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

21–30 of 91 posts

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

#21

Post by drzaiusapelord »

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?

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.

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

#22

Post by agumonkey »

tyfon wrote: post #17
agumonkey wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't have desktops, I'm waiting to see their laptop CPUs.

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

#23

Post by MulliMulli »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #11
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…

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.

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

#24

Post by sliverstorm »

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 ?

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.

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

#25

Post by DarronWyke »

Numberwang wrote: post #7
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.

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.

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

#26

Post by solotronics »

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?

im running 4 of 8gb 3000mHz Corsair at 15 latency and super happy with my Ryzen 1700

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

#27

Post by bfrog »

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.

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

#28

Post by agumonkey »

MulliMulli wrote: post #23
TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

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.

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

#29

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

agumonkey wrote: post #28
MulliMulli wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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?).

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

#30

Post by kbhn »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #12
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, AM…

> 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.

Post reply on HN