Nvidia posts loss this past financial quarter

[jandlecack]

You guys are pathetic. This thread needs to be closed.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's pretty clear that Nvidia dropped the prices of the GTX 260 and 280 to compete with the 4800 cards. If they hadn't then they wouldn't have been able to sell any GTX 260s or 280s at all once the 4800s came out.

Doesn't seem clear to Wreckage. According to him, nobody is buying them 4800s.

LOLL nuff said, the HD 4800 series is selling near a ratio of 2:1 compared to the GTX series, but Blindckage won't accept it and still claiming that the GTX series has the 67% market share lolll, when more than half of it is from the old 7600/7300 series lolll

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's pretty clear that Nvidia dropped the prices of the GTX 260 and 280 to compete with the 4800 cards. If they hadn't then they wouldn't have been able to sell any GTX 260s or 280s at all once the 4800s came out.

Doesn't seem clear to Wreckage. According to him, nobody is buying them 4800s.

LOLL nuff said, the HD 4800 series is selling near a ratio of 2:1 compared to the GTX series, but Blindckage won't accept it and still claiming that the GTX series has the 67% market share lolll, when more than half of it is from the old 7600/7300 series lolll

The marketshare numbers from last quarter (which have nothing to do with the 7xxx series) show that NVIDIA outsold ATI by nearly 3:1.

So unless you have any actual facts that dispute this (so far you have none) then this argument is done.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

Originally posted by: Pantalaimon

Originally posted by: dguy6789
It's pretty clear that Nvidia dropped the prices of the GTX 260 and 280 to compete with the 4800 cards. If they hadn't then they wouldn't have been able to sell any GTX 260s or 280s at all once the 4800s came out.

Doesn't seem clear to Wreckage. According to him, nobody is buying them 4800s.

LOLL nuff said, the HD 4800 series is selling near a ratio of 2:1 compared to the GTX series, but Blindckage won't accept it and still claiming that the GTX series has the 67% market share lolll, when more than half of it is from the old 7600/7300 series lolll

Yes, when you look at things in the context you're looking at but it isn't objective at all. The 9XXX family of products and the re-named GTS product were the competition of the HD4850 and down offerings from ATI and the HD4870 and up were to counter the GTX series for the most part.

So to look at total sales one must include the 9XXX family and the GTX family to the 48XX family over-all. It can't be more obvious. The 9XXX family was planned for these lower model 4XXX sku's from ATI.

nvidia lowered their prices and did take an incredibly engineered scalable chip from ATI. Tons of accolades and positive press for ATI. Certainly competition is fantastic and consumers have choice, features, IQ from both very talented IHV's. Even with all this from ATI -- nVidia still gained market share.

They're both very talented IHV's and great choices to have and think many may agree to this.

 

[AmdInside]

Does anyone know what ATI's margains are? Not overall for AMD. Just the GPU business.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: SirPauly


Yes, when you look at things in the context you're looking at but it isn't objective at all. The 9XXX family of products and the re-named GTS product were the competition of the HD4850 and down offerings from ATI and the HD4870 and up were to counter the GTX series for the most part.

So to look at total sales one must include the 9XXX family and the GTX family to the 48XX family over-all. It can't be more obvious. The 9XXX family was planned for these lower model 4XXX sku's from ATI.

nvidia lowered their prices and did take an incredibly engineered scalable chip from ATI. Tons of accolades and positive press for ATI. Certainly competition is fantastic and consumers have choice, features, IQ from both very talented IHV's. Even with all this from ATI -- nVidia still gained market share.

They're both very talented IHV's and great choices to have and think many may agree to this.

Yeah I understand, it wasn't objectively at all, it was subjective, and done with a limited source of data. But bear in mind that the 9xxx series of card came much before the HD 4800 series, and the only 9xxx model meant to compete with the HD 4xxx series was the GTS which isn't doing very well at all, that's why they even pulled the GTS 240. nVidia gained market share during the war between the 8800 vs HD 2900, later on ATi gained a very slim market share with the HD 3800 series vs 9800 series, but nVidia won that battle in market share and performance, but when you compare the HD 4xxx alone with the GTX, the HD 4xxx is the most well sold card currently. But remember that the low/midrange is the market which most market share gives, not the high end, and the 8600 series is doing pretty well, like the 7600 and 7300 did in the $50 - $100 market and they ship in large quantities to OEM, and ATi is doing well between the $100-$180 market which the volumes aren't that large compared to what nVidia can ship in the lower end market. Both are very talented and offer great choices, competition is always good!!! 😉

 

[SirPauly]

A lot of the oddness may be attributed to nVidia's naming schemes where some 98XX family of products were .65 and some were .55. The .55 G-92b based products were the products that basically targeted the HD-4850 and eventually the HD 4830 over-all to me.

 

[trajan2050]

Few people here ever read a balance sheet. Nvidia revenue last quarter $664 million. Nvidia continues to gain marketshare at ATI'S expense. ATI products division last quarter $222 million. Most of Nvidia's loss was due to a stock option payout. They have no debt and a lot of cash due to the fact they rarely have losses. AMD, on the other hand, has been awash in red ink for years.

 

[Wreckage]

The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter has less than 33% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

 

[Keysplayr]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter had 23% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

Wreckage, you and I both know that the 23% would be a helluva lot lower if it wasn't for the 4xxx series. So it is anything BUT an absolute failure. You can't stand there and call the 4xxx series a failure. They are really great gaming cards. Saying anything else to the contrary is just not happening.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

ATI last quarter had 23% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 2xxx series.

fixed

Failure? LOLL, thanks to the ATi's HD 4800 failure series, nVidia had to lower down the prices of the expensive to make GTX series. The HD 2xxx was indeed a failure, the HD 3800 series fixed it, but didn't bring enough performance improvement to grant the same success that the HD 4800 series DID, it brought 2.5 more performance over the HD 3870, that's hardly a failure, specially that the HD 3870 is only 15% to 20% slower compared to the 8800GTX which is a great card. nVidia's market share didn't grew because of the GTX sales, it was because of the 8600/9600 sales. GTX 295 is a joke, the HD 4870X2 outsold it by a great margin, neither the GTX 280/285/275/260 combinted outsold the HD 4800 series as whole. This is new generation vs new generation baby loll

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

fixed

Yah know, maybe when I say "last quarter" that's just going over your head. Let me explain. We are talking about sales from January, February and March of 2009. This has nothing to do with ATI's 2xxx series or NVIDIA's 7xxx series.

This is a clear and factual domination of NVIDIA's product line vs the competition. The 4xxx series was only able to capture less than a 1/3 of the market.

Since you have yet to dispute with one fact so far the market share numbers, I can only assume you are either in denial or just have zero comprehension of what people are talking about.

Edit: NVIDIA has 67% of the discrete market which leaves 33% for Ati, Matrox, S3 etc. (surprised no one saw my typo earlier and jumped on me).

 

[MegaWorks]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: evolucion8

fixed

Yah know, maybe when I say "last quarter" that's just going over your head. Let me explain. We are talking about sales from January, February and March of 2009. This has nothing to do with ATI's 2xxx series or NVIDIA's 7xxx series.

This is a clear and factual domination of NVIDIA's product line vs the competition. The 4xxx series was only able to capture less than a 1/3 of the market.

Since you have yet to dispute with one fact so far the market share numbers, I can only assume you are either in denial or just have zero comprehension of what people are talking about.

Edit: NVIDIA has 67% of the discrete market which leaves 33% for Ati, Matrox, S3 etc. (surprised no one saw my typo earlier and jumped on me).

You're just jealous that ATI sold more cards this round than nVidia. so Nah Nah Nah-Nah, Nah Nah Nah-Nah, Hey Hey Hey, GOODBYE! :laugh:

 

[LOUISSSSS]

Originally posted by: Wreckage

Originally posted by: evolucion8

fixed

Yah know, maybe when I say "last quarter" that's just going over your head. Let me explain. We are talking about sales from January, February and March of 2009. This has nothing to do with ATI's 2xxx series or NVIDIA's 7xxx series.

This is a clear and factual domination of NVIDIA's product line vs the competition. The 4xxx series was only able to capture less than a 1/3 of the market.

Since you have yet to dispute with one fact so far the market share numbers, I can only assume you are either in denial or just have zero comprehension of what people are talking about.

Edit: NVIDIA has 67% of the discrete market which leaves 33% for Ati, Matrox, S3 etc. (surprised no one saw my typo earlier and jumped on me).

honestly, its because nobody really cares what you have to say. i know i dont visit the video forum much anymore because of your rudeness and tendency to argue with everyone that says anything anti-NV.

in regards to this thread, "NV posted loss this quarter." i'm kind of happy. NV has been raping us (the consumer) with high prices since the 8800gtx came out. Intel has a similar position on the market also (probably even more dominant), but i dont see them charging us $500 for the base i7 when they certainly could. but instead, they are charging us ~$300 for their i7. this definitely can be lower, but at least they dont shoot us with high prices. Intel also doesn't rename their low end cards to make them look better, why does nvidia rename the 9800 into GTX 250? to F the consumer. intel hasn't renamed the Q6600 into i7 905 because they're not idiots.

lets see some real competition in the gpu section.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter has less than 33% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

ATI graphics revenue was up 17% YoY which they attributed to the 4xxx series and increased licensing revenues from consoles (as per their financial report for FY08).

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: trajan2050
Few people here ever read a balance sheet. Nvidia revenue last quarter $664 million. Nvidia continues to gain marketshare at ATI'S expense. ATI products division last quarter $222 million. Most of Nvidia's loss was due to a stock option payout. They have no debt and a lot of cash due to the fact they rarely have losses. AMD, on the other hand, has been awash in red ink for years.

2008: Loss ($3.1bn)
2007: Loss ($3.3bn) {2007 and 2008 loss figures include ~$3.2bn goodwill writedown of value of ATI)
2006: Loss (negligible)
2005: Profit (negligible)
2004: Profit (negligible)
2003: Loss (negligible)
2002: Loss ($1.3bn)
2001: Loss (negligible)
2000: Profit ($1bn)
1999: Loss (negligible)

Negligible is everything under $300mn.

Really they haven't done terribly badly except for the last 2 years. They haven't done all that well either, they've never really raked in huge profits, but it's only since the whole ATI thing that they have had big losses on their books, and half of those losses can be put down to buying ATI at all due to impairment charges. (Ignoring the level of debt AMD, which obviously isn't a positive thing).
With some cash from the Middle East and spinning off their foundries they might be able to do a little better, but their marketing and R&D costs have both increased substantially lately without any real increase in revenue (although overall revenue for 2008 was the same as 2007, which in a way is positive given the overall economy).

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Lonyo

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter has less than 33% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

ATI graphics revenue was up 17% YoY which they attributed to the 4xxx series and increased licensing revenues from consoles (as per their financial report for FY08).

Wreakage is speaking of Q1'09.

If we want to compare YoY to this:
Q1/08_______262m______13m
Q1/09_______222m______1m

So YoY for Q1'09 vs Q1'08 we see a 15% decline in revenue and a 92% decline in profits.

If you think about it, YoY for Q1 is probably a good metric for evaluating the market proliferation of the 4xxx series versus the preceding 3xxx series as in Q1'08 none of the sales were attributable to 4xxx generated revenue whereas for Q1'09 it is likely that very little of the revenue is attributable to 3xxx sales.

(HD4800 released June 25, 2008)

Not that this matters, whether the analysis is flawed or not the bottom line is the graphics revenue in Q1'09 is 15% lower than it was a year ago, which is not good.

 

[Forumpanda]

Originally posted by: LOUISSSSS
honestly, its because nobody really cares what you have to say. i know i dont visit the video forum much anymore because of your rudeness and tendency to argue with everyone that says anything anti-NV.

Must add that this is pretty spot on, every potentially good thread here seems to get ruined by the blatantly obvious spewing of mostly misinformation and badly used argumentation by the same small group of people.

I have no real preference for either company except that I want to see lower prices and better performance, but I must admit that I almost want to see nVidia go down in flames just to make certain people stop talking.

 

[evolucion8]

Originally posted by: Idontcare
Wreakage is speaking of Q1'09.

If we want to compare YoY to this:
Q1/08_______262m______13m
Q1/09_______222m______1m

So YoY for Q1'09 vs Q1'08 we see a 15% decline in revenue and a 92% decline in profits.

If you think about it, YoY for Q1 is probably a good metric for evaluating the market proliferation of the 4xxx series versus the preceding 3xxx series as in Q1'08 none of the sales were attributable to 4xxx generated revenue whereas for Q1'09 it is likely that very little of the revenue is attributable to 3xxx sales.

(HD4800 released June 25, 2008)

Not that this matters, whether the analysis is flawed or not the bottom line is the graphics revenue in Q1'09 is 15% lower than it was a year ago, which is not good.

But that's about AMD as a whole, and bear in mind that the CPU market is draggin down AMD, even if the GPU market can be profitable, they will be dragged down too.

Originally posted by: Forumpanda
I have no real preference for either company except that I want to see lower prices and better performance, but I must admit that I almost want to see nVidia go down in flames just to make certain people stop talking.

Yes, it's always the same group, but this time is only one member which is always derailing threads and misleading consumers.

 

[Wreckage]

Originally posted by: evolucion8

But that's about AMD as a whole, and bear in mind that the CPU market is draggin down AMD, even if the GPU market can be profitable, they will be dragged down too.

Wrong again. He listed financial data for ATI.

 

[SirPauly]

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter has less than 33% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

Failure may be be too strong of a word for some in this context but you do raise a point to me.

The 48XX family competes very well in many cases from a price/performance to nVidia so how did nVidia manage to improve market share to higher levels over last year.

Is Cuda, PhysX -- Graphics plus -- actually making in-roads on mind-share in the buying minds?

 

[thilanliyan]

Found a link here:
http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=18242

"According to Mercury's numbers for worldwide shipments, NVIDIA has a 66 per cent share of the discrete market, up from 63 per cent in Q4 2008. It's worth repeating that the percentages refer to shipments and not value, so it's safe to infer that NVIDIA outships AMD-ATI by a factor of least 2:1, if the numbers are correct: selling is a different matter, of course."

What exactly does that mean? The 66/33 number is from how many discrete GPUs were sold by nVidia/ATI to their partners but not actually sold to the public?


Oh and here's an "analysis" from the Inq.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inq...dia-spin-borders-truth

"In any case, Nvidia's marketshare took a jump in Q1. What it is not telling you is that marketshare growth was mainly due to the company dumping about a million units of 65nm DX9 inventory that it had previously written off.

If you do the math, that is more than enough to make up for the marketshare unit gains. What is a bit more troubling is that the margins for discrete GPU sales were not disclosed. Using the numbers that Nvidia did give out, the totals don't add up unless GPU margins were about half of the overall corporate margins. That is bad. Bad bad bad. Your core business should not be struggling to have double-digit margins."

Obviously this is Charlie writing so I wonder how much is true and how much is FUD. And what are those DX9 65nm GPUs he's talking about?

 

[Pantalaimon]

Originally posted by: SirPauly

Originally posted by: Wreckage
The hype surrounding the 4xxx series did not carry over into actual sales. In fact even on this forum many ATI fans bought GTX cards because they are the best on the market.

ATI last quarter has less than 33% of the discrete market. If anything that shows an absolute failure of the 4xxx series.

Failure may be be too strong of a word for some in this context but you do raise a point to me.

The 48XX family competes very well in many cases from a price/performance to nVidia so how did nVidia manage to improve market share to higher levels over last year.

Is Cuda, PhysX -- Graphics plus -- actually making in-roads on mind-share in the buying minds?

I very much doubt those features had much an impact. I think where NVIDIA outpaced ATI is in the low end discrete and mobile market. Here where I live in Europe, pretty much every branded consumer desktop PCs (HP, Fujitsu Siemens, etc.) have one of NVDIA's lower end discrete card, and the same goes to a lesser extent with the laptops. Although now I've seen more of the ATI 3470s in the branded laptops now.

 

[Genx87]

OEMs are where you sell a lot of cards. Nvidia has been shipping to more and more OEMs on the mobile side of things taking away from ATI. They have been doing this for about 24 months now and it is really starting to show in the marketshare.

That steam survey is very interesting as it seems to nearly line up with the marketshare numbers quoted.

Sadly on the GPU and CPU side AMD is losing about 2:1 against their competitiors. Truely dark hours for AMD.

 

[Idontcare]

Originally posted by: Genx87
OEMs are where you sell a lot of cards. Nvidia has been shipping to more and more OEMs on the mobile side of things taking away from ATI. They have been doing this for about 24 months now and it is really starting to show in the marketshare.

That steam survey is very interesting as it seems to nearly line up with the marketshare numbers quoted.

Sadly on the GPU and CPU side AMD is losing about 2:1 against their competitiors. Truely dark hours for AMD.

I'd rather see AMD graphics shrink revenue and marketshare whilst still turning a profit versus dumping lots of inventory on the channels and still losing money to boot.

The memory makers held that as their business strategy for a decade, market share at any and all costs. And they've been about as profitable in the long run as AMD's CPU/chipset division.

Shareholders (and lenders) like to see >0 EPS. Revenue per share can go up and down, but if revenue isn't translating into earnings then you open yourself up to a whole other level of scrutiny by the analysts/shareholders.