3 ms·

The problem is more that AMD is sleeping in regard of GPU AI and good software interfaces.

burnte 6y ago
Hardly sleeping, they have a fraction of the revenue and profit of NVidia and Intel. Revenue was half of Nvidia, profit was 5% of NVidia. Intel is even bigger. They only have so much in the way of R&D money.
- reader_mode 6y ago
  Seeing their market performance I have no doubt they could get capital for R&D
  - zrm 6y ago
    Their market performance is a relatively recent development. R&D has a lead time.
- Polylactic_acid 6y ago
  ROCm is their product for compute and it still can't run on their latest NAVI cards which have been out for over a year while CUDA works on every nvidia card on day one.
- adventured 6y ago
  > Revenue was half of Nvidia, profit was 5% of NVidia. For operating income it's 25%, for net income it's 18%; not 5%. Last four quarters operating income for AMD: $884 million Last four quarters operating income for Nvidia: $3.5 billion This speaks to the dramatic improvement in AMD's operating condition over the last several years. For contrast, in fiscal 2016 AMD's operating income was negative $382 million. Op income has increased by over 300% in just ~2 1/2 years. Increasingly AMD is no longer a profit lightweight.
  - burnte 6y ago
    I was using 2019 numbers rather than last 4 quarters. I also talked about revenue and profit, not operating anything. AMD 2019 Revenue: $6.73b [1] NVIDIA 2019 Revenue: $11.72b [2] Roughly half, as I said. AMD 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $0.30 [1] NVIDIA 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $6.63 [2] 4.52%, rounds to 5%, as I said. However, you still proved my point. Lightweight or not, they do not, and have not had the amount of money available compared to NVidia and Intel. It's growing, they'll be able to continue to invest, and they have an advantage in the CPU space that should last for another year or two, giving them a great influx of cash, and their focus on Zen 2 really paid off allowing them greater cash flow to focus on GPUs as well. [1] https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/930/amd-reports-fourth-quarter-and-annual-2019-financial-results https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/930/amd... [2] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financial-results-for-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-2019 https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financia...
    - adventured 6y ago
      > AMD 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $0.30 [1] NVIDIA 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $6.63 [2] > 4.52%, rounds to 5%, as I said. You're misunderstanding how to properly compare profitability between two companies. If Company A has 1 billion shares outstanding and earns $0.10 per share, that's $100m in profit. If Company B has 10 billion shares outstanding and earns $0.05 per share, that's $500m in profit. Company A is not 100% larger on profit just because they earned more per share. It depends on how many shares you have outstanding, which is what you failed to account for. AMD's profit was not close to 5% of Nvidia's in 2019. That is what you directly claimed (as you're saying you went by the last full fiscal year). AMD had $341m in net income in their last full fiscal year. Nvidia had $2.8 billion in net income for their last full fiscal year. That's 12%, not 5%. And AMD's operating income was 22% of Nvidia for the last fiscal year. The trailing four quarters and operating income, is the superior way to judge the present condition of the two companies, rather than using the prior fiscal year. Especially given the rapid ongoing improvement in AMD's business. Regardless, even going by the last full fiscal year, your 5% figure is still wrong by a large amount. Operating income is a key measure of profitability and it's a far better manner of gauging business profitability than net income at this point. That's because the modern net income numbers are partially useless as they will include such things as asset gains/losses during the quarter. If you want to read up more on it, Warren Buffett has pointed out the absurdity of this approach on numerous occasions (if Berkshire's portfolio goes up a lot, they have to report that as net income, even though it wasn't a real profit generation event). I didn't say anything refuting your revenue figures, because I wasn't refuting them. I'm not sure why you mention that.
Aeolun 6y ago
It is frankly amazing AMD can keep up at all.
- RantyDave 6y ago
  They are doing something very right over there.
slavik81 6y ago
Aside from Navi support, which has already been mentioned, what would you like to see?

Hardly sleeping, they have a fraction of the revenue and profit of NVidia and Intel. Revenue was half of Nvidia, profit was 5% of NVidia. Intel is even bigger. They only have so much in the way of R&D money.

reader_mode 6y ago
Seeing their market performance I have no doubt they could get capital for R&D
- zrm 6y ago
  Their market performance is a relatively recent development. R&D has a lead time.
Polylactic_acid 6y ago
ROCm is their product for compute and it still can't run on their latest NAVI cards which have been out for over a year while CUDA works on every nvidia card on day one.
adventured 6y ago
> Revenue was half of Nvidia, profit was 5% of NVidia. For operating income it's 25%, for net income it's 18%; not 5%. Last four quarters operating income for AMD: $884 million Last four quarters operating income for Nvidia: $3.5 billion This speaks to the dramatic improvement in AMD's operating condition over the last several years. For contrast, in fiscal 2016 AMD's operating income was negative $382 million. Op income has increased by over 300% in just ~2 1/2 years. Increasingly AMD is no longer a profit lightweight.
- burnte 6y ago
  I was using 2019 numbers rather than last 4 quarters. I also talked about revenue and profit, not operating anything. AMD 2019 Revenue: $6.73b [1] NVIDIA 2019 Revenue: $11.72b [2] Roughly half, as I said. AMD 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $0.30 [1] NVIDIA 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $6.63 [2] 4.52%, rounds to 5%, as I said. However, you still proved my point. Lightweight or not, they do not, and have not had the amount of money available compared to NVidia and Intel. It's growing, they'll be able to continue to invest, and they have an advantage in the CPU space that should last for another year or two, giving them a great influx of cash, and their focus on Zen 2 really paid off allowing them greater cash flow to focus on GPUs as well. [1] https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/930/amd-reports-fourth-quarter-and-annual-2019-financial-results https://ir.amd.com/news-events/press-releases/detail/930/amd... [2] https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financial-results-for-fourth-quarter-and-fiscal-2019 https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-announces-financia...
  - adventured 6y ago
    > AMD 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $0.30 [1] NVIDIA 2019 Profit (as earnings per share): $6.63 [2] > 4.52%, rounds to 5%, as I said. You're misunderstanding how to properly compare profitability between two companies. If Company A has 1 billion shares outstanding and earns $0.10 per share, that's $100m in profit. If Company B has 10 billion shares outstanding and earns $0.05 per share, that's $500m in profit. Company A is not 100% larger on profit just because they earned more per share. It depends on how many shares you have outstanding, which is what you failed to account for. AMD's profit was not close to 5% of Nvidia's in 2019. That is what you directly claimed (as you're saying you went by the last full fiscal year). AMD had $341m in net income in their last full fiscal year. Nvidia had $2.8 billion in net income for their last full fiscal year. That's 12%, not 5%. And AMD's operating income was 22% of Nvidia for the last fiscal year. The trailing four quarters and operating income, is the superior way to judge the present condition of the two companies, rather than using the prior fiscal year. Especially given the rapid ongoing improvement in AMD's business. Regardless, even going by the last full fiscal year, your 5% figure is still wrong by a large amount. Operating income is a key measure of profitability and it's a far better manner of gauging business profitability than net income at this point. That's because the modern net income numbers are partially useless as they will include such things as asset gains/losses during the quarter. If you want to read up more on it, Warren Buffett has pointed out the absurdity of this approach on numerous occasions (if Berkshire's portfolio goes up a lot, they have to report that as net income, even though it wasn't a real profit generation event). I didn't say anything refuting your revenue figures, because I wasn't refuting them. I'm not sure why you mention that.

Aeolun 6y ago

It is frankly amazing AMD can keep up at all.

RantyDave 6y ago
They are doing something very right over there.

slavik81 6y ago

Aside from Navi support, which has already been mentioned, what would you like to see?