Friday, January 3rd 2020

AMD Stock Broke All-Time Record for the Company, Peaked at $49.10 per Share

AMD veterans yesterday must've sneakily left their respective offices yesterday for a well-deserved rest and a glass of champagne - and if they didn't, they deserved it. The company yesterday broke their previous all-time stock pricing record achieved way back in June 2000, at $47.50 per share, when it traded at $49.10 per share yesterday.

It's been a long time coming for AMD, and irrespective of any brand loyalty, it certainly pays, as a consumer and as an enthusiast, to see a company that nearly went bankrupt in 2016 - who had to sell and then lease back their own headquarters for a quick cash infusion, spin-off its manufacturing division in a change of strategy that couldn't have been easy on morale - achieve such a colossal feat. Even more impressive this is should you even be considering the blue behemoth the company actually has to contend with - a $260.35B Intel who, by both happenstance and poor CPU execution vision, is being fired upon on all markets by comparative David AMD, today valued at $51.07B. Here's hoping all AMD employees got their well-deserved party and standing ovation from each other. None of them - not even Lisa Su - achieved this alone.
Sources: Market Cap, via Tom's Hardware
Add your own comment

85 Comments on AMD Stock Broke All-Time Record for the Company, Peaked at $49.10 per Share

#51
Patriot
AMD had Opteron Dual cores before desktop launch of athlon x2, AMD was first to dual core, Intel was first to desktop dual core.
Not that it matters now... just a point of history.
Posted on Reply
#52
havli
Opteron DC was launched the same day as A64 X2 - May 31st 2005.
Posted on Reply
#53
dont whant to set it"'
Even though I don't have stock in AMD , the article is so we'll written it almost brought "a tear" from my eyes.
Posted on Reply
#54
trparky
Zubasa
Yes they were.
Glue together desktop dies, according to Intel own marketing slides should be completely useless :laugh:
What is even more ironic is the 28-core XCC dies are technically HEDT dies now,
so Intel also glued together 2 of them to make the 56-core Xeon 9200 series.
And if I remember correctly, the Prescotts ran hot as fuck.
hat
Nobody cared that Core 2 was clocked slower than their predecessors when they saw how well it actually performed.
We're back to what it was back in the early 2000s. It's not how high you can clock your processors, it's what you can do with those GHz that really matters (ie. instructions per clock).

Intel is using the brute force method to get more performance (higher clock speeds) which as we have seen is only contributing to higher power usage and more heat. AMD is taking the IPC approach, in the end (unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat) AMD is going to win.

Intel needs a new architecture, the Core architecture is done; there's no more gas in the tank whereas with Zen AMD is still finding ways to get more out of it yet not have to turn to high clocks to get the performance like Intel has to with Core.
Posted on Reply
#55
ador250
Keller was the main guy behind infinity fabric not whole Zen. @thesmokingman
Posted on Reply
#56
yotano211
I bought $3k of AMD shares when it hit $9.13 some years ago. I still have not sold it, and I bought some more between 21-23.
Posted on Reply
#57
lynx29
yotano211
I bought $3k of AMD shares when it hit $9.13 some years ago. I still have not sold it, and I bought some more between 21-23.
how did you buy them? I almost bought at $2 a share but honestly some of the part that held me back is I just had no idea what i was doing, where to go, how to buy it, etc. I was just going to call EdwardJones and ask them but I'm sure they would have been a hefty fee... so i dunno
Posted on Reply
#58
64K
lynx29
how did you buy them? I almost bought at $2 a share but honestly some of the part that held me back is I just had no idea what i was doing, where to go, how to buy it, etc. I was just going to call EdwardJones and ask them but I'm sure they would have been a hefty fee... so i dunno
Try Ameritrade.

https://www.tdameritrade.com/why-td-ameritrade.page?adch=aff&CID=CJ2929746&cjevent=5be8c94f2f0e11ea8071033f0a24060c&dclid=CI3fxqCt6uYCFQbdyAodPsUM4Q

You can do it online with minimal fees.
Posted on Reply
#59
candle_86
Fyi and operton dual core launched April 2005 and was the first x86 dual core on the market.

Opteron 800 series socket 940 if you want to find the first
Posted on Reply
#60
yotano211
lynx29
how did you buy them? I almost bought at $2 a share but honestly some of the part that held me back is I just had no idea what i was doing, where to go, how to buy it, etc. I was just going to call EdwardJones and ask them but I'm sure they would have been a hefty fee... so i dunno
I have a etrade acccount and I used to be a research stock analyst with a major investment bank from 2005-2008.
Posted on Reply
#61
Mark Little
trparky
And if I remember correctly, the Prescotts ran hot as fuck.

We're back to what it was back in the early 2000s. It's not how high you can clock your processors, it's what you can do with those GHz that really matters (ie. instructions per clock).

Intel is using the brute force method to get more performance (higher clock speeds) which as we have seen is only contributing to higher power usage and more heat. AMD is taking the IPC approach, in the end (unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat) AMD is going to win.

Intel needs a new architecture, the Core architecture is done; there's no more gas in the tank whereas with Zen AMD is still finding ways to get more out of it yet not have to turn to high clocks to get the performance like Intel has to with Core.
I think Intel's new Core replacement architecture is here and its called Cove.
Posted on Reply
#62
notb
R0H1T
You are forgetting one key thing from back then - process advantage. Intel was anything between a node to 3 ahead of AMD. The gap was at its widest with FX, although Phenom II wasn't that bad. Here the situation is nearly diametrically opposite!
Not really. When Core came out in 2006 both companies had access to 65nm and it remained fairly close until 2011 (32nm: Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer).
So the gap in node appeared after there was already a gap in products.

yotano211
I have a etrade acccount and I used to be a research stock analyst with a major investment bank from 2005-2008.
Oh please. After a crypto period this forum is going to become an AMD stock speculation den? :/

trparky
Intel is using the brute force method to get more performance (higher clock speeds) which as we have seen is only contributing to higher power usage and more heat. AMD is taking the IPC approach, in the end (unless Intel pulls a rabbit out of their hat) AMD is going to win.
LOL. AMD has made a significant improvement in IPC after a year of negligence and they got barely in front of Intel for a short moment.
And from that you're creating the whole theory that AMD is after IPC and Intel isn't.
Intel needs a new architecture, the Core architecture is done; there's no more gas in the tank whereas with Zen AMD is still finding ways to get more out of it yet not have to turn to high clocks to get the performance like Intel has to with Core.
They already have one. You're just not paying attention. Or you're not interested in anything that you can't put in your blinking gaming desktop.
Posted on Reply
#63
trparky
Yeah but that at least three to four years away on the desktop platform.
Posted on Reply
#64
notb
lynx29
problem with AMD regarding long term growth is what happens when performance gains hit a wall of 5% gains every two years.
The real problem with AMD is what will happen when they get to 25-30% market share (assuming it's possible). How many CPUs will they be able to make on a cutting edge outsourced node? How many will have to stay on an older one (exactly the issue Intel has today).

Gamers and desktops enthusiasts may be fine with the idea of 3950X that wins reviews but is almost impossible to buy. This will not fly in general market.

And of course there's a problem with AMD stock itself. It's few times overvalued at the moment. I have no idea why anyone would want to buy at this point.

trparky
Yeah but that at least three to four years away on the desktop platform.
I'm pretty sure Tiger Lake (or at least Ice Lake) will arrive in desktops earlier.

Of course it's the least important market so Intel would love to over servers first.
However, if their 10nm supply isn't large enough for Xeon lineup, they may as well move it to high-end desktops.
Posted on Reply
#65
MrGRiMv25
trparky
Wasn't the Pentium D simply two Prescott Pentium 4's glued together?
And what was even worse was that to communicate with the other die it had to go through the FSB to do it which slowed it down quite a lot, there was no core-2-core interconnect on the substrate itself, thankfully Intel fixed that with the Core2 series.

Good to see AMD back where they were 20 years ago financially. Took em a while and they were almost "dead" a few times between then but they made it all the same.
Posted on Reply
#66
notb
MrGRiMv25
Good to see AMD back where they were 20 years ago financially. Took em a while and they were almost "dead" a few times between then but they made it all the same.
Financially?
They aren't even close to 2010 - their best year recently.

2000 was excellent, with huge earnings (was better than today).
Years 1997-1999 (so the period 20 years before Zen) ended with a loss.
Posted on Reply
#67
RandallFlagg
phanbuey
Except they did it again with Nehalem, and then again with Sandy Bridge... Also, they have a guy working for them who is known to do these types of things, and was the guy that came up with Zen.

I don't really think it's as unlikely as you think it is... AMD was unlikely with Zen - that was a rabbit out of a hat; but again, the guy that did that has been at intel for the last 3 years.
You don't get it. All those architectures were developments of Core. Core came from Pentium-M (Banias / Dotham). Core is Yonah and is based on those predecessors. Nehalem and Sandy bridge are developments of Core. They rely on a relatively small pipeline compared to NetBurst.

Since then, they have been investing into that (Core) design paradigm. Once they switched their resources from NetBurst to Core, they were able to compete with AMD again - but that was also largely due to their huge advantage in process tech. AMD was making 45nm chips vs Intels Core on 32nm. Then AMD was on 32 and 28nm vs Intel on 22nm and 14nm. Intel had a 2 generation advantage in process tech over AMD (and everyone else).

With the SoC (mobile phone) market exploding, companies like TSMC and Samsung were injected with huge amounts of capital that has not only closed that gap but (along with Intel's bumbling) reverse that process advantage to the point that Intel is now 2 generations *behind* on process node.

Meanwhile virtually everything Intel has said about their process node development for the past 5 years has been a *lie*. Nothing but marketing hype mixed with complete dishonesty. You going to believe them now?

Most stats on the DIY / early adopter build front is that AMD is now outselling Intel something like 8:1 to 10:1. It won't take too long (maybe a year) for that to filter into the major desktop / laptop market. From there, AMD adoption will get into the server market (maybe a couple of years). Somewhere along that road Intel will no lose its ability to use its market share, to manipulate the market, in the way its done in the past. It will be on a level playing field and they aren't prepared for that.

You keep on waiting for that rabbit.
Posted on Reply
#68
yotano211
notb
.


Oh please. After a crypto period this forum is going to become an AMD stock speculation den? :/
I hope not
Posted on Reply
#69
DeathtoGnomes
notb
Oh please. After a crypto period this forum is going to become an AMD stock speculation den? :/
so lets stop talking about tech and tech companies and start speculating what color underwear taylor swift or some other celebrity is wearing tomorrow..... :kookoo:
Posted on Reply
#70
lynx29
notb
The real problem with AMD is what will happen when they get to 25-30% market share (assuming it's possible). How many CPUs will they be able to make on a cutting edge outsourced node? How many will have to stay on an older one (exactly the issue Intel has today).

Gamers and desktops enthusiasts may be fine with the idea of 3950X that wins reviews but is almost impossible to buy. This will not fly in general market.

And of course there's a problem with AMD stock itself. It's few times overvalued at the moment. I have no idea why anyone would want to buy at this point.


I'm pretty sure Tiger Lake (or at least Ice Lake) will arrive in desktops earlier.

Of course it's the least important market so Intel would love to over servers first.
However, if their 10nm supply isn't large enough for Xeon lineup, they may as well move it to high-end desktops.
I still think AMD stock will go higher as there is still room to grow and Ryzen 4000 plus consoles will sell very well, but there is a wall coming for these markets as performance gains drop off very fast in the next 5 years, I have no doubt this will be the case. The problem is timing of when that wall hits and how soon you cash out before the crash comes, and the crash will come, its all just a matter of timing and how greedy do you want to be. Nvidia is smarter than AMD because they are into healthcare, AI, and self-driving vehicles now, that is the future of profits, especially the healthcare one. AMD hasn't even touched healthcare stuff and is way behind in the other two. Short term, long term, it's all quite complicated really. AMD is still worth buying now though I guess, as long as you know around Ryzen 6000 series its time to cash out cause silicon gains will crash hard eventually.

yotano211
I have a etrade acccount and I used to be a research stock analyst with a major investment bank from 2005-2008.
Nice I think I would be good at something like that myself. I really enjoy researching all that stuff and debating it with people to see if its worthy investment. etrade, noted, might look into that someday when the next recession comes, markets have cycles and there will be a large crash eventually for 90% of all stocks like there was in 2008. when that day comes, investing when it hits bottom is going to be smart, cause humans will never stop spending and living, eventually they will rise back up. buy low and sell high, the world isn't going to end like so many fear, i mean yeah for some companies sure, but if you make educated cases and diversify should still be profitable.

64K
Try Ameritrade.

https://www.tdameritrade.com/why-td-ameritrade.page?adch=aff&CID=CJ2929746&cjevent=5be8c94f2f0e11ea8071033f0a24060c&dclid=CI3fxqCt6uYCFQbdyAodPsUM4Q

You can do it online with minimal fees.
Noted, tyvm, I will compare to etrade.

notb
Oh please. After a crypto period this forum is going to become an AMD stock speculation den? :/
well I am not going to let you or anyone else stop me from thinking and as long as w1zz doesn't feel it's off topic, it's not up to you. it's a tech stock and we are trying to power up our critical thinking skills :p
Posted on Reply
#71
notb
DeathtoGnomes
so lets stop talking about tech and tech companies and start speculating what color underwear taylor swift or some other celebrity is wearing tomorrow..... :kookoo:
There's a huge gap between talking about tech and about tech companies. Stocks, HR, PR. There's so much of it on this forum. And tech is still very poorly represented (mostly just desktop hardware).

BTW: speculating about Lisa Su's underwear is tech or not?
lynx29
I still think AMD stock will go higher as there is still room to grow and Ryzen 4000 plus consoles will sell very well
Stock price is calculated as a present value of future earnings - not as a "rating" of whether a company is doing great today.

AMD's stock is priced based on large growth hopes (leading to much higher net profits).
Inflows from next gen consoles, from Zen 3,4,5..., from GPUs, from datacenter (including the supercomputer contracts) and so on - that's all in the price already.

If AMD stock was priced as Intel is (assuming a stable situation and limited growth potential) it would be around $3-5.

The really sad part is that today the stock price isn't even following AMD's financial forecasts (it's at least 2x higher).
In other words: if AMD continues to grow fast (even faster than AMD themselves say), the $50 estimation may become a reality. If it doesn't, their stock will sink.
well I am not going to let you or anyone else stop me from thinking and as long as w1zz doesn't feel it's off topic, it's not up to you. it's a tech stock and we are trying to power up our critical thinking skills :p
So learn something about finance and stock valuation. Because the "stock discussions" on this forum are not factual. You'll learn nothing useful. You'll make investing mistakes.
It's like if we discussed weather based on folklore and superstition.
Posted on Reply
#72
lynx29
notb
There's a huge gap between talking about tech and about tech companies. Stocks, HR, PR. There's so much of it on this forum. And tech is still very poorly represented (mostly just desktop hardware).

BTW: speculating about Lisa Su's underwear is tech or not?

Stock price is calculated as a present value of future earnings - not as a "rating" of whether a company is doing great today.

AMD's stock is priced based on large growth hopes (leading to much higher net profits).
Inflows from next gen consoles, from Zen 3,4,5..., from GPUs, from datacenter (including the supercomputer contracts) and so on - that's all in the price already.

If AMD stock was priced as Intel is (assuming a stable situation and limited growth potential) it would be around $3-5.

The really sad part is that today the stock price isn't even following AMD's financial forecasts (it's at least 2x higher).
In other words: if AMD continues to grow fast (even faster than AMD themselves say), the $50 estimation may become a reality. If it doesn't, their stock will sink.

So learn something about finance and stock valuation. Because the "stock discussions" on this forum are not factual. You'll learn nothing useful. You'll make investing mistakes.
It's like if we discussed weather based on folklore and superstition.
Thank you for the information, I did find it helpful. If we had not discussed it here I would not have learned though, so it kind of still defeats your first argument if not discussing it...
Posted on Reply
#73
64K
This thread is about AMD stock so it's relevant to talk about AMD stock and where it might go.

imo almost the entire stock market is overvalued and when we hit another recession the market is overdue for a correction.

Investing in AMD or any other stock without a lot of experience and knowledge is nothing more than gambling. Better to put your money in a good Mutual Fund and let the experts make the stock buy/sell decisions.

And finally some advice given to me by a very successful man who ran an Investment firm. The average person buys when a stock is already too high because they think it will keep going up and end up selling when the stock goes way down because they panic. They end up losing money almost every time. Warren Buffett made so many billions of dollars doing the opposite of what most investors do. He was a contrarian. He bought when the price was too low. When people were panic-selling and driving the share price down. He sold when the share price went too high because people were euphoric about the stock price continuing to go up and it was already too high.

"We simply attempt to be fearful when others are greedy and to be greedy only when others are fearful."
Warren Buffett
Posted on Reply
#74
R0H1T
64K
imo almost the entire stock market is overvalued and when we hit another recession the market is overdue for a correction.
Tbh a lot of us are waiting for that, missed that bus in 2008/09 & I'm sure anyone who invested back then at the lows are reaping heaps of rewards today. The last few major dips/crashes in this part of the world were about 8-12 years apart so it's about time something like that recurred.
Posted on Reply
#75
Vayra86
R0H1T
You are forgetting one key thing from back then - process advantage. Intel was anything between a node to 3 ahead of AMD. The gap was at its widest with FX, although Phenom II wasn't that bad. Here the situation is nearly diametrically opposite!
The process advantage will even out over time though, so its really going to be a battle of architectures more than anything.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment