By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - PC - AMD Q1 2013 earnings: revenue down 31% YoY

Netyaroze on 19 April 2013

The consoles will just bring in a few billions over the years. But more than last gen they also provide CPUs this time.

But the real advantage from the console business is eventually Cloud server Hardware and that AMD becomes the lead when it comes to new Game development and this can also improve the situation on PC.



Around the Network
smbu2000 on 19 April 2013
NiKKoM said:

the profit margin for AMD on the new consoles should be pretty low.. there is a good reason why they got the contracts and not nvidia

That would be because they can produce the required GPU and CPU in one APU package. Nvidia could provide the GPU, but they'd have to go elsewhere for the CPU and it wouldn't be in one package. Is that why?




starcraft: "I and every PS3 fanboy alive are waiting for Versus more than FFXIII.
Me since the games were revealed, the fanboys since E3."

Skeeuk: "playstation 3 is the ultimate in gaming acceleration"

Kasz216 on 19 April 2013
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soleron said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
AMD is in Wii U, PS4 and the 720. Expect a huge turn.

Console revenues are small because they only recieve a per-unit royalty and don't get the margin on manufacturing or card assembly. Even if that wasn't true, graphics are the smallest business of AMD.


250 million consoles tops within a 5-8 year period. Yeah....they'll make their money.

NVidia made ~500 million on 50 Million PS3's

So if we assume AMD got the same deal... (unlikely considering how desperate they are).... 250 million consoles is a 2.5 billion over an 5-8 year period.... or back to 500 Million a year at your high estimation.  

While that'd be a pretty good bump... it's only pretty good... and that's if we're using your rosiest predictions of a maxium of 250 consoles over the course of 5 years...

and ignoring the fact that AMD probably got a worse deal.



Kasz216 on 19 April 2013
smbu2000 said:
NiKKoM said:

the profit margin for AMD on the new consoles should be pretty low.. there is a good reason why they got the contracts and not nvidia

That would be because they can produce the required GPU and CPU in one APU package. Nvidia could provide the GPU, but they'd have to go elsewhere for the CPU and it wouldn't be in one package. Is that why?

No... that isn't why....

Because NVDIA could provide a CPU... and furthermore... could provide it in one package.

NVdia has been doing that atleast since 2008 when the Tegra came out.



zarx on 19 April 2013
Kasz216 said:
smbu2000 said:
NiKKoM said:

the profit margin for AMD on the new consoles should be pretty low.. there is a good reason why they got the contracts and not nvidia

That would be because they can produce the required GPU and CPU in one APU package. Nvidia could provide the GPU, but they'd have to go elsewhere for the CPU and it wouldn't be in one package. Is that why?

No... that isn't why....

Because NVDIA could provide a CPU... and furthermore... could provide it in one package.

NVdia has been doing that atleast since 2008 when the Tegra came out.

And before anyone asks an ARM Cortex-A15 based CPU is pretty comparable to Jaguar in terms of features, but much more power effeciant. And I dare say an 8 core A15 CPU at 2.5GHz (The highest reference spec) would probably outperform an 8 core 1.6/2Ghz Jaguar based one by a large margin. Plus the nature of the ARM licensing means that they are cheap and highly customisable.



@TheVoxelman on twitter

Check out my hype threads: Cyberpunk, and The Witcher 3!

Around the Network
Soleron on 19 April 2013
zarx said:
...

And before anyone asks an ARM Cortex-A15 based CPU is pretty comparable to Jaguar in terms of features, but much more power effeciant. And I dare say an 8 core A15 CPU at 2.5GHz (The highest reference spec) would probably outperform an 8 core 1.6/2Ghz Jaguar based one by a large margin. Plus the nature of the ARM licensing means that they are cheap and highly customisable.

False, or at least you can't just say that. No one's isolated the power of just an A15 core vs just a Jaguar core on the same workload yet.

An 8-core A15 would not outperform this because i) it's not 64-bit and ii) ARM memory bandwidth is very low, and iii) and this is important, it DOESN'T EXIST. If you want it to, it will take 2 years to come to market (not kidding) by which time AMD may well have something better.



VGKing on 19 April 2013
Kasz216 said:
VGKing said:
Kasz216 said:
VGKing said:
AMD is in all next-gen consoles so I expect things to turn around for them.



Actually, there is some talk that the reason AMD is in PS4 instead of NVida is because console margins are absolutely terrible.  So Nvida walked.

 

From 2004 to 2011... NVDIA made a grand whopping total of 500 Million in royalties. 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/150892-nvidia-gave-amd-ps4-because-console-margins-are-terrible

It's pretty obvious that Nvidia is in damage control mode. They are bashing consoles left and right to make themselves feel better about losing out....

No, AMD being in consoles won't save the company but it will really help bring in a steady stream of profits over the next few yeras. They are providing the APUs for both next-gen consoles and they already provide the GPU in the Wii U. This can only be seen as a win for AMD and a loss for Nvdida.


I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article.  Since it involed absolutely zero quotes from NVDIA outside what was taken from their profit reports.

There are multiple artiles with Nvidia bashing consoles. They even said PS4 is weaker than that new Titan GPU.(lol fucking obvious considering the price difference)

Probably even more pathetic on Nvidias part is that they sent a monster of a PC to Digital Foundry to test its capability of 4K Gaming.(something next-gen consoles can't do). They have a very clear agenda. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.



VGKing on 19 April 2013
Kasz216 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soleron said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
AMD is in Wii U, PS4 and the 720. Expect a huge turn.

Console revenues are small because they only recieve a per-unit royalty and don't get the margin on manufacturing or card assembly. Even if that wasn't true, graphics are the smallest business of AMD.


250 million consoles tops within a 5-8 year period. Yeah....they'll make their money.

NVidia made ~500 million on 50 Million PS3's

So if we assume AMD got the same deal... (unlikely considering how desperate they are).... 250 million consoles is a 2.5 billion over an 5-8 year period.... or back to 500 Million a year at your high estimation.  

While that'd be a pretty good bump... it's only pretty good... and that's if we're using your rosiest predictions of a maxium of 250 consoles over the course of 5 years...

and ignoring the fact that AMD probably got a worse deal.

So Nvidida made 500 million on the GPU royalties for 50 million PS3s? Assuming AMD got a worse deal, but considering they provide CPU+GPU on both next-gen consoles, lets say $500m per APU. This would be about $1Billion for 100million next-gen consoles. They'll end up selling much more than that though and if the Wii U doesn't take off, PS4 or 720 will pick up the slack and that can only be a win for AMD.

Then there's PC gamers who are on a budget and might buy an AMD product because it might be better optimized for next-gen games.



Soleron on 19 April 2013
VGKing said:
Kasz216 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soleron said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
AMD is in Wii U, PS4 and the 720. Expect a huge turn.

Console revenues are small because they only recieve a per-unit royalty and don't get the margin on manufacturing or card assembly. Even if that wasn't true, graphics are the smallest business of AMD.


250 million consoles tops within a 5-8 year period. Yeah....they'll make their money.

NVidia made ~500 million on 50 Million PS3's

So if we assume AMD got the same deal... (unlikely considering how desperate they are).... 250 million consoles is a 2.5 billion over an 5-8 year period.... or back to 500 Million a year at your high estimation.  

While that'd be a pretty good bump... it's only pretty good... and that's if we're using your rosiest predictions of a maxium of 250 consoles over the course of 5 years...

and ignoring the fact that AMD probably got a worse deal.

So Nvidida made 500 million on the GPU royalties for 50 million PS3s? Assuming AMD got a worse deal, but considering they provide CPU+GPU on both next-gen consoles, lets say $500m per APU. This would be about $1Billion for 100million next-gen consoles. They'll end up selling much more than that though and if the Wii U doesn't take off, PS4 or 720 will pick up the slack and that can only be a win for AMD.

Then there's PC gamers who are on a budget and might buy an AMD product because it might be better optimized for next-gen games.

Nvidia's royalty was on the $800 PS3. Next-gen consoles will cost $300 (Nintendo) or $500 (MS/Sony) to produce at most.

$1b over the next 20 quarters is probably right, but it's not much.



VGKing on 19 April 2013
Soleron said:
VGKing said:
Kasz216 said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
Soleron said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
AMD is in Wii U, PS4 and the 720. Expect a huge turn.

Console revenues are small because they only recieve a per-unit royalty and don't get the margin on manufacturing or card assembly. Even if that wasn't true, graphics are the smallest business of AMD.


250 million consoles tops within a 5-8 year period. Yeah....they'll make their money.

NVidia made ~500 million on 50 Million PS3's

So if we assume AMD got the same deal... (unlikely considering how desperate they are).... 250 million consoles is a 2.5 billion over an 5-8 year period.... or back to 500 Million a year at your high estimation.  

While that'd be a pretty good bump... it's only pretty good... and that's if we're using your rosiest predictions of a maxium of 250 consoles over the course of 5 years...

and ignoring the fact that AMD probably got a worse deal.

So Nvidida made 500 million on the GPU royalties for 50 million PS3s? Assuming AMD got a worse deal, but considering they provide CPU+GPU on both next-gen consoles, lets say $500m per APU. This would be about $1Billion for 100million next-gen consoles. They'll end up selling much more than that though and if the Wii U doesn't take off, PS4 or 720 will pick up the slack and that can only be a win for AMD.

Then there's PC gamers who are on a budget and might buy an AMD product because it might be better optimized for next-gen games.

Nvidia's royalty was on the $800 PS3. Next-gen consoles will cost $300 (Nintendo) or $500 (MS/Sony) to produce at most.

$1b over the next 20 quarters is probably right, but it's not much.

The $500m was only for the GPU. AMD provides an APU which is both CPU+GPU. So I'd say its a fair comparison. Also, the $1billion is 100m consoles. A more realistic number would be 200 million consoles sold so that's $2billion.