So the GPUs were bought as soon as there was availability because of mining and the CPUs had many discounts and still there is a decline. How?

FrostNixon:

So the GPUs were bought as soon as there was availability because of mining and the CPUs had many discounts and still there is a decline. How?

IDK maybe because they come from a very very long period of having continous loss.... but hey I´m not an expertise in the topic.

FrostNixon:

So the GPUs were bought as soon as there was availability because of mining and the CPUs had many discounts and still there is a decline. How?

hijodeosiris:

IDK maybe because they come from a very very long period of having continous loss.... but hey I´m not an expertise in the topic.

Easily explained: not enough GPUs available to keep their sales up.

"while the sequential decrease was primarily due to seasonally lower Enterprise, Embedded and Semi-Custom segment revenue." They state the reason for the decline. Primarily it's because they ship less console chip 4thQ. They sell most of them 3rdQ for the ramp up to Christmas.

Is it just me or are the percentages vs last year surprisingly low? 2017 was a pretty good year for AMD - they had a best-selling CPU on Amazon, they made a couple big customers via Epyc (though who knows if the money for that went through yet), Vega sold very well despite it's disappointing performance, and for pretty much the first time in AMD's history are we seeing all-AMD laptops that are actually worth getting. All of that and they have just a 25% annual revenue increase? Prior to Ryzen, the most exciting thing AMD made was the RX 480 and the Fury models. They didn't release any CPUs or APUs that were really worth noting, on any platform, while Intel was starting to encroach on "good value" products

FrostNixon:

So the GPUs were bought as soon as there was availability because of mining and the CPUs had many discounts and still there is a decline. How?

As Relayer said, it's down to seasonality of their business (they forecasted it in the previous earnings call, so it's no real surprise). The results were more-or-less what was expected, no big surprises either way. Stock is behaving positively so that's a good sign (the previous two earnings led to massive sell-offs). I think investors have figured out the business by now, and are listening to Dr. Su's statement that it will be a slow, gradual process.

schmidtbag:

Is it just me or are the percentages vs last year surprisingly low? 2017 was a pretty good year for AMD - they had a best-selling CPU on Amazon, they made a couple big customers via Epyc (though who knows if the money for that went through yet), Vega sold very well despite it's disappointing performance, and for pretty much the first time in AMD's history are we seeing all-AMD laptops that are actually worth getting. All of that and they have just a 25% annual revenue increase?

AMD was still making losses earlier in the year, and Ryzen was a staggered release (and the full product stack still isn't here, as the desktop APUs haven't been released yet). Intel also released their Coffee Lake platform late last year, which might have slowed AMD's momentum somewhat.

D3M1G0D:

AMD was still making losses earlier in the year, and Ryzen was a staggered release (and the full product stack still isn't here, as the desktop APUs haven't been released yet). Intel also released their Coffee Lake platform late last year, which might have slowed AMD's momentum somewhat.

To my understanding, the annual revenue doesn't account for things like R&D, loans, or production costs (that's what gross margins are). So for that to only increase by 25% is what I find odd. That being said, I do find the increase in gross margin to be pretty reasonable. I figure by the time Intel released CL, pretty much everyone who wanted an AM4 Ryzen already bought one, so I'm not sure CL had too much of an effect.

schmidtbag:

To my understanding, the annual revenue doesn't account for things like R&D, loans, or production costs (that's what gross margins are). So for that to only increase by 25% is what I find odd. That being said, I do find the increase in gross margin to be pretty reasonable. I figure by the time Intel released CL, pretty much everyone who wanted an AM4 Ryzen already bought one, so I'm not sure CL had too much of an effect.

It's 25% for the total business, but note that the compute and graphics segment grew by 60% YoY (and most of that is probably due to Ryzen). As the future driver of growth, it's definitely encouraging. AMD also indicated that Zen 2 will have a fix for Spectre exploits so that's something to look forward to.

One needs to dig a little deeper to get to how the company is actually performing. Understanding the overall picture the Cash Flow Statement paints is needed. How much cash was used or provided by operations versus how much was used up by financing activities. Hopefully they can keep supplying the consumer market with these results after mining moves on.

AMD is doing very well and has created a cascade effect for Intel and the cpu market. the adoption of their server platforms has accelerated beyond their wildest dream, effectively ripping out the largest market segment from Intel. there is almost an industry wide use of AMD in cloud servers to the point AMD has had to increase capital (mfg. infrastructure) ahead of earlier projection. they are effectively trying to insulate each of their markets from the overall decline in pc sales and i think they've done well. the SoC market is doing very well with next gen consoles and industrial/institutional markets. and of course gpu's are selling as fast as they're made, regardless of spec.

Relayer:

They state the reason for the decline. Primarily it's because they ship less console chip 4thQ. They sell most of them 3rdQ for the ramp up to Christmas.

By coincidence "evil" hackers (alone?) jailbroke PS4, expect increased PS4 sells.Sony and AMD should be happy. LOL

BlackZero:

The Cash Flow Statement only accounts for periodic liquidity, and has absolutely no relevance to periodic revenue and earnings, which are all listed. The Cash Flow Statement only relates to liquidity.

Um, would disagree with the picture the above quote is presenting. Periodic revenue and earnings is not enough of a snap shot to see how healthy a company is. Companies can show increasing revenues but show decreasing cash flow from operations. That is why accounting is more of an art than a science. Besides liquidity is mainly and traditionally calculated off of just the Balance Sheet. Current Ratio = Current Assets ÷ Current Liabilities Quick ratio = (Current Assets – Inventories) ÷ Current Liabilities or (Cash and Equivalents + Marketable Securities + Accounts Receivable) ÷ Current Liabilities Only one ratio incorporates a part of the Cash Flow Statement: Operating Cash Flow Ratio = Cash Flow from Operations ÷ Current Liabilities The Cash Flow Statement presents how cash was used and what contributed to a net increase or decrease in cash. Three reports are needed as a minimum to remain within GAAP; Balance Sheet (snap shot on a single specific date), P&L (covers date range that ends on the Balance Sheet date), and Cash Flow Statement (same date range as P&L).

What ever...