Nvidia earnings: Beat on EPS, miss on revenue, weaker Q4 guidance

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,601
59
136
#1
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/15/nvidia-earnings-q3-2019.html

https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1045810/000104581018000150/nvda2019q310q.htm

  • Earnings: $1.84 per share, excluding certain items, vs. $1.71 per share as expected by analysts, according to Refinitiv.
  • Revenue: $3.18 billion, vs. $3.24 billion as expected by analysts, according to Refinitiv.
With respect to guidance, Nvidia said it's expecting $2.70 billion in revenue in the fiscal fourth quarter, plus us minus 2 percent, excluding certain items. That's below the Refinitiv consensus estimate of $3.40 billion.

Overall, in the fiscal third quarter, Nvidia's revenue rose 21 percent year over year.
 
Jan 5, 2017
113
2
86
#2
Revenue lower than expected, Gross Margin lower than expected. Pretty high GPU channel Inventory. Only a $2.7 billion (vs. $3.4 billion Analysts) guidance. The $2.7 billion are even lower than Q4 last year (~$2.91 billion).

Pretty bad overall. Especially the guidance for Q4 is just... wow. Underwhelming by a lot.
 

Hitman928

Golden Member
Apr 15, 2012
1,601
59
136
#3
Both AMD and Nvidia grossly underestimated how much of their sales were being driven by cryptocurrency. Now not only do you not have those sales, but because the crypto crash happened so quickly, they oversupplied the market and there is a ton of inventory out there that both AMD and Nvidia have said could take a couple of quarters to get through. It will be interesting to see the numbers in 2H19 to know what "normal" looks like again.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
304
96
#4
Both AMD and Nvidia grossly underestimated how much of their sales were being driven by cryptocurrency. Now not only do you not have those sales, but because the crypto crash happened so quickly, they oversupplied the market and there is a ton of inventory out there that both AMD and Nvidia have said could take a couple of quarters to get through. It will be interesting to see the numbers in 2H19 to know what "normal" looks like again.
It's far more than this which is why forward guidance has been revised down.
Ultimately, computing hardware has hit a wall of its own making and the world is flooded with hardware.
The cost of 'just enough hardware' has plummeted and Nvidia price gouged at the worst time just like Intel did some time ago.
Nvidia/Intel played a short term game and AMD played a long one.
AMD went for openness, Nvidia went closed and proprietary.
Nvidia
What is going to kill Nvidia going forward is their closed and proprietary ecosystem.
Their artificial segmentation (just like intel).
And their price.

They gave AMD a grand opening.
Unlike AMD, they don't have a CPU business to fall back on and I don't feel they are going to win the markets they're gunning for in A.I etc...
A perfect storm. They price gouged their cash cow, had a flop product launch, and they wont get anywhere near the market they projected they would in A.I/etc.

I warned of this very thing and they did it to the T.
They cut Nvlink out of 2070 and lower.
They created a completely new insanely price market segment and moved the price/margins up on all their GPUs.
And Turing was an utter flop.

Meanwhile, there are unheard of companies coming to market in the years ahead w/ AI Accelerators w/ far better performance/watt and value.
Greed Feeds... back to reality their stock goes. Nothing in tech lasts forever
 

Dribble

Golden Member
Aug 9, 2005
1,583
42
106
#5
It's far more than this which is why forward guidance has been revised down.
Ultimately, computing hardware has hit a wall of its own making and the world is flooded with hardware.
The cost of 'just enough hardware' has plummeted and Nvidia price gouged at the worst time just like Intel did some time ago.
Nvidia/Intel played a short term game and AMD played a long one.
AMD went for openness, Nvidia went closed and proprietary.
Nvidia
What is going to kill Nvidia going forward is their closed and proprietary ecosystem.
Their artificial segmentation (just like intel).
And their price.

They gave AMD a grand opening.
Unlike AMD, they don't have a CPU business to fall back on and I don't feel they are going to win the markets they're gunning for in A.I etc...
A perfect storm. They price gouged their cash cow, had a flop product launch, and they wont get anywhere near the market they projected they would in A.I/etc.

I warned of this very thing and they did it to the T.
They cut Nvlink out of 2070 and lower.
They created a completely new insanely price market segment and moved the price/margins up on all their GPUs.
And Turing was an utter flop.

Meanwhile, there are unheard of companies coming to market in the years ahead w/ AI Accelerators w/ far better performance/watt and value.
Greed Feeds... back to reality their stock goes. Nothing in tech lasts forever
We've been reading the "AMD is better and here's how" arguments since the beginning of red vs green fanboy wars. One thing that has been conclusively proven is that pretty well everything along the lines of "Nvidia should be like AMD or they are going to go bust" has been wrong. Another thing that has been the case since for ever is that Nvidia and Intel make lots of money, and AMD don't. Hence I am fairly confident that (as far as making money goes) the reality will turn out to be the pretty well exactly the reverse of all your arguments above.

Ethically you might have some points, but ethics are generally not an advantage if you want to get rich.
 

mxnerd

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2007
3,833
54
126
#6
Highest at $289 on OCT 1 to $165 today, dropped 43%, yikes.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
4,274
214
126
#7
Highest at $289 on OCT 1 to $165 today, dropped 43%, yikes.
It's about flat from last year around this time, so nothing to get particularly worried about. It was around $30 about 3 years ago, just to give further perspective.

Also, until shown otherwise I'm skeptical about AMD eating NVidia's lunch as they're doing to Intel. On the CPU side AMD has a product that's competitive with Intel and may even overtake them with their next release. On the GPU side, AMD can barely compete with the second best NVidia card from the previous generation. Sure there's an opening, but that guarantees nothing.
 
Jun 23, 2004
26,833
186
126
#8
An opening I might not even consider, being locked into a G-Sync display.

Although I'll be sorely tempted for the next GPU with 1070 performance for around $200. Question is... would that arrive by 2020, or later?
 

jpiniero

Diamond Member
Oct 1, 2010
5,922
86
126
#9
Although I'll be sorely tempted for the next GPU with 1070 performance for around $200. Question is... would that arrive by 2020, or later?
The cut Navi 10 should be able to deliver that... whether that would be $200 tho...
 
Oct 14, 2003
5,735
68
126
#10
On the GPU side, AMD can barely compete with the second best NVidia card from the previous generation. Sure there's an opening, but that guarantees nothing.
Never overestimate a company at its heights in both marketshare and egotism caused by years of success.

Intel was once that ahead compared to AMD. Then about the same time they started struggling, I mean really started struggling, AMD made a comeback. No one expected that they'll lose their process leadership in a single generation. It's no guarantee, but such leadership doesn't last forever.

Usually though its the successful company screwing up that allows competition to catch up. Nvidia is starting that now.

Also in terms of stock value, they were quite up there. At their peak, they were at 60% for share priced based market value compared to Intel but their revenue and net profits were at 1/5th to 1/4th. There are few other companies like Nvidia. One is Netflix.
 

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
651
4
81
#11
I think nVidia has gotten to the point where, even if I had unlimited funds, I still wouldn't pay for their RTX line on principle. It's just obnoxious. Paying just north of $200 for my R9 290, a GPU that was in the ballpark of a GTX 780 in performance, seems like a fairy tale now. And this was in 2014; the product line wasn't new but it was still relevant.

Team green fanbois are like the new Apple fans. AMD could win on every possible metric, and still you'd have people opting instead to buy used GTX gear. Sadly, this mind cancer is now mainstream thought.

$1200 for a GPU? Gratz guys. You win.
 

ub4ty

Senior member
Jun 21, 2017
749
304
96
#12
We've been reading the "AMD is better and here's how" arguments since the beginning of red vs green fanboy wars. One thing that has been conclusively proven is that pretty well everything along the lines of "Nvidia should be like AMD or they are going to go bust" has been wrong. Another thing that has been the case since for ever is that Nvidia and Intel make lots of money, and AMD don't. Hence I am fairly confident that (as far as making money goes) the reality will turn out to be the pretty well exactly the reverse of all your arguments above.

Ethically you might have some points, but ethics are generally not an advantage if you want to get rich.
This echo chamber ad hominem deflection comment is getting old... and by old I mean ancient.
Does anything in my commentary reflect fanboi'sm? I own a slew of Pascal GPUs for compute. One thing that is overarchingly clear is that markets are inflated by 30% which is why Nvidia as well as any tech company's stock (including AMD) is plummeting by that amount erasing all gains. So, quite clearly, market irrationality has no grounding in technical analysis. It's divorced from it. So, if you're using stock price as some false argument for why technically sound arguments are wrong, you clearly need to check the market enthusiast fanboism at the door. Technically, in tech there are short term plays and long term plays. A company can win and win for a good amount of time playing monopolistic short term greedy plays. However, all throughout the history of tech, they will face serious headwinds in the long run. This is not debatable. It's proven fact.

Another thing that has been the case since for ever is that Nvidia and Intel make lots of money, and AMD don't.
Money comes and goes as does market cap. I'm so tired of the least knowledgeable or successful investors throwing this silly argument around. Tech companies come and go. If a person claims this is not the case, they need their head checked. Whose on top today could be on the bottom tomorrow... This is Proven in tech. Making hordes of money means you're fleecing customers. Eventually there's payback. I wont touch an intel product in for decades. I am now in a position to influence professional purchases and will ensure the stack is completely AMD CPUs. I just talked with a CTO the other day whose initial product platform is EPYC for the same reasons I made my choice. Things change. People rattling off tired echo chamber comments dont' realize this and get left behind. Intel is yesterday and Nvidia will be too if they continue on with their idiocy. Not because of AMD but because of the slew of hardware startups pushing SIMD compute chips to market in the coming years that destroy Nvidia's performance metrics...

Hence I am fairly confident that (as far as making money goes) the reality will turn out to be the pretty well exactly the reverse of all your arguments above.
I'm fairly confident, the majority of people making these comments have seen their portfolio drop 25% in value in the last month or two and will see it cut in half by summer of 2019. I've heard this flawed markets = technical analysis over and over. While stocks are going up, everyone likes to rant behind their over inflated paper wealth. When reality hits and the false valuations are cut and half, such voices grow silent.



Nothing last forever in tech. Things are constantly changing and in flux. No company dominates forever.
As a consumer, I could care less what company makes the best value product. Whoever does gets my money, If AMD does, Intel does, Nvidia, ARM, or whatever new company, they get my money. I could care less about a brand/company as a consumer. As an investor, I know better than to buy into inflated nonsense and hype. Every tech stock is overinflated which is why they've all just erased 2018's gains. So much for "making" money. Enjoy your portfolio losses heading into christmas. I'm buying discounted 16 core processors.


Oh and Btw, a hardware accelerator company just mistakingly leaked that their PCIE card will support CCIX over PCIE 4.0. Which means that AMD just nuked Nvidia's DGX and Power 9.

https://www.servethehome.com/xilinx-alveo-u280-launched-possibly-with-amd-epyc-ccix-support/

I don't expect you to understand what this means from a technical standpoint. However, AMD just set the new bar for HPC. Intel and Nvidia's overly complex and lower performance configurations just got the shaft... IBM as well. Long term plays vs short term... In the end, the long term plays win out. Typically they are focused on openness and longevity vs proprietary money making fleecing.
 
Last edited:

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,339
26
126
#13
Team green fanbois are like the new Apple fans. AMD could win on every possible metric, and still you'd have people opting instead to buy used GTX gear. Sadly, this mind cancer is now mainstream thought.
Works both ways I guess. What do you call those who buy gear that is hot, loud and behind in every metric?
 

Borealis7

Platinum Member
Oct 19, 2006
2,609
2
91
#14
all tech stocks are down, BTC crashed, its a global trend. but NVDA did get hit hard.
 

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
651
4
81
#15
Works both ways I guess. What do you call those who buy gear that is hot, loud and behind in every metric?
I care far more about competition...nVidia is getting nearly damn monopolistic in the GPU space right now. Do you think that's a good thing?

I don't have any problems with noise, heat, or performance with my MSI R9 290. It still serves me faithfully, and does everything you'd expect from a upper mid range card from that era. I have a 24" 144hz 1080p monitor, and a 31" 75hz 1440p monitor. I typically get above 60fps on high settings on the 1080p monitor, and usually aim for ~60fps on the 1440. I don't have any benchmarks to share with you, and admittedly I play games that aren't super crazy on the graphics front. Killing Floor 2, FFXIV, WoW, so on and so forth.

This is an enthusiast forum. I get that. Lots of guys here have the disposable income to chase the bleeding edge of tech. Good for them. But you know that AMD is competitive in the mid range, and is often the best value. Yet, going off the quoted comment, you seem to think AMD GPUs were designed by neanderthals attempting to fashion a proper furnace. Are you under the impression that your video card is going to somehow measurably affect your electric bill? If so, are you accounting only for the difference between the wattage of AMD and nVidia cards for the same generation and performance bracket? Do you run your PC 24/7, constantly stressing your cards?

It seems silly to me to justify paying more money for something the same, or slightly better. This isn't even about AMD. It just seems to make budgetary sense.
 

amenx

Platinum Member
Dec 17, 2004
2,339
26
126
#16
I care far more about competition...nVidia is getting nearly damn monopolistic in the GPU space right now. Do you think that's a good thing?

I don't have any problems with noise, heat, or performance with my MSI R9 290. It still serves me faithfully, and does everything you'd expect from a upper mid range card from that era. I have a 24" 144hz 1080p monitor, and a 31" 75hz 1440p monitor. I typically get above 60fps on high settings on the 1080p monitor, and usually aim for ~60fps on the 1440. I don't have any benchmarks to share with you, and admittedly I play games that aren't super crazy on the graphics front. Killing Floor 2, FFXIV, WoW, so on and so forth.

This is an enthusiast forum. I get that. Lots of guys here have the disposable income to chase the bleeding edge of tech. Good for them. But you know that AMD is competitive in the mid range, and is often the best value. Yet, going off the quoted comment, you seem to think AMD GPUs were designed by neanderthals attempting to fashion a proper furnace. Are you under the impression that your video card is going to somehow measurably affect your electric bill? If so, are you accounting only for the difference between the wattage of AMD and nVidia cards for the same generation and performance bracket? Do you run your PC 24/7, constantly stressing your cards?

It seems silly to me to justify paying more money for something the same, or slightly better. This isn't even about AMD. It just seems to make budgetary sense.
Re-read the quote I responded to in my last post. You were inferring that those with Nvidia cards were inflicted with "mind cancer" and had no reasonable excuse to buy Nvidia vs AMD. Many, including former AMD owners disagree. Hot and power hungry does not refer to electricity savings at all. It just means running hotter and louder than some people may prefer. You may have "no problem" with this but it has been a gripe by many other 290/290x owners who later on went to chose Nvidia 1080/1080ti's over Vega as an upgrade path.

You know this forum has many enthusiasts who know their stuff and are not dumb enough to choose GPUs in 'faddish' terms as you liken those who may choose Apple products. So please, stop dumbing down others who may not share your preferences in their HW choices. Now if you are changing your tack (moving goal posts) and go for an ethics or competition argument, feel free to discuss it as you wish (preferably in another more relevant thread), thanks.
 

Dannar26

Senior member
Mar 13, 2012
651
4
81
#17
Re-read the quote I responded to in my last post. You were inferring that those with Nvidia cards were inflicted with "mind cancer" and had no reasonable excuse to buy Nvidia vs AMD. Many, including former AMD owners disagree. Hot and power hungry does not refer to electricity savings at all. It just means running hotter and louder than some people may prefer. You may have "no problem" with this but it has been a gripe by many other 290/290x owners who later on went to chose Nvidia 1080/1080ti's over Vega as an upgrade path.

You know this forum has many enthusiasts who know their stuff and are not dumb enough to choose GPUs in 'faddish' terms as you liken those who may choose Apple products. So please, stop dumbing down others who may not share your preferences in their HW choices. Now if you are changing your tack (moving goal posts) and go for an ethics or competition argument, feel free to discuss it as you wish (preferably in another more relevant thread), thanks.
Based on your response here, I think you're exaggerating things. I don't believe that ownership of an NVidia product denotes mental deficiency. I'm referring to the cognitive carcinogen of bias. It seems that AMD doesn't get a fair shake with this, even when they're competitive.

Do you think intelligence frees one from brand myopia? The electric bill comment was actually something someone once said to me on this board!
 


ASK THE COMMUNITY