Entering text into the input field will update the search result below

Is Institutional Short Sale On AMD Abusive?

Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture
Kwan-Chen Ma


  • In 2017, both institutional and retail traders have shorted most shares at $10 and $13 AMD market price points.
  • Before August 2017, institution short sellers generally shorted the stock according to AMD street fair price targets.
  • After August, AMD short sellers shorted the shares at levels 25% lower than the street price targets. The evidence is consistent with abusive short sale practice.
  • If you believe that the short sellers cannot keep the AMD prices artificially low indefinitely, there should be at least a 25% upside for AMD stock prices.

I may say something too obvious in this article.

On January 31st, 2018, CNBC's Jim Cramer said that there's a concerted effort to keep shares of Advanced Micro Devices (NASDAQ:AMD) lower. "Bearish lies knocked the stock down from $13.25 to $12.10. It couldn't be more duplicitous. It was pure manipulation and I would like to see it investigated," said Cramer.

After AMD reported positive Q3 and Q4 earnings and the stock saw deep price swings, many have long suspected that there is "big" money keeping the stock down. In this article, I conduct a "near-forensic" analysis on the short behavior of large short sellers, i.e., likely institutions. It is important to note that since the names of each short seller in the transactions are not disclosed on the public record, I can only surmise that the large size transactions are associated with institutions (not retail traders).

"Abusive" Short Sale

Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, "abusive" short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading of a security. It is also abusive and illegal to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales that seek to manipulate stock prices are prohibited.

In 2010, the Commission adopted Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201 restricts the price at which short sales may be affected when a stock has experienced significant downward price pressure. Rule 201 is designed to prevent the short selling which is potentially manipulative or abusive in nature from driving the price of a security down further when it has already experienced a significant intra-day price decline, and to facilitate the ability of long

This article was written by

Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture
K C Ma, Ph.D, CFA, is the Eminent Scholar and the Mary Ball Washington/Switzer Brothers Endowed Chair of Finance at University of West Florida. I am the Director of Argo Investments Institute which enables college students to manage real money stock, bond, and option funds. I manage market-neutral institutional hedge funds in KCM Asset Management. I write about stocks, bonds, and derivative strategies, long or short, based on our quantitative processes.

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha's Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

Recommended For You

Comments (489)

Retired Securities Attorney profile picture
Everything is for sale at the right price.
gofx profile picture
What the going rate on a soul?
Retired Securities Attorney profile picture
$.15 per pound.
tufttugger profile picture
Where did she say it is not up for sale? It's one thing to say, "Yes, please come to AMD, we are soliciting offers." vs. saying nothing? Or saying they are focused on execution? etc.

Am I missing something?

I'm looking for SP gain from execution and growing revenue and profits. Not from BO offers and hype.
doggiecool profile picture
all CEOs have to consider all opportunities to increase share holder value.
"I'm looking for SP gain from execution and growing revenue and profits. Not from BO offers and hype."

I dont care if its buyout or Revenue growth. I want my investment in AMD to grow. SP gain from revenue growth is more likely option as buyout / merger / investment is a remote option.

What I would like is a hostile takeover and then it does not go through! I will be out of AMD once I make my money because of the news.
doggiecool profile picture
as I posted else where...

AMD is a broken stock. Semi's are all up. AMD getting pounded on.
This morning, Cramer said AMD could be a takeout target, but Lisa Su does not want to sell the company. WOW! Let that sink in.
Lisa works for the share holder. Her #1 fiduciary obligation is to create share holder value. She's derelict in her duties as the CEO of AMD. She needs to be demoted to CTO. A replacement must be found ASAP.
RandSec profile picture

Sorry. Lisa Su's first responsibility is to run the company and increase its worth, which increases shareholder worth. AMD does not set the share trade price, only the market does that.
tufttugger profile picture
Or she knows that any bids would try to undervalue the company and is holding out knowing AMD will only rise and any bids would need to account for the serious value currently and in the future?
doggiecool profile picture
if AMD currently has a $24 buyout offer, why not entertain the offer? Instead, she has let it be known, they are NOT up for sale.

Guess what that does? It helps the shorts, as there will never be any upward pressure from BO offers.
Lee Briggs profile picture
Thank you KC for carefully dissecting a touchy issue. I am surprised to see very few interlopers and not surprised by the many great and thoughtful comments from your bright followers.

Three cheers for anyone that can detect the real truth behind stock manipulators. In this age of IoT and the www, it will not be long before total transparency in the stock market and many other critical area will cure many maladies of all types.

Thank you again for your Kwantitative analysis.
Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture
thanks Lee for the long-term support!
Retired Securities Attorney profile picture
Thanks, Kwan-Chen. If I am understanding you correctly, any short sale which is illegal under current SEC regulations and the federal securities laws is abusive.
Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture

Yes, you are right.

The choice of word "abusive" is taken directly from the SEC website when discussing Regulation SHO and 201. I guess that SEC used "illegal" short sale as "abusive" interchangeably.
Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture

Thanks for the question. Taken from the article above:

"Abusive" Short Sale

" Although the vast majority of short sales are legal, "abusive" short sale practices are illegal. For example, it is prohibited for any person to engage in a series of transactions in order to create actual or apparent active trading of a security. It is also abusive and illegal to depress the price of a security for the purpose of inducing the purchase or sale of the security by others. Thus, short sales that seek to manipulate stock prices are prohibited.

In 2010, the Commission adopted Rule 201 of Regulation SHO. Rule 201 restricts the price at which short sales may be affected when a stock has experienced significant downward price pressure. Rule 201 is designed to prevent the short selling which is potentially manipulative or abusive in nature from driving the price of a security down further when it has already experienced a significant intra-day price decline, and to facilitate the ability of long sellers to sell first upon such a decline...."
Retired Securities Attorney profile picture
What does "abusive" mean in this context, please?
Toastypro profile picture
Dear AMD Fans we have a serious issue with Nvidia Marketing Plan. I pulled it out of the link for everyone to read easily.

Please read this article and send email to FTC for anti-competitive behavior.

GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

While we usually like to focus on all the wonderful and immersive worlds that video cards and their GPUs can open up to us, today we are tackling something a bit different. The GeForce Partner Program, known as GPP in the industry, is a "marketing" program that looks to HardOCP as being an anticompetitive tactic against AMD and Intel.

GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

To open up this bit of reporting, which will contain some editorial as well, I think our motives should be clear. In discussions with NVIDIA over the last few weeks, NVIDIA asked us exactly what our concerns were about the GPP program. This was our reply and should frame exactly why we are writing this.

Kyle Bennett: "I think it [GPP] is going to greatly, and negatively, impact consumer choice in the AIB and OEM computer market. Consumer choice is going to be decimated. Looking at the program guidelines, I truly think that is what will happen and is where my concern lies."

Before we go any further, in the effort to be as transparent as possible, we need to let you know that AMD came to us and presented us with "this story." AMD shopped this story with other websites as well. However, with the information that was presented to us by AMD, there was no story to be told, but it surely pointed to one that was worth looking into. There needed to be some legwork done in collecting facts and interviews.

At this point you're probably wondering, "What is NVIDIA GPP?" A couple of weeks after we began questioning NVIDIA on GPP, it put up an article on its blog.nvidia.com domain entitled, "GeForce Partner Program Helps Gamers Know What They're Buying." Here what John Teeple, Director - Partner Marketing at NVIDIA, has to say about GPP.

In our latest effort to better serve gamers, we're introducing our GeForce Partner Program.

The GPU and software of a gaming PC make all the difference in a gamer's experience. And together with our add-in card and system partners, we're dedicated to building the best PC gaming platform bar-none -- this is the GeForce promise.

The GeForce Partner Program is designed to ensure that gamers have full transparency into the GPU platform and software they're being sold, and can confidently select products that carry the NVIDIA GeForce promise.

This transparency is only possible when NVIDIA brands and partner brands are consistent. So the new program means that we'll be promoting our GPP partner brands across the web, on social media, at events and more. And GPP partners will get early access to our latest innovations, and work closely with our engineering team to bring the newest technologies to gamers.

Partners are signing up, fast. They see the benefit of keeping brands and communication consistent and transparent.

The program isn't exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There's no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program.

GPP ensures our engineering and marketing efforts support brands consumers associate with GeForce. That transparency will give gamers the confidence needed to make their purchase, whichever products they choose

Admittedly, GPP sounds like a good program on the surface, but after digging into documentation and interviews with OEMs and AIBs in the past weeks, the warm and fuzzies quickly subside. HardOCP has been in the computer hardware review business for over 20 years now, and we have made an abundance of contacts along the way. In order for our preparation to write this article, we have spent the last three weeks talking to OEMs and AIBs in the industry that do business with NVIDIA on a large scale. Given how GPP is all about "transparency," you might think that those OEMs and AIBs would be chomping at the bit to get some free press on how those companies are part of the GPP program.

We have contacted seven companies about their part in NVIDIA GPP and not one of the seven would talk to us on the record if they spoke to us about it at all. The ones that did speak to us have done so anonymously, in fear of losing their jobs, or having retribution placed upon them or their companies by NVIDIA. All of the people that I did interview at AIBs and at OEMs did however have the same thoughts on GPP. 1.) They think that it has terms that are likely illegal. 2.) GPP is likely going to tremendously hurt consumers' choices. 3.) It will disrupt business with the companies that they are currently doing business with, namely AMD and Intel.

The crux of the issue with NVIDIA GPP comes down to a single requirement in order to be part of GPP. In order to have access to the GPP program, its partners must have its "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce." I have read documents with this requirement spelled out on it.

What would it mean to have your "Gaming Brand Aligned Exclusively With GeForce?" The example that will likely resonate best with HardOCP readers is the ASUS Republic of Gamers brand. I have no knowledge if ASUS is a GPP partner, I am simply using the ROG brand hypothetically. If ASUS is an NVIDIA GPP partner, and it wants to continue to use NVIDIA GPUs in its ROG branded video cards, computers, and laptops, it can no longer sell any other company's GPUs in ROG products. So if ASUS want to keep building NVIDIA-based ROG video cards, it can no longer sell AMD-based ROG video cards, and be a GPP partner.

NVIDIA will tell you that it is 100% up to its partner company to be part of GPP, and from the documents I have read, if it chooses not to be part of GPP, it will lose the benefits of GPP which include: high-effort engineering engagements -- early tech engagement -- launch partner status -- game bundling -- sales rebate programs -- social media and PR support -- marketing reports -- Marketing Development Funds (MDF). MDF is likely the standout in that list of lost benefits if the company is not a GPP partner.

As you might recall, we have seen onerous terms such as those contained in GPP to have many similarities to Intel's once monopolistic business practices (versus AMD) in withholding MDF to partners. The results of that situation were huge multi-billion dollar fines for Intel. GPP has some striking similarities.

What is disturbing is that we have been told that if a company does not participate in GPP, those companies feel as if NVIDIA would hold back allocation of GPUs from their inventories. From all we have talked to, the issue of not allocating GPU inventories to non-GPP partners have not been spelled out contractually, but is rather done on a wink and a nod.

The motivations behind this GPP move by NVIDIA is somewhat confusing at first blush. Why would a company that owns ~70% market share, and has no true high-end competition make a move like this? Many people that I have spoken to fully question the legality of the GeForce Partner Program. Interestingly enough, we think that the roots of GPP makes it way all the way back and somewhat dovetails with our From ATI to AMD back to ATI? A Journey in Futility article published in May of 2016. That was the first time that the world got wind of AMD getting into bed with Intel to do some GPU business. We believe at that time NVIDIA put another "exclusive" plan into place, however by a different name, and the GeForce Partner Program we are seeing now is somewhat an extension of that previous program.

One thing we know is that NVIDIA has made a lot of enemies over the years. You can easily put AMD, Apple, and Intel on that list. We think that GPP is somewhat the result of those "feuds" with NVIDIA attempting to gain more control over the market as it is seeing its competitors developing products (ie AMD and Intel partnerships on products) that will not be open to NVIDIA.

As mentioned above, NVIDIA questioned my concerns and I copied and posted those above. There was however a lot more in that email that I wrote to NVIDIA on February 22nd and I am going to quote that below. To date, NVIDIA has never responded to that email or the concerns put forth in it.

This is a big story, but it all goes much further than consumer choice, however it does not matter to me on a personal level beyond that. I am just being my tech journalistic self, which I have to do from time to time. And after the story I wrote about AMD in 2016 on the Intel/AMD deal and the politics attached to that, this story is going to get a LOT of exposure now that HardOCP's credibility has been returned, if not exalted since all the truth came out on that. I am making sure all my I's are dotted and T's crossed and have already prepared my lawyers with what I need to win any sort of lawsuit that might come out of this. They feel I am on solid ground and have signed off on moving forward.

There will certainly be follow up stories written by many websites though, that have a much better grasp of the financial side of this.

I would highly, actually, almost assuredly suggest that GPP is going to open NVIDIA to lawsuits from AMD and Intel. That alone is going to cause NVIDIA to shoulder financial burden. The OEMs and AIBs will not sue NVIDIA, but they will be deposed for years on this and the concerns about that are already being voiced in a very big way. Intel paying $1B+ for anticompetitive practices is one thing, but Jensen having to explain it to your shareholders is going to be a very big deal in terms of NVIDIA stock price. I have to guess that AMD and Intel's latest foray into business together has gotten Jensen worried enough to roll the bones though.

It is my opinion that GPP is not a good business plan for a company that is dominating in terms of both product performance and market share.

As for the timeline for my story, I am wrestling with timing on its publication currently. Publishing before GPP contracts are signed or after GPP contracts are signed? I still have not decided on that.

At publication time, NVIDIA has not returned our request for the list of companies that will be involved in its GeForce Partner Program.

There is no doubt that NVIDIA GPP has some striking similarities to what Intel has done in the past that has been deemed "anticompetitive conduct" by the Federal Trade Commision. We would not be surprised to see regulators in the US, Europe, and Asia want to take a closer look at GPP as well.

It was expressed to me that publishing this article "could damage the relationship" between HardOCP and NVIDIA. As noted previously, we have been reviewing computer hardware for quite a while. What "damaging the relationship" means to us is that HardOCP will very likely not be doing any NVIDIA GPU reviews at launch time. It is very likely that AIBs and OEMs will be instructed to not to sample HardOCP for reviews on any of their video card products as well. If you do see NVIDIA video card reviews on HardOCP in the future, those will likely be fully funded in-house, as we will be required to purchase all of the review hardware from retail sources. We feel however that this story surely needs to be told.


If you like our content, please consider supporting HardOCP through Patreon.
Lee Briggs profile picture
Toastypro - Great link. Has anyone seen the contract?
Toastypro profile picture
According to the Nvidia blog they are denying it, but the truth maybe different. HardOCP must have seen the contract otherwise Kyle Bennett wouldn't write the article. This news is everywhere now pitting against Nvidia to explain the contract. It's about the time FTC should get involved.

"The program isn’t exclusive. Partners continue to have the ability to sell and promote products from anyone. Partners choose to sign up for the program, and they can stop participating any time. There’s no commitment to make any monetary payments or product discounts for being part of the program."



Mike Bruzzone profile picture
As an addendum to summarize in relation to Dr, Ma's short sale data assessment.

What large institutional investors aren't saying and know on history and models, in relation to the mass financial movement of back in time Intel production values, Xeon in particular whose volumes and value are severely under reported by Intel in the forth of many SEC violations primarily false certifications, is that new CPU introductions against the outgoing rush of demanded Intel surplus are not making much headway.

Upstart AMD in particular suffers as a result, quarter to quarter, product ramp to ramp.
Large institutions know this and bet on that cycle. This is the way primary verse secondary markets have always played out x86 in particular.

Intel has always had primary and secondary market control established by primary price floors. DCG revenue primarily evaporated on continued lowering of that price floor giving unaccounted unreported production volumes into future channel runway to clear.

AMD introduces a new product and gains some quarterly sales headway, but when that quarter ends,and as any product ramps crest, as customer demanded values seek refresh into a new quarter, all those Intel demanded surplus values are still moving and drag AMD back again. Chip chip away.

Mike Bruzzone profile picture
How soon I forget . . . There was the third, that is the original SEC 2007 complaint into 2015 concerns the Intel disintegrated story problem supply signal cipher transmission.

On Intel 1997 through 2015 transmissions financial community received Intel into future by product category bits of supply data through specific analysts, press, Intel executives when recompiled details revenue and margin up to nine quarters into future time for playing the stock price.

That signal transmission system was remedied including my federal discovery effort under some dangerous conditions by 2015 end.

Still, Investment banking and financial community rely on the 18 year data base, models and information that results from model use. Is same data and models I rely for Intel production economics begins 2001. Today incorporates all Intel processor runs 1993 through present.

What the general investor is not aware, is the data I've made available from FTC Docket 9341 as transparency pressing for remedies, and here to level market playing field, is still relied by Investment banks and financial houses.


So what do the investment banks and financial houses know that the general investor does not? They know there is a serious Intel surplus condition. They know Xeon total volumes are under represented which I describe subsidizing CCG is both a revenue and inventory recognition problem. They also know between product introductions, AMD virtually stands still in a cascade of Intel back in time product that not only places a drag on AMD but Intel current Core product line sales.

Here's some AMD data for the week;

AMD has a 13.7% week share of CL,KL,XSP that drops to 2,4% adding all Broadwell v4 in week. Adding all Core Skylake in week AMD in week unit share drops to 2.1% So AMD has a good 2% share of newer production values.

AMD Average Weighed Price = $366.85 / 3 = $122.28 is a new AMD gross per unit record.

Ryzen 8/6/4C AWP base at $250.30 gross margin.

TR adds $106.32 in gross margin.

Epyc adds $10.19 in gross margin currently.

APU takes away $1.46 in gross margin and from standpoint of refresh appears the only product line ramping although other grades build in volume.

I did no take the time to estimate the impact of dGPU, I estimate 1/5 to 1/3rd of revenue at $100 gross per unit of production..

Epyc primary sales remain hard to see through channel inventory holdings.

AMD % product mix on full runs to date -

Epyc at 0.54%

TR @ 12.13% .

R 8C @ 44.13%
R 6C @ 17.74%
R 4C @ 24.78%

R 27/25/24/22 APU @ 0.65%

What's selling I'll save for next comment where 1.8% of all AMD 14 nm channel inventories sell through week to week.

Now imagine yourself in one of those Matrix like animations of being caught in an array of vertical digital streams. This is what Jerry Sanders means when AMD stands still or ran in place. Effect is also seen in the wash of a river, or at the beach as waves flow in and out to sea In the patterns of pebbles and grains of sand washed around as every next wave is limited by the last.

In reality Intel is ripping the digital image of AMD apart on the result of bypassing surplus streams. The investment banking and financial community know this from their models.

This effect of being ripped apart like standing still is punctuated between AMD production ramps on Intel surplus cascades. Caught In these streams a financial vacuum occurs limiting movement and growth.

Since the beginning of December Broadwell 2600 v4 inventories grow roughly 181% speaks of the void left for XSP and Epyc. Week to week 8.5% of all those accumulating E5 2600 v4 clear. AMD in the overall product mix clears 1.8%.

XSP cleared week to week 12%. AMD in the overall product mix clears 1.8%.

Since the beginning of December Haswell 2600 v4 inventories grow roughly 120% speaks of the void left for XSP and Epyc. Week to week 9.5% of all those accumulating E5 2600 v4 clear.

In the Core desktop market any Xeon uni / 2P 3.5 GHz + large cache quad is now the overall volume seller. While KL and CL inventories continue to build, Xeon v2/v3/v4 quad outsell all KL and CL desktop week to week by 12x. Xeon v3/v4 hexa outsell all CL hexa by 25x.

The Intel Core market is also being ripped apart.

This is among what the investment banks and financial institutions know and aren't telling.

Mike Bruzzone, Camp Marketing
Folger profile picture
In case you missed it... HP will be introducing 68 new AMD Ryzen/Vega-powered laptops Although there are 68 products listed, the many SKUs are all just different configurations of three models--the HP EliteBook 735 G5, 745 G5, and 755 G5.

Mike Bruzzone profile picture
Arthur Ma, I'll address the observation when I get back 2 my workstation. In my terminology drop the stock 2 Zero; "make the trade unprofitable." Can see why in the broker data this week. Intel is also hurt on the trend; overwelming back in time product sales. Back in time supply issue is my intuitive insight why well informed manipulators are shorting. mb
scotch64 profile picture
I gather what you are saying is , Intel is again BUYING time ....till' ....doesn't matter what garbage advertisement-ploy /scheme or product ....its still intel?
ietgods profile picture
Short sale abusive? I wouldn't call it abusive... "Smart" is more like it!

If all you SJW, liberal types wants to write the SEC to "save you" from your bad investments, good luck!

AMD articles have the funniest comment threads I've ever seen... "Someone's abusing my P/E 400 stock by shorting it!"

If you truly believed the stock price was being manipulated lower somehow, you should be buying hand over fist... If the share price has somehow been manipulated down, back up the truck and load up! Second mortgage on the house if you have to. That would be the smart capitalist move.
asH9 profile picture
'liberal types'??
Some folk are still pissed they got their asses kicked in the Civil war...and in Germany
Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture

you are right.

The term "abusive" is taken from Regulation SHO and Rule 201. It is not a personal adjective.

And I also agree with your actionable advise, as I mentioned the same thing in the 4th summary statement.
ietgods profile picture
Hi Kwan,

I borrowed the "abusive" term from your title to mimic the attitudes of some of the AMD longs in the comment sections that believe they are being "abused" by somebody because their pet AMD stock is not trading over $50 a share... Buy more and squeeze the shorts out if you can there longs!

My opinion on the average analyst is that if they were actually any good they would be doing and not writing. Living on a 200 ft yacht shored off Monaco. To me, the fact that the typical analyst has a long view of AMD is meaningless and shouldn't factor into your own analysis. Like Mom always said, "If so-and-so jumped off a bridge would you then too?"
Kwan-Chen Ma profile picture

haha! again, nobody said that.
RyzenFan profile picture
Today is the opposite, all down except AMD is up, shorts turned longs?
Rand Walker profile picture
*If* Mubadala has just completed another block sale to Goldman Sachs, there will likely be a side-letter and lock-up as in the 3/5/17 and 8/4/17 cases.

From Edgar, the lock-up agreement:

"Seller [Mubadala] agrees that it will not, for a period of sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement, without the prior written consent of the Purchaser [GS], offer, sell, contract to sell, pledge, grant any option to purchase, make any short sale or otherwise dispose of, contract to dispose of, or enter into any transaction having the economic consequences of a disposition, of (i) Common Stock of the Company or (ii) any securities convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for such Common Stock, or publicly announce an intention to effect any such transaction [...small print]"

The side letter:

"The Buyer[GS] shall not resell the Issuer Shares purchased from the Seller to the Excluded Parties.[NVDA]"
This is just a pass-through of AMD's restriction on Mubadala.

So, *if* a block is about to print, Mubadala will be restricted from selling stock for 60 days. GS, who have been leaning on the stock in anticipation of the block trade, will be trying to get the stock up in order to flip anything left over from the synthetic short they've likely been building.

The above is just conjecture, but worth checking Edgar for the next couple of days. The timing of the transaction is possibly driven by a desire to issue Mubadala's 13D (Beneficial Ownership Report) too late for inclusion in AMD's 14D (Proxy Statement).
Rand Walker profile picture
That should of course read "AMD's 14A".
wow&wow profile picture
"Go Long Advanced Micro and Learn From My Mistakes, by Bruce Kamich, thestreet"

The 2nd person who has the stomach to admit and discuss his mistake.

But for "long," accumulating at drops instead of "go long on closes above $13 and above $14 ..."
AMD is seeking to differentiate itself is on cost. Its top-end EPYC 3451 chip with 16 cores is priced at $880, while Intel’s top-end Xeon D-2191 with 18 cores comes in at $2,407.

AMD are pushing software compatibility with server processors as a key feature for their new embedded chips. This is especially so with edge computing, where the compute infrastructure may end up being akin to a mini-datacentre than a traditional embedded use case.

At its launch event in London, AMD gave a demonstration of how workloads such as a virtual router or firewall appliance could be migrated from the network core out to the edge and back again, depending on circumstances such as the level of traffic at the time.

The demo used a network appliance based on an EPYC 3000 chip, while a HPE DL385 server based on the EPYC 7000 processor represented the network core. Both were running an environment based on the OpenStack framework.

While AMD’s chips top out with fewer cores than Intel, the 12-core and 16-core models can support double the memory – up to 1TB – plus up to sixteen Sata ports, as well as up to eight 10Gbps Ethernet ports. This latter capability is almost certain to make the EPYC 3000 chips an attractive proposition to hardware suppliers building network appliances.
Meanwhile, the Ryzen Embedded V1000 Series feature just two or four CPU cores, but are integrated with AMD’s Vega GPU featuring up to 11 compute units. This means they are more likely to find a home in applications that call for device with a display, such as medical imaging or industrial control, but having an on-board GPU could prove useful for a variety of other applications.


* yawn * Nothing to do with this article
asH9 profile picture
ada, this edge/IoT revenue is the sticky type, and will go a long way to a sustainable, predictable revenue stream.. yeaaa APU
this is why I am so excited about it.
Folger profile picture
Per Briefing.com, "Advanced Micro shares seeing some strength in recent trade; hearing M&A speculation circulating"
AMD stock price discovery process by Wall Street has been very inefficient so far.
Rumor: Motherboard Maker ASRock To Produce AMD-Based Mining GPUs

scotch64 profile picture
Rumor be damned , I'll take any positive that can't be controlled , yey!
asH9 profile picture
ada, that news was out way early, and really has no impact to GPU expansion, considering both companies expect BCoin mining to fall off.
Disagree with this article? Submit your own. To report a factual error in this article, . Your feedback matters to us!

About AMD

SymbolLast Price% Chg
Market Cap
Yield (TTM)
Rev Growth (YoY)
Short Interest
Prev. Close
Compare to Peers

More on AMD

Related Stocks

SymbolLast Price% Chg
To ensure this doesn’t happen in the future, please enable Javascript and cookies in your browser.
Is this happening to you frequently? Please report it on our feedback forum.
If you have an ad-blocker enabled you may be blocked from proceeding. Please disable your ad-blocker and refresh.