21–30 of 567 posts
Interestingly enough, Intel and AMD market values are affected by this but the cloud provider aren't, which I find surprising.
Hm. Do cloud providers need to provide up to 30% more capacity for the same price, or do customers need to purchase up to 30% more capacity to get the same speed?
As a shareholder that's great. Concerned that this is a very fragile win though. I don't think there will be much real world fall out.
How you hold this stock is a mystery to me. With it bouncing between $10 and $15 constantly last year it just seems far to volatile. I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful... Maybe why its a favorite of /r/wallstreetbets
Interestingly enough, Intel and AMD market values are affected by this but the cloud provider aren't, which I find surprising.
Hm. Do cloud providers need to provide up to 30% more capacity for the same price, or do customers need to purchase up to 30% more capacity to get the same speed?
As a shareholder that's great. Concerned that this is a very fragile win though. I don't think there will be much real world fall out.
How you hold this stock is a mystery to me. With it bouncing between $10 and $15 constantly last year it just seems far to volatile. I'd be panic buying / selling every day to adjust which seems stressful... Maybe why its a favorite of /r/wallstreetbets
If you can train yourself to do the opposite you could make a lot off this stock. Buy fear, sell greed. Never panic.
Losses are never realized if you don't sell, and just wait it out until it is back near 15 again.
This isn't really too far out of proportion with normal daily fluctuations of AMD stock this year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If all Intel CPUs get 30% slower overnight, then there will be some fallout in the real world.
They might be 30% slower in virtualization and should be about 5-7% slower in real world usage. As a heavy user of the cloud I'm worried about my infra more than about my laptop: if my cloud setup gets even 7% slower overnight it won't be good to say the least, especially with lower-clock 2Ghz Skylake GCP CPUs. Those 5--7% will make me feel like I'm powered by Atom and it will be even worse for single-core bounded wo…
Virtualization IS real-world-usage. This is going to damage Intel where it will hurt the most, the datacenter (which is largely virtualized using VMware, or Hyper-V). The Xeon CPU's have some of the best profit margins for Intel. If they erode away to Epyc (which is finally becoming available) this could be pretty good for AMD's, espically since AMD has said the the past few years there strategy is to go after the datacenter market.
Not to mention it's pretty misleading about technical stuff, saying e.g. "Chip design errors are exceedingly rare. More than 20 years ago, a college professor discovered a problem with how early versions of Intel’s Pentium chip calculated numbers."
So, they imply that chip design errors are once in a few decades kind of things; that's just complete nonsense. Chip design errors are common most just aren't this bad.
Furthermore, they imply this stock change is anything more than temporary volatility; given the tiny, tiny changes so far that's just premature. Perhaps the stocks will adjust more in the future - we'll see. But as of now, this piece is financially and technically pretty misleading.
Didn’t the Intel CEO just sell half of his shares/options? If he knew about these issues isn’t that illegal?
Didn’t the Intel CEO just sell half of his shares/options? If he knew about these issues isn’t that illegal?
The sell could also have been scheduled in advance, which would - AFAIK - not violate any insider trading regulations.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm. Do cloud providers need to provide up to 30% more capacity for the same price, or do customers need to purchase up to 30% more capacity to get the same speed?
This bug doesn’t magically chop all CPU performance down by almost a third.