[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

R&D is part of "operating expenses", which did increase almost 23 million from prior quarter.

1.3% change in gross margin isn't "fairly insignificant" when it's attached to large amounts of revenue:

$953.2M * 51.4% = $490M
vs
$924.9M * 50.1% = $463M

About 27 Million dollars.

That's a bit of wrong math. 1.3% would be ~12.39 million at 953.2 million revenue. At 924.9m revenue it only accounts for an ~12.02 million drop in operating profits. So yes, my use of the word insignificant was a bit out there. For some reason when I made the post last night I was thinking only ~1.2 million USD but that would have been only 0.13%. Ooops.

Either way, it doesn't account for the remaining reduction in operating profits. But at least it does bring it up to ~40.3 million due to drop in revenue and drop in gross margins leaving another 15.3 million to be accounted for.

Your GK100 part is pretty wild speculation

Yes it is, I never said it wasn't.

I suppose they could have hired another 15 million USD worth of engineers as silent_guy suggested (tongue-in-cheek) as a rebuttal.

Regards,
SB

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

That's a bit of wrong math. 1.3% would be ~12.39 million at 953.2 million revenue. At 924.9m revenue it only accounts for an ~12.02 million drop in operating profits. So yes, my use of the word insignificant was a bit out there. For some reason when I made the post last night I was thinking only ~1.2 million USD but that would have been only 0.13%. Ooops.

Either way, it doesn't account for the remaining reduction in operating profits. But at least it does bring it up to ~40.3 million due to drop in revenue and drop in gross margins leaving another 15.3 million to be accounted for.

The math is fine, I just used the margin alongside the revenue to calculate the cross profits to show that there is already a $27 million difference at that level (lower cross profit vs previous Q). Add in the $23 million rise in expenses and we are at $50 million.

Your 40.3 number is the wrong one, because you can't just blindly calculate stuff from the revenue figure alone, even if my crude example sort of implied it

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

The math is fine, I just used the margin alongside the revenue to calculate the cross profits to show that there is already a $27 million difference at that level (lower cross profit vs previous Q). Add in the $23 million rise in expenses and we are at $50 million.

Your 40.3 number is the wrong one, because you can't just blindly calculate stuff from the revenue figure alone, even if my crude example sort of implied it

Eh? There's no wrongness about it. If we ignore operating expenses for the moment we have...

953.2m - 924.9m = 28.3m

So that 28.3m drop would come directly out of the operating profits. We then have...

924.9m * 0.013 = 12.02m

That's the loss from going from 51.4% margins to 50.1% margins. Even if we use the former 953.2m number that still only accounts for 12.39m losses generated from the drop in margins.

So in either case you end up with 40.32m to 40.69m attributable directly to lowered revenue + lowered margins. There really is no vagueness about it.

Your example would in theory already take into account the 28.3m drop in revenue. Which then shows the incorrect absolute drop in operating profits as 26.57m which is incorrect. You can't just add a number that includes the drop in revenue to the actual drop in revenue.

Regards,
SB

[Dr Evil]

Wow sorry, but you are a bit confused... I'll try one more time.

Loss of revenue does not "come directly out of the operating profits", because revenue is not pure profit (unless gross margin is 100%), only about half of that 28,3M drop is loss of gross profit as evidenced by the gross profit % given to us.

I gave you the REAL gross profit figures. The 463 million IS their gross profit for the quarter, a drop of 27 million from the previous quarter, that is a FACT. You get the gross profit figure by multiplying revenue with the gross margin percentage, which I did for both quarters.

The 27 million figure is the combination of loss of revenue and loss of gross margin percentage. 27 Million is the net effect of those two and the actual drop in their gross profit.

$953.2M * 51.4% = $490M = gross profit for Q4
vs
$924.9M * 50.1% = $463M = gross profit for Q1

That is how you count it.

Load this PDF and look at the table after page 5, the figures are all there.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by Dr Evil

Wow sorry, but you are a bit confused... I'll try one more time.

Loss of revenue does not "come directly out of the operating profits", because revenue is not pure profit (unless gross margin is 100%), only about half of that 28,3M drop is loss of gross profit as evidenced by the gross profit % given to us.

I gave you the REAL gross profit figures. The 463 million IS their gross profit for the quarter, a drop of 27 million from the previous quarter, that is a FACT. You get the gross profit figure by multiplying revenue with the gross margin percentage, which I did for both quarters.

The 27 million figure is the combination of loss of revenue and loss of gross margin percentage. 27 Million is the net effect of those two and the actual drop in their gross profit.

$953.2M * 51.4% = $490M = gross profit for Q4
vs
$924.9M * 50.1% = $463M = gross profit for Q1

That is how you count it.

Load this PDF and look at the table after page 5, the figures are all there.

http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External...F8VHlwZT0z&t=1

I can see where you are getting confused. I was talking about operating profits. You are talking only the very basic gross profits (revenue - manufacturing costs) which is almost meaningless and has almost no bearing at all on the the financial numbers that were reported.

I think we should probably stop here, we're not even remotely talking about the same things. With regards to the operating profits my numbers are quite correct with regards to the reduced margins and reduced margins. The only variable that is unknown is the composition of the operating expenses that have increased.

The math you used is correct in showing the change in gross profits but has only minor bearing on the changes in the operating profits. And you definitely cannot take the change to gross profits due to margins and add it to the reduction in revenue and somehow pretend that it represents the change in operating profits.

Regards,
SB

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

I can see where you are getting confused. I was talking about operating profits. You are talking only the very basic gross profits (revenue - manufacturing costs) which is almost meaningless and has almost no bearing at all on the the financial numbers that were reported.

You are quite clueless on this issue. Gross profit is one of the most important financial metrics and has all the bearings in the world related to these reported numbers. It has a direct one to one effect on the operating profit figure. It's just you who seems to be unable to understand that.

Revenue from Q1 924.9M
Gross margin 50.3 %

=

Gross profit 463M

minus

operating costs 391M

=

OPERATING PROFIT (463M-391M) = 72M This is it right there!

Add the effect of financing and taxes and we have the reported net income.

= Net income 60 Million.

It's just simple adding and subtracting. Do you now understand how a change in the gross profit figure has a direct 1 to 1 effect in the operating profit figure?

I think we should probably stop here, we're not even remotely talking about the same things. With regards to the operating profits my numbers are quite correct with regards to the reduced margins and reduced margins.

Stopping would be very welcome at this point, but you need to be stopped first. we are talking different things because you are wrong and don't understand how these things work. Your calculation

953.2m - 924.9m = 28.3m

So that 28.3m drop would come directly out of the operating profits

assumes that a change in revenue has 1 to 1 effect to operating profit, but that is incorrect (beyond any measure...) like I already said and should be perfectly obvious. Gross profit however has a 1 to 1 effect to the operating profit though. Revenue figure alone without the gross margin percentage is the one that is somewhat meaningless in this context.

Imagine this: Had the gross margin percentage been 56% instead of 50.1% in Q1 the operating profit would have been higher than in Q4 despite the lower revenue.

924.9M * 56% = gross profit of 518M- 391M = 127M vs 122M in Q4.

How does your "28.3M straight out of operating profit work with that?

The math you used is correct in showing the change in gross profits but has only minor bearing on the changes in the operating profits. And you definitely cannot take the change to gross profits due to margins and add it to the reduction in revenue and somehow pretend that it represents the change in operating profits.

Well I'm glad you at least acknowledged that my math was right. The effect of gross profit I explained...

But what does this:

"And you definitely cannot take the change to gross profits due to margins and add it to the reduction in revenue and somehow pretend that it represents the change in operating profits."

even tries to say?

I assure you my calculations are 100 % correct and by the book.

Like I've said the change in gross profit is not caused by just the change in margins but the change in margins AND the change in revenue. It works exactly like I said and calculated. There is no room for interpretation here.

[trinibwoy]

http://www.electroiq.com/articles/ss...res-in-q1.html

Mercury Research’s updated PC Graphics market share forecast for Q1 2012 (“PC Graphics Chip Sets & Technologies,” shows that discrete GPUs reversed trends this quarter -- growing +3% Q/Q while integrated fell -2% Q/Q. This suggests that PC ODM/OEMs can increase spending on graphics now that hard disk drive (HDD) prices are decreasing with supply restored from the Thailand flooding disaster. Despite the strength in the discrete GPU market, limited availability of Nvidia’s Kepler GPU resulted in 90 bps of share loss in the discrete GPU market, with Intel and AMD taking modest share from Nvidia.

AMD lost 30bps of share to NVDA in the mobile discrete market but gained 150 bps in the desktop discrete market benefitting from the earlier ramp of 28nm graphics parts as well as from lower shipments by NVDA due to limited availably of its desktop parts. AMD gained 90bps in the discrete market. In the integrated market, AMD gained modest share in desktops but loss share to Intel on the notebook side resulting in AMD’s share in the integrated market slipping to 17.5% from 18% the prior quarter.

NVDA’s management reported that its FY Q1 results were dampened by 28nm chip shortages. NVDA suggests that this is not a yield issue, Muse says, adding that it is likely due to poor planning on NVDA’s part and reluctance on foundry TSMC’s part to add more capacity. In the future, look for Nvidia to regain that share as 28nm shortages lessen, Kepler sees higher attach rates, and Nvidia fulfills Apple orders. Robust design-in momentum on the Ivy Bridge platform, Ultrabooks, as well as Apple products all point to incremental share gains for NVDA going forward.

[UniversalTruth]

Q1 Graphics Shipments Decline 0.8% Over Last Quarter and Slip 3.38% Over Last Year...and that's the good news according to Jon Peddie Research Report

The news was not good. AMD was able to grow shipments over last quarter by 0.3%, in a down quarter. Intel slipped 1.3% and Nvidia declined 4.5% from the last quarter.

Nvidia shipments dropped 4.5% from last quarter, partially due to the phase out of IGPs. The company will no longer report IGP shipments.

Year to year this quarter AMD shipments declined 1.2%, Intel shipped 4.67% more parts, Nvidia slipped -26.3% in the overall market as company withdraws from the integrated segments, and VIA saw their shipments increase by 51% over last year and 148% over last quarter.

Nvidia has exited the integrated graphics chipset segments and it is shifting its focus to discrete GPUs. The company suffered a desktop discrete market share loss (4.3% quarter-to-quarter), and had a 5% gain in notebook discrete GPUs. Nvidia credits strong connect with new Intel Sandy Bridge notebooks for its gains.

Meanwhile

AMD had a gigantic increase in shipments of its desktop APUs of 84% and a modest 2.6% decline in notebook APUs.

[Richthofen]

These overall GPU share numbers get more and more uninteresting.

[doob]

Well since no one has posted this piece of news i'll add it now since i got nothing better to do atm.

The problem is that the GeForce / Quadro driver from NVIDIA is only available for Linux x86 and x86_64 architectures, not MIPS or even ARM (only the Tegra driver is for ARMv7). NVIDIA refused to release the source-code to their high-performance feature-complete cross-platform driver to the Chinese, and it would cost them millions of dollars to port the code-base, so they went to AMD for their GPU order.

The order was at least for ten million GPUs, which given the current low-end parts, would value the order at least 250 to 350 million dollars (USD). However, I've heard from a separate source that it was closer to the half billion dollar mark. This money will now be handed over to AMD since they have the officially-based open-source driver for their products.

[Silent_Buddha]

Ouch on losing that sale to China. ~Half a billion USD is a big chunk of change. It'll be interesting to see if it's a one time payment or if it'll be amortised over multiple quarters for AMD.

[edit] - changed 500 billion to half a billion. Ooops.

Regards,
SB

[AlexV]

Originally Posted by Silent_Buddha

Ouch on losing that sale to China. ~500 billion USD is a big chunk of change. It'll be interesting to see if it's a one time payment or if it'll be amortised over multiple quarters for AMD.

Regards,
SB

Ugh, you're been spending too much time with Dr. Evil, and billions are the consequence...The US would cry upon losing 500 bln USD, luckily NV only lost (supposedly and quite unconfirmedly) 500 mln USD. Maybe they value their IP or something...

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by AlexV

Ugh, you're been spending too much time with Dr. Evil, and billions are the consequence...The US would cry upon losing 500 bln USD, luckily NV only lost (supposedly and quite unconfirmedly) 500 mln USD. Maybe they value their IP or something...

Am I the only one who thinks that releasing the source code of your crown jewels to the Chinese is a really bad idea? I wouldn't be surprised if that would be disallowed under various trade restrictions. (I suppose that's what you meant with valuing their IP?)

[Sxotty]

Originally Posted by silent_guy

Am I the only one who thinks that releasing the source code of your crown jewels to the Chinese is a really bad idea? I wouldn't be surprised if that would be disallowed under various trade restrictions. (I suppose that's what you meant with valuing their IP?)

Yeah companies that are doing that are selling the future for a short term bump in profit. Glad nvidia was smart enough not to.

[Kaotik]

Originally Posted by Sxotty

Yeah companies that are doing that are selling the future for a short term bump in profit. Glad nvidia was smart enough not to.

...right, because AMD having had open source drivers for anyone to look at for years clearly sold their future?

[Alexko]

Originally Posted by AlexV

Ugh, you're been spending too much time with Dr. Evil, and billions are the consequence...The US would cry upon losing 500 bln USD, luckily NV only lost (supposedly and quite unconfirmedly) 500 mln USD. Maybe they value their IP or something...

That's a very big contract. If there's any truth to this report, I would imagine that AMD will make a press release, or at least mention it at some earnings conference.

If they don't, we can assume it's bullocks.

[Blazkowicz]

The problem is that the GeForce / Quadro driver from NVIDIA is only available for Linux x86 and x86_64 architectures, not MIPS or even ARM (only the Tegra driver is for ARMv7). NVIDIA refused to release the source-code to their high-performance feature-complete cross-platform driver to the Chinese, and it would cost them millions of dollars to port the code-base, so they went to AMD for their GPU order.

when I go to nvidia's website, download section, there's no option for Tegra drivers, only geforce, quadro etc.
you know, the full linux driver thing. with Xorg, OpenGL, vdpau etc. , I guess there's very little market for that, someone who installs full blown GNU/Linux on a Tegra tablet/laptop "transformer", but hell why not.they support FreeBSD, that's enough to say.

They'll have to port to ARM, eventually! else their Denver APU would fail. they'll support x86, x86-64 and ARMv8. but they don't seem kin on lower ARM, MIPS or something else.

the Chinese should have paid. but they are after low-cost licensing, and controlling their MIPS-based stack. why not, nvidia couldn't meet such demands so they made a big fuss about it to make the blame rest on nvidia.

[Ryan Smith]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

They'll have to port to ARM, eventually! else their Denver APU would fail. they'll support x86, x86-64 and ARMv8. but they don't seem kin on lower ARM, MIPS or something else.

So far all NVIDIA has seriously talked about using Denver for is as the master CPU for Tesla clusters. If that's the case they merely need to port their Tesla computer cluster drivers, which is far easier than porting the display driver.

[AlexV]

Originally Posted by silent_guy;

(I suppose that's what you meant with valuing their IP?)

Yes. Also (in reply to Kaotik), whilst it's cute and all Xorg Radeon or whatever it's called is not fglrx. There is a very significant difference between the two. If the existence of an open-source driver developed by 3 gentlemen and a few not necessarily great documents was the discriminant, then I bet even a low ranking NV guy could've pointed out Nouveau.

My humble assumption is that you need a slightly more significant nudge to take your money one way or the other, so if the decision is true it was likely motivated by something else. The "oh noes, lack of FOSS as Linus said is killing NV's business" meme is silly. There are very expensive, Chinese supers built using Teslas...think they got source-code access to NV's main trunk for those?

[silent_guy]

Originally Posted by Ryan Smith

So far all NVIDIA has seriously talked about using Denver for is as the master CPU for Tesla clusters. If that's the case they merely need to port their Tesla computer cluster drivers, which is far easier than porting the display driver.

There was this tidbit some time ago: http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/other/d...pment_Kit.html
It doesn't say anything about the display driver, but you'd expect software of this kind to be written with a respectable amount of abstraction layers. If they can control a Fermi chip from ARM for compute, you'd think the hardest part has been done?

[Blazkowicz]

I thought Denver would be a fit for the "from tablets to supercomputers" meme.
what we know is nvidia only talks about compute / GPGPU when mentioning long term, medium term products.
or even any unreleased product, such as gk110.

[Silent_Buddha]

Originally Posted by AlexV

Ugh, you're been spending too much time with Dr. Evil, and billions are the consequence...The US would cry upon losing 500 bln USD, luckily NV only lost (supposedly and quite unconfirmedly) 500 mln USD. Maybe they value their IP or something...

Whoops, my bad, I meant to type "half a billion" when I was writing "500 million" and ended up typing "500 billion" instead. /mud_on_face.

And half a billion is still a large chunk of change for what amounts to a single transaction even if it is amortised over multiple quarters. That's basically over half of the revenue of Nvidia's last financial quarter.

I'm assuming, and this could be wrong obviously, that the Chinese are getting the same or similar access to the AMD source code base as the open source Linux guys are. Which I believe is everything not covered by patents owned by other companies or licensed from other companies.

Regards,
SB

[madyasiwi]

Originally Posted by Blazkowicz

when I go to nvidia's website, download section, there's no option for Tegra drivers, only geforce, quadro etc.
you know, the full linux driver thing. with Xorg, OpenGL, vdpau etc.

This isn't meant for end user.

[DSC]

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTEyOTU

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...tem&px=MTEyOTI

As China will soon find out, AMD's crappy closed or open source drivers will cost them more in the long run.

Also, Nvidia already won big design wins in Macbook Pro Retina, Surface tablet and Nexus 7 tablet.

[Kaotik]

Reportedly nVidia has had to push Tegra price down quite a lot, not a surprise either since others are bringing Cortex A15 and Qualcomm brought their Krait.

The crappy drivers is getting tiresome already, even if they're not nV level in Linux