AMD Posts Financial Results for Q2 2014

Subject: General Tech | July 17, 2014 - 11:37 PM |
Tagged: quarterly earnings, GCN, financial results, APU, amd

Today, AMD posted financial results for its second quarter of 2014. The company posted quarterly revenue of $1.44 billion, operating income of $63 million, and ultimately a net loss of $36 million (or $0.05 loss per share). The results are an improvement over both the previous quarter and a marked improvement over the same quarter last year. 

The chart below compares the second quarter results to the previous quarter (Q1'14) and the same quarter last year (Q2'13). AMD saw increased revenue and operating income, but a higher net loss versus last quarter. Unfortunately, AMD is still saddled with a great deal of debt, which actually increased from 2.14 billion in Q1 2014 to $2.21 billion at the end of the second quarter. 

  QoQ   YoY  
  Q2 2014 Q1 2014 Q2 2014 Q2 2013
Revenue $1.44 Billion $1.40 Billion $1.44 Billion $1.16 Billion
Operating Income $63 Million $49 Million $63 Million ($29 Million)
Net Profit/(Loss) ($36 Million) ($20 Million) ($36 Million) ($74 Million)

The Computing Solutions division saw increased revenue of 1% over last quarter, but revenue fell 20% year over year due to fewer chips being sold.

On the bright side, the Graphics and Visual Solutions group saw quarterly revenue increase by 5% over last quarter and 141% YoY. The massive YoY increase is due, in part, to AMD's Semi-Custom Business unit and the SoCs that have come out of there (including the chips used in the latest gaming consoles).

Further, the company is currently sourcing 50% of its wafers from Global Foundries.

“Our transformation strategy is on track and we expect to deliver full year non-GAAP profitability and year-over-year revenue growth.  We continue to strengthen our business model and shape AMD into a more agile company offering differentiated solutions for a diverse set of markets.”

-AMD CEO Rory Reed

AMD expects to see third quarter revenue increase by 2% (plus or minus 3%). Following next quarter, AMD will begin production of its Seattle ARM processors. Perhaps even more interesting will be 2016 when AMD is slated to introduce new x86 and GCN processors on a 20nm process. 

The company is working towards being more efficient and profitable, and the end-of-year results will be interesting to see.

Also read: AMD Restructures. Lisa Su Is Now COO @ PC Perspective

Source: AMD

Video News

July 18, 2014 | 02:36 AM - Posted by JohnGR

Disappointing results. Many where expecting much better results after Intel's positive quarter.
It looks like we have to wait till 2015 to see if AMD will manage to do anything more than just -more or less - breaking even.

July 18, 2014 | 07:48 AM - Posted by ROdNEY

K12 coming in 2016. Also comparing Intel (which is 20 times bigger comp.) to AMD is stupid (saying it euphemistically). We should ask why Intel (using unfair business practices for years) is not making better CPU? Why last 3 generations were not much improvement at all? Why Intel almost never supported PC gaming development or optimization?

July 18, 2014 | 08:22 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Why would Intel push the boundaries when they have little-no competition in the high-end consumer CPU market?

July 18, 2014 | 09:35 AM - Posted by JohnGR

No one is comparing Intel with AMD directly here. That's your wrong conclusion. What is common between AMD and Intel is x86 and Intel doing really good means that x86 maybe is doing really good. So you do expect AMD to gain something. If that something was only good enough for this kind of financial results, then this is not good.

July 18, 2014 | 11:12 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Complain with your wallet. Buy AMD and not Intel.

July 18, 2014 | 05:22 AM - Posted by Lithium (not verified)

Die allready idiotic company.
And take Sony with you.
They are makers of non 1080p capable console in 2014.

TSMC, please, just drop this shitty ball...we don't care.

July 18, 2014 | 02:58 PM - Posted by Ophelos

Don't put the blame on AMD for the lack of 1080p content on consoles... Both Microsoft and Sony went to AMD and asked for those kinda processors for it's consoles.

July 19, 2014 | 11:05 PM - Posted by P0ci (not verified)

Blaming AMD is stupid. Considering even their lowest end APU can do 4k how would anyone try and complain about 1080p at this point

July 19, 2014 | 11:05 PM - Posted by P0ci (not verified)

Blaming AMD is stupid. Considering even their lowest end APU can do 4k how would anyone try and complain about 1080p at this point

July 18, 2014 | 06:32 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Their graphics cards are really peformant but power hungry and emit a lot of heat. CPUs are pretty weak and are power hungry and emit a lot of heat. They seriously need to move to lower production process and new CPU architecture asap.

July 18, 2014 | 03:00 PM - Posted by Ophelos

Don't worry you'll see the new AMD CPU architecture once DDR4 and PCIe 4.0 are ready for prime time.

July 18, 2014 | 06:02 PM - Posted by Martin Trautvetter

Problem with AMD is that it's been 8 years since they were competitive. At some point, giving up hope becomes the sensible thing to do.

July 19, 2014 | 11:06 PM - Posted by P0ci (not verified)

I suspect Steamroller FXs will bring us this. Best of all if AMD continues the trend Steamrollers will not only be DDR4 but also backwards compatible with AM3+ which means also having a DDR3 controller.

This is just speculation though.

July 18, 2014 | 07:17 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If amd made a cpu thats at least the same as intels @gaming for the same price. I would buy it instantly. It doesnt even have to be better...

July 18, 2014 | 07:18 AM - Posted by Alan Peterson (not verified)

Yes i have personally use both of them and i found intel more good. It can bear the more work load and never hang.

July 18, 2014 | 07:41 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I wish AMD would do better against Intel, but there doesn't seem to be any miraclous products in the road map.
I still don't see any tablet PC's with AMD APU's nor "ultrabook" laptops using AMD APU.

By 2016 Intel will have moved to 14 - 10 nm manufacturing process and it's unlikely we'll see any price drops for their product ranges.

At least AMD still has a chance in the discrete graphics segment.

July 18, 2014 | 08:01 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

Fuck me... i would pay any amount of money for a laptop with the latest apu + freesync ips screen.

Means i could smoothly with the processor alone play all my favourite gta3/doom3/stalker/cs games.

July 18, 2014 | 09:55 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

And yet, for high end gaming without help from Nvidia, or AMD, Intel is not so "peformant" in the gaming arena. Intel will always need help from the discrete GPU makers to really game well! AMD is working on redoing its x86 microarchitecture, and hopefully GlobalFoundries will get that Samsung 14nm Fab process going, you know, the 14nm Fab process that GlobalFoundries licensed from Samsung, the 14nm Fab process that Samsung got help with from IBM, in advance of IBM getting out of the chip Fabrication business. IBM will get the chip fab process playing field leveled, for GlobalFoundries, Samsung, and TSMC, as IBM will be needing its power/power8 chips fabbed for them, and by default this means that GPU fabrication will also benefit, along with CPU/SOC fabrication, for anyone that uses these chip fabs. Chip fabs are costly to run, and the economy of scale is better utilized by the dedicated Chip fab companies, as they can keep their chip fabrication lines running at close to full capacity by serving multiple companies' chip fabrication needs. Just try to break even when the yearly accounts are done, and keep working on ARM, and your new x86 microarchitecture reworking, one losing quarter will not sink AMD.

July 18, 2014 | 11:34 AM - Posted by nova-goa (not verified)

you do know that intel holds 66% of the GPU market right. just throwing that out there.

July 19, 2014 | 11:08 PM - Posted by P0ci (not verified)

Yes when Ms N00b buys that new hot intel based OEM rig with integrated intel graphics....

July 18, 2014 | 04:05 PM - Posted by Bill (not verified)

AMD stock plummeted down over 16% today! I think investors and most consumers are done with this company. I know I'm done with them for all things cpu now.

July 18, 2014 | 06:08 PM - Posted by Martin Trautvetter

What else to do when they can't turn a profit even with their console SOCs' run rates at their generational peak?

July 18, 2014 | 08:29 PM - Posted by ZoA (not verified)

It is good to see AMD is not waisting its $ to pay dividends to useless stockholders. Investing in to R&D and manufacturing should priority instead of feeding those parasites.

AMD income is relatively steadily growing and in such situation more corrupt management might be tempted to throw some money at shareholders. Luckily it seems Reed and Su know priority should be feeding development of GCN, x86 and ARM IP first.

I know some of you that have AMD stock might be butthurt about it, but I as a consumer am happy non of my money, that I might have spent on AMD hardware, was wasted on you. As a contrast if I payed for $300 Intel CPU over 60$ would end up as money in pocket of some shareholder, a complete waist.

July 19, 2014 | 03:53 AM - Posted by razor512

I am guessing that AMD has still failed to notice that they need to actually make a good performing mid range, and high end gaming CPU to reclaim market share. While and has made some progress at the low end market, but even in the areas where they offer a better price to performance, they are often skipped because one of the main specs that the average consumer looks at, is the brand of CPU, and quite frankly, most common consumers do not care about the actual performance of the CPU, but they know that lots of high systems use them and thus it becomes a selling point even in low cost systems. By avoiding the high end market, AMD is shooting them self in the foot, because they are getting the title of slow.

For those of us who build systems, and focus on benchmarks, we buy what will perform the best within our price range for what we want to do, but for the basic user, when they see AMD, they just automatically think slow, and may even choose an even slower Intel based system over the AMD one because they are buying based on brand and not benchmarks.

In fact, when helping someone with getting a new laptop at the budget end, when I show them an AMD based system, they automatically think it will be too slow, and and then ask for something in their price range with an Intel CPU, which I will do but also show them benchmarks detailing that the AMD one will offer more performance for the money in what they do, they will still prefer the Intel.

On the CPU side of things, AMD has really ruined their reputation starting with their give and take upgrades where IPC took a back seat to more gimmicky specs that reduced the overall usefulness of the CPU, e.g, the move from Phenom II, to FX. Where IPC took nearly a 30% drop in order to add more cores and clock them higher (in a world where not all applications are multithreaded).

July 19, 2014 | 05:21 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Well you're also comparing "good performing mid and high-end gaming CPUs" to a company which (if I remember correctly) spends more than AMD's revenue on R&D.

July 19, 2014 | 11:09 PM - Posted by P0ci (not verified)

3 letters
could cause a dent for both intel and amd

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.