• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Less than 10 thousand fermi cards delivered,Nvidia stock falls.

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
This is kind of why I wanted to back out of the "conversation" though.
You are way to pent up and way too serious about it. The petty bickering and such.
Gross, net, mislead. Things that shouldn't even matter in our wildest dreams, come under microscopic scrutiny. I dunno. What do you think about all this stuff?
Financials should never really come into any thread. It doesn't matter.
As long as the companies aren't dying/about to lose their ability to make cards/make future architectures, discussing of who has the most money or who's making the most money isn't really relevant to any end user.

But many threads devolve into "my company has more money than your company", which indeed is stupid and irrelevant and ends up with people just bickering.

When I made my thread discussing the AMD Q1 conference call, I deliberately avoided putting any talk of financials in the OP specifically because it always results in a shitstorm.
 

WelshBloke

Lifer
Jan 12, 2005
28,169
5,236
126
Financials should never really come into any thread. It doesn't matter.
As long as the companies aren't dying/about to lose their ability to make cards/make future architectures, discussing of who has the most money or who's making the most money isn't really relevant to any end user.

But many threads devolve into "my company has more money than your company", which indeed is stupid and irrelevant and ends up with people just bickering.

When I made my thread discussing the AMD Q1 conference call, I deliberately avoided putting any talk of financials in the OP specifically because it always results in a shitstorm.

Yep. Financial stuff needs to go in off topic if anywhere.
 

NoQuarter

Golden Member
Jan 1, 2001
1,006
0
76
Isnt the current RV870 (bullshit that they have stuck with "RV" because the 5870 is most def. a high end card, not mid-range.)
Hmm, I think.. honestly.. the 5870 would be considered an upper mid range card to us just like the 4870 was, had Fermi launched on time at full spec. The full spec should've been something akin to a GTX 285 vs Radeon 4870 in performance, and then the 5870 would be upper mid-range where ATI is aiming their production at. I mean, they are aiming at upper-mid range by using such a small die relative to nVidia, they just didn't plan on what happened this cycle, so 5870 got stuck as a high end card :p
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Of course he's trying to mislead, or doesn't understand the significance between gross and net himself.
Do you think the people on these forums are profoundly retarded? You must if you don't think they understand the difference between net and gross. Anyone who has ever earned a pay check is quite familiar with the concept I'm sure.

He's making an argument that Nvidia has amazing financials, but one of his examples is meaningless.
Their gross margin indicates that they are selling their products with a sizeable margin despite ATi dominating everything over $120. This is using their huge die, difficult to produce massive money losing strategy that we have heard ad nauseam on this forum. We have heard how they are on the path to their end, making 9 figure profits per quarter isn't something you associate with that either.

In Q1 2009 AMD had a gross profit of 511M -- that's over 100mil more than the example of Nvidia's financial dominance that he used.
Where did I compare it to AMD's financials? I was bringing it up for all those cheerleaders who think their glorious red team is on the verge of killing the evil green monster. Reality is, nV is profitable despite the apparently shocking level of dominance that is all things ATi.

To put forward an example, it's like someone claiming that an old P4 is faster than an i7 because it runs at a higher frequency.
No, it's like someone saying

"There is an i7 that runs at 3GHZ."

And some utter moron comes back with

"You can't say that the Pentium 4 is faster just because it has a higher clockspeed".

As long as the companies aren't dying/about to lose their ability to make cards/make future architectures, discussing of who has the most money or who's making the most money isn't really relevant to any end user.
Several people are saying that though.
 
Last edited:

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Do you think the people on these forums are profoundly retarded? You must if you don't think they understand the difference between net and gross. Anyone who has ever earned a pay check is quite familiar with the concept I'm sure.

Their gross margin indicates that they are selling their products with a sizeable margin despite ATi dominating everything over $120. This is using their huge die, difficult to produce massive money losing strategy that we have heard ad nauseam on this forum. We have heard how they are on the path to their end, making 9 figure profits per quarter isn't something you associate with that either.
Um, you talk about margins and then about their large die difficult to produce strategy.
AFAIK, most of their 40nm production up to now has been small dies, and most of their large dies have been on a mature 55nm process. Any existing margins which have bee disclosed through financial reports won't include anything to do with Fermi (since their last quarter pretty much ended before they would have been really ramping Fermi).
Margins that we know of now have nothing to do with Fermi. That's not to say that they aren't solid on the whole, but arguments against Fermi, and arguments for good margins are (as of now) unrelated.
ATI have said that they are only on 30% 40nm IIRC, assuming NV are the same, their 30% of 40nm product up to now has all been very small dies (mobile chips, OEM chips, sub $120 products), while ATI are the ones who have had the large die, bad process issue because they are the ones who have been producing a large die at 40nm.
Unfortunately (quickly skimming the Q1 SEC filing) AMD don't seem to do a segment margin breakdown, so their margins are for CPU + GPU I think, making the two incomparable.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Um, you talk about margins and then about their large die difficult to produce strategy.
You have been around long enough to know this isn't the first generation of the exact same talk :) My following replies aren't aimed at you, just the general line of discussion that some people are bringing up(your posts are far more well reasoned).

Margins that we know of now have nothing to do with Fermi. That's not to say that they aren't solid on the whole, but arguments against Fermi, and arguments for good margins are (as of now) unrelated.
The smaller the margin, the better the value for the customer. By claiming a company has higher margins, what you are in fact saying is that they are screwing you over more. Some people are just too shockingly ignorant to figure this out. The slack jawed droolers sometimes confuse pointing out margins as 'defending' the company making them as they just need to cheerlead their company of choice to have the 'better' numbers all the time. If they would wake up and use some 3rd grade lunch trade logic they could figure out that it isn't a positive. The higher a companies margins, the more they are screwing you over, always. I don't hold it against them as I am neither socialist nor communist, but it is a marketplace reality.

On an adult level, margins simply point out the economic viability of a business choice. A lot of people are saying nVidia is fast collapsing, while still posing 9 digit quarterly profits. That is simply put, stupid.
 

Martimus

Diamond Member
Apr 24, 2007
4,488
152
106
On the contrary. I post the same now as I did then. Just with less heat.
I meant that you don't moderate the video forums the same way you used to. You used to have an iron fist, but now you are far more lenient. This isn't bad, and I prefer it considering the circumstances, but no-one has really stepped up and filled the role you used to fulfill.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,326
758
136
Their gross margin indicates that they are selling their products with a sizeable margin despite ATi dominating everything over $120.
Gross margin? Where did I mention that at all? I took issue with your usage of gross profit where you claimed "Last reported quarter, without this new part available, they posted a $400Million gross profit. That is without a high end part to compete with ATi at all"


Where did I compare it to AMD's financials?
You didn't. I was using AMD's financials as an example of why you can't just use gross profit as a way to gauge a company's financial health. Your argument was that Nvidia is in great shape because they made a 400mil gross profit last quarter. That's not a good argument at all, many companies have had much higher gross profit and still lost money. You're argument would have been valid if you had used net income, but since you didn't it looks like either:

a. You don't know the difference between net and gross, which you now state you do, or
b. You just wanted to use the biggest number you could find no matter how unrelated to your argument it was. Ergo, you're being deceptive.

So, since you've ruled out A that only leaves B (pretty simple logic), unless of course you can point out how using gross profit by itself is any kind of way to gauge a company's financial health.... which unless I'm horribly mistaken it isn't.
 
Last edited:

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Gross margin? Where did I mention that at all? I took issue with your usage of gross profit where you claimed "Last reported quarter, without this new part available, they posted a $400Million gross profit. That is without a high end part to compete with ATi at all"
Their gross profits are determined by their gross margins. nV's financials are very simple in terms of how they handle their accounting.

So, since you've ruled out A that only leaves B (pretty simple logic), unless of course you can point out how using gross profit by itself is any kind of way to gauge a company's financial health.... which unless I'm horribly mistaken it isn't.
You have a very good point here, the only thing that their gross margins/profits prove is that their large die/huge/expensive strategy that they have had for the last couple of years can be extremely profitable. Overall profits for nV also take into consideration their R&D which is considerable, and continuing operations and handling of their cash reserves(I won't bother saying how much, the knuckle draggers will simply want to turn that into another moronic side tangent about how ATi has to be better at that too).
 

akugami

Diamond Member
Feb 14, 2005
4,635
69
91
Rather contradictory paragraphs.

If Nvidia's cash cow OEM markets will soon completely disappear why wouldn't shareholders be very worried NOW about it?

That stock is going nowhere but down.
The low end and integrated market will disappear. That's not a question of if but when it will disappear. It also doesn't mean it'll disappear overnight. I think nVidia has a good two years before they will really feel the heat from the CPU+GPU chips.

nVidia is a healthy company today. The high end professional video cards is dominated by nVidia as well as nVidia currently being the premier video card company overall.

Is the forecast cloudy? Yes. But there's still time to build a new roof so to speak. nVidia probably realizes everything I've said to be true which is why they are pushing technologies like Optimus as someone else stated to complement integrated solutions from Intel as well as pushing ARM+GPU chips like the Tegra line.

Financials should never really come into any thread. It doesn't matter.
As long as the companies aren't dying/about to lose their ability to make cards/make future architectures, discussing of who has the most money or who's making the most money isn't really relevant to any end user.

But many threads devolve into "my company has more money than your company", which indeed is stupid and irrelevant and ends up with people just bickering.

When I made my thread discussing the AMD Q1 conference call, I deliberately avoided putting any talk of financials in the OP specifically because it always results in a shitstorm.
Depends on the thread. If it's talking about the bang for the buck of video cards, then how much it costs to make the video card is going to be relevant. If it just talks about pure performance, like Key's benching his 480, then it should not pop up. Nor should heat output if it's a pure benchmarking and performance thread. For this thread, finances would seem relevant.

But yeah, too many times a thread devolves into irrelevance due to crapping.
 

Lonyo

Lifer
Aug 10, 2002
21,939
6
81
Not entirely sure how valid this comparison is (it's a single UK e-tailer stock numbers), but here goes anyway (gives an indication of the scale of the difference).

ATI:
HD5970: 16 in stock
HD5870 2GB: 21 in stock
HD5870: 356 in stock
HD5850: 115 in stock
HD5830: 289 in stock

NV:
GTX470: 41 currently available for pre-order (no real ETA, some have ETAs in the past, some a month away etc).
GTX480: 11 currently available for pre-order.

So at one UK e-tailer, there are more HD5970's available to purchase than GTX480s currently available for pre-order.
There are 7 times as many HD5870's available to purchase right now than the total number of GTX470 and GTX480 cards available for pre-order.

(e-tailer is www.ebuyer.com, figures correct as of when I made this post. Most sites don't typically give individual stock numbers, especially for pre-orders, hence only using one site - blame the e-tailers for not giving numbers if you have a problem with it!).
 
Last edited:

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
The 2900 had the ring bus, and if I remember correctly so did the 38xx. With the 48xx they went to a hub, I guess it saved a lot of physical space which as we all know is what AMD wants.
They ditched the Ringbus because it was power inneficient and was never able to surpass the 85% of bandwidth efficiency. With the current hub, ATi is able to reach near 99% of bandwidth efficiency, it is a very well designed memory controller which couples very nice with GDDR5.
 

evolucion8

Platinum Member
Jun 17, 2005
2,867
3
61
nvidia still has almost twice market share as ATi, don't forget that apple is using nvidia exclusively and Ati isn't too popular in laptops.

ATi hasn't exactly capitalized on nvidia problems because stuff that sells is mid-range.
Those are old news and that had changed. Most nVidia's market share came from the 8800/9800, 8600 series, the GTX 2x00 series sold well but ATi surpassed nVidia's 8800 and GTX 2x0 series with the HD 4800 series in terms of volume sold and ATi is in the current lead with Evergreen outselling by leaps and bounds the GTX 4x0 series with the HD 58x0 series and their midrange derivatives like the HD 57x0/56x0/5500/54x0 which nVidia has no response.

While they may be a great value prospect, this is also sometimes a negative because they can't take leadership, or require things like dual GPU cards (which come with associated driver/compatibility issues) which mean they aren't always good.
SLI and Crossfire had come in a long way of what it was before, the only game that I had played that didn't scale well from all the games that I played recently like Need for Speed Shift, Bioshock 2, Mass Effect 2, Crysis and Warhead, GRID, Dirt 2, etc, was Assassin Creed 2 and I used the ATi CF Xtension and now I can get much better frame rate with 24x FSAA and maxed, which is not bad considering that Assassin Creed 2 is so CPU bound that you can't tell the difference in playability between the HD 3870 and the HD 4870 with 8x FSAA.

Hmm, I think.. honestly.. the 5870 would be considered an upper mid range card to us just like the 4870 was, had Fermi launched on time at full spec. The full spec should've been something akin to a GTX 285 vs Radeon 4870 in performance, and then the 5870 would be upper mid-range where ATI is aiming their production at. I mean, they are aiming at upper-mid range by using such a small die relative to nVidia, they just didn't plan on what happened this cycle, so 5870 got stuck as a high end card :p
But with the HD 4870, it wasn't competitive with the GTX 285 but with the GTX 260, and currently the HD 5870 isn't competitive with the GTX 480 but is faster than the GTX 470. The performance numbers upped a notch in favor of ATi compared to the previous generation since the HD 5870 isn't much faster than the GTX 470.
 

badb0y

Diamond Member
Feb 22, 2010
4,012
27
91
It's okay a sometimes a company needs to get smacked around a little to bring it back in line.


Remember the HD 2000 series? LOL
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,326
758
136
Their gross profits are determined by their gross margins. nV's financials are very simple in terms of how they handle their accounting.
Gross margins are determined by gross profit divided by revenue, and it can be a valuable measurement tool. Gross profit by itself on the other hand is meaningless without also taking revenue into account, you can have a gross profit of billions of dollars and still lose billions of dollars (the auto industry in recent times comes to mind). Of course though, the 99% most significant number when looking at the performance of a company is net income. The problem with your post is that you used a meaningless (by itself at least) number that sounds impressive to prop up a company. You're either spinning or you don't understand finances that well, and by the sounds of it, you're quite convinced that you aren't ignorant of finances... what does that leave?

the only thing that their gross margins/profits prove is that their large die/huge/expensive strategy that they have had for the last couple of years can be extremely profitable.
First of all, you're putting words in your mouth that you did not actually use. Gross profit and profit margin are entirely different and you used the former -- not the later -- in your assessment. And even if you had made the argument that Nvidia had amazing profit margins last quarter, that in no way validates a big die strategy since all of their big die products were essentially discontinued after RV870 came out. Ironically, NVDA lost a lot of money the 2 quarters prior to RV870 and has had pretty good earnings for the 2 quarters afterwards, so even that disagrees with you. And even if it didn't, you can't just look at gross profit margin and the fact that a company sells some big die products and use that as proof that a big die strategy works financially. The bulk of Nvidia's sales are at the low end, and if they have a good margin that will easily cover up a poor margin at the high end. In order to make the argument that the big die strategy is paying off, you need to isolate profit margin for those big die parts only, not the gross margin across the entire product line of a company.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Gross profit by itself on the other hand is meaningless without also taking revenue into account, you can have a gross profit of billions of dollars and still lose billions of dollars
Gross profits determine the viability of the product you are selling. I'm not talking about how effectively the business end is run, I'm talking about the viability of product strategy.

The problem with your post is that you used a meaningless (by itself at least) number that sounds impressive to prop up a company.
How is it supposed to be propping up a company? I mentioned reality(which you seem to take issue with?). It is only a meaningless number if someone is profoundly ignorant. It isn't like a 5 second search on Google won't give anyone the full breakdown if they are interested.

Gross profit and profit margin are entirely different and you used the former -- not the later -- in your assessment.
Entirely different? Explain how you can have one without the other. Enlighten us.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Quote:
Gross profit and profit margin are entirely different and you used the former -- not the later -- in your assessment.
Entirely different? Explain how you can have one without the other. Enlighten us.
Quite easily. If I am producing widgets that cost $1 each and I sell one at $100, my profit margin is insanely high. My gross profit as a company, however, can still be crap if I only sell one.

Conversely, if I sell the $1 widgets for $1.10/each but I sell billions of them, my profit margin would suck (as this is a function of percent) while my gross profit will be quite high.

Gross profit is indeed meaningless on its own. This is why on a stock earnings call, the only significant value in the end is net income.
 

Madcatatlas

Golden Member
Feb 22, 2010
1,155
0
0
"Sometimes, when your out in deep water, its better to just not make so much fuzz. That way, the sharks may not notice you." - dunremember who



on topic, still no real availability in Norway. A few cards here and there, mostly 470s. Not getting grabbed right away either, may have to do with the fact that there are a billion netshops in Norway..
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
Quite easily. If I am producing widgets that cost $1 each and I sell one at $100, my profit margin is insanely high. My gross profit as a company, however, can still be crap if I only sell one.
Your gross profit would be $99, you consider that insanely high? I quoted gross profit to point towards the viability of the product. That takes into consideration the cost to produce, the profits generated per part, and the overall volume. In terms of judging the viability of a product line, gross profit works rather well.

Conversely, if I sell the $1 widgets for $1.10/each but I sell billions of them, my profit margin would suck (as this is a function of percent) while my gross profit will be quite high.
A 10% gross margin on a mass market/commodity item doesn't necessarily suck(depends on the business model).

Gross profit is indeed meaningless on its own.This is why on a stock earnings call, the only significant value in the end is net income.
If this were a financial board I would agree. As a tech enthusiast board, not so much.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Your gross profit would be $99, you consider that insanely high? I quoted gross profit to point towards the viability of the product. That takes into consideration the cost to produce, the profits generated per part, and the overall volume. In terms of judging the viability of a product line, gross profit works rather well.
Please learn to read. I just said the profit margin would be insanely high. Profit margin is the percent of the total sale that you make as profit. If I sold a $100 item with a cost of $1, my profit margin is 9900%. In the 2nd sentence you quoted here, I said gross profit would be crap if I only sold the one.

In my examples, a 10% profit margin sucks compared to the 9900% one.

You asked for someone to explain that there is a difference between profit margin and gross profit because you erroneously assume one cannot be good without the other. I have done that. It seems your ability to comprehend is lacking though.

I reiterate: Gross profit is meaningless whether this is a tech board or a financial one.
 

BenSkywalker

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,140
67
91
You asked for someone to explain that there is a difference between profit margin and gross profit because you erroneously assume one cannot be good without the other.
I said how can you have one without the other. You have failed in no uncertain terms to explain that.

I reiterate: Gross profit is meaningless whether this is a tech board or a financial one.
Not often, but sometimes it is too easy :)

You prove gross profit is meaningless by showing how quoting gross margins can be misleading. Come up with a good case now where showing gross profits doesn't work to judge the success of a product line.
 

TemjinGold

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2006
3,050
65
91
Whatever man. If you're too dumb to understand the example, I'm not going to waste my time. I don't see the point in my doing so really because you will simply choose to not comprehend whatever is explained to you.
 

Voo

Golden Member
Feb 27, 2009
1,684
0
76
You prove gross profit is meaningless by showing how quoting gross margins can be misleading. Come up with a good case now where showing gross profits doesn't work to judge the success of a product line.
Yeah his example is useless - though it's always fun when you see how people don't have any more arguments and have to insult their contrahents ;) Funny that he can't distinguish between gross profit and gross profit rates if it doesn't suit his arguments..


Though there are reasons why gross profit may not be a reasonable measurement. If it was many service provider would be really happy, since taxes, wages and similar stuff is not included in there. In nvidias case R&D costs don't show up, so there's quite a difference between net income and gross profit..
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,061
494
126
Quite easily. If I am producing widgets that cost $1 each and I sell one at $100, my profit margin is insanely high. My gross profit as a company, however, can still be crap if I only sell one.

Conversely, if I sell the $1 widgets for $1.10/each but I sell billions of them, my profit margin would suck (as this is a function of percent) while my gross profit will be quite high.

Gross profit is indeed meaningless on its own. This is why on a stock earnings call, the only significant value in the end is net income.
I'd think cash flow is bigger. Net income is a function of accounting. The "goal" would be to be neutral I'd think for tax purposes. To achieve this find all sorts of costs you can throw into the equation to lower your net income. But if they can cash flow the organization they could run a net loss forever. Which would be beneficial for tax purposes.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY