Nvidia Double Profits due to Nintendo Switch

[linustouchtips]

Quote

 "Nvidia achieved a higher revenue and profit mainly due to the Nintendo Switch (Nvidia fabs the SoC) and data-center activities."

The Switch is making Nvidia some mad dough and has some pretty good ROI. Shareholders rejoice. 

 

Story: http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-first-quarter-fiscal-2018-financials-higher-profits-due-to-nintendo-switch.html

 

More money for r&d to make better gpus im all for it green for life. 

[Spenser1337]

They're up 12$ in premarket LOL

[rattacko123]

1 minute ago, linustouchtips said:

green for life. 

*has AMD CEO as profile pic*

[zMeul]

Quote

Nvidia Double Profits due to Nintendo Switch

that's not true

gaming is ~53% of nVidia's business and it accounts for 50% year-to-year growth in this segment

the biggest increase, year-to-year, they saw in datacenter market with a whooping 186%

 

the Tegra business got them 332 mil$, and that's 1/3 from the gaming market

and as a side-note, Tegra is also part of their automotive business

[linustouchtips]

Just now, zMeul said:

that's not entirely true

gaming is ~53% of nVidia's business and it accounts for 50% year-to-year growth

the biggest increase, year-to-year, they saw in datacenter market with a whooping 186%

Quote

"and data-center activities." 

 

i like the and on it tbh and data center activities you know that other thing. 

[raphidy]

So much green...

 

[Spenser1337]

And the red team is in the red 

[FakezZ]

27 minutes ago, linustouchtips said:

 

i like the and on it tbh and data center activities you know that other thing. 

I made 0 sense from this post honestly...

[alamox]

nvidia made more money, because AMD didn't introduce any product on 300$+ segment, it's not because of the switch....and that doesn't happen often, having free market to grab, Q3 results will probably be much lower than Q1 although it's supposed to be better, because AMD will have a competing product on 300-500$ range.

[Misanthrope]

 

nvidia made more money, because AMD didn't introduce any product on 300$+ segment, it's not because of the switch....and that doesn't happen often, having free market to grab, Q3 results will probably be much lower than Q1 although it's supposed to be better, because AMD will have a competing product on 300-500$ range.

I am not going to venture to say it was the main contributing factor...but it certainly influential. To what degree? I don't know Nintendo's success and AMD's shortcomings seem to weight heavily into their position right now.

 

So there goes my hopes for G-Sync to fucking die already 

[BuckGup]

 

I am not going to venture to say it was the main contributing factor...but it certainly influential. To what degree? I don't know Nintendo's success and AMD's shortcomings seem to weight heavily into their position right now.

 

So there goes my hopes for G-Sync to fucking die already 

I would just embrace it. Sure it adds cost but it does work slightly better than free sync. But $100 better? No

[Okjoek]

And AMD still probably hanging on for dear life =/ feels bad.

[Misanthrope]

3 hours ago, BuckGup said:

I would just embrace it. Sure it adds cost but it does work slightly better than free sync. But $100 better? No

It doesn't just adds costs, it adds enough cost that there's just not enough lower end options. I get that the G-Sync module it's maybe 100 to 200 extra but G-Sync monitors are almost never found under 500 bucks and those basically suck, the decent ones jump to 600 or 700 vs the cheaper freesync ones at 200 or 300. That's double the fucking price.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It doesn't just adds costs, it adds enough cost that there's just not enough lower end options. I get that the G-Sync module it's maybe 100 to 200 extra but G-Sync monitors are almost never found under 500 bucks and those basically suck, the decent ones jump to 600 or 700 vs the cheaper freesync ones at 200 or 300. That's double the fucking price.

 

Outside of a monopoly market, a product is only ever worth what the consumer will pay.  If you don't like G-sync then don't buy it.  If double the price is unrealistic then consumers will stop buying and nvidia will have to choose between dropping the price or discontinuing the product.    Otherwise it will stay high because that is the cost consumers are willing to bare for the product.

[BuckGup]

26 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

It doesn't just adds costs, it adds enough cost that there's just not enough lower end options. I get that the G-Sync module it's maybe 100 to 200 extra but G-Sync monitors are almost never found under 500 bucks and those basically suck, the decent ones jump to 600 or 700 vs the cheaper freesync ones at 200 or 300. That's double the fucking price.

Well work more.

[Coaxialgamer]

Cut the bs . The switch has been out for two months tops and has low margins compared to what nvidia sees on their gpu's. 

 

What brought them up was the datacenter sales, NOT the switch. 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Please change the title, because it's grossly misleading in all aspects.

 

The profits haven't doubled. That would mean that Q4 2016's earnings in the gaming sector (which is where I would believe the Switch falls into) would be $343.5 million. It wasn't. It was $810 million (http://www.anandtech.com/show/10050/nvidia-announces-q4-fy-2016-results-record-quarter-and-record-year).

 

Second, Nintendo would've paid for the order of SoC's well in advance of the actual launch date of the Switch. I'm going to make a guess that Q4 2017 would've been the latest to bulk ship the orders to get the units built, tested, and then shipped to various places for the March 2017 release.

 

Third, the Nintendo Switch costs $257 to make, with about $167 of that being the unit itself plus the dock (http://www.kitguru.net/tech-news/paul-taylor/nintendo-switch-costs-257-to-make-wont-line-nintendos-pockets-suggests-report/). I don't know what the cost of any of this would be, but let's just say the SoC accounts for about half of this (as the processor for the PS4 did). As of April, the Switch sold about 2.4 million units. So even at $80 per SoC, that's only $192 million.

 

Edited May 11, 2017 by M.Yurizaki

[mr moose]

22 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Please change the title, because it's grossly misleading in all aspects.

 

The profits haven't doubled. That would mean that Q4 2016's earnings in the gaming sector (which is where I would believe the Switch falls into) would be $343.5 million. It wasn't. It was $810 million (http://www.anandtech.com/show/10050/nvidia-announces-q4-fy-2016-results-record-quarter-and-record-year).

 

Second, Nintendo would've paid for the order of SoC's well in advance of the actual launch date of the Switch. I'm going to make a guess that Q4 2016 would've been the latest to bulk ship the orders to get the units built, tested, and then shipped to various places for the March 2017 release.

 

Third, the Nintendo Switch costs $257 to make, with about $167 of that being the unit itself plus the dock (http://www.kitguru.net/tech-news/paul-taylor/nintendo-switch-costs-257-to-make-wont-line-nintendos-pockets-suggests-report/). I don't know what the cost of any of this would be, but let's just say the SoC accounts for about half of this (as the processor for the PS4 did). As of April, the Switch sold about 2.4 million units. So even at $80 per SoC, that's only $192 million.

You're quoting the wrong financial year reports, the OP is reporting on Q1 2018 while the anandtech report is last years Q4 2016 (which actually occurs in 2015). However you're are right in that nvidia's profits did not double and it probably had little to do with switch sales.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Just now, mr moose said:

You're quoting the wrong financial year reports, the OP is reporting on Q1 2018 while the anandtech report is last years Q4 2016 (which actually occurs in 2015). However you're are right in that nvidia's profits did not double and it probably hat little to do with switch sales.

Ah, you're right. Stupid fiscal year system.

[PlayStation 2]

meanwhile AMD is falling :^)

[zMeul]

8 hours ago, mr moose said:

You're quoting the wrong financial year reports, the OP is reporting on Q1 2018 while the anandtech report is last years Q4 2016 (which actually occurs in 2015). However you're are right in that nvidia's profits did not double and it probably had little to do with switch sales.

as I said in one of my previous posts, Tegra business is only 1/3 from their gaming market sales; and Tegra is also part of their automotive business

 

also, yes .. nVidia's gaming market increased 50% in revenue year-to-year:

 

numbers took from earnings call, May 9^th

[mr moose]

10 minutes ago, zMeul said:

as I said in one of my previous posts, Tegra business is only 1/3 from their gaming market sales; and Tegra is also part of their automotive business

 

also, yes .. nVidia's gaming market about doubled in revenue year-to-year:

 

numbers took from earnings call, May 9^th

The title says "Nvidias profits doubled due to Nintendo switch", their total revenue took an 11%hit  so it is not possible for their profit to double and there gaming revenue didn't even double so it is wrong at all levels.    

[MorganO]

9 hours ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

meanwhile AMD is falling :^)

not really, they decreased the debt from 7XX million to like 29 million IIRC and the reason the stocked dropped becuase they missed a target by 1% from what i understand from this video 

 

[zMeul]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

The title says "Nvidias profits doubled due to Nintendo switch", their total revenue took an 11%hit  so it is not possible for their profit to double and there gaming revenue didn't even double so it is wrong at all levels.    

you are correct, the title is quite wrong, as I said previously

 

but to the rest .. what?!

[mr moose]

6 minutes ago, zMeul said:

you are correct, the title is quite wrong, as I said previously

 

but to the rest .. what?!

What what?

 

q/q is down 11%.  switch only went on the market in nvidia's q1 2018.  Which means not only has their profit not doubled in the time the switch has been out but it is not caused by it.