Ps. Long AMD, perfect execution the last two years. It's crazy, even their late firmware fixes improve performance as it had bad press for a moment for false benchmarks advertisement ( it was not false so it seems, the firmware was just not ok yet. Not everything is fully ok now, it's the only minor nitpick as far as I can tell )
And they are only just now starting in the server space and soon the laptop + graphics space. They are going mainstream ( OEM offering is still lacking, Microsoft Surface changed this) AND they still customize their superior offering for big customers.
In the contrary, Intel has a lot of failures the last 2 years. Spectre, meltdown, ... This isn't bad luck anymore, it's more like bad karma if you are religious.
If you think I'm opinionated. Just check /r/AMD vs. /r/Intel . AMD is even suggested in the Intel threat, lol
are you expecting a higher stock price? because their 90 PE TTM doesn't look like it's in line with the rest of the industry.
don't get me wrong, i was also long AMD, and still partly am, but i don't think the stock can go higher than 36-37, or even maintain that level long term, without some some mega quarters. which according to their own estimates will not be the case.
Yes, i'm expecting stock price according how much they capture from Intel. And they are capturing it fast. As said before: Servers, laptops, ... are coming and that's the profit-market for CPU's and they aren't abandoning their nich ( semi-custom) also.
it was 40 in 2000, the current buy prediction is 40. They are doing way better now and they have another full year to win market share. I compare against Intel, not against AMD at the current ( minimalistic) state, mostly because OEM's weren't onboard in the previous financial quarter.
I have also explained my financial relation to them and my belief. Which seemed enough, no? PS. I'm probably one of the few to share my financial relation. Not because i'm scared, but because i'm confident :)
And also, i feel kinda sorrow for you that you don't attack my comments/facts. You just attacked my personal gain, which is a feedback loop to my arguments.
PS. I don't know of any other company that is in such a positive position. One full year untill their competition has a competitor to their "current" product line. That's insane. I haven't even mentioned TSMC 3 nanometer process for 2023 and theri future product line :)
last quarter AMD spend ~$400MM on R&D, had a revenue of ~$1800MM and net income of ~$120MM. Intel had a revenue of ~$19000MM, or about 10 times that of AMD, so it's completely realistic for AMD to double their revenue in a 'short' time frame.
So if we assume no other fixed costs, then to get $1800MM of revenue costs (1800 - 400 - 120) $1280MM. So doubling revenue would cost $2560MM. Then net profit could be (3600 - 2560 - 400) $640MM, or about a 5x of current net profit, which would put the PE at 18.
A PE of 18 would be very nice. And this is assuming there are no fixed costs besides R&D (like marketing of office buildings) and AMD only taking 10% of Intel's revenue.
AMD just had their Q3 and then guided Q4 to be higher than Q3 for the first time in years. That means they are suddenly experiencing revenue growth that is outstripping their typical seasonal pattern and thats a huge deal.
I think one reason their PE is so high is because their price is very competitive and they are very slow on raising average sale price.
It's only very recently that the flagship of Microsoft changed to AMD. I'm waiting for some OEM's to follow after this. This happened on the end of previous quarter. As explained before.
I think the cloud custumors can change faster than the consumer market though. As they will analyze price with performance and AMD has another year of "playing around", until 2021 or even 2022
As soon as people's posting style moves from "don't take investment advice from comments on the internet" to "long AMD" is when I start getting suspicious that I maybe shouldn't long AMD.
Granted I'm a penniless student so I'm not longing or shorting anything but you get the point
x86 licensing makes this an AMD vs Intel game, with occasional celebrity appearances by VIA, et. al.
So, effectively AMD gets this private 1v1 game with Intel, and has a strong part in the GPU side of the market as well.
GPU is certainly a more open playing field compared to x86 (Intel is trying to get into it), but AMD is very competitive here as well. I think we will start seeing a lot more unification of their concepts between CPU and GPU. Multiple GPU dies interconnected using things like I/F, etc.
Dr. Su said AMD was more about architecture than process technology, so perhaps they can prove what most of us suspected all along - Intellectual property is the most valuable strategic asset we have. Even if Intel reverse-engineered AMD's reticles, by the time they could implement the same architecture, AMD would be pushing products to market that are 2-3 generations ahead.
My question right now is, how long will it take Intel to reach parity on this architecture front (especially if it's the key to success as AMD's CEO claims)? The other question is, even if Intel figures out the architecture and comes up with something even better, will they be able to catch up on process technology? Is it only going to be TSMC and Samsung left standing at 3nm and beyond? What sort of damage would offloading the foundry business cause Intel if they had to go pure-play to become competitive on x86?
>Dr. Su said AMD was more about architecture than process technology, so perhaps they can prove what most of us suspected all along - Intellectual property is the most valuable strategic asset we have. Even if Intel reverse-engineered AMD's reticles, by the time they could implement the same architecture, AMD would be pushing products to market that are 2-3 generations ahead.
My question right now is, how long will it take Intel to reach parity on this architecture front (especially if it's the key to success as AMD's CEO claims)?
This is not true. As much as I support AMD and loathe Intel, architecture wise I would say even Zen 2 and Intel SomethingLake is about the same, with many benchmarks backing the claim. And Icelake being slightly in front of Zen 2. Icelake did deliver a roughly 15% improvement as promised, so there is no sign Intel's architecture department has any problems ( yet ).
The problem is Icelake performance improvement doesn't matter if 10nm cant yield.
And when Dr Su said about IP, she was referring to the whole chipset strategy and how it blinds everything together.
I agree. Also, good luck to AMD and Intel both as the next few iterations of ARM stuff comes out and people start porting software over to that! It's looking like ARM will be taking quite a jump.
People have been saying this about ARM for more than half a decade. Why would people suddenly start porting stuff to ARM that they weren't before?
I only see this happening if Apple replaces the Intel chip in their Macs with a desktop variant of their mobile chips.
One of the applications I've heard for the new ARM server CPUs is doing ARM builds. Seems convincing to me! Going forward, another catalyst will be an ARM laptop that appeals to developers, and that makes it easier for them to directly target ARM without going through a cloud service.
people are having trouble going AMD in cloud because their monitoring, while written for x86, is intel specific. All that virtualization software is going to take a few years to be rock solid on AMD.
> In the contrary, Intel has a lot of failures the last 2 years. Spectre, meltdown, ... This isn't bad luck anymore, it's more like bad karma if you are religious
> In the contrary, Intel has a lot of failures the last 2 years. Spectre, meltdown, ... This isn't bad luck anymore, it's more like bad karma if you are religious.
AMD also suffered from Spectre and Meltdown. Admittedly not all the variants of it that have since come out, Intel has done way worse there, but AMD instances _are_ vulnerable if they lack microcode updates and OS patches.
> Presently, 13 Spectre variants and 14 Meltdown variants have been identified. Initially, AMD processors were thought to be immune to Meltdown, though one variant has been successfully demonstrated on AMD systems.
ONE variant. So technically true. But the situation on the Intel side is far worse.
Intel got way too greedy with their optimizations.
Not when it comes at the expense of security. Perhaps there are contexts where security is not important and this rule does not apply, but it clearly is a problem for CPUs.
Ps. Long AMD, perfect execution the last two years. It's crazy, even their late firmware fixes improve performance as it had bad press for a moment for false benchmarks advertisement ( it was not false so it seems, the firmware was just not ok yet. Not everything is fully ok now, it's the only minor nitpick as far as I can tell )
And they are only just now starting in the server space and soon the laptop + graphics space. They are going mainstream ( OEM offering is still lacking, Microsoft Surface changed this) AND they still customize their superior offering for big customers.
In the contrary, Intel has a lot of failures the last 2 years. Spectre, meltdown, ... This isn't bad luck anymore, it's more like bad karma if you are religious.
If you think I'm opinionated. Just check /r/AMD vs. /r/Intel . AMD is even suggested in the Intel threat, lol