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

61–70 of 91 posts

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

#61

Post by old-gregg »

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 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.

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

#63

Post by bdpete »

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…

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?

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

#64

Post by doingmyting »

tanderson92 wrote: post #57
indubitable wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

I thought she went to prison for selling 200K of ImClone stock based on advice she got from one of the founders after ImClone failed to get FDA approval for their drug. What am I missing?

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

#65

Post by jacamat »

dbatten wrote: post #41
sliverstorm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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 t…

literally how the press works..

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

#66

Post by milcron »

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.

Nintendo is finally switching to Nvidia.

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

#67

Post by jacquesm »

jimminy wrote: post #59
dbatten wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

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.

That should land you in jail.

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

#68

Post by cyberpunk0 »

anon11012017 wrote: post #56
DarronWyke wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Anti-GG is a good thing in my book.

How so?

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

#69

Post by darklajid »

digi_owl wrote: post #32
agumonkey wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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

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.

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

#70

Post by r00fus »

tanderson92 wrote: post #57
indubitable wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

Pray tell, why then?
Post reply on HN