AMD Reports Record First Quarter Revenue

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
AMD today announced revenue for the first quarter of 2010 of $1.57 billion, net income of $257 million, or $0.35 per share, and operating income of $182 million. The company reported non-GAAP net income of $63 million, or $0.09 per share, and non-GAAP operating income of $130 million. “Strong product offerings and solid operating performance resulted in record first quarter revenue,” said Dirk Meyer, AMD President and CEO. “We continue to strengthen our product offerings. We launched our latest generation of server platforms, expanded our family of DirectX 11-compatible graphics offerings, and commenced shipments of our next-generation notebook platforms to customers.”
 
This is bigger news than Intel's profit announcement in my eyes.

AMD made a profit ... WOW! I would ha ve lost the bet on whether or not they would turn a profit or go BK, restructure, or get sold to another company.

This is great news for the industry and the consumers in general.
 
and i bet most of that income is from video cards :D

who'd have thought that ati who sucked balls years ago (back in the voodoo days) would ever turn out like this?
 
whether it be from video card sales or their overall lineup, a profit is good in any sense, meaning that they have some extra money they can now pour right back into R&D to make even better products or improve on the ones they currently have.
 
Does Intel's $1.25 Billion payout last November get rolled into this at all? Accounting tricks have been used in the past.
 
should we buy shares? i remember a thread on where a dude bought some shares i forgot at what priced though.
 
the AMD section beat the news area to this :)

its good to see that AMD has turned a profit
 
tvdang7 said:
should we buy shares? i remember a thread on where a dude bought some shares i forgot at what priced though.
Click to expand...

I was thinking of buying shares when they were around $1.50. Now it's at $10 :(
 
Nice, good for AMD. I really like my HD5850, however I don't ever see myself buying an AMD CPU. :(
 
Good to hear, I hope they continue to stay healthy.

I'll happily buy AMD chips for budget builds or systems I give away to family, but for my personal system it'll always be the best mid range available at the time. Pending a miracle, I don't see that changing back any time soon.
 
THRESHIN said:
and i bet most of that income is from video cards :D

who'd have thought that ati who sucked balls years ago (back in the voodoo days) would ever turn out like this?
Click to expand...


wouldnt doubt it.. but it was a smart investment in the long run for AMD to buy ATI.. everyone said it was dumb and that it would never make a profit.. blah blah blah.. and look what we ended up getting.. a huge ass war between ATI and Nvidia which is what all the consumers wanted back during the x1xxx and 2xxx series cards.. and AMD will continue to profit from sticking to their plan and flooding the mid to low range market with cpu's and gpu's.. something nvidia and Intel has failed with for a while now..
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
.. and AMD will continue to profit from sticking to their plan and flooding the mid to low range market with cpu's and gpu's..
Click to expand...
AMD has the top performing video card, and on every other price bracket they have the best performance:price ratio hands down.
something nvidia and Intel has failed with for a while now..
Click to expand...
Intel's graphic market share is over 50%, what fantasy world did you get your facts from?
 
Intel has only low-end graphics, and grabs share by forcing vendors to use integrated video chipsets.

This is not a sales issue, which is what the poster you are quoting was talking about.

Intel produces SHIT graphics, overcharges for them and forces vendors to use them.
 
King Icewind said:
Nice, good for AMD. I really like my HD5850, however I don't ever see myself buying an AMD CPU. :(
Click to expand...

Not having owned an Intel cpu/core-logic chipset rig at home since 1999 (believe it or not) my only question to you would be "Why not?"

I know that people get obsessed with benchmark bar charts and graphs, but the truth is that absent the charts and graphs in a blind test the great majority of people would have serious difficulty discerning one from the other in everyday usage and game play. That's one reason why during Intel's latter PIII/PIV (Prescott) era, wherein the benchmark numbers were largely reversed and AMD's A64 was taking them all, that people still kept buying Intel PIII's & even Prescotts--believe it or not.

These days I can't think of a single reason why anyone building a system for himself would just automatically exclude AMD cpus and core logic.

This isn't to criticize your choice of cpu at all, it's just to point out that there aren't any specific or special "problems" with AMD cpus and core logic that don't equally apply to Intel cpus and core logic across the board. Even way back in 1999 when I decided to gamble and pick up an AMD Athlon cpu & motherboard (after using nothing but Intel for x86 for 13 years before that), I was extremely pleased to discover that the FUD about AMD, which was intense in the Intel forums at the time, was horsehockey...;) I had exactly the same kind and number of "problems" with my AMD setup that I'd had with all my Intel setups before--and that's why I've stayed with AMD ever since. To be blunt about it, there isn't anything Intel's produced since 1999 that has tempted me to go back. In terms of reliability plus bang for the buck, it is still my opinion that AMD is ahead of the game. Intel has the money and the market clout, but now that Intel's signed a binding agreement with AMD to no longer pay OEMs not to use AMD cpus, or else to restrict their purchases of AMD to a very small percentage of the total number of x86 cpus they buy, I think from here on out AMD is really just getting started on the up slope.

I've often thought that as sorry as Prescott was it was surprising to see Intel hype it and actually bring it to market as they did. This is the kind of thing a dominant company does when it thinks it has little or no competition--it brings sorry products to market, prices them ridiculously high, and expects to make money simply because they think they're the only game in town and potential customers really don't have a choice. It wasn't until after the resounding success of the Opteron and then the A64 that Intel finally ditched Prescott, learned that the market was not going to move to Itanium on the desktop, learned that lots of people really do need and want 64-bits of x86 on the desktop, that Core 2 came out of the Intel design labs and made it to market with Intel licensing x86-64 from AMD to get there, as you probably know.

Again, I think the current crop of Intel ix cpus are great without a doubt--but I also think the same thing about AMD's current crop of Phenom II's...;) There just doesn't seem to me to be a rational and objective basis for preferring ix over P2 these days.

If someone's a regular gamer who greatly enjoys the hobby, but who doesn't have unlimited funds to pursue it, then my advice would be to save whatever money you can on your cpu choices, buy *at least* 4 gigs of system ram, and plow the savings into the best GPU(s) you can afford. Let's not forget choice of monitor, either, as these days I think 1920x1200 native resolution is the definite sweet spot. But of course this is all just my opinion...;) All I'm saying is that there's no reason for you to be "afraid" of buying AMD--no reason at all that I can see.
 
WaltC said:
All I'm saying is that there's no reason for you to be "afraid" of buying AMD--no reason at all that I can see.
Click to expand...

Your logic only works when the capability of the hardware is much beyond that of software needs. However, once software begins to push the hardware (which is what happens to all hardware eventually), your argument fails.
 
THRESHIN said:
and i bet most of that income is from video cards :D

who'd have thought that ati who sucked balls years ago (back in the voodoo days) would ever turn out like this?
Click to expand...

I'm sure AMD makes a boatload of cash selling Opterons to data centers that sells Opteron server hosting for a lower cost than Intel servers. I see a ton of those at SingleHop in Chicago where I colo some of my servers.
 
Lorien said:
AMD has the top performing video card, and on every other price bracket they have the best performance:price ratio hands down.

Intel's graphic market share is over 50%, what fantasy world did you get your facts from?
Click to expand...

I think he meant performance wise. Intel only has a high share in the graphics market because of their tight control of their chipsets, especially in the laptop category.
 
THRESHIN said:
and i bet most of that income is from video cards :D

who'd have thought that ati who sucked balls years ago (back in the voodoo days) would ever turn out like this?
Click to expand...

+1

We'll see how long it'll last though as AMD & ATI both have track records for being 1 hit wonders before they go back into hibernation :p
 
WaltC said:
These days I can't think of a single reason why anyone building a system for himself would just automatically exclude AMD cpus and core logic.
Click to expand...

AMD's flagship always has a higher TDP than Intel's. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top