AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/10/amd-stock-price-falls-after-report-predicts-cryptocurrency-slowdown/
90 comments
I used to talk with Joe Moore, who wrote the report, every once in a while in a past job. In my experience he tries to be very attuned to the development of technology in the semiconductor industry, but often (1) misses some of the more technical facts and (2) misjudges how players in the market will react. When the iPhone 6s was released, he totally failed to identify one of the NAND suppliers. Nice guy, but I don't think he is any better than an educated layperson at predicting the future of cryptocurrency mining or video games. Joe tends to be good at tracking big ticket things (stages of 7nm development, deal dynamics, catalyst dates, potential M&A targets), but he's a Wall Street veteran, not a young hacker. And he has been wrong on AMD before.
All valid points about the sell-side in general. I used to work there. That being said, a downgrade is usually the last resort for an analyst, because they don't want to risk angering the management teams they interact with. To your point, according to Tipranks, Joe has a decent record overall and a bad one covering AMD in particular: https://www.tipranks.com/analysts/joseph-moore If you click on the ticker you can see the timing on his Buy/Sell recommendations for AMD.
Compare these financials to Uber, Snap or even Twitter. It's not even the same league of money loss. Furthermore, AMD actually was competitive with Intel for a period, and may do so again.
I wish AMD would target AI more. They could create a niche unique offering, something like a 128 GB video card with float16 support. Then optimize and open source a cuda replacement.
AMD has a Radeon Pro SSG card with 16GB + 2TB on board memory.
You address the 2TB NVMe SSG memory as a filesystem directly from the card itself - no PCIe system transfer involved. 24.6TFLOPS half-precision.
You can program using OpenCL or HIP (opensource cuda replacement )
https://pro.radeon.com/en/product/pro-series/radeon-pro-ssg/.
https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP
You address the 2TB NVMe SSG memory as a filesystem directly from the card itself - no PCIe system transfer involved. 24.6TFLOPS half-precision.
You can program using OpenCL or HIP (opensource cuda replacement )
https://pro.radeon.com/en/product/pro-series/radeon-pro-ssg/.
https://github.com/ROCm-Developer-Tools/HIP
Thanks! I didn't realize.
Is it really due to the report? The slide seems to have started after the quarterly reports on October 24th. Now with the continuing slide, it seems news writers are trying to attribute a particular reason.
Here's the Q&A which happened during the call:
Joseph L. Moore - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Thank you. I was interested in your comments that the sequential growth in the Computing and Graphics business was driven primarily by graphics. How literally should we take that? And I guess, if graphics is up close to $150 million sequentially, is that business now on par with the CPU business? Can you just give us a general sense of the size of the two businesses there in that segment?
Dr. Lisa T. Su - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. :
Yeah. So overall, the growth in Computing and Graphics, when you look over the past few quarters has been very strong. And we've seen growth both on the Ryzen side, particularly in the desktop side of the business as well as on the graphics side. So in terms of size of the business, again, I think we stated in the prepared remarks that the GPU business had a record quarter for us and we're seeing very strong growth.
We're seeing strong growth as a result of the new product launches. So the Vega product actually did very well for us in the quarter as well as overall Polaris in both gaming and blockchain markets. But yes, we're pleased with the graphics performance. But I'll also say Ryzen did very well in the quarter. We look at the progress that we're making in the desktop channel when you look across retailers and e-tailers across the world. And in the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 segment, we're seeing significant share gain in those parts of the business. So I think both parts of the Computing and Graphics business are doing well. And we continue to expect growth as we go forward.
Joseph L. Moore - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And is it possible to size the blockchain portion of that?
Dr. Lisa T. Su - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. :
I think the blockchain tends to be, again, it's hard to separate because it goes through some of the same channels as gaming does. I will say that blockchain sort of behaved as we expected in Q3. So we didn't see anything that we didn't expect. We did see some benefit of channel restocking. So if you look at our channel inventories today compared to July, we had healthier channel inventory levels. And we expect that consumer blockchain will level off a bit as we go into Q4. But there's also commercial blockchain component that we believe is interesting and likely to continue into the medium term. As we look into Q4, though, we also see growth from just the OEM side of the GPU business as we start ramping Vega into OEMs.
So the part in question is this:
> And we expect that consumer blockchain will level off a bit as we go into Q4.
Here's the Q&A which happened during the call:
Joseph L. Moore - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
Great. Thank you. I was interested in your comments that the sequential growth in the Computing and Graphics business was driven primarily by graphics. How literally should we take that? And I guess, if graphics is up close to $150 million sequentially, is that business now on par with the CPU business? Can you just give us a general sense of the size of the two businesses there in that segment?
Dr. Lisa T. Su - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. :
Yeah. So overall, the growth in Computing and Graphics, when you look over the past few quarters has been very strong. And we've seen growth both on the Ryzen side, particularly in the desktop side of the business as well as on the graphics side. So in terms of size of the business, again, I think we stated in the prepared remarks that the GPU business had a record quarter for us and we're seeing very strong growth.
We're seeing strong growth as a result of the new product launches. So the Vega product actually did very well for us in the quarter as well as overall Polaris in both gaming and blockchain markets. But yes, we're pleased with the graphics performance. But I'll also say Ryzen did very well in the quarter. We look at the progress that we're making in the desktop channel when you look across retailers and e-tailers across the world. And in the Ryzen 5 and Ryzen 7 segment, we're seeing significant share gain in those parts of the business. So I think both parts of the Computing and Graphics business are doing well. And we continue to expect growth as we go forward.
Joseph L. Moore - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC:
And is it possible to size the blockchain portion of that?
Dr. Lisa T. Su - Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. :
I think the blockchain tends to be, again, it's hard to separate because it goes through some of the same channels as gaming does. I will say that blockchain sort of behaved as we expected in Q3. So we didn't see anything that we didn't expect. We did see some benefit of channel restocking. So if you look at our channel inventories today compared to July, we had healthier channel inventory levels. And we expect that consumer blockchain will level off a bit as we go into Q4. But there's also commercial blockchain component that we believe is interesting and likely to continue into the medium term. As we look into Q4, though, we also see growth from just the OEM side of the GPU business as we start ramping Vega into OEMs.
So the part in question is this:
> And we expect that consumer blockchain will level off a bit as we go into Q4.
I think post-Ryzen launch a lot of speculators jumped on the AMD stock bandwagon. The majority of speculators tend to jump on board when they see some "hockey stick growth" for a stock, and then jump off in group the moment there's some moderately negative news about the company/stock, because they don't understand the fundamentals, so they want to play it safe.
AMD is doing very well and its chips are only going to become more and more competitive with Intel's. That's all you need to know really. The market is irrational, so it's best to ignore it. I don't know why all the tech writers are making such a big deal out of this. They should stick to chip reviews.
AMD is doing very well and its chips are only going to become more and more competitive with Intel's. That's all you need to know really. The market is irrational, so it's best to ignore it. I don't know why all the tech writers are making such a big deal out of this. They should stick to chip reviews.
Markets are not rational. A stock that has gone from $2 to $15 in a relatively short time can be expected to have major fluctuations- a decline of 20%, but it is still 500% of what it was two years ago. Is the right price 500% or 700% of the low? From that perspective, for a company with no recent earnings record, who's to say?
That report is so negatively biased it's suspicious. AMD finances were known to be dire for the last decade. They didn't established as just an intel competitor again, they won hard technical and market praises. The console and mining markets are not what to look at, what about the rest of the whole personal computer one ?
Of course I'm not shocked that Ars picked it up. Their journalistic quality has majorly slipped over the last few years.
AMD is punching way above their weight class lately. It's causing competitors (or really competitor since Intel is their main one) to have to scramble to counter them.
AMD is punching way above their weight class lately. It's causing competitors (or really competitor since Intel is their main one) to have to scramble to counter them.
It's too bad about Ars. It's the same problem, except exacerbated, with Wired-- nowadays there's just the odd good long-form article. Over the last few years almost half of the print magazine has been devoted to progressive issues from a tech angle rather than tech- and the rest revolves around fan-geekery, if that's a word.
Both are owned by Conde Nast...
MIT Technology Review remains superb, however: www.technologyreview.com
Both are owned by Conde Nast...
MIT Technology Review remains superb, however: www.technologyreview.com
>Of course I'm not shocked that Ars picked it up. Their journalistic quality has majorly slipped over the last few years.
What does the fact that they picked a report that had an impact on a company (in other words a newsworthy story) with their "journalistic quality"?
Even if the report is back, it had an impact, and that should be reported. You'd rather they didn't covered stories involving upsetting things?
What does the fact that they picked a report that had an impact on a company (in other words a newsworthy story) with their "journalistic quality"?
Even if the report is back, it had an impact, and that should be reported. You'd rather they didn't covered stories involving upsetting things?
Do you have alternative sources you would recommend instead of Ars? I quite like ars but if there are better publications out there I'd love to know.
Not found anything worthwhile really. Slashdot is still decent. Of course HN. User-run sites tend to be better. But I stopped reading Ars and The Register a while ago due to slippages in journalistic quality and various other hit pieces.
To be fair, The Register is good at UK/Oz/storage news, as well as puns - if those don't interest you, it's probably not worth reading. Also not sure what level of "journalistic quality" you're expecting from El Reg? Or any news outlet for that matter.
How about writing and publishing actual facts rather than hit pieces? I've seen El Reg push out several articles about non-UK things that were patently wrong -- and that their userbase ripped them for. No apology, no retraction, no update.
I'm finding myself enjoying Ars less and less. Recommendations for what to replace it with?
Mit tech review.
It's indeed not a happy thing to see Ars publishing this. In the old days of Jon Stokes CPU articles what AMD did would get never ending streams of articles.
Considering what AMD went through, I indulge in a bit of AMD fanboyism at times, I try to avoid it. Some articles compare the latest Intel releases with AMD, and they often end up saying "ok Intel still has a 10% perf lead in half the tests, but .. twice the price". Am I the only one to consider what AMD did a miracle ? is it Intel friend network turning this into a "meh" ?
Considering what AMD went through, I indulge in a bit of AMD fanboyism at times, I try to avoid it. Some articles compare the latest Intel releases with AMD, and they often end up saying "ok Intel still has a 10% perf lead in half the tests, but .. twice the price". Am I the only one to consider what AMD did a miracle ? is it Intel friend network turning this into a "meh" ?
I have bought intel for the last 15-20 years, however my next workstation/gaming computer will have a threadripper of some sort.
I have never been a fanboy of either but for my use case it's a nobrainer right now. Even if I was a fanboy I'd have a hard time justifying getting an intel chip.
I have never been a fanboy of either but for my use case it's a nobrainer right now. Even if I was a fanboy I'd have a hard time justifying getting an intel chip.
I thought so too. But when I looked into typical software engineering workloads, I found that i9-7900x soundly beats the 16-core Threadripper in nearly all compiling/linking/running tests workloads because of the 20% per-core advantage. It also ended up being cheaper because x299 motherboards cost less.
I don't have desktops, I'm waiting to see their laptop CPUs.
I'm commenting on these things right now because I still didn't buy a laptop and need one soon/now.
There's no ryzen based laptop atm (regional limits might apply).
One Asus gaming laptop that is basically a desktop that you can carry around, with effort, and that has no battery life to speak of. Not available here.
Two Lenovo laptops (Thinkpad A series and Ideapad), both seem restricted in terms of CPU (aka not the 2700), don't come with the latest GPU or memory (single channel or unknown or limited to 8 GB). None of these is available.
The HP x360. Fancy, limited to 8 GB as it seems. Also doesn't come with the latest APU (only announced for 2500U). Not available yet.
The Acer Swift 3. Limited to 8 GB as far as I can tell. Aaaand not available.
Bottom line: You cannot get a laptop with either the mobile chips or the monster gaming thing now. They exist somewhere, but not here. Most of the announced devices have crippling limitations (memory) and are - for me, someone who deeply sympathizes with AMD - basically DOA. Which probably reinforces the manufacturer's opinion that they should just create Intel based products...?
I want one. I can't get any of these. All of these are kinda bad / quite limited / would be a "I want them for the AMD label, although they suck in some ways" decision.
There's no ryzen based laptop atm (regional limits might apply).
One Asus gaming laptop that is basically a desktop that you can carry around, with effort, and that has no battery life to speak of. Not available here.
Two Lenovo laptops (Thinkpad A series and Ideapad), both seem restricted in terms of CPU (aka not the 2700), don't come with the latest GPU or memory (single channel or unknown or limited to 8 GB). None of these is available.
The HP x360. Fancy, limited to 8 GB as it seems. Also doesn't come with the latest APU (only announced for 2500U). Not available yet.
The Acer Swift 3. Limited to 8 GB as far as I can tell. Aaaand not available.
Bottom line: You cannot get a laptop with either the mobile chips or the monster gaming thing now. They exist somewhere, but not here. Most of the announced devices have crippling limitations (memory) and are - for me, someone who deeply sympathizes with AMD - basically DOA. Which probably reinforces the manufacturer's opinion that they should just create Intel based products...?
I want one. I can't get any of these. All of these are kinda bad / quite limited / would be a "I want them for the AMD label, although they suck in some ways" decision.
I'm on a similar situation. I'm looking for a smallish, throw-into-any-backback-and-carry-everywhere laptop. The new chips are interesting, but the few launch devices all have one flaw or another.
Fortunately, I can live without such a laptop, for now. I'll just keep an eye out for updates.
Fortunately, I can live without such a laptop, for now. I'll just keep an eye out for updates.
I suspect this will go into the next generation of consoles too. Both xbox and ps4 (also pro and x version) contain the old jaguar core from amd.
But what's up with the single channel ram in the ibm one? Both of the others have dual-channel.
But what's up with the single channel ram in the ibm one? Both of the others have dual-channel.
Yeah that AMD managed to land the supply contract for both Sony and Microsoft is a big deal.
Chiming in to agree about Ars. I was really disappointed to see how there was no fact checking when the Voynich Manuscript "decoding" came out (granted they did publish an article retracting it, but even a cursory amount of fact checking could have told you that theory held no water), I simply don't trust any articles they publish outside of their core tech competency (and seeing articles like this hurt even my trust on that). I would like to see an alternative, but the only thing I really read for tech news past them is here.
The voynich issue was a black spot. But somehow they tried to evolve bigger and got far from what they were. It was a very simple website before but the articles and people around were high grade. Now it's big thing with less quality all around.
Market dynamics I suppose.
Market dynamics I suppose.
The last thing to do is adding a bunch of pro-SJW topics and you got another Verge/Vox/Polygon.
They already did that when they went anti-GG and started taking cues from people like Brianna Wu. That was the start of the decline for them.
The death kneel for me regarding Ars was that they shut down their Open Source section while their Apple section kept spilling over into their other sections.
More and more i felt the place could be rechristened Apple Technica.
More and more i felt the place could be rechristened Apple Technica.
I feel like it went from being a news site for Linux-loving geeks to being a news site for centre-left Apple fans.
I still love their article on setting up one's own mail server. That was probably the high-water point for their quality.
I still love their article on setting up one's own mail server. That was probably the high-water point for their quality.
AMD finally turned a profit this quarter!
Plus, though slow consoles and crypto will hurt a little, that's really only their existing business. Their future is in their new and competitive product lineup from this year. Epyc particularly should be very good for AMD if it can gain momentum: expensive server CPUs that AMD can manufacture cost-efficiently, and which are competitive with or straightforwardly better than Intel in certain use-cases.
(full disclosure: I indirectly own AMD stock because I expect next year will be better.)
Plus, though slow consoles and crypto will hurt a little, that's really only their existing business. Their future is in their new and competitive product lineup from this year. Epyc particularly should be very good for AMD if it can gain momentum: expensive server CPUs that AMD can manufacture cost-efficiently, and which are competitive with or straightforwardly better than Intel in certain use-cases.
(full disclosure: I indirectly own AMD stock because I expect next year will be better.)
This week:
Sony profits rise 346% thanks to strong performance from PlayStation gaming unit
Next week:
New Xbox and new Playstation will be released.
I don't get how they can claim that consoles will slow down.
Sony profits rise 346% thanks to strong performance from PlayStation gaming unit
Next week:
New Xbox and new Playstation will be released.
I don't get how they can claim that consoles will slow down.
Maybe the new models aren't equipped with AMD chips ? Also AMD had to cut profits on the previous console CPUs IIRC. So that's not a "value" for the stock market.
Both are powered by AMD, and it has been confirmed for almost a year.
It's still semi-custom AMD silicon (but new and improved!). I don't think they could actually switch GPU architecture within the console lifecycle without breaking things, and there's also nobody to go to anyway (who else makes semi-custom high-performance x64 SoCs, let alone with decent graphics?).
Yeah I was overly cautious, it would be high risk to pull the rug at that time.
I know about the Xbox one x, but where did you hear about a new PlayStation being released or announced?
Sorry, my fault - was talking about the PS Pro, which also has AMD in it.
Nintendo is finally switching to Nvidia.
That report is so negatively biased it's suspicious.
There are ten-year high levels of shorts on AMD, so there's speculation about how much of the bursts of negative press you see is basically market manipulation to unload a position. It's one of the more volatile stocks today, which would seem to make it a possible candidate for that sort of thing.
There are ten-year high levels of shorts on AMD, so there's speculation about how much of the bursts of negative press you see is basically market manipulation to unload a position. It's one of the more volatile stocks today, which would seem to make it a possible candidate for that sort of thing.
Serious question: Is this even actually a thing that happens?
I mean, obviously, it stands to reason that the right actor with the right investment portfolio and control of the right media outlets could pull something like this off, but it seems that there are very, very few people/companies in that position.
In fact, the Jeff Bezos / WaPo / Amazon nexus is perhaps the only example I can think of where this sort of thing is even possible, let alone carried out.
Do you have examples? I'd genuinely love to learn.
I mean, obviously, it stands to reason that the right actor with the right investment portfolio and control of the right media outlets could pull something like this off, but it seems that there are very, very few people/companies in that position.
In fact, the Jeff Bezos / WaPo / Amazon nexus is perhaps the only example I can think of where this sort of thing is even possible, let alone carried out.
Do you have examples? I'd genuinely love to learn.
The higher level you go, the less incentive there is. Take things down to a much lower level. For instance consider the ImClone insider trading case. Martha Stewart was a well known (among certain demographics) television personality, was on the board of directors of the New York Stock Exchange, and more. She risked, and lost, all that and ended up going to prison for acting on inside information. Her total gain was $45,673...
I think it's easiest to logically consider everything in reverse. Let's assume you're correct, that this sort of thing never happens. So that entails two possibilities. The first:
- No reporters, or individuals with the ability to influence what is written, have vested interests.
I think the above can be pretty easily dismissed as false. But if it's false we can assume at least some people have vested interests. Which leads to the next possibility:
- Those with vested interests choose to never actively utilize their position to further their interests
And again, I think we can pretty safely declare that's false. So it's not a matter of does it happen, but to what scale it happens. And that is going to be pure speculation. Although it would logically follow that the more people that a vested interest in event x, the more common the occurrence of biased media in favor of provoking x would be expected to be seen.
I think it's easiest to logically consider everything in reverse. Let's assume you're correct, that this sort of thing never happens. So that entails two possibilities. The first:
- No reporters, or individuals with the ability to influence what is written, have vested interests.
I think the above can be pretty easily dismissed as false. But if it's false we can assume at least some people have vested interests. Which leads to the next possibility:
- Those with vested interests choose to never actively utilize their position to further their interests
And again, I think we can pretty safely declare that's false. So it's not a matter of does it happen, but to what scale it happens. And that is going to be pure speculation. Although it would logically follow that the more people that a vested interest in event x, the more common the occurrence of biased media in favor of provoking x would be expected to be seen.
> She risked, and lost, all that and ended up going to prison for acting on inside information
That is not why she went to prison.
That is not why she went to prison.
Pray tell, why then?
The charge (amongst others) that caused her to serve time in jail was 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (making false statements to federal investigators).
The why was most likely insider trading allegations.
The why was most likely insider trading allegations.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/17/business/martha-stewart-s-...
> for lying to federal investigators about a stock sale that she called ''a small personal matter.''
> for lying to federal investigators about a stock sale that she called ''a small personal matter.''
It happened just a few weeks ago with Shopify and the Citron Report.
The Citron Report's author often finds stocks that have gone up, places shorts, and then promotes the idea that these companies are scams with no fundamental value. He's made a considerable amount of money doing this.
The Citron Report's author often finds stocks that have gone up, places shorts, and then promotes the idea that these companies are scams with no fundamental value. He's made a considerable amount of money doing this.
Your description makes it seem more nefarious than it is.
This guy runs a blog about companies that he thinks are over-valued, and he shorts their stock. He's transparent about all of this. His readers / investors / the public know that he's likely short these stocks and that he makes a business of both using this investment strategy and blogging about it. They follow his advice at their own risk, with all of the information fully available.
There's a HUGE difference between that and getting into a position that you don't disclose, manipulating a media outlet into running coverage that appears objective but which is actually designed to do nothing but help your position, and then cashing out.
This guy runs a blog about companies that he thinks are over-valued, and he shorts their stock. He's transparent about all of this. His readers / investors / the public know that he's likely short these stocks and that he makes a business of both using this investment strategy and blogging about it. They follow his advice at their own risk, with all of the information fully available.
There's a HUGE difference between that and getting into a position that you don't disclose, manipulating a media outlet into running coverage that appears objective but which is actually designed to do nothing but help your position, and then cashing out.
That should land you in jail.
No it shouldn't. The entire liquid stock market exists to make it possible for people to identify incorrect prices and make money by correcting them.
Market manipulation through pseudo-libel is not quite the same thing as ordinary price discovery.
[deleted]
Interesting, I didn't know that. Does this have a name ? a reverse insider fraud ?
Wow, there are quite a number of tricks to monitor. I don't know how they handle it in reality.
This seems a clear case of bashing .. and if so, it means the article is a compliment to AMD.
This seems a clear case of bashing .. and if so, it means the article is a compliment to AMD.
I don't have handy documented examples of private individuals successfully manipulating the market with news, but supposedly during the '07 crash the banks had the rating agencies keep the ratings for the collapsing subprime MBS's dishonestly high long enough for the banks to get out of their subprime MBS positions. Not exactly the same but very similar.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Inacc...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subprime_mortgage_crisis#Inacc...
literally how the press works..
> they won hard technical and market praises.
But their pricing is on par with intel's offerings, so why should I buy the AMD product? For almost my use cases extra cores aren't helping. Outside of some edge stuff at work, the same applies at work.
When I saw AMD's pricing it more or less justified my decision not to buy their stock. I don't think this article is negative. Its just, from an investor's perspective, AMD stock isn't very attractive. I have no idea if a major price cut would help with this, but I think they need to be more competitive with intel in regards to pricing. None of offerings, per core, really beat my 2011 2500k i5. Why wouldn't I just replace it with the newest i5 or i7?
This is just a market correction from ryzen/zen hype. AMD's stock rose way too fast for their actual market offerings. Congrats to those who rode this wave and sold at the right time, but now we're starting to see some sanity here.
Also the article is little more than blogspam of another article that gives a simple summary of the Morgan Stanley report.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/amd-shares-crater-after-morg...
The Morgan Stanley report's summary isn't rosy for AMD:
---
Moore lowered his price target for AMD shares to $8 from $11, representing 32 percent downside from Friday's close.
The analyst predicts cryptocurrency mining driven sales for AMD's graphics chips will decline by 50 percent next year or a $250 million decline in revenue. He also forecasts video game console demand will decline by 5.5 percent in 2018.
"We expect cryptocurrency to gradually fade from here, consoles to decline, and graphics to be flattish," he wrote. "To be clear, we admire what the company has accomplished on a fraction of its competitors' budgets in both microprocessors and graphics - our cautious view is based entirely on the current stock price, and the limited potential for upside in 2018 and beyond."
---
Also from a market facts perspective:
AMD today: $10.92
AMD a week ago: $14.25
>That report is so negatively biased it's suspicious.
Well, no one is buying the stock for x reasons so the price is falling. How is that not factual?
Moore might be right that $8 is AMD's rational market price considering their current offerings and sales projections. I don't see how anyone can look at AMD's stock performance in the past month and decide that it isn't destined for a downward slope until it hits a new floor.
This is not a pretty picture for a company that just released its latest and highly anticipated offerings, after years of delays and promises, a few months ago:
https://imgur.com/a/uNn1s
edit: oh well, downvotes from fanboys who will be offended at anything but "AMD IS AMAZEBALLS"
But their pricing is on par with intel's offerings, so why should I buy the AMD product? For almost my use cases extra cores aren't helping. Outside of some edge stuff at work, the same applies at work.
When I saw AMD's pricing it more or less justified my decision not to buy their stock. I don't think this article is negative. Its just, from an investor's perspective, AMD stock isn't very attractive. I have no idea if a major price cut would help with this, but I think they need to be more competitive with intel in regards to pricing. None of offerings, per core, really beat my 2011 2500k i5. Why wouldn't I just replace it with the newest i5 or i7?
This is just a market correction from ryzen/zen hype. AMD's stock rose way too fast for their actual market offerings. Congrats to those who rode this wave and sold at the right time, but now we're starting to see some sanity here.
Also the article is little more than blogspam of another article that gives a simple summary of the Morgan Stanley report.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/30/amd-shares-crater-after-morg...
The Morgan Stanley report's summary isn't rosy for AMD:
---
Moore lowered his price target for AMD shares to $8 from $11, representing 32 percent downside from Friday's close.
The analyst predicts cryptocurrency mining driven sales for AMD's graphics chips will decline by 50 percent next year or a $250 million decline in revenue. He also forecasts video game console demand will decline by 5.5 percent in 2018.
"We expect cryptocurrency to gradually fade from here, consoles to decline, and graphics to be flattish," he wrote. "To be clear, we admire what the company has accomplished on a fraction of its competitors' budgets in both microprocessors and graphics - our cautious view is based entirely on the current stock price, and the limited potential for upside in 2018 and beyond."
---
Also from a market facts perspective:
AMD today: $10.92
AMD a week ago: $14.25
>That report is so negatively biased it's suspicious.
Well, no one is buying the stock for x reasons so the price is falling. How is that not factual?
Moore might be right that $8 is AMD's rational market price considering their current offerings and sales projections. I don't see how anyone can look at AMD's stock performance in the past month and decide that it isn't destined for a downward slope until it hits a new floor.
This is not a pretty picture for a company that just released its latest and highly anticipated offerings, after years of delays and promises, a few months ago:
https://imgur.com/a/uNn1s
edit: oh well, downvotes from fanboys who will be offended at anything but "AMD IS AMAZEBALLS"
> edit: oh well, downvotes from fanboys who will be offended at anything but "AMD IS AMAZEBALLS"
You got downvotes for being wrong.
> But their pricing is on par with intel's offerings, so why should I buy the AMD product
This generation AMD is killing the price/performance ratio. Starting off a long winded argument with a factual inaccuracy isn't the best way to get the audience on your side.
> None of offerings, per core, really beat my 2011 2500k i5
Funny, I replaced my 2011 2500k i5 with an R5 1600x and the performance difference is incredible (having 3200Mhz DDR4 helps as well).
You are guilty of the same bias that you're accusing the downvoters of.
You got downvotes for being wrong.
> But their pricing is on par with intel's offerings, so why should I buy the AMD product
This generation AMD is killing the price/performance ratio. Starting off a long winded argument with a factual inaccuracy isn't the best way to get the audience on your side.
> None of offerings, per core, really beat my 2011 2500k i5
Funny, I replaced my 2011 2500k i5 with an R5 1600x and the performance difference is incredible (having 3200Mhz DDR4 helps as well).
You are guilty of the same bias that you're accusing the downvoters of.
>This generation AMD is killing the price/performance ratio.
Again, synthetic benchmarks that show atypical tasks like video encoding aren't helping sales. No one buying this stock because sales projections are poor. Turns out per core performance is what the market is biased for due to the benefits of it on typical computing tasks. AMD's big gamble with lots of cores didn't pay off like some assumed, thus the market correction we're literally seeing.
The report is fully factual, maybe it gets some causes wrong, but people are not buying this stock, they're selling it off, thus the price drop and the price drop in the future to a perhaps $8 stock price. Considering AMD floats around $4-5 in general, $8 seems like a decent place to be for an AMD slightly off life support. Thus far you have provided ZERO evidence on why a $14 AMD stock price is rational when all evidence points to it being the height of a hype cycle and nothing more. Or any real criticisms of Moore's analysis. Are you claiming his projections are incorrect? If so, what evidence do you have?
Not to mention, the data they have on seeing the big cryptocurrency GPU buys starting to taper off, on top of miners also buying NVIDIA especially the 1070 which has a strong price/performance ratio for certain types of mining.
Worse, AMD's console bread and butter is only getting worse. 5% reduction may actually be optimistic.
And that's on top of Coffee Lake eating their lunch.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmar...
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230369/components-processor...
Again, if Ryzen/Zen is so amazing, where are the sales? All I see are breathless fanboys being especially rude to anyone to calls out Ryzen's flaws or the pros of Intel's offerings. It seems like you guys are giving emotional arguments on what you want to happen in the market and not actually what is happening in the market. You can't will AMD into a proper intel competitor with a strong stock with just angry and misleading social media postings.
Again, synthetic benchmarks that show atypical tasks like video encoding aren't helping sales. No one buying this stock because sales projections are poor. Turns out per core performance is what the market is biased for due to the benefits of it on typical computing tasks. AMD's big gamble with lots of cores didn't pay off like some assumed, thus the market correction we're literally seeing.
The report is fully factual, maybe it gets some causes wrong, but people are not buying this stock, they're selling it off, thus the price drop and the price drop in the future to a perhaps $8 stock price. Considering AMD floats around $4-5 in general, $8 seems like a decent place to be for an AMD slightly off life support. Thus far you have provided ZERO evidence on why a $14 AMD stock price is rational when all evidence points to it being the height of a hype cycle and nothing more. Or any real criticisms of Moore's analysis. Are you claiming his projections are incorrect? If so, what evidence do you have?
Not to mention, the data they have on seeing the big cryptocurrency GPU buys starting to taper off, on top of miners also buying NVIDIA especially the 1070 which has a strong price/performance ratio for certain types of mining.
Worse, AMD's console bread and butter is only getting worse. 5% reduction may actually be optimistic.
And that's on top of Coffee Lake eating their lunch.
https://www.pcgamesn.com/intel-core-i7-8700k-review-benchmar...
https://www.pcworld.com/article/3230369/components-processor...
Again, if Ryzen/Zen is so amazing, where are the sales? All I see are breathless fanboys being especially rude to anyone to calls out Ryzen's flaws or the pros of Intel's offerings. It seems like you guys are giving emotional arguments on what you want to happen in the market and not actually what is happening in the market. You can't will AMD into a proper intel competitor with a strong stock with just angry and misleading social media postings.
The Ryzen 5 beats your 2500K clearly in real life benchmarks, like games. Even when the 2500K is overclocked and Ryzen 5 is not. Example benchmarks: https://www.gamersnexus.net/hwreviews/2875-amd-r5-1600x-1500... (and this is by far not the most Ryzen-positive one).
> Again, if Ryzen/Zen is so amazing, where are the sales?
I'm under the impression that Ryzen is selling great. They had to sell Ryzen 7s as Ryzen 5s to meet demand.
> Again, if Ryzen/Zen is so amazing, where are the sales?
I'm under the impression that Ryzen is selling great. They had to sell Ryzen 7s as Ryzen 5s to meet demand.
the synthetic benchmarks were the same for years weren't they ?
I suspect a lot of people are actually looking at video processing performance now that everybody has a 1080p camera in their pocket. I don't do that personally but I recall reading it a lot.
I suspect a lot of people are actually looking at video processing performance now that everybody has a 1080p camera in their pocket. I don't do that personally but I recall reading it a lot.
they won praises from users who don't actually understand what they got.
Ryzen has a doggy memory controller, as of today, for quite of 2400Mhz RAM sticks, you simply can not install 4 sticks.
Many users are still running chips that is known to segfault when highly parallel workload such as parallel gcc compilation.
Technical praises? Maybe solve the memory compatibility issue first?
Ryzen has a doggy memory controller, as of today, for quite of 2400Mhz RAM sticks, you simply can not install 4 sticks.
Many users are still running chips that is known to segfault when highly parallel workload such as parallel gcc compilation.
Technical praises? Maybe solve the memory compatibility issue first?
im running 4 of 8gb 3000mHz Corsair at 15 latency and super happy with my Ryzen 1700
Didn't know about the memory controller. The segfault issues didn't go far, and from the few I read it seemed to be a small problem (AMD as RMA'd a thousand and it didn't go further).
Not to mention the decision between more slower cores or less faster cores is a tough calculus for the market. For most use cases you want faster cores, even if you get less of them. Is this why we're seeing lackluster sales projections? Not sure, but its a concern. No gamer I know is lusting after the Ryzen. They want the faster per core i7. No Vmware admins I know want to migrate architectures unless they absolutely have to and Zen isn't that compelling right now. It might be with a price drop or faster per core performance.
Ryzen is a good chip, but it may not be terribly competitive outside of edge cases, specialist builds, or as typical with AMD, budget builds with binned chips with failed cores sold as 3 or 4 core versions.
Ryzen is a good chip, but it may not be terribly competitive outside of edge cases, specialist builds, or as typical with AMD, budget builds with binned chips with failed cores sold as 3 or 4 core versions.
But that was in no way the market situation at release. AMD offered more cores, and each core was almost as strong as the Kaby Lake processors'. Exception being the very high clocked 7700K (but clock a Ryzen v2 might address).
Now that Coffee Lake is released Intel also got a hexa-core against the Ryzen 5 1600, that one was eating their lunch until now. But even that i5 is not much stronger.
The Ryzen 3s + the smaller Ryzen 5s (their 4 core offerings, 3 core offerings don't exist this time) are competitive against the i3s, though the Coffee Lake i3-8100 wins against the Ryzen 3s at least. No, this is not the strong suit this time, it is the middle class with the Ryzen 5 1600 (in all areas) and productivity with Ryzen 7.
This is exactly why the mobile chips are so promising: This generation the single core performance is very good, energy-wise Ryzen looks nice as well, and the graphics AMD always did better. Raven Ridge APUs should make for very strong laptops.
Now that Coffee Lake is released Intel also got a hexa-core against the Ryzen 5 1600, that one was eating their lunch until now. But even that i5 is not much stronger.
The Ryzen 3s + the smaller Ryzen 5s (their 4 core offerings, 3 core offerings don't exist this time) are competitive against the i3s, though the Coffee Lake i3-8100 wins against the Ryzen 3s at least. No, this is not the strong suit this time, it is the middle class with the Ryzen 5 1600 (in all areas) and productivity with Ryzen 7.
This is exactly why the mobile chips are so promising: This generation the single core performance is very good, energy-wise Ryzen looks nice as well, and the graphics AMD always did better. Raven Ridge APUs should make for very strong laptops.
Good luck to anyone trying to predict the cryptocurrency market, which as it related to AMD was the major finding in this report.
Weird / sad / hope it corrects soon. My last 6850k / Asus Strix motherboard purchase was a major mistake; CPU frying with too high voltages just because I chose the default 3200 DDR4 XMP memory profile. Didn't realise I had to check every single voltage setting there was; a lot had changed since my 2600k.
My next desktop system will be a Threadripper for sure. But here's to hoping they can make a move in the mobile market too; would love a multicore X1 carbon.
My next desktop system will be a Threadripper for sure. But here's to hoping they can make a move in the mobile market too; would love a multicore X1 carbon.
I had a core i7 gen 2 Bloomfield? Asus motherboard that was solid and still is. In Jan/Feb I got a Asus Strix board for a Kaby Lake i7 and it’s already giving me issues. The onboard Bluetooth chip stops working randomly and other weird things are happening.
I'm totally not a fan of Asus anymore. My old 2600k system (an Asus) which I have my 7y son using now is still rock solid. New one... I'm on my third 6850k, and only discovered what I think was the crazy-as-hell offending default high voltage when using XMP after 6 weeks on the third, so I'm expecting some degradation to have taken place.
I should have demanded the dodgy Asus Strix X99 board be replaced at with the first CPU replacement (it was 99.999% likely the Asus' board's fault, not Intel's CPU - even though they got fried), alas now it's too late.
I have weird issues such as not being able to get it to boot every time if Hyper V is enabled, so I have to run Docker using Virtualbox. I'm really quite over the Asus QC and will go e.g. Threadripper + Gigabyte next time.
I should have demanded the dodgy Asus Strix X99 board be replaced at with the first CPU replacement (it was 99.999% likely the Asus' board's fault, not Intel's CPU - even though they got fried), alas now it's too late.
I have weird issues such as not being able to get it to boot every time if Hyper V is enabled, so I have to run Docker using Virtualbox. I'm really quite over the Asus QC and will go e.g. Threadripper + Gigabyte next time.
I'm calling total BS on this article. Graphics chip sales will continue to grow. These people are crazy.
Notably the stock has done this repeatedly after ER. Every time taking anywhere between a few days to a few weeks to start recovering.
Their product line up is very exciting and only going to get better. Mobile, Server, Workstation, and even still Consumer level CPU/GPU products are all very competitive and priced to sell. The only segment that sells quickly after something comes to market is really enthusiast consumer facing products. It takes time for a product line to build confidence and make a name for itself. Especially after nearly a decade of being the other guys with the mediocre at best option. The last AMD system I owned as a Phenom II X6 and it was really quite nice. I actually owned an Athlon MP (hacked XP chips) all throughout school a decade ago. Jim Keller is a brilliant CPU designer, and he designed Zen.
Granted the last time AMD took a significant market share Intel made many missteps. I don't know if Intel will have another Itanium like failure here.
Their product line up is very exciting and only going to get better. Mobile, Server, Workstation, and even still Consumer level CPU/GPU products are all very competitive and priced to sell. The only segment that sells quickly after something comes to market is really enthusiast consumer facing products. It takes time for a product line to build confidence and make a name for itself. Especially after nearly a decade of being the other guys with the mediocre at best option. The last AMD system I owned as a Phenom II X6 and it was really quite nice. I actually owned an Athlon MP (hacked XP chips) all throughout school a decade ago. Jim Keller is a brilliant CPU designer, and he designed Zen.
Granted the last time AMD took a significant market share Intel made many missteps. I don't know if Intel will have another Itanium like failure here.
Market manipulation, plain and simple.
Regardless of how AMD CPUs compare against Intel CPUs, we need AMD to provide competition.
Personally, I greatly enjoy my 1950X, as it provides just about double the performance per dollar compared to Intel's offerings. But I can see how that assessment would not be true for others, especially gamers and servers.
But just look what the last year brought us in terms of performance and price from both AMD and Intel, after several years of stagnation from Intel, and duds from AMD. AMD revived the CPU market, by providing competition. We need AMD.
Personally, I greatly enjoy my 1950X, as it provides just about double the performance per dollar compared to Intel's offerings. But I can see how that assessment would not be true for others, especially gamers and servers.
But just look what the last year brought us in terms of performance and price from both AMD and Intel, after several years of stagnation from Intel, and duds from AMD. AMD revived the CPU market, by providing competition. We need AMD.
Similar arguments could be made in GPUs
wouldn't one of the real answer to this x86 emulation on ARM? is the reason why it's not happening because of patents only?
On ARM? Not RV64G?
Emulation always involves a hefty performance hit. Many emulators make huge trade-offs in accuracy vs performance, or are only possible because of orders of magnitudes difference in performance. But you don't really want to trade accuracy for most x86 business cases. That's why (backwards) compatible tech is so alluring (x86-64, x86, Eclipse MV/8000, S/360, etc), whereas breaking changes aren't (Itanium et al).
So you need either dynamic binary translation, or a processor that can support both x86-64 and whichever ARM instruction sets. Maybe it's possible, but there are two hurdles. Doing that for a gigantic instruction set (x86-64) on a processor with a modest instruction set is going to be challenging. For dynamic binary translation, it's correctness and speed. For supporting two ISAs (somehow), it'd be crazy hard to get the micro-codes right for everything.
And most applications aren't multi-threaded, so you're limited by single-core performance. And that has been x86's bread and butter for decades (also POWER/SPARC I guess), whereas ARM has been power efficiency, multiple cores, specialised cores/silicon. (Edit: This also explains why neither Intel nor ARM has any incentive in making a chip that supports both ISAs, even if it took the dreaded mode-bit)
But if it could be done, then yes, probably patents. IBM brought Transitive Corp, who's tech Apple had licensed for Rosetta (dynamic binary translation PowerPC -> x86, although even that didn't support PowerPC 970). Of course, IBM then did fuck-all with the tech and people of that acquisition, but they still have that IP.
So you need either dynamic binary translation, or a processor that can support both x86-64 and whichever ARM instruction sets. Maybe it's possible, but there are two hurdles. Doing that for a gigantic instruction set (x86-64) on a processor with a modest instruction set is going to be challenging. For dynamic binary translation, it's correctness and speed. For supporting two ISAs (somehow), it'd be crazy hard to get the micro-codes right for everything.
And most applications aren't multi-threaded, so you're limited by single-core performance. And that has been x86's bread and butter for decades (also POWER/SPARC I guess), whereas ARM has been power efficiency, multiple cores, specialised cores/silicon. (Edit: This also explains why neither Intel nor ARM has any incentive in making a chip that supports both ISAs, even if it took the dreaded mode-bit)
But if it could be done, then yes, probably patents. IBM brought Transitive Corp, who's tech Apple had licensed for Rosetta (dynamic binary translation PowerPC -> x86, although even that didn't support PowerPC 970). Of course, IBM then did fuck-all with the tech and people of that acquisition, but they still have that IP.
i thought Microsoft had a system of the sort working, to make "legacy" (aka x86) work on an eventual return to ARM with the Surface notebook/tablet