3000 CPU's were officially released in July. The price for those cpu's was not agreed upon 2 years ago. AMD is not locked into any pricing structure before the product is finalized unless it is a custom chip for a specific company like the apu in a video game console.
 

jimmysmitty

Champion
Moderator
No. They can charge more because they have a better product to sell. Your contract speil makes no sense. Zen 3000 CPU's were officially released in July. The price for those cpu's was not agreed upon 2 years ago. AMD is not locked into any pricing structure before the product is finalized unless it is a custom chip for a specific company like the apu in a video game console.
The problem I see is OEMs are not jumping on them as the last time they did they then launched Phenom. And in HPC, AMD left completely letting down a lot of people making it harder to just switch over. I can see why they are doing lower margins in the desktop. HPC is different. However the one thing in HPC is Intel has relationships, hardware and software teams.
 
Aug 8, 2019
36
5
35
0
Only $120 million net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue? Last quarter Intel made about $67 million a day in net profits. So Intel generated more profits in 2 days than AMD did all quarter.



No, they don't. As mentioned multiple times in this article, AMD has seen shortages of multiple models which left money on the table. They aren't charging enough. Intel saw 31% net profit last quarter. This "amazing" quarter from AMD saw under 7% net profit. It makes no sense to undercut Intel by so much that you can't meet demand.
Its Intel that overcharging us due to lack of competition........lol

Btw, this is also net profit. Not gross.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
$120 million net profit on $1.8 billion in revenue?
Well, maybe you missed this part?
AMD also noted that it has reduced debt by $441 million this year.

Last quarter Intel made about $67 million a day in net profits. So Intel generated more profits in 2 days than AMD did all quarter.
Anyway, we know AMD is quite a bit smaller than Intel, which not only means smaller volumes, but also gives them less negotiating clout with big customers. And don't forget that because Intel owns its own fabs, its manufacturing costs are probably a bit lower, thereby further boosting its margins.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker

vinay2070

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2011
62
2
18,645
2
Lexus isn't a company, it's a brand under Toyota. Toyota was making plenty of money and could afford to generate lower profits with Lexus while getting their foot in the luxury market. AMD doesn't have a profitable parent company to absorb the low profit margins they're generating. Early Hyundai's were absolute garbage. That's why they were cheap. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that they started selling desirable vehicles.

Again, AMD saw product shortages. At their current prices, they aren't fighting any mindshare game.

AMD is not in a financial position to start a price war with Intel. They need to maximize profits as much as possible while they have the advantage. Intel pocketed $67million a day last quarter with their lower margins. Their margins can drop magnitudes more before experiencing any affect on their business.
I upgraded from 3570K to 3700X because AMD was cheaper and definitely deserved a chance. If 3700X was priced on par with 9900K/KF then I would have simply gone with Intel.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
40
19,010
0
I upgraded from 3570K to 3700X because AMD was cheaper and definitely deserved a chance. If 3700X was priced on par with 9900K/KF then I would have simply gone with Intel.
The 3700x is $327. The 9900K is $485. There are a whole lot of numbers between those two that can be chosen as a price for a CPU. With the existence of the 3700x, the 3800x makes no sense. If we pretend the 3800x didn't exist, and moved the 3700x to $390, would you have bought the 9900K instead even though it would cost $96 more? If a 20% lower price isn't enough for you to choose AMD, then AMD needs to get out of the consumer CPU business.
 

vinay2070

Distinguished
Nov 27, 2011
62
2
18,645
2
The 3700x is $327. The 9900K is $485. There are a whole lot of numbers between those two that can be chosen as a price for a CPU. With the existence of the 3700x, the 3800x makes no sense. If we pretend the 3800x didn't exist, and moved the 3700x to $390, would you have bought the 9900K instead even though it would cost $96 more? If a 20% lower price isn't enough for you to choose AMD, then AMD needs to get out of the consumer CPU business.
You should read how reliance JIO gave 6 months of 4G connection for free with 1GB data per day free in India and grabbed SO MANY MILLIONS of customers away from other providers! what a way to start. And once those customers were hooked to the new service provider, they were hesitant to go back. Sometimes, to change a customer's mindset, its better to pull them in with a discount. I feel after AMD being so low in performance, it was almost like a fresh start for them competing with good performance. I have been INTEL, AMD, AMD, INTEL, INTEL since the last 5 builds and single threaded performance is the most important thing for me. Yet I switched because of the price. Yes, as you truly said, I would have gone with AMD even if the price was a little more, but that would be just you or me and a few more, but not everybody. I have even seen Intel fans make a switch because of this price madness. Now that I have an AM4 motherboard, I might even upgrade to a 4700X if the single core performance is good (another sale for AMD). It also gives them free advertisements. Most of my relatives and friends havent even heard the word AMD. AMD would have considered all these consequences before coming to this price and have their own insider justifications for it.
 

bit_user

Splendid
Herald
No, it's irrelevant. I'd have a much higher net income if I wasn't required to pay any of my debts. Just a nonsensical point.
It's not nonsensical, if you consider that Intel has no debt to service and AMD does. Their debt doesn't reflect their current management or organizational health, but it does drag down their financial performance. So, if you're using their financial performance as a proxy for their viability as a business, then you should add their debt payments to their net profits, since they'll dig themselves out of that hole, before long.
 
Reactions: TJ Hooker

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS