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

31–40 of 91 posts

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

#31

Post by digi_owl »

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.

anandtech.com may be worth a look.

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

#32

Post by digi_owl »

agumonkey wrote: post #22
tyfon wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964/ryzen-mobile-is-launche...

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

#33

Post by drzaiusapelord »

kbhn wrote: post #30
drzaiusapelord wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, p…

>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.

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

#34

Post by onli »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #21
dis-sys wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 absolutel…

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.

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

#35

Post by digi_owl »

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.

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.

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

#36

Post by agumonkey »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #29
agumonkey wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

Yeah I was overly cautious, it would be high risk to pull the rug at that time.

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

#38

Post by MulliMulli »

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.

Both are powered by AMD, and it has been confirmed for almost a year.

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

#39

Post by agumonkey »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #33
kbhn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, p…

>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…

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.

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

#40

Post by onli »

drzaiusapelord wrote: post #33
kbhn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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, p…

>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…

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.

Post reply on HN