Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

AMD Reports Quarterly Earnings for Q2 2011

By - Source: AMD | B 64 comments

AMD yesterday followed a slew of companies announcing quarterly financial results and revealed the closing figures for its own Q2 2011.

AMD today announced revenue of $1.57 billion for the second quarter of 2011, a two percent sequential decrease and a five percent decrease year-over-year. Net income was $61 million while earnings per share (EPS) and operating income were $0.08 and $105 million, respectively. This is compared with a net income of $43 million or $0.06 per share for the same period in 2010 and $510 million or $0.68 per share for Q1 2011. AMD posted a non-GAAP net income of $70 million, and non-GAAP EPS and operating income were $0.09 and $114 million respectively.

AMD also talked about what it wants for the upcoming quarter, revealing that it expects to see revenue increase 10 percent, plus or minus two percent, sequentially for the third quarter of 2011. Bloomberg reports that the average analyst is predicting eight percent revenue growth for AMD in the next quarter.

"In the first half of 2011, AMD brought to market the most competitive client offerings in our history, reinforcing our position as a design and innovation powerhouse," Thomas Seifert, CFO and Interim CEO, said via statement yesterday "Today's computing experience is increasingly being defined by the ability to deliver brilliant multimedia and video content with all day battery life. Fusion APUs are ideal to meet this need, positioning AMD to gain unit market share in the mobile computing space."

AMD is still actively looking for a new Chief Executive Officer and Harry Wolin, senior vice president and general counsel at AMD, yesterday said that while finding a CEO is still top priority, the company is taking time to search for the best candidate as opposed to finding someone to fill the spot ASAP.

Discuss
Display all 64 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 31 Hide
    deanjo , July 23, 2011 1:47 PM
    GeekApprovedDesktop is dying fast.


    Not even close.
  • 26 Hide
    runswindows95 , July 23, 2011 1:00 PM
    Actually, the Llanos are perfect for real world use. The majority of PC's owners mostly use their systems to browse the web, email, word processing, tasks that really don't need a high end CPU. They do not play the newest games at the highest settings or convert video files 24/7. It's a decent CPU with the best integrated GPU on the market right now. Considering you can now buy a $400 to 500 computer (desktop or laptop) that can double as a light gaming system or a great HTPC, I say AMD is going in the right direction. Personally, for my next laptop I'm looking at the Llano's for all I do is word processing, watch online videos, and play mp3's. You can't get more real world usage than that.
  • 24 Hide
    Anonymous , July 23, 2011 2:05 PM
    jescott418: This isn't 1995, back when everyone could use a faster computer. Here's how it breaks down:

    50% of users could get by fine with an e350 and not notice the "slow CPU"
    90% of users could get by fine with Llano and not notice the "slow CPU" or "slow GPU"
    5% of users actually need a powerful discrete GPU to do their uber-gaming
    5% of users need epic amounts of CPU power for intensive rendering tasks


    It's the same Intel fanboys who claim that Sandy Bridge supposedly beating Phenom II by 10-20% in real life is actually noticeable, are the same ones who claim Llano's GPU beating SB by 100-200% isn't noticeable.

    The bottom line: Llano is capable of doing things SB is not, SB is not capable of doing anything Llano isn't. Yet the paid Introlls like Anand state that Llano has "too much GPU", and SB is "balanced".
Other Comments
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , July 23, 2011 12:14 PM
    AMD still going the wrong direction. I just sold a AMD Fusion based small Notebook with a E350 APU. Sure it had good graphic performance but what it gained in graphics it lost in CPU performance. Its like getting a bionic leg and still missing the other leg? Not many are being fooled by AMD's remaining its lineup to Fusion. Its sounds catchy but says nothing about how that helps the user? I don't see that AMD is really advancing and basically has just gone to combining chips (graphics and CPU) into one which has lowed the power consumption. But really has not helped either do better against Intel in real world use.
  • 26 Hide
    runswindows95 , July 23, 2011 1:00 PM
    Actually, the Llanos are perfect for real world use. The majority of PC's owners mostly use their systems to browse the web, email, word processing, tasks that really don't need a high end CPU. They do not play the newest games at the highest settings or convert video files 24/7. It's a decent CPU with the best integrated GPU on the market right now. Considering you can now buy a $400 to 500 computer (desktop or laptop) that can double as a light gaming system or a great HTPC, I say AMD is going in the right direction. Personally, for my next laptop I'm looking at the Llano's for all I do is word processing, watch online videos, and play mp3's. You can't get more real world usage than that.
  • 31 Hide
    deanjo , July 23, 2011 1:47 PM
    GeekApprovedDesktop is dying fast.


    Not even close.
  • 13 Hide
    Soma42 , July 23, 2011 2:03 PM
    For the masses, AMD is going all in the right direction. I have to hope that Bulldozer is the success it's hyped up to be so that Trinity can be all that it's hyped up to be. Plus, it's good for competition and that's something sorely needed these days.

    My next laptop will probably have trinity in it, which is supposed to be 50% faster than Llano, and if I ever getting around to building a HTPC it will have the non-mobile version.
  • 24 Hide
    Anonymous , July 23, 2011 2:05 PM
    jescott418: This isn't 1995, back when everyone could use a faster computer. Here's how it breaks down:

    50% of users could get by fine with an e350 and not notice the "slow CPU"
    90% of users could get by fine with Llano and not notice the "slow CPU" or "slow GPU"
    5% of users actually need a powerful discrete GPU to do their uber-gaming
    5% of users need epic amounts of CPU power for intensive rendering tasks


    It's the same Intel fanboys who claim that Sandy Bridge supposedly beating Phenom II by 10-20% in real life is actually noticeable, are the same ones who claim Llano's GPU beating SB by 100-200% isn't noticeable.

    The bottom line: Llano is capable of doing things SB is not, SB is not capable of doing anything Llano isn't. Yet the paid Introlls like Anand state that Llano has "too much GPU", and SB is "balanced".
  • 15 Hide
    Anonymous , July 23, 2011 2:14 PM
    Llano is the perfect chip for the vast majority of my customers needs, just quoted up a HTPC with HVR 4400 tuned card, A8 and Asus board, probably the best product to Come from AMD yet, they should gain share from this for sure.
  • 7 Hide
    tmk221 , July 23, 2011 2:14 PM
    any word about buldozer realese date?
  • 12 Hide
    Kamab , July 23, 2011 4:31 PM
    amk-aka-phantomMy Core i7 rig disagrees. It doesn't think that Llano and lower power CPUs/GPUs can be better than it. When these low power chips will be enough to play the latest games while converting videos and installing programs on the background, I'll buy them. Until then, I'll only build low-power boards based PCs as part of my job and for fun. Thinking of getting a solid mini-ITX or micro-ATX build just to play around with it... no real use whatsoever in the low-power stuff.Troll much? Onboard GPUs are USELESS. For office tasks, HD video and YouTube the Intel 945G onboard graphics were more than enough (those who can't watch HD with that just don't know how to setup the codecs, I guarantee that). Adding GPUs into CPUs is just a marketing trick. 90% of the people who use Sandy Bridge (except i3) don't use its internal GPU and get dedicated graphics. I don't care whether Llano's GPU is better than SB's, I've got a GTX 560 Ti. If I ever buy I computer that is NOT meant for gaming, I won't care what kind of IGP it has, because I know ALL modern IGPs can do office, HD and so on.And don't tell me that 90% of the users won't notice a slow CPU... part of my job is to help keep many networks in our town running, and many of them are based on Linux... Atoms and other "low-power" stuff really suffers there, especially on thin clients. Not saying that they should use i7-990X or i5-2500K there to improve their performance, but I usually talk people out of getting low-power boards and convince them to get something like Core 2 Duo or Core i3, even for office purposes (not just Linux-based).And don't get me wrong, I like AMD... their graphics kick some serious ass and they were my favorite back in the days when they kicked Intel's Pentium 4, but I feel like they ARE taking a wrong route here. If at all, they should go for SERIOUS low-power, meaning phones/tablets/netbooks. However, low-power in desktop? I laugh at this.Actually, might be useful if you're running a lot of computers and you're very limited on electricity - like power cuts all the time, and a battery backup room that can only supply electricity for a few hours; then low-power stuff will last longer. But where do you find that, except Asia?


    You must realize you don't belong to the group of average consumers.

    I think you are be wrong, but AMD still might lose because people don't actually know what they need. AMD's APUs are much more balanced when it comes to an average consumer's needs. Plus, removing a discrete GPU from a laptop helps improve a system's lifespan and decrease power/heat. At my workplace (I'm a software engineer), the only time my system sporting a first generation i7 even uses any of it's processing power is when I'm compiling large projects. I've tried to install some games on it (Intel 3000 graphics) and the performance is very bad and the fan sounds like I'm trying to bury it underground.

    Though I have not actually used a system sporting an A6/A8 APU, I'd imagine they should rock the marketplace when comparing user experiences between systems without a discrete graphics card.

    And seriously low power would mean competing with ARM, who I can tell you makes some very slick microprocessors (what I do most of my work on)
  • 6 Hide
    bustapr , July 23, 2011 5:02 PM
    I think people here are forgetting Llanos intended audience. The Llano CPUs are strong at their price point, they are NOT for pc enthusiasts, thats what bulldozer is for. Overall for budget pcs and laptops the LLano is by far the most balanced, for non enthusiasts. Bulldozer will obviously be more powerful and if it isnt good enough for sandy bridge, its still good enough in its own right, because itll undoubtably be a powerful enough CPU and have good graphics on 1 chip. And itll only get better as new generations come, while intel struggles with their intel graphics.
  • 7 Hide
    aznshinobi , July 23, 2011 5:07 PM
    IMO Llano is the right direction, especially for laptops. Recently I've been looking into laptops and I think Trinity would be my best bet. The graphics on the Llano chips are already pretty solid and can play games decently, if it was coupled with a BD chip (Trinity) it'd be perfect for laptop use. Hopefully they still keep that low power usage though.
  • 8 Hide
    Anonymous , July 23, 2011 5:23 PM
    There will be a point where a CPU will be too powerful for it current applications even for a few years later. GPU is the future, people want t watch video's, watch movies, and play games on the go with low power and greater quality. AMD is smart that it doesn't need to make a CPU that cost $1K while they can make one the year later for only $300 that kicks it's but. Hell I still have an AMD X2 core running at only 2GHZ and plays all new games with a ATI5670 with not a hiccup. Guys you don't need to spend all that money when you won't even realize the gain. STUPID!!!!!!!!!
  • 1 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , July 23, 2011 5:24 PM
    Quote:
    The Llano CPUs are strong at their price point, they are NOT for pc enthusiasts, thats what bulldozer is for.


    Roll out the Bulldozer already, enough talk! :D 
  • 7 Hide
    unclealek2659 , July 23, 2011 5:25 PM
    Quote:
    My Core i7 rig disagrees. It doesn't think that Llano and lower power CPUs/GPUs can be better than it.

    When these low power chips will be enough to play the latest games while converting videos and installing programs on the background, I'll buy them. Until then, I'll only build low-power boards based PCs as part of my job and for fun. Thinking of getting a solid mini-ITX or micro-ATX build just to play around with it... no real use whatsoever in the low-power stuff.


    im 2014, when electricity cost more than a gallon of unobtainium, u will be realize how foolish u have been
  • 1 Hide
    megamanx00 , July 23, 2011 5:28 PM
    Firing Dirk was still stupid. AMD should ease fusion into tablet territory but they shouldn't focus on that low margin market till they take care of their main markets. Putting out Bulldozer and optimizing the Fusion technology should take priority. Improved GPU and CPU performance as well as enhanced power management can then make their way down to tablet parts, but right now AMD has alot of room to grow in the CPU and GPU market by of course eating competitors shares.
  • 1 Hide
    _Pez_ , July 23, 2011 5:52 PM
    Well AMD should know that sears mexico is asking 680.765 USD for an HP Netbook with APU E-350 1.6Ghz and that's not cheap at all, and that's not even close to 400usd that amd had claimed. I had the intention to buy one but after seeing the price well I just won't buy that.
  • -6 Hide
    amk-aka-Phantom , July 23, 2011 5:53 PM
    Quote:
    im 2014, when electricity cost more than a gallon of unobtainium, u will be realize how foolish u have been


    Cool story bro. Not in my country.

    Quote:
    Hell I still have an AMD X2 core running at only 2GHZ and plays all new games with a ATI5670 with not a hiccup. Guys you don't need to spend all that money when you won't even realize the gain. STUPID!!!!!!!!!


    Like hell. What are you playing at, 1024x768? =) And what do you consider "latest games"? Though, with all the console ports out there I ALMOST believe you. But still, I suggest you go try out Crysis 2 DX11 for the fun of it... let's see what kind of "hiccup" your PC gets then ;) 

    Back to topic: I realize there's a market for these "low-power" solutions, but there're so much old computers out there which will still kill any office/video task that I consider buying a new board for that a waste... Most of these machines just need a new cabinet and an HDD, and you're set. But if you want new stuff, go for Sandy Bridge micro-ATX, they're pretty cool =) Or if you're so stubborn that you want low power no matter what, get a netbook - at least then low power finally becomes an advantage. Low-power desktop = :fou: 
  • 8 Hide
    carlhenry , July 23, 2011 6:52 PM
    Quote:

    Troll much? Onboard GPUs are USELESS. For office tasks, HD video and YouTube the Intel 945G onboard graphics were more than enough (those who can't watch HD with that just don't know how to setup the codecs, I guarantee that).

    who are you kidding? the 945G is as crappy as hell. you can't run EVERY HD videos in it without worrying "o please let this run smooth HD please!". installed the lightest codec that i use in my brother's crappy old skool laptop and it won't even run some of my videos without being a ppt.

    anyway, llano is doing great but we are expecting AMD to also deliver and compete in the mid/high end CPU brute power so we can expect good prices in the market. IMO, AMD's currently released products are only good for the mobile department and NOT in desktop (well except for HTPC use).
Display more comments