AMD allegedly taking the covers off of Vega on May 16th, will also talk about Navi and Zen+ (WCCFtech so grain of salt is required)

[tom_w141]

10 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

This is not too much of a surprise. With the stock drop they will have to come out to somewhat ease investors nerves of the future. They haven't had to much to show for in the largest portion of the market, that being the enterprise solutions, on both their CPU and GPU side. If they don't come out with something to show plans for the future then most investors will pull out causing further drop within the stock, which they cannot really afford at this time.

 

Please remember the largest market is not actually consumers like most of us on this forum, but in fact low powered solutions for basic operation and the top tier enterprise offerings.

Sorry but no that is not what its for. It's entirely unrelated to the stock drop which is weird and highly anomalous considering AMD achieved very close to what they predicted for Q1 2017 (Q1 is by far the slowest quarter for tech largely due to Q4 of the previous year). AdoredTV has an excellent video analysing this and well worth a watch imo.

[Dylanc1500]

7 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Sorry but no that is not what its for. It's entirely unrelated to the stock drop which is weird and highly anomalous considering AMD achieved very close to what they predicted for Q1 2017 (Q1 is by far the slowest quarter for tech largely due to Q4 of the previous year). AdoredTV has an excellent video analysing this and well worth a watch imo.

I wasn't stating that the event was strictly for that, I was merely stating they would be using the event as opportunity to do such. Sorry, if I was unclear I apologize.

 

Also it doesn't matter the reason for stock plunge. When a plunge in stock price happens within a company, they have address it somehow in order to keep investors calm. This happens with any company that has a large stock plunge.

[tom_w141]

3 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

I wasn't stating that the event was strictly for that, I was merely stating they would be using the event as opportunity to do such. Sorry, if I was unclear I apologize.

 

Also it doesn't matter the reason for stock plunge. When a plunge in stock price happens within a company, they have address it somehow in order to keep investors calm. This happens with any company that has a large stock plunge.

I agree although what I was getting at was the plunge was pretty unfair/extreme. They almost hit their 2017 Q1 prediction (that they made in December 2016) exactly yet their stock suffered harshly.

 

Just seems like if there is any bad luck going around then AMD will get it for sure

[StuM91]

After the last 6 dates were wrong, I have a good feeling about this one.

[Dylanc1500]

34 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

I agree although what I was getting at was the plunge was pretty unfair/extreme. They almost hit their 2017 Q1 prediction (that they mac in December 2016) exactly yet their stock suffered harshly.

I'm neither here nor there on the fairness as it all depends on your angle of approach and can be defended on multiple accounts. However they may have met their target, but due to the large hype that arose around Ryzen, when it didn't reach the hype "target" and how people thought AMD would turn out, people yanked out. Intel did it themselves with the RD-RAM fiasco.

 

Remember most people in the stock market invest for making money and don't honestly have a lick of sense when it comes to technology and how it works.

 

Things like the statement below yours is what doesn't help them (not so much the statement as the hyping it so much). I wouldn't say bad luck as much bad marketing executives (I guess either way it could still be considered bad luck lol).

[tom_w141]

6 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

I'm neither here nor there on the fairness as it all depends on your angle of approach and can be defended on multiple accounts. However they may have met their target, but due to the large hype that arose around Ryzen, when it didn't reach the hype "target" and how people thought AMD would turn out, people yanked out. Intel did it themselves with the RD-RAM fiasco.

 

Remember most people in the stock market invest for making money and don't honestly have a lick of sense when it comes to technology and how it works.

 

Things like the statement below yours is what doesn't help them (not so much the statement as the hyping it so much). I wouldn't say bad luck as much bad marketing executives (I guess either way it could still be considered bad luck lol).

The drop is a reaction to Q1 earnings so Jan-Mar, so only 1 month of Ryzen 7 sales and no Ryzen 5 sales because it wasn't out till April. I'd expect Q2 sales to be better for Ryzen. Q2 earnings are not reported yet because we are still in Q2. So if anyone is dumb enough to dump their stock after only 1 month of the top end Ryzen sales then that's pretty stupid...

[Jito463]

Predicting the Vega launch feels like predicting the Rapture.  No one knows except God, yet everyone thinks they've uncovered the one bit of information that gives them the inside scoop.

 

88 reasons Vega will launch in '88.

[Doobeedoo]

2 hours ago, Trixanity said:

Not really news. It's merely "these things exist and will come out in this timeframe". It's for investors and partners mainly. We'll see some new roadmaps so we know where they're headed and when (and so the hype train can start to chug along).

 

Expect Vega launch at Computex.

 

 

Well yeah true, also though Vega may appear at Computex so good.

[leadeater]

12 hours ago, Dylanc1500 said:

This is not too much of a surprise. With the stock drop they will have to come out to somewhat ease investors nerves of the future. They haven't had to much to show for in the largest portion of the market, that being the enterprise solutions, on both their CPU and GPU side. If they don't come out with something to show plans for the future then most investors will pull out causing further drop within the stock, which they cannot really afford at this time.

 

Please remember the largest market is not actually consumers like most of us on this forum, but in fact low powered solutions for basic operation and the top tier enterprise offerings.

You should probably have a read of Intel's and Nvidia's quartly reports and have a look at the break down per market segment, enterprise/data center isn't the biggest sector for either of them. Highly profitable sure but in the case of Nvidia it's not even close to their Geforce GPU products.

 

Nvidia (Note minus 1 year off, Nvidia dates are special):

http://files.shareholder.com/downloads/AMDA-1XAJD4/4312536002x0x927425/01843210-E2B4-4E1F-938E-17F33C305078/Rev_by_Mkt_Qtrly_Trend_Q417.pdf

 

Intel:

https://s21.q4cdn.com/600692695/files/doc_financials/2017/Earnings-Release-Q1-2017_Final.pdf

 

Previously I was under the same notion that data center products brought in the most money considering just how much Google, AWS and Azure buys but all of those pale in comparison to products like Nvidia 1050/1060 type and the same goes for Intel but it is closer yet still half.

[Dylanc1500]

26 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

The drop is a reaction to Q1 earnings so Jan-Mar, so only 1 month of Ryzen 7 sales and no Ryzen 5 sales because it wasn't out till April. I'd expect Q2 sales to be better for Ryzen. Q2 earnings are not reported yet because we are still in Q2. So if anyone is dumb enough to dump their stock after only 1 month of the top end Ryzen sales then that's pretty stupid...

Lol it is a little unorthodox, but I'll refer back to most people not understanding or caring to understand. They look for money. People saw the hype around Ryzen and thought they could make money off of it, and when they saw the results didn't come to fruition, they pulled out. Same thing caused the dot com burst, think of this guy

 

Most people aren't like a good portion of us here on LTT.

 

I do wonder though if theoretically AMD and Intel were to merge if they would be able to develop X86-64 much further than they have. Like I said theoretically speaking as long as there wasn't price fixing going on they could put more resources together to make advancements. I mean could you think of something like a 6950x with core speeds like a 7700k. However it would be up to them to do so.

[Dylanc1500]

12 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You should probably have a read of Intel's and Nvidia's quartly reports and have a look at the break down per market segment, enterprise/data center isn't the biggest sector for either of them. Highly profitable sure, much higher return on investment, but in the case of Nvidia it's not even close to their Geforce GPU products.

 

Nvidia (Note minus 1 year off, Nvidia dates are special)

 

Previously I was under the same notion that data center products brought in the most money considering just how much Google, AWS and Azure buys but all of those pale in comparison to products like Nvidia 1050/1060 type and the same goes for Intel but it is closer yet still half.

I have seen those, they get shoved in my face at work. I guess I should probably go back and rephrase what I was meaning. I wasn't meaning so much of actual capital, as much as, like you said, return on investment. That market is what drives the advancement more, that market is willing to spend for the best of the best and do so at first availability.

 

I would like to see if there is a further breakdown for NVidia though. I'll see if I can get it when I get to the office.

[leadeater]

4 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

-snip-

Quote taken from news thread about this topic, don't want to type the same thing twice . TL;DR People don't invest in AMD, investment funds do and they move stock slowly. Sudden spikes or dips in markets are usually caused by high frequency traders and quite often markets tend to react oddly when those algorithms target a specific stock and trade it like crazy. Those algorithms monitor a whole bunch of things even actual news items so if a bunch of large publications start posting negative coverage of a company it can trigger selling of stock.

 

The dip was either high frequency traders or a very large investment fund dumping stock, not sure why you would do it now and not just before or on the day of Vega, I dunno I'm no stock market expert lol.

 

On 5/5/2017 at 0:40 PM, leadeater said:

It's rather hard to align what investors do to the performance that Ryzen has been able to deliver or not deliver. Investors are interested in sales figures, revenue, profit margins, operating expenses etc. They aren't people they are investment funds and the likes, very few individual people have any significant amount of stock in a company like AMD other than AMD employees and board members.

 

Investors aren't technology enthusiasts and don't look at or understand what the differences are between a Ryzen 1700X and an Intel 7700K, some will but that doesn't matter more than sales figures do.

 

Obviously the performance of Ryzen has a lot to do with sales figures and there for what investors do but the technology community has more impact on sales due to performances differences as that is what we are specifically looking at to judge the success of a product. Both groups are looking at different metrics which are mutually inclusive.

[tom_w141]

12 minutes ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Lol it is a little unorthodox, but I'll refer back to most people not understanding or caring to understand. They look for money. People saw the hype around Ryzen and thought they could make money off of it, and when they saw the results didn't come to fruition, they pulled out. Same thing caused the dot com burst, think of this guy

 

Most people aren't like a good portion of us here on LTT.

 

I do wonder though if theoretically AMD and Intel were to merge if they would be able to develop X86-64 much further than they have. Like I said theoretically speaking as long as there wasn't price fixing going on they could put more resources together to make advancements. I mean could you think of something like a 6950x with core speeds like a 7700k. However it would be up to them to do so.

Nonononononono. Look at Intel in recent years, monopolys encourage laziness. Competition drives innovation. AMD comes back strong with Ryzen and oh look Intel is now working on a 6 core for the mainstream. They held us on quad cores for ages due to lack of competition so one supplier would be awful for innovation and prices (look at Intel milking X99 i7 prices, $1000 for an R7 1700 equivalent)

[Dylanc1500]

14 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

Nonononononono. Look at Intel in recent years, monopolys encourage laziness. Competition drives innovation. AMD comes back strong with Ryzen and oh look Intel is now working on a 6 core for the mainstream. They held us on quad cores for ages due to lack of competition so one supplier would be awful for innovation and prices (look at Intel milking X99 i7 prices, $1000 for an R7 1700 equivalent)

Believe me I know, I see it all the time. That was whole reason for theoretically speaking.

 

Monopolies aren't always a bad thing if done correctly. They have the ability to drive more resources into research and development. This is the reason the government allowed AT&T to stay a monopoly for so long. Then they started doing some bad things and they brought the smack down.

15 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Quote taken from news thread about this topic, don't want to type the same thing twice . TL;DR People don't invest in AMD, investment funds do and they move stock slowly. Sudden spikes or dips in markets are usually caused by high frequency traders and quite often markets tend to react oddly when those algorithms target a specific stock and trade it like crazy. Those algorithms monitor a whole bunch of things even actual news items so if a bunch of large publications start posting negative coverage of a company it can trigger selling of stock.

 

The dip was either high frequency traders or a very large investment fund dumping stock, not sure why you would do it now and not just before or on the day of Vega, I dunno I'm no stock market expert lol.

 

Wait, I'm confused, are we agreeing? Lol I may be horrible at my wording, who knows.

[tom_w141]

Just now, Dylanc1500 said:

Believe me I know, I see it all the time. That was whole reason for theoretically speaking.

 

Monopolies aren't always a bad thing if done correctly. They have the ability to drive more resources into research and development. This is the reason the government allowed AT&T to stay a monopoly for so long. Then they started doing some bad things and they brought the smack down.

Wait, I'm confused, are we agreeing? Lol I may be horrible at my wording, who knows.

I'd say they are never good for the consumer and at best are neutral. For example Ofcom just made Openreach (a division of BT responsible for the UKs broadband/fibre networks) separate from BT as BT were not allowed to maintain their strangehold on the UK broadband market, they made it near impossible to compete by charging 3rd parties large amounts to offer internet service through their infrastructure

[leadeater]

1 minute ago, Dylanc1500 said:

Wait, I'm confused, are we agreeing? Lol I may be horrible at my wording, who knows.

Yea kinda, just saying it's not really the hype followed by the disappointment that caused the 20% drop it was all the negative press about the quarterly earnings report and already suspect feelings over Ryzen and Vega sales projections which AMD correctly reaffirmed isn't going to be massive. Some people live in dream land about how quickly products like CPUs actually sell, people have to be ready as it's not just a CPU it's the whole damn computer.

 

Earliest I'd be looking at how well Ryzen is actually selling would be Q4.

[leadeater]

16 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

I'd say they are never good for the consumer and at best are neutral. For example Ofcom just made Openreach (a division of BT responsible for the UKs broadband/fibre networks) separate from BT as BT were not allowed to maintain their strangehold on the UK broadband market, they made it near impossible to compete by charging 3rd parties large amounts to offer internet service through their infrastructure

Same thing happened here quite a few years ago, Telecom got forced to split in to two companies, Infrastructure/Wholesale and Consumer/Service Provider named Chorus and Spark respectively.

 

Ever since the mandated split our internet quality and investment skyrocketed, I can not under state skyrocket. Before the split there was literally no infrastructure investment at all, everything was the same equipment kept running until part failure and only replaced then and only then. No company was able to enter the market as Telecom was sold the entire telecommunications network by the government which was previously government owned. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that once you have a 100% market share and you get to set the prices including wholesale pricing you have a money printing press, also all profits were being sent over seas to the parent company. Profit reports looked amazing but nothing was being spent in our country.

 

Australia is in the very situation we were once in, but it's a 4-5 collusion monopoly with non compete mutual agreements. All you need to look at is New Zealand's internet rankings and average internet speeds before and after the Telecom split and compare to Australia's who used to be significantly better than us.

 

Once you have a system where you separate the wholesale supplier from the retailers you remove the conflict of interest and you start to foster healthy market competition. 

[Dylanc1500]

23 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Yea kinda, just saying it's not really the hype followed by the disappointment that caused the 20% drop it was all the negative press about the quarterly earnings report and already suspect feelings over Ryzen and Vega sales projections which AMD correctly reaffirmed isn't going to be massive. Some people live in dream land about how quickly products like CPUs actually sell, people have to be ready as it's not just a CPU it's the whole damn computer.

 

Earliest I'd be looking at how well Ryzen is actually selling would be Q4.

Yep, it's definitely my wording, I should be less analogistic. My fault! 

[Dylanc1500]

34 minutes ago, tom_w141 said:

I'd say they are never good for the consumer and at best are neutral. For example Ofcom just made Openreach (a division of BT responsible for the UKs broadband/fibre networks) separate from BT as BT were not allowed to maintain their strangehold on the UK broadband market, they made it near impossible to compete by charging 3rd parties large amounts to offer internet service through their infrastructure

They can be, it's becomes a matter of how they choose to handle their position. They, most of the time, actually have the ability to keep prices lower and invest more into development.  Unfortunately it's not very common that they do so.

[SansVarnic]

On 5/7/2017 at 2:55 PM, lots of unexplainable lag said:

Source is WCCFtech so take with the usual grain of salt

[outercry]

I would just like to say, regardless of the date being right or not, there are also rumours (yes, more rumours, yay...) that Vega will have extremely limited availability at launch. Some sites cite less than 20.000 units, some less than 16.000 units. Now, if these are true and Vega will only start selling properly after some months have passed, AMD might have a hard time justifying yet more waiting for people who have waited for over a year or more to get a new GPU.

 

For AMDs' sake I hope that Vega really lives up to the massive hype surrounding it (both performance and price-to-performance-wise), and properly challenges Nvidia in the high-end segment. If not, people won't wait any longer. I feel that a lot of people have already given up anyway, and either gotten themselves a GTX 1080 (following the price drop), or with more budget, a 1080 Ti.

 

Plus, if Vega has a paper launch or whatever, doesn't that give Nvidia time to respond even better, in the scenario were Vega is for example equal or better than Nvidias' counterparts?

 

Just saying all that because I fear that proper competition within the top-end will either be very short-lived or might not happen at all.

[Humbug]

13 hours ago, outercry said:

I feel that a lot of people have already given up anyway, and either gotten themselves a GTX 1080 (following the price drop), or with more budget, a 1080 Ti.

 

 

yep, most people gave up and bought NVidia for anything faster than rx 480. Loads of lost revenue for AMD missing an entire market segment. With previous generations we were used to a few months gap where one vendor launches earlier. But here AMD is so incredibly late relatively that they have basically almost skipped an NVidia generation on the high end and vega will have to compete with Volta.

[Humbug]

13 hours ago, outercry said:

I would just like to say, regardless of the date being right or not, there are also rumours (yes, more rumours, yay...) that Vega will have extremely limited availability at launch. Some sites cite less than 20.000 units, 

if this is true AMD needs to have at least one SKU which comprehensively beats the 1080ti, which they can sell to the top end of the market with decent margins.

 

because trying to just have a gtx 1080 beater with such low volume would be a joke. And if they combine that low volume with tight margins by trying to win on price/performance then vega does not help AMD financially.

 

if the low volume is due to limited hbm2 supply, I have heard that vega supports gddrx too on lower models. So maybe the gtx 1070 competitor will be more widely available.

[leadeater]

13 hours ago, outercry said:

I would just like to say, regardless of the date being right or not, there are also rumours (yes, more rumours, yay...) that Vega will have extremely limited availability at launch. Some sites cite less than 20.000 units, some less than 16.000 units. Now, if these are true and Vega will only start selling properly after some months have passed, AMD might have a hard time justifying yet more waiting for people who have waited for over a year or more to get a new GPU.

 

For AMDs' sake I hope that Vega really lives up to the massive hype surrounding it (both performance and price-to-performance-wise), and properly challenges Nvidia in the high-end segment. If not, people won't wait any longer. I feel that a lot of people have already given up anyway, and either gotten themselves a GTX 1080 (following the price drop), or with more budget, a 1080 Ti.

 

Plus, if Vega has a paper launch or whatever, doesn't that give Nvidia time to respond even better, in the scenario were Vega is for example equal or better than Nvidias' counterparts?

 

Just saying all that because I fear that proper competition within the top-end will either be very short-lived or might not happen at all.

Tbh I'm not going to make the same mistake I did with the 290X and buy two reference ones and wait for AIB revisions etc. Even though I have them water cooled which is initially why I didn't care they were reference they overclock like shit compared to the later designs.

[Urishima]

On 7.5.2017 at 9:57 PM, SCGazelle said:

my favorite word:

 

allegedly

now it's perfect.