AMD Releases Q2 FY 2016 Financial Results
by Brett Howse on July 21, 2016 11:10 PM EST- Posted in
- CPUs
- AMD
- Financial Results
This afternoon, AMD announced their second quarter earnings for the 2016 fiscal year. It’s been a while, but AMD finds itself in the black for this quarter, with higher revenues, and thanks to $150 million from a joint venture with Nantong Fujitsu Microelectronics, AMD’s net income found its way into the positive column. AMD had revenues of $1.027 billion for the quarter, which is up 23% from last quarter, and more importantly up 9% from a year ago. Gross margin for the quarter was 31%, which is still not what AMD wants or needs to maintain profitability, but it is up 6% from their Q2 2015 results which is good news for the company. AMD did record an operating loss for the quarter of $8 million, but that’s a big improvement compared to the $68 million loss last quarter and $137 million loss in Q2 2015. Net income for this quarter was $68 million, or $0.08 per share, compared to a net loss of $109 million last quarter and a $181 million loss a year ago.
| AMD Q2 2016 Financial Results (GAAP) | |||||
| Q2'2016 | Q1'2016 | Q2'2015 | |||
| Revenue | $1027M | $832M | $942M | ||
| Gross Margin | 31% | 32% | 25% | ||
| Operating Income | -$8M | -$68M | -$137M | ||
| Net Income | $69M | -$109M | -$181M | ||
| Earnings Per Share | $0.08 | -$0.14 | -$0.23 | ||
AMD also released Non-GAAP results which exclude restructuring charges and some other results. On a Non-GAAP basis, AMD had the same $1.027 billion in revenue, but showed a slight operating income of $3 million, compared to a $55 million operating loss last quarter and a $87 million loss last year. Looking at net results, AMD had a net loss of $40 million, or $0.05 per share, compared to a $96 million net loss last quarter and a $131 million net loss a year ago.
| AMD Q2 2016 Financial Results (Non-GAAP) | |||||
| Q2'2016 | Q1'2016 | Q2'2015 | |||
| Revenue | $1027M | $832M | $942M | ||
| Gross Margin | 31% | 32% | 28% | ||
| Operating Income | $3M | -$55M | -$87M | ||
| Net Income | -$40M | -$96M | -$131M | ||
| Earnings Per Share | -$0.05 | -$0.12 | -$0.17 | ||
AMD attributes their revenue increase primarily to higher sales of its semi-custom SoCs, and with the announcement of the Xbox One Scorpio AMD has secured another design win there. Overall the Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom segment had revenues of $592 million for the quarter, which is up 5% from a year ago, once again attributed to the increased sales of semi-custom SoCs. The segment had an operating income of $84 million for the quarter, up from $27 million in Q2 2015.
| AMD Q2 2016 Enterprise, Embedded, and Semi-Custom | |||||
| Q2'2016 | Q1'2016 | Q2'2015 | |||
| Revenue | $592M | $372M | $563M | ||
| Operating Income | $84M | $16M | $27M | ||
AMD’s Computing and Graphics segment just had an important quarter with the launch of their first FinFet GPU design in the AMD Radeon RX 480. They’ve also been releasing several Carrizo based APUs and CPUs, as well as announcing Bristol Ridge, and all the while working on Zen. The Computing and Graphics segment had revenues of $435 million for the quarter, which is up 15% from Q2 2015. Notebook processor and GPU sales have been tagged as the reason for the revenue increase. The segment had an operating loss of $81 million, which is better than the $147 million operating loss a year ago, but still a bit way from profitability. Lowered expenses have helped them here quite a bit, but they still have some work to do. AMD’s average selling price of their notebook APUs decreased compared to Q2 2015, and GPU average selling price also declined.
| AMD Q2 2016 Computing and Graphics | |||||
| Q2'2016 | Q1'2016 | Q2'2015 | |||
| Revenue | $435M | $460M | $379M | ||
| Operating Income | -$81M | -$70M | -$147M | ||
Looking ahead to next quarter, AMD is expecting revenues to increase 18% from this quarter, plus or minus 3%.
Source: AMD Investor Relations
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
42 Comments
View All Comments
fanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
trollAS118 - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The 480 can have up to 8gb (2 more than the 1060) of ram, and is also superior in DX12 and even moreso in Vulkan.AMD's driver updates also tend to increase their cards' performance (to where they often surpass their direct competitor in a year or two) because their drivers aren't as optimized out the gate, and also because AMD tends to support certain architectures longer.
sharath.naik - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The reviews for 1060 are already out. It is faster than 980 and beating r9 nano when overclocked. While 480 is competing against 970. All this while rx 480 draws more power and runs hotter(little over clocking headroom).Amd lost this round as far as architecture of their GPU is concerned. What makes it worse is, i doubt they will have anything faster than a 480any time soon, given how the thermals are for rx480. And even worse, gtx 1060 will have a sibling soon at 200$ that will be competing against rx 480. I fail to see how this is not a disaster for AMD.
atlantico - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The 1060 is about 5% faster than the RX480, while the RX480 has 2GB more VRAM than the 1060, crushes the 1060 in Vulkan and DX12 and is cheaper and available.fanofanand - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
Yeah the 1060 vs 480 debate needs to be structured honestly, it's a $300 6GB card with a 5-10% performance increase in most games over the $250 8GB 480. Ignore the fanboys who say the 1060 is $249, it's not.Bateluer - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The RX 480s only run hot because of AMD's poor reference blower coolers. The AIB coolers, Strix, Nitro, etc, run much better. Techpowerup just reviewed the Strix 480, showing load temps around 68C and noise levels below most other cards in its class.Remember, the 1060 only exists because of the 480. If there were no Polaris cards, you'd be waiting another 6 or 7 months for a 1060, which would have debuted at the 300 USB price point.
Alexvrb - Friday, July 22, 2016 - link
The benches I've seen have the 1060 in between 970 and 980. Certainly not besting the 980 on average. The 1060 is a good card but the 480s are competitive on a price/performance basis and they have an entry level variant at an appealing $200 price point.sharath.naik - Saturday, July 23, 2016 - link
Not sure we are looking at the same benchmarks. For this is what i am seeing.Gtx1060 vs rx480. 10% to 15% faster, 120watt vs 160watt, 15% vs 7% overclock headroom stock, 76C vs 82C thermals,
Infact gtx1060 is starting to nip at r9 fury at lower resolution, and unlike most suggested in directx 12. So i am a bit baffled on which selective benchmarks folks are seeing here.
pashhtk27 - Sunday, July 24, 2016 - link
And I'm a bit baffled what benchmarks are you referring to.cknobman - Monday, July 25, 2016 - link
Obviously you have not been looking at good benchmarks.1060 is overpriced for its performance. Not good enough fore more than 1080p and too much money for it.
480 is less than 10% slower, and in the newer API's does even better, while considerably cheaper than the 1060.