![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
dragonstongue
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2008
- Messages
- 3,162
Shame that stock price is not showing the "love" for AMD they should be, yes it is WAY up since say 2014 or whatever, but considering they more or less do a complete PC ecosystem would expect it to be "worth more" or at least a chunk higher than say Nvidia
who basically only does graphics (not saying priced above just saying at the very least a similar "per share gain" since RX 200 to Vega, the various cpu side since Bulldozer to now Ryzen/TR/EPYC.)
$1.64 to I think was max $15.40 only like $12.30 or something like that currently is not really that much gain considering massive upshoot of Nv stock price in comparison.
Floating $12-$15 per share is good in one aspect but terrible in another after they have more or proven nearest competitor(s) are not really able to compete with their product offerings at this time.
too many listening to biased investor sites like Barclays etc spouting nonsense telling folks not to buy AMD/sell even if at a loss.
IMO Intel is the one who has shat the bed, the "new" motherboards could easily use previous generation or whatever do not and partners are not allowed to provide any type of support to allow it either. Ryzen really pulled a fast one on Intel, no matter what they "claim".
Their "reaction" might have been swift but it also showed in the various issues of what i9/x299 etc was/is, retaliatory not anticipatory and for me I see even more reason to NOT support them (Intel)
If they could have "easily" released these a year ago or so as they seem to be wanting to claim, they should have, instead of releasing a new platform then another essentially. If they really had any care for customers(and shareholders) they would have and should have
at the very least not prevented partners from allowing the same pin/electrically compatible socket from using the "new" chips, that is or should be a red flag as an investor i.e no faith, due diligence.
Great make a boat load of quickly obsolete products to line up the shelves might make some $ but is that not an atrocious use of finances? If there is not a financial impact to Intel for doing this, then they really are price gouging to keep their share prices up.
AMD in this case are "probably" pricing as they should to make some $ but also not underprice in a "write off" manner or outright price gouging.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
In my personal opinion socket upgrades should be there for significant changes that necessitate the need to do so in the first place, not just to make more BS sales figures.
For example DDR3 to DDR4, or PCI-e going 2-3 (for SSD usage) things along that line, but if the socket in question is ABLE to use previous generation processors then would it not be even more a selling point to "upgrade" your motherboard
so you can still use your old chip OR a new chip if you would like and gain all them fancy new features?
I just do not see the point of what Intel does in this regard. Be like an electric razor requiring new blades AND new device every year (or sooner) because they they made both incompatible with each other at a higher price for good measure.
On another note, I thought Raven Ridge was scheduled for 4Q2017-1Q2018 if it got pushed back a bit but for an even better fabrication process that is not a bad thing overall, it sucks for those who were planning on doing a Christmas shopping spree type thing of course.
Maybe AMD decided to not pull an Intel and force 2 quick releases when the next "node" is so close, maybe it was being made on this 12nm past few months to begin with and they have a feeling it will be a very high volume part
and wanted to make sure they have significant quantities available?
