Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 91 posts

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#11

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

agumonkey wrote: post #3

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 ?

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.)

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#12

Post by drzaiusapelord »

agumonkey wrote: post #3

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 ?

> 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"

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#13

Post by wil421 »

sundvor wrote: post #6

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 m…

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.

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#14

Post by bob_theslob646 »

needz wrote: post #8
DarronWyke wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm finding myself enjoying Ars less and less. Recommendations for what to replace it with?

Mit tech review.

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#15

Post by dis-sys »

agumonkey wrote: post #3

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 ?

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?

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#16

Post by mtgx »

thisisit wrote: post #2

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…

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.

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#17

Post by tyfon »

agumonkey wrote: post #9
DarronWyke wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 pri…

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.

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#18

Post by kop316 »

DarronWyke wrote: post #4
agumonkey wrote: post #3

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.

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.

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#19

Post by agumonkey »

dis-sys wrote: post #15
agumonkey wrote: post #3

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 ?

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?

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).

Re: AMD, which lost over $2.8B in 5 years, takes a hit after new report

#20

Post by agumonkey »

kop316 wrote: post #18
DarronWyke wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

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.

Post reply on HN