AMD's Stock Price Skyrockets 52% in a Single Day

[BobbyG2]

A company we were all worried about failing leaving the industry without much needed competition just had its biggest stock jump in its history,  but we're all arguing over the graph an article about it chose to use to represent the change. ..

[Dabombinable]

7 minutes ago, cesrai said:

What I understand and from reading the wiki article is that the increase doesn't represent a 50% increase.

$2.62 on Thursday the 21st of April 4PM to $3.99 on Friday 22nd of April 4PM. that is an increase of $1.37

Ok this is how you calculate 50% or half: 2.62/2=1.31.

Adding that 50% is this: 2.62+1.31=$3.93

8 minutes ago, Enderman said:

-snip-

The calculation you did is wrong, and Google's graph checks out. AMD's stock price did go up by just over 50% in that 24 hour period.
 

[CommandMan7]

4 minutes ago, Enderman said:

you know that thousands of people read threads on LTT right? even though they dont comment or arent registered users

I bet at least some people will learn something about biased graphs  

 

the point of graphs is to make data digestible to people like that who arent very intelligent

 

or maybe LTT should just always post benchmarks like this

It's a linearly scaled and accurate graph RIGHT??

LOL you're hilarious

Let's test this graph to see if it's linearly scaled and accurate:

 

Test one: X axis goes in increments of 0.2 FPS. That's linear. Pass.

Test two: Numbers on bars match the X axis. That's accurate. Pass.

 

So technically, this is linearly scaled and accurate.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

9 minutes ago, Enderman said:

 

 

 

I do wanna ask whomever was behind this graph.

 

"wtf man?"

[Enderman]

4 minutes ago, Pohernori said:

 

No one said it was good or accurate. Everyone is just extremely puzzled by how you could interpreted the graph to be "bias". 

Uh, that's what a " biased graph " means

one that doesn't show a visual image that corresponds to the real values

 

If you look at this image there is no way in hell that you will guess this is "52% increase"

now think about the fact that nearly 75% of people (eg. your parents) will look at a graph without reading the scale, because they assume that it is a correctly made graph that starts at 0

[cesrai]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

$2.62 on Thursday the 21st of April 4PM to $3.99 on Friday 22nd of April 4PM. that is an increase of $1.37

Ok this is how you calculate 50% or half: 2.62/2=1.31.

Adding that 50% is this: 2.62+1.31=$3.93

Well you missed the whole point. When you look at graph does it look like a 50% increase ? not it doesn't not even close at all.

 

1 minute ago, CommandMan7 said:

Let's test this graph to see if it's linearly scaled and accurate:

 

Test one: X axis goes in increments of 0.2 FPS. That's linear. Pass.

Test two: Numbers on bars match the X axis. That's accurate. Pass.

 

So technically, this is linearly scaled and accurate.

He said it's biased please read ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph 

[Dabombinable]

4 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

$2.62 on Thursday the 21st of April 4PM to $3.99 on Friday 22nd of April 4PM. that is an increase of $1.37

Ok this is how you calculate 50% or half: 2.62/2=1.31.

Adding that 50% is this: 2.62+1.31=$3.93

 

The calculation you did is wrong, and Google's graph checks out. AMD's stock price did go up by just over 50% in that 24 hour period.
 

 

1 minute ago, Enderman said:

Uh, that's what a " biased graph " means

one that doesn't show a visual image that corresponds to the real values

 

If you look at this image there is no way in hell that you will guess this is "52% increase"

now think about the fact that nearly 75% of people (eg. your parents) will look at a graph without reading the scale, because they assume that it is a correctly made graph that starts at 0

The graph is still correct no matter what you think. And it is not biased at all as when you check the 5 day graph, and get a 50% increase between 4PM on the 21st to 4PM on the 22nd. Just like you do with the more in depth graphs.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, cesrai said:

Well you missed the whole point. When you look at graph does it look like a 50% increase ? not it doesn't not even close at all.

 

He said it's biased please read ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph 

Fine then. Would the 5 year graph be good enough? It is a clear indicator that AMD's stock price recently jumped up 50% of what it was:

Still not biased.

[CommandMan7]

@Enderman

@cesrai

 

At this point I'm just repeating myself, if you don't understand now then I may as well give up. I'm just saying that a person's laziness is not a determining factor in whether or not a graph is bias. If they don't read the numbers, they'll get a wrong answer. It's not the graph's fault. 

[JefferyD90]

17 minutes ago, Enderman said:

you know that thousands of people read threads on LTT right? even though they dont comment or arent registered users

I bet at least some people will learn something about biased graphs  

 

the point of graphs is to make data digestible to people like that who arent very intelligent

 

or maybe LTT should just always post benchmarks like this

It's a linearly scaled and accurate graph RIGHT??

LOL you're hilarious

Then its the time to start a thread titled "Education time: graphs!"

[alamox]

maybe Intel announcement had something to do with it also ? Intel going out of PC market and shifting into internet of things, could mean AMD is going to be the major player for desktop CPU from ZEN and forward.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

14 minutes ago, Enderman said:

Uh, that's what a " biased graph " means

one that doesn't show a visual image that corresponds to the real values

 

If you look at this image there is no way in hell that you will guess this is "52% increase"

now think about the fact that nearly 75% of people (eg. your parents) will look at a graph without reading the scale, because they assume that it is a correctly made graph that starts at 0

 

The part that's pretty exaggerated here is this. No one(other than us) will see the graph like this. Now anyone who is literate will be able to see the y and x axis. So it doesn't  make sense to think that 100% of the 75% who is looking at the graph will see what you think they will see. 

 

One important thing that you missed out on is the big freaking green text that shows 52.29%. 

That is the text that get's everyone's attention. Not only the graph itself. 

 

The text does show 52.29% not 500%.

 

The graph only turns into a bias graph when you show it how you want people to see it. The actual graph by itself is just an estimated visual representation.

 

 

[cesrai]

6 minutes ago, CommandMan7 said:

@Enderman

@cesrai

 

At this point I'm just repeating myself, if you don't understand now then I may as well give up. I'm just saying that a person's laziness is not a determining factor in whether or not a graph is bias. If they don't read the numbers, they'll get a wrong answer. It's not the graph's fault. 

My point is the scale exaggerates the difference. 

9 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Fine then. Would the 5 year graph be good enough? It is a clear indicator that AMD's stock price recently jumped up 50% of what it was:

Still not biased.

My point is about the scale it exaggerates the increase, and yes that looks better.

[Dabombinable]

11 minutes ago, cesrai said:

My point is the scale exaggerates the difference. 

My point is about the scale it exaggerates the increase, and yes that looks better.

No it doesn't, 50% is 50%. And think about this, its still the same data as the 1 month graph.

[patrick3027]

Talking about graphs, here's another one.

[M4st4M1nd]

Actually finding this very difficult to believe but I'm so excited nonetheless. AMD is finally making its big come back :D. I'd love nothing more than to switch away from Intel and Nvidia.

[christianled59]

You. Have. Got. To be kidding me.

 

2 days ago I was talking to my friend about investing a couple $k into amd. After a few long, drawn out conversations he convinced me to not invest. 

 

I could be rich right now. 

 

I think I should just kill myself now. 

[Rix_77]

To be honest this is probably just a reaction by clever investors who understand that if Intel are going to focus more on mobile computing then someone else is going to have to take up the slack..

[UnknownEngineer]

This graph shows a 100% increase if you just take a glance and ignore the numbers. If you added the 1.5 to the vertical, the part that isn't show, the graph would be absolutely correct even without the numbers.

This logarithmic graph shows roughly a 50% height increase, this is approximately what the above graph would ideally look like.

 

Yes, OP gave all the necessary data, but @Enderman's argument about the graph itself (just the graph, not the numbers associated with it) being misleading is correct. Might not be as relevant considering how the numbers are stated separately, namely the ~52% increase, but it is still a correct statement about the graph itself.

[raphidy]

Yup, the graph is visually looks misleading, just take a ruler and measure the difference.

[Trik'Stari]

Hopefully AMD will do something meaningful with this, and not just piss it away on technology that nobody cares about (like APU's and HSA).

 

Catch up with Intel, then use money from that to make an ENTIRELY NEW LINEUP OF GPU's, using HBM with overclocking for all. And watch Nvidia scramble to catch up.

[Misanthrope]

Hey if I have 2 apples and then get another one, my apple stock just raised 50% as well: it's just not impressive when it's basically worthless.

[Agosto]

YES

CMON AMD YOU CAN DO IT


I hope their stocks are not going to fall on monday as steeply as they increased... It happens quite often

[ThinkWithPortals]

And so began the story of The Little Tech Company That Could.

 

C'mon AMD, I'm rooting for you.

[Sakkura]

6 hours ago, CommandMan7 said:

 

Damn... 52% in a single day. AMD's market capitalization has gained $190,000,000. What could possibly cause such an event?

How can market cap only have increased by $190 million, when it had a 52% jump to $3.17 billion? The increase should be just over a billion dollars.