• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD's share value up 90% in 4 weeks

humbug

humbug

humbug

Caporegime
Joined
17 Mar 2012
Posts
50,857
Location
ARC-L1, Stanton System


On the back of repeated wins and good news on AMD over the past 4 weeks their share value has shot up by far and a long way faster than anything.
Almost doubling since April 18 and still climbing.

It started with The Game Console Wins, continued with the Microsoft Cloud Gaming win, on with AMD's announcement of the Open 3.0 Premium Servers which look excellent and are much cheaper than all others, then Dataram announcing a partnership with AMD, optimism with investors about AMD's Tablet APU's.......
 
Quick guys, buy high sell low! That is, I think that'll come back down shortly. Because AMD aren't very good at making processors.
 
Aye, gaming consoles and so forth. It's not that reasonable for me to assume bad with processors => bad with silicon in general, given intel's track record with graphics cards.

I still wont be going anywhere near that stock though. I wish you the best of luck :)
 
Got to laugh at all those doom and gloomers predicting the death of AMD :D

Then their was the death of Nintendo because of the 3DS was a failure, now it's the Wii U's turn. Think people just love to be doom mongers :p:)

Thing looking good for AMD.
 
AMD was up to $10 not all that long ago, then was back down to $2, where it was during the market crash, and now its just over $4. its not bad, by any means, but talking about AMD's demise, or survival, based on a 4 week increase in stock value is meaningless, crashing stock value doesn't mean the demise is assured, nor does a short term(so far) increase mean the opposite.

Revenue from PS4/Xbox chips looks set to be significant, its predicted to be pusing $250+ mil a quarter by Q4 this year(with a smaller step of something like $80mil for Q3, suggesting when the ramp up should be),its worth noting that a little bit contrary to what feels right, Ps3 and Xbox sales increased(pretty much) yearly till 2010 for ps3, 2011 for xbox 360. Rather than what you might think would be huge upfront sales then slow trickle sales after.

If PS4/xbox sales do well, AMD can expect a significant amount of income for quite some time, though reduction in production costs will effect AMD's revenue, once they can build twice the chips for a similar cost with a drop to lower processes, that revenue will drop, but probably not linearly(hopefully). AMD's involvement in the CPU side and overall money they'd get from MS is still in question, slightly. As is Xbox's potential success with many rumours that its significantly underpowered and taken some very very poor choices, however that would actually just more likely lead to increased PS4 sales rather than simply losing sales, and if its true that PS4 has more power, it also likely means a bigger more expensive chip and more profit for AMD per PS4 than Xbox, so more PS4 sales would be a good thing for AMD.

The main reason for the upturn is AMD's success in selling itself as a custom APU maker, people are seeing the potential for AMD to do this long term, most specifically people are speculating that their ARM server products are on course, and that having HSA and a range of GPU, CPU x86 products and ARM products, a great micro server product line and the ability to make a custom chip containing any parts of the above that a company might want would suggest their ability to go after clients in the future such as Facebook, and Google, may well be stronger than anyone else in the world.

Currently AMD are the only company that could produce a ARM soc server with a 9970 gpgpu in it, or a ARM/x86/gpgpu combination box should someone want one.

THeir ability to design Jaguar with interchangable parts with relatively little reworking to suit different customers needs, and their moving forwards ability with HSA to have various types of chips working all in the same system something no one else offers right now.

As always the question is, long term, WILL they deliver these products, they can, we know they can, but will they, will people buy them and will people start buying or ordering custom servers rather than take a huge chunk of cash from Intel to buy their servers?
 
ukxenon said:
we need amd simple as that and if they do stop making cpu's then we will pay through the nose for no real advancements from intel
Click to expand...

People say this about AMD/Nvidia, and Intel/AMD, and it has, and always will be complete and utter nonsense.

How few people can think logically.

I had a Q6600, lets assume AMD didn't exist and Intel didn't move anything forwards at all, then the 2500k I have now, wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced as it is and cost the same as the Q6600, or the 2500k with no competition would cost £600..... in either situation I wouldn't buy it. Thats it, the whole argument, if there is no progressoin and there is zero value, no one would buy.

Intel have ONLY been competing against Intel in cpu's for the past 5-6 years, AMD's competition hasn't had any effect on Intel, AMD have been seriously better value for huge portions of the customer base for donkeys years and its made no difference.

GPU's are a better example, I had a 4870, if the 5870 either cost twice as much, or the 5870 was only 20% faster for the same price... who would buy it?

I bought a 5870 because it was 70% faster and good value, I bought a 7970 because it was 70-80% faster, and it was good value(I got one at £305 maybe 2 months after launch). Assume there is no Nvidia, if you have a 7970 and a 9970 that is either £600, or 20% faster and £400, what percentage of people on this forum would pay the £600 or £400 for something barely any better? More importantly, how many people would buy at 9970 if it was 70% faster at £400, and how many of them wouldn't if it was only 20% faster.

AMD, Intel and Nvidia need to compete with THEIR OWN products otherwise everyone would buy one pc, one gpu, and then barely ever bother again.

Is it better to sell 20million 7xxx series cards, then 20million 9xxx series cards, or 20mil 7xxx, then 200k 9xxx series cards, then 5 years later those 20mil 7xxx buyers all finally see a worthwhile upgrade. 20mil sales a year, or 20mil sales every 5 years.

Intel, AMD and Nvidia HAVE always been competing against their own products, they always will, and the competition has little to no effect on what they do.

If all GPU's shot up 100% in price due to no competition, 90% of sales would evapourate.... if they stopped providing performance increases, people wouldn't need to upgrade, or new computers, etc, etc.
 
drunkenmaster said:
People say this about AMD/Nvidia, and Intel/AMD, and it has, and always will be complete and utter nonsense.

How few people can think logically.

I had a Q6600, lets assume AMD didn't exist and Intel didn't move anything forwards at all, then the 2500k I have now, wouldn't be anywhere near as advanced as it is and cost the same as the Q6600, or the 2500k with no competition would cost £600..... in either situation I wouldn't buy it. Thats it, the whole argument, if there is no progressoin and there is zero value, no one would buy.

Intel have ONLY been competing against Intel in cpu's for the past 5-6 years, AMD's competition hasn't had any effect on Intel, AMD have been seriously better value for huge portions of the customer base for donkeys years and its made no difference.

GPU's are a better example, I had a 4870, if the 5870 either cost twice as much, or the 5870 was only 20% faster for the same price... who would buy it?

I bought a 5870 because it was 70% faster and good value, I bought a 7970 because it was 70-80% faster, and it was good value(I got one at £305 maybe 2 months after launch). Assume there is no Nvidia, if you have a 7970 and a 9970 that is either £600, or 20% faster and £400, what percentage of people on this forum would pay the £600 or £400 for something barely any better? More importantly, how many people would buy at 9970 if it was 70% faster at £400, and how many of them wouldn't if it was only 20% faster.

AMD, Intel and Nvidia need to compete with THEIR OWN products otherwise everyone would buy one pc, one gpu, and then barely ever bother again.

Is it better to sell 20million 7xxx series cards, then 20million 9xxx series cards, or 20mil 7xxx, then 200k 9xxx series cards, then 5 years later those 20mil 7xxx buyers all finally see a worthwhile upgrade. 20mil sales a year, or 20mil sales every 5 years.

Intel, AMD and Nvidia HAVE always been competing against their own products, they always will, and the competition has little to no effect on what they do.

If all GPU's shot up 100% in price due to no competition, 90% of sales would evapourate.... if they stopped providing performance increases, people wouldn't need to upgrade, or new computers, etc, etc.
Click to expand...

£600 for a 2500K, your talking in extremes, like every other tech company Intel are loosing sales, the only way they can claw back those sales is to increase revenue, that means upping prices.
Not by huge amounts, but what they would do is creep it up until they find that balance where enough would pay to offset the fall in revenue. Perhaps from £200 to £250.

With a much cheaper alternative on the market Intel would find that difficult simply because there is such a thing as a cheaper alternative, if you only have one choice, then you have no choice other than not to at all, given that people will pay more without a choice, with in reason, of-course :)
 
Last edited:
Boomstick777 said:
Got to laugh at all those doom and gloomers predicting the death of AMD :D

Then their was the death of Nintendo because of the 3DS was a failure, now it's the Wii U's turn. Think people just love to be doom mongers :p:)

Thing looking good for AMD.
Click to expand...

remember SEGA? no not the games developer the console manufacturer ;)
 
arknor said:
remember SEGA? no not the games developer the console manufacturer ;)
Click to expand...
Yea...they ran out of money and basically bankrupted as a console making company.

SEGA as a console maker failed not because their console were bad, but because of Sony's underhand tactic and their control of media and marketing power...kinda felt sorry for them :p
 
arknor said:
remember SEGA? no not the games developer the console manufacturer ;)
Click to expand...

Not sure how that relates to Nintendo, are you trying to say their going to fail somehow?

You're just proving my point, people love to spout doom and gloom :P

They said Nintendo was 'dead' when they launched the 3DS, it's now outpacing the DS in speed of it's sales / market share.

Nintendo is now 'dead' because of the Wii U. Only a matter of time before it takes off and the doom mongers move on to something else :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom