The GPU profit is a pittance basically, and is helped by console revenues. Take that away and they are barely break even, same with Nvidia minus their professional segment. There just isn't money to be made in discrete consumer gpu and both companies are forced into spending ever more on it each new node, when those wafers could be better spent elsewhere.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Without valid financial links your conclusions seem to be speculations and wrong ones at that.
CFO Commentary on Third Quarter Fiscal Year 2013 Results
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/External.File?item=UGFyZW50SUQ9MTYxMjg3fENoaWxkSUQ9LTF8VHlwZT0z&t=1
When you have $739 million in revenues in consumer GPUs and record gross margins and directly state that the gross margin improvements was a direct result of selling more high-end Kepler GPUs into the consumer market then your statements look more and more like something you usually see from an unnamed site that enjoys spreading false data about anything Nvidia.
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
What are you talking about now?
Your statements seem to be all over the map.
Even your first sentence makes no sense in relation to my posted reply to your previous post.
You can't figure out that Nvidia's consumer GPU revenue was up because AMD cut back on production and lost a ton of market share? I'm not sure how to put it any clearer than that.
With intel also cutting back on production, what do you think will happen to Nvidia's consumer gpu revenue?
A1xLLcqAgt0qc2RyMz0y
Veteran
Wow just wow
you really actually believe that Nvidia only gained revenue and market share because of what AMD may have done and that AMD directly controls Nvidia's revenue stream.How about looking at it more realistically in that Nvidia sold more of their consumer GPUs into both notebook and high end machines and that caused their revenue to rise and that AMD sold less which caused both Nvidia's market share to rise while AMD's market share declined.
And as for your previous statement that Nvidia doesn't make any money in consumer GPUs the previous quarterly statements have more than proved that wrong.
Wow just wow
If you actually believe that AMD dropping production by almost 40% isn't going to affect Nvidia's revenue then I really don't know what to say.
How about you look at what actually happened and see that AMD produced less, and therefore sold less. Of course Nvidia gained *in the short term*, due to Intel selling more PC's at AMD's expense. Intel didn't sell more PC's in Q4 when the penny finally dropped that the market was dying in spectacular fashion. That means Nvidia will also sell less in the quarter. You do actually realise that Nvidia is almost wholly dependent on Intel and to a much lesser extent AMD in order to sell their consumer gpu's? If less PC's are being sold, less gpu's are being sold.
You have used one quarter - a very good quarter - to "prove" your point. Let's just wait and see what happens in Q4.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
They produced less, because they sold less or had excess inventory. Their product was on the shelves to be bought, so the correlation you are trying to make is just plain wrong and silly.
That's a gross oversimplification. They could have continued to produce the same number of cpu's at globalfoundries but instead opted to save $65 million by not taking the wafers.
The knock-on effect of selling less AMD CPU's is that the graphics department sells less GPU's. Intel and Nvidia made hay *that single Q3* as AMD voluntarily gave up a ton of market share. However the market finally took a bad turn in Q4 for intel, and the knock-on effect of that will be that Nvidia sold less GPU's in Q4 as well.
PC shipments down 6.4% - http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23903013#.UQ__wWc1O73
http://betanews.com/2013/01/08/holy-post-pc-era-tablet-shipments-will-surpass-laptops-this-year/
That's how it's going.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
nVidia has had quite a few good quarters in a row...
That's a gross oversimplification. They could have continued to produce the same number of cpu's at globalfoundries but instead opted to save $65 million by not taking the wafers.
The knock-on effect of selling less AMD CPU's is that the graphics department sells less GPU's. Intel and Nvidia made hay *that single Q3* as AMD voluntarily gave up a ton of market share. However the market finally took a bad turn in Q4 for intel, and the knock-on effect of that will be that Nvidia sold less GPU's in Q4 as well.
PC shipments down 6.4% - http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS23903013#.UQ__wWc1O73
http://betanews.com/2013/01/08/holy-post-pc-era-tablet-shipments-will-surpass-laptops-this-year/
That's how it's going.
PC shipments being down 6.4% doesn't in any way mean that nVidia had a terrible quarter. Your argument seems to be all over the place...
Where do you get the correlation that people are really mostly buying AMD CPU + GPU or Intel + nVidia combos? AMD didn't voluntary gave up anything, they had product to sell.
I'm pretty sure nVidia had a good quarter, but the lineup is aging, so that could explain a few percentage drops. The release of Haswell is also going to be bring new life to the market again.
The correlation may well be real, but the causation is backwards.
AMD reduced its production precisely because it couldn't sell everything it was making, due to strong competition. The notion that a company would reduce its production and give up market share for the fun of it is rather ludicrous.
DuckThor Evil
Legend
I originally thought he was saying that AMDs lack of production meant shortages of their products in the marketplace and that caused consumers to go nVidia, but he went more nonsensical than I had anticipated.
Again that's an oversimplification. AMD couldn't sell everything they made *at the prices they wanted to*. There were various reasons for this but mostly because Intel was readying for a sell-off of inventory.
AMD made the decision to not take $400 million worth of wafers from globalfoundries because they had beancounted that it would save them $65 million. It's not about not selling, it's about not selling at a good enough price.
6 months down the line, Trinity shipments have doubled and look quite healthy. 7-series cards are in low supply (at least in the UK) and prices are rising instead of dropping. They may well have saved more money than they thought by slashing the amount of production, because prices are very steady now.
Regardless of that, the facts are clear. The PC market is being eaten by the tablet market and this is where both companies need to be fighting it out, not in the laughably unprofitable consumer gpu arena.
Last edited by a moderator:
I didn't say they had a terrible quarter, I said it won't be as good as Q3. How do you think they are going to make more money in Q4 when PC shipments are way down?
Oh come on. Check any systems around and it's quite clear than intel+nvidia is the preference and amd+amd is.
What about AMD's dual graphics packages with Trinity? With a massive cutback in Q3's APU sales, the graphics division would also have suffered a large cutback in cards being sold alongside.
Yes just like the release of Windows 8 did. Oh wait...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
That's a red herring. Consumer demand for Win8 was there. Touchscreen devices (the ones in high demand) wasn't. OEMs greatly underestimated consumer demand for touchscreen devices.
Regards,
SB
Fair enough, however this isn't going to change anything regarding Haswell breathing life into the market. The market has contracted for only the 3rd time since the industry began, and this time it's because there are alternatives instead of a dot.com collapse. These alternatives aren't going away.
http://betanews.com/2013/01/14/ding-dong-the-pcs-dead/
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Again, it's too early to say. Lenovo did better than most OEMs at providing touchscreen devices and guess what? They had record revenue.
Consumers are waiting for touchscreen devices to buy Win8 hardware. As the supply of those increases, we'll get a better idea as to whether the PC market is actually shrinking or not.
Just like the constant cries of the desktop computer being dead because notebook computers are taking over that we've heard every single year since the late 1990's. People are quick to jump to conclusions with only one quarter of hardware sales.
Regards,
SB
DuckThor Evil
Legend
You've been constantly claiming how unprofitable and terrible that line of business is for them, although it's total BS. nVidia is getting good numbers, because they are outperforming the market. Q3 was worse for the market than previous year, but nVidia did great. 6.4% down in total shipments means nVidia has room to churn out a good profitable quarter once again. Total PC shipments does not equal discrete GPU shipments BTW, let alone nVidia discretes.
I agree that people who went Bulldozer has a higher chance to go AMD GPU, but Intel buyers go for both, just like they went ATI and nVidia back in the day and Intel sells a lot more than AMD.
So what? basically they sold less, because of lower demand of their products and that spells doom for nVidia... Really?
Windows 8 had a lot of negative buzz, Haswell seems different in that regard.
How is supply of 7xxx-series low in UK?
This is the problem. Nowhere did I say Nvidia wasn't doing pretty well - however their last numbers in Q3 (the point of contention) was a one-off because of AMD's choice to cut back on production.
Once again I am not spelling doom for Nvidia - I am simply stating that their Q3 was very good on the basis of AMD having a bad one, and that they shouldn't be expected to do the same in Q4. They might...but I doubt it.
I keep close track on prices and I've noticed a lot of cards I had been using have been out of stock or the price has either stopped falling or started increasing.
