AMD Reports Third Quarter Results

[malware]

AMD today reported third quarter 2007 revenue of $1.632 billion, an 18 percent increase compared to the second quarter of 2007 and a 23 percent improvement compared to the third quarter of 2006. In the third quarter, AMD reported an operating loss of $226 million, and a net loss of $396 million, or $0.71 per share. Third quarter results include a negative impact of $120 million, or $0.22 per share, due to ATI acquisition-related, integration and severance charges and impairment of assets. In the second quarter of 2007, AMD reported revenue of $1.378 billion and an operating loss of $457 million. In the third quarter of 2006, AMD reported revenue of $1.328 billion and operating income of $121 million.


“We are encouraged by the progress we made in our third quarter financial results. We delivered a strong revenue increase, gained 8 percentage points of gross margin and reduced our operating loss by more than half,” said Robert J. Rivet, AMD’s Chief Financial Officer. “We sold a record number of microprocessors through our distribution channel and began revenue shipments of Quad-core AMD Opteron processors in the quarter.

“Graphics segment revenue increased 29 percent sequentially, as customers increasingly adopted AMD’s new ATI Radeon HD 2000 series of graphics processors.”

Third quarter charges of $120 million consisted of ATI acquisition-related, integration and severance charges of $78 million and asset impairments of $42 million associated with our ownership of Spansion, Inc. common stock.

Source: AMD

[Sasqui]

Lets hope they keep going strong. Good for competition and I will always be an ATI fanboy, I admit it.

[zekrahminator]

Let me say ouch to the losing $396 million.

I hope that Phenom/Barcelona/CrossFire X will get AMD out of the gutter. I mean, good for AMD that they cut their losses, but they're still losses...

[nflesher87]

I think this was in their plans...get barcelona and the 2900s out this quarter to help cut losses, then next quarter they'll be able to cut losses even more with the release of phenom etc...looks better to investors if they steadily get better

[happita]

AMD up from 1.378 billion to 1.632 billion in one quarter, very nice.

[Fuse-Wire]

just hope it keeps up, last thing i want to see is AMD dissapear, that would be a tradgedy!

[Mediocre]

Imagine the situation they would be in if they didn't aquire ATI...I wonder if they would even still be around without ATI...

Have always favored the 'faster' of the two (dont care if I run Intel or amd, whoever is faster). Its unfortunate that AMD is a full die shrink behind. That is really going to hurt them, and AFAIK they need to skip a shrink to catchup (unless intel hits a wall at 45 and can't go smaller)

But they lost a lot less money this quarter

[newtekie1]

So $400 Million in losses is a good thing? Since when?

Edit: I am tempted to actually buy AMD stock. With it being below $15 a share, if it goes back up with the new releases it would be a very nice chunk of money earned...

[Sasqui]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Soe $400 Million in losses is a good thing? Since when?

Edit: I am tempted to actually buy AMD stock. With it being below $15 a share, if it goes back up with the new releases it would be a very nice chunk of money earned...

AMD is a pretty volatile stock - if you've got the stomache to hold, it could reward quite well. There are also quite a few other good buys right now with the oil news.

[nflesher87]

Originally Posted by newtekie1

Soe $400 Million in losses is a good thing? Since when?

Edit: I am tempted to actually buy AMD stock. With it being below $15 a share, if it goes back up with the new releases it would be a very nice chunk of money earned...

thank you for confirming my earlier comment
I'm considering as well

[Darkrealms]

4th'd 5th'd or 6th'd (whichever we're on) the AMD going under would be devastating!

Yes I'm a semi AMD fan boy but not an ATI one.

[rick22]

maybe you didnt have time to read up?,but anyways read the thread amd's already making 45nm chip at fab36 http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=42394

[WarEagleAU]

well the revenue they made should offset any loses for operations and the like. Seeming as the business model tends to dictate that.

Also, AMD stock is a gold mine waiting to spring right now. If you can afford it, buy you like 20 or 100 shares, save it for a year or so, and watch it increase. Youd definitely make a nice little sum of change.

[Mediocre]

Originally Posted by rick22

maybe you didnt have time to read up?,but anyways read the thread amd's already making 45nm chip at fab36 http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=42394

For those of you that got to read this before the edit, I hope you feel special

Anyway, their is a BIG difference between having ONE plant making 45nm chips THAT AREN'T FOR SALE OR TEST. AMD is still PRODUCING AND SELLING 90nm chips (til the end of the year at least). Their line of 65nm IS LIMITED.

Intel;
Doesn't produce desktop/server chips at 90nm
Has a COMPLETE product line @ 65nm
HAS PARTS FOR SALE NEXT MONTH @ 45nm

I don't understand why I have to get trolled over a simple TRUE statement.

AMD IS A DIE SHRINK BEHIND. They need to skip 65nm (partially or fully, whatever) to catch up.

there I said it again. you're the only one to refute that out of everyone who has viewed?? Coincidence?

[yogurt_21]

lol lets think about this, amd's already behind in performance, yet you want them to pump all their money into shrinking the die's? wow I'm glad you're not the amd ceo. I feel alot safer that way.


amd is competing with a company with far more recsources. there's no way you can compare intels fab to amd's. apples and oranges my freind. that's be like comparing a small grocery chain to walmart. why yes walmart can put out more products cheaper, they do have more money, more connections and more employees. 65nm is fine to run on especially being that amd's are typically lower wattage per fab then intels.

[Wile E]

Originally Posted by Mediocre

Have always favored the 'faster' of the two (dont care if I run Intel or amd, whoever is faster). Its unfortunate that AMD is a full die shrink behind. That is really going to hurt them, and AFAIK they need to skip a shrink to catchup (unless intel hits a wall at 45 and can't go smaller)

AMD has pretty much always been a die shrink behind. Even when they had the performance lead, they were a die shrink behind. For example, Presler and Cedar Mill P4s are 65nm, but AMD was crushing them with the 90nm K8 chips. Intel pulled ahead with the new Core microarchitecture. It's the architecture that makes the biggest difference, not the die size.