AMD Earnings

[poochyena]

That 27% stock price increase in 2 days though. Feels good.

[leadeater]

2 hours ago, poochyena said:

That 27% stock price increase in 2 days though. Feels good.

It would fell better if I actually had AMD stock

[Fasauceome]

5 hours ago, AnonymousGuy said:

at most they are an annoyance to Intel, not even real competition

Yeah that's why Intel decided they suddenly needed to increase core count, they just felt like it.

 

No doubt Intel would have remained on track in their incumbent CPU design unless they actually felt like AMD started to offer something they needed to as well, and AMD truly has changed the CPU landscape.

[poochyena]

5 minutes ago, leadeater said:

It would fell better if I actually had AMD stock

I dumped almost all the money I had into AMD when it went under $10.

[Drak3]

15 hours ago, fasauceome said:

Yeah that's why Intel decided they suddenly needed to increase core count, they just felt like it.

 

No doubt Intel would have remained on track in their incumbent CPU design unless they actually felt like AMD started to offer something they needed to as well, and AMD truly has changed the CPU landscape.

Intel planned on hexacores years ago. The 8700K demonstrates why they didn't do it years ago.

It's a hot and power hungry chip for your typical consumer, and it is the result of years of refinement.

[k.m.p]

21 hours ago, THraShArD said:

This is great stuff here

 

AMD no longer has to pay millions in royalties to make 7nm CPUs and GPUs

 

https://www.pcgamesn.com/amd/amd-globalfoundries-wafer-supply-agreement

Good news for amd but isn't this basically suicide for global foundaries?

Giving up on 7nm would mean they will lose their biggest customer and struggle to gain any more especially when tsmc, samsung and intel will be on smaller nodes. (once 7nm matures and becomes cheaper there will be no need for amd to make an io dye on 14/12nm,)

[cj09beira]

12 minutes ago, k.m.p said:

Good news for amd but isn't this basically suicide for global foundaries?

Giving up on 7nm would mean they will lose their biggest customer and struggle to gain any more especially when tsmc, samsung and intel will be on smaller nodes. (once 7nm matures and becomes cheaper there will be no need for amd to make an io dye on 14/12nm,)

they seem to be targeting specialized nodes, like their FD Soi nodes, if they have any sense they will simply post pone better nodes, and re enter when EUV is better and ready

[straight_stewie]

On 1/30/2019 at 3:37 AM, Stefan Payne said:

only 14nm on Intel side vs. 7nm on AMD Side

I think the whole 7nm thing is a little bit overhyped. We are at a scale here where the only benefit of getting smaller is less power usage. We aren't even getting new features like we used to.

In fact, the difficulty in maintaining  current generation clock speeds seems to increase with a nearly 1 to 1 ratio with the die decrease. That's not to speak of increasing clock speeds.

And as I'm sure we are mostly aware, more cores only helps up to a certain point. For most applications, including most parallel applications, clock speed is still a major factor in performance.

Once the market sees that 7nm technology isn't all it's hyped up to be in the non mobile space, AMDs valuation will come back down to normal, which will hurt them quite a bit, since they seem to be relying on an increased valuation.

[Stefan Payne]

45 minutes ago, straight_stewie said:

I think the whole 7nm thing is a little bit overhyped.

No, its not.

Its still a big jump. Just look at the power consumption.

While it is correct that its probably mostly useless for I/O as that doesn't scale no more, for the logic and cache it seems to have some larger improvements - in the area that you'd expect...

Quote

We are at a scale here where the only benefit of getting smaller is less power usage. We aren't even getting new features like we used to.

Yeah, that's more than enough as most CPUs are power limited anyway.

Just look at the rediculous power consumption of the 9900K when you do not limit it, we're talking about a 200W+ Desktop CPU. 

 

So this "Only" feature is very important.

Especially when you keep in mind how people reacted in the Bulldozer Era when they bashed AMD for the Power comsumption - while still on 32nm, vs. Intel at 22nm.

And now its not important? SRYSLY?!

Quote

In fact, the difficulty in maintaining  current generation clock speeds seems to increase with a nearly 1 to 1 ratio with the die decrease. That's not to speak of increasing clock speeds.

Yet that's what seems to be happening, that AMD was able to increase the clockspeeds further.

That they didn't increase is also partly the design and other physical limitations...

 

As you may remember, we already had around 4GHz or so around 15 years ago back with the 90nm and then it took like 5-10 years to get back to that clockspeed, when AMD increased the maximum possible retail to 5GHz with Bulldozer.

 

And possibly now again with 7nm...

 

But for that you need longer pipelines and longer pipelines don't work too well with the code we use mostly at the moment.

 

You can also see that with very well optimized code, how much of a difference that makes for Bulldozer (well, not that its not important with Zen or all other architectures)...

 

Quote

And as I'm sure we are mostly aware, more cores only helps up to a certain point. For most applications, including most parallel applications, clock speed is still a major factor in performance.

Yet you can't increase the clockspeed without sacrificing the "IPC" you all love so much. 

Or you shrink the CPU so that the way the light has to travel is shorter...

 

So yeah, the shrink are still worth it. It might be not as extreme as it was in the past but its still a major improvement in performance per Watt and clockspeed.

 

So the only choice we have is more cores. And with more cores, you can also think about doing something with those cores and improve the gameplay further. You can do shit you couldn't do before or wouldn't do because you couldn't.

 

When the "Normal Game Code" can not be parallelized further and you have all the stuff you need but you only use half the cores the average higher end Gamer has, you think about what do do with the computing power you don't use and make things that utilize it. Somethings make sense, something do not (like Encrypting the encryption).

 

But there is still much that can be done for example you can work on an AI system for NPC that react to things you do and, in an open World Action RPGish/Shooter Game, run a population simulation in the background.

 

Or for example look at Egosoft Games. That's something where you can get the Threadripper 2990WX down to its knee with multithreadded simulation calculation, if you wanted to.

So that there is no need for more cores is just total bullshit.

I've heard the same crap already twice (back in 2005 or so when the 2 Cores came and a year or two later when the cores were doubled again)...

 

And right now we are at the lower core count anyway...

We're talking about 8 Cores right now, 16 Cores in the Future... 

That's still on the low end.

 

And why don't you say anything about the dozens of hundreds core chip you already have in your PC??

Granted, they do different problems but you already have an accelerator with up to 4096 Cores...

Quote

Once the market sees that 7nm technology isn't all it's hyped up to be in the non mobile space, AMDs valuation will come back down to normal, which will hurt them quite a bit, since they seem to be relying on an increased valuation.

I really don't get why people are always talking the things AMD does down and claim they aren't as important or good and so...

 

Reminds me of the Flamewars when I was younger and AMD was the better option as well for gamers -> K7 and especially K8 era...

[thorhammerz]

3 hours ago, straight_stewie said:

benefit of getting smaller is less power usage.

That's where a lot of the money is right now.

 

Less power usage means:

• More powerful thin-and-lights / tablets (the underlying implication being so you can run them at more than 1-2 GHz under load, so they don't suck so hard), devices which OEMs love trying to push to consumers lately.
• Lower electricity bills for enterprise / cloud servers. When the electricity bill is in the ballpark of 4-5 digits for, cutting that by 50% for the same performance is quite attractive from a just the basic RoI perspective.

Doing the same (or more) amount of work with less cost is a perennial crowd-pleasing business proposition. In a world where the next-gen of chips have no IPC increase, you'd still sell quite a few of them to the markets that matter if you halve the upkeep/consumption costs.

[Stormseeker9]

On 1/30/2019 at 7:45 PM, THraShArD said:

I hate owning this stock. It's soo stressful.  Same with Nokia, both are so manipulated.

 

AMD is back where it was last week after being shorted to death

I love this stock. Weekly returns 

[Stormseeker9]

On 2/1/2019 at 4:22 AM, poochyena said:

I dumped almost all the money I had into AMD when it went under $10.

Very smart mate! Wish I could get it so cheap. Cheapest entries I have are around 17$ I believe

[Mihle]

3 hours ago, Stormseeker9 said:

Very smart mate! Wish I could get it so cheap. Cheapest entries I have are around 17$ I believe

The ones I have, I got at around 19

[THraShArD]

8 hours ago, Stormseeker9 said:

I love this stock. Weekly returns 

 

I dunno how that all works out, but I think you'll be paying more taxes in the long run on all those gains.  Unless you made over $60,000 so far that method is good.

 

I loaded up when it was $2.50 and not going to sell for a loooooooong time.  Hopefully when it triple digits  

[thorhammerz]

1 hour ago, THraShArD said:

I dunno how that all works out, but I think you'll be paying more taxes in the long run on all those 

 Context (taxable account vs. tax-sheltered account, selling when you're working vs. selling during a year without other employment income and thus falling into a lower tax bracket, any-particular-quirks-of-your-country's-tax-agency, etc)?

 

But assuming all other variables are equal (same investment account, same tax bracket, same taxation year), then the government typically doesn't care whether you make your returns in 1 piece or 100 piece - you get ding'ed based on the total gain in that tax year. 

 

Spoiler

Brokerage fees however (if any), are typically more often than not punishing & scaled to the number of transactions made. YMMV.

 

[Stormseeker9]

4 hours ago, THraShArD said:

 

I dunno how that all works out, but I think you'll be paying more taxes in the long run on all those gains.  Unless you made over $60,000 so far that method is good.

 

I loaded up when it was $2.50 and not going to sell for a loooooooong time.  Hopefully when it triple digits  

Holy moly... that are some entries!! 

[mr moose]

On 2/1/2019 at 2:17 PM, leadeater said:

It would fell better if I actually had AMD stock

Maybe they should ask nvidia for some of theirs.