Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Nvidia RTX Discussion
Comments
-
-
I stand by my post although I admit I do assume the motivation of the poster.
He's not a board regular Fitz (unless I'm very mistaken), and he's bringing interesting information - so maybe take him at face value rather than assuming he wants to bonfire your RTX to dance by the warmth of the flames.
Different note, I'll dig up the link when I have a little more time, but it looks like Overclockers.co.uk are quoting around a 3.5% return rate - about half of which is failure and half is 14 day returns.
Not sure what to make of that though it does fit nicely with the earlier percentages we got.
Also of interest, it looks like there's a dud batch of founder edition RTX 2080 Tis. I'm very curious what the failure rate for that batch is, and what the general failure rate excluding it is.0 -
-
He's not a board regular Fitz (unless I'm very mistaken), and he's bringing interesting information - so maybe take him at face value rather than assuming he wants to bonfire your RTX to dance by the warmth of the flames.
Different note, I'll dig up the link when I have a little more time, but it looks like Overclockers.co.uk are quoting around a 3.5% return rate - about half of which is failure and half is 14 day returns.
Not sure what to make of that though it does fit nicely with the earlier percentages we got.
Also of interest, it looks like there's a dud batch of founder edition RTX 2080 Tis. I'm very curious what the failure rate for that batch is, and what the general failure rate excluding it is.
Again though until you can prove the numbers are higher than normal compared to any electronics failure rate, which you haven't, then it's not even worth bringing up.
It just comes across as a desperate attempt to piss on these cards even more. Like anti Tesla people latching on to a car fire/death despite the fact the cars are far safer than normal cars.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Yes actually I did. Comes from having expertise in manufacturing.
Now, if you go back and read my post you'll notice that I imply I'm interested in the higher failure rate of the bad batch and the *lower* rate of failure that the other cards may have as a result.
Of course, you could go on being the only one in the thread implying I'm skewed on this issue. Your call 0 -
-
You might want to reread what I actually wrote there bloodbath. It's really not what you seem to have read or inferred.
On a related note, if you go back earlier in the thread you'll see me commenting that 5% is pretty typical for cards. Good enough?
You could also just quit being painfully combative for no real reason. It's not adding anything0 -
Advertisement
-
This is exactly my point. People rightly say "well I would want to know of an issue"....thing is your being told about everything negative, be it issue or not, and everything is being turned into an issue in the absence of evidence and common sense. If somebody cut themselves installing an RTX you would have an article the next day about the sharp edges, and an all too eager cohort of people waiting to spread the "news" that hyper expensive RTX cuts your fingers off. Its becoming irritating at this stage.
Gamers Nexus had a vid yesterday reporting that the RMA numbers are very low, and well withing manufacture expected numbers. So that whole thing was a fart in the wind. But thats not being reported. The initial RMA story was vomited out into the world without context and then abandoned. Not the same on here cause there is a discussion, if that me painfully combative (combat only hurts if your the one loosing ) so be it. 0 -
-
if that me painfully combative (combat only hurts if your the one loosing ) so be it.
It doesn't Fitz - you read what I wrote, and didn't make it weirdly personal.
Also, you're a dentist, don't tell me you've never had to treat someone who "won" a fight. 0 -
-
-
Back on topic, some useful links:
Fairly balanced article setting out the state of play as of last week.
Nvidia's statement about test escapes. Original Nvidia post here.
Steve from Gamersnexus has a new interesting article/video with some more analysis/numbers from the dud cards he got sent in. The TLDR is they figure there's a silicon or board problem showing up but it's pretty uncommon.
For myself, there's two elements here that really interest me.
First, Nvidia's characterization of these as test escapes is significant - it means they're admitting their test team had their test vectors wrong for some of the early RTX batches. I'd really love to see what percentage of those card batches were RMA'd vs the general run of cards.
Second, the RTX RMA rate is still very low (especially since they've such a large die size), but their performance and transistor density is also much lower than I'd expect for a 12nm die shrink (even giving the benefit of the doubt that maybe a third of the die is custom special sauce). I'm really curious if that's down to them speccing a high core count and aggressively cutting back down post-testing to manage their failure rates. There's no way for me to get an answer on that though so I'm stuck with wild speculation.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The scale may have been chosen to make a comedic point, but somebody who bought in mid 2016 and has quadrupled their investment might be the one laughing. I posted a few pages back that this drop was well flagged, nows the time to buy, AMD's Navi push will rally when markets reopen potentially.0
-
-
-
Nearly all of the analysts disagree with you recommending a buy or a hold. I will add your opinion to the analysis and weight it duly.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/11/16/heres-what-wall-street-analysts-had-to-say-about-nvidias-earnings.html
https://investorplace.com/2018/11/should-you-buy-nvidia-stock-during-its-crypto-hangover/
Interesting. I still wouldn't buy it but I'll have some fun figuring out why they're still recommending it.
Edit: Here we go.Nvidia’s datacenter revenue grew 83% year-over-year, while its gaming sales jumped 52% and the revenue generated by its professional graphics business climbed 20%. Anyone who calls Nvidia stock a bubble must believe that autonomous cars will not come to fruition, datacenters will dissipate, gaming is a fad and professional graphics will no longer be necessary.
On his list, I don't believe Nvidia will be the industry leader for autonomous cars (when they arrive) or datacentres running forward (they've already had issues here having to artificially restrain datacentres from using their consumer cards), and I don't see their gaming and professional graphics being sufficient to support their current share price alone.
So, yeah, that more or less explains it.0 -
Interesting. I still wouldn't buy it but I'll have some fun figuring out why they're still recommending it.
Best to publish your recommendations after you have done your research
...They overtly tell you why, and if you have access to a trading platform you can get much deeper analysis.
The sudden drop was because Nvidia had flagged the lower profit some weeks back but not flagged the extent of the difference between the projections and reality. The market has not fully priced in the figures and as is the way with a spooked and pissed off market it tends to overreact and punish. The core business of Nvidia has not changed and it should return to normal levels soon enough albeit not in the very short term. My opinion is likely Jenson might "step down", if he does it will stay low for a while longer.. although it could rebound, the AMD news is not priced in yet. Still for the medium term investor Nvidia at that price is a good bet.0 -
Best to publish your recommendations after you have done your research
Publish is such a strong word for a throwaway comment on a forum, and research is such a strong word for "reading analysts recommendations". :PThe sudden drop was because Nvidia had flagged the lower profit some weeks back but not flagged the extent of the difference between the projections and reality. The market has not fully priced in the figures and as is the way with a spooked and pissed off market it tends to overreact and punish. The core business of Nvidia has not changed and it should return to normal levels soon enough albeit not in the very short term. My opinion is likely Jenson might "step down", if he does it will stay low for a while longer.. although it could rebound, the AMD news is not priced in yet. Still for the medium term investor Nvidia at that price is a good bet.
I think Jensen stepping down is fairly unlikely - it'd be a blow for Nvidia's brand long term.
You may have a point about the market being spooked - again though, I don't see that shareprice having been supported by Nvidia's fundamentals. It's purely speculative, and this drop does have a lot of the features of the end of a bubble (even down to a bull trap at the end of October). I guess we'll see from next week which direction things go.0 -
Forum posts are publishing and are subject to liable law not slander law I know this from 15 years moderating.
Reading about a topic from reliable independent sources is what research is. Do you have any to support you opinion? *** edit, I see you added to your post, but if you want that info just go back to my post on the matter a week ago, Nvidia are already a huge player in autonomous cars and have contracts with most of the big german manufacturers and tesla, and have most of the GPU deep learning business sown up, your opinion is however interesting is contrary to reality *** Tech bubbles tend to burst much more dramatically, Nvidia is also massively profitable, its just the profits were not what was flagged and dividends will suffer. I dont know about a bull trap, but I do know when somebody is bullsh1tting., nice try all the same. Of course nobody should risk any money they cannot afford to loose and I am in no way giving advice, it just seems to be the consensus that a buy on Nvidia may be a good idea.
To put this into perspective read this. Seems even you guys on here couldn't clear the pascal stock enough.
(CercleFinance.com) - Nvidia's forecasts fell short of Wall Street expectations as the chip-maker wrestles with high levels of inventories following the crypto-currency boom, which sent its shares down sharply on Friday.
The company reported late on Thursday non-GAAP earnings per diluted share of 1.84 dollar, up 38% from a year earlier, for the third quarter ended 28 October, on revenues that are up 21% at 3.2 billion dollars, although falling 2% short of expectations.
Nvidia said that results reflected 'excess channel inventory' post the crypto-currency boom and its 'correction.'
So-called 'miners' use hgih-performance computers and servers to process crypto-currencies, such as bitcoin.
Nvidia also gave a revenue forecast for the current quarter that fell short of Wall Street expectations.
'The January quarter revenue outlook was worse, coming in 20% below consensus and the company blamed excess inventories of older (Pascal) crypto GPUs in the channel,' analysts at Jefferies said.
The company expects fourth-quarter revenue of 2.7 billion dollars, plus or minus 2%.
Nvidia shares are currently in a spin - tumbling 18.7% after these results.
Copyright (c) 2018 CercleFinance.com. All rights reserved
And here are the company stats for an idea of the fundamentals in relation to those figures. And the historic Price earning ratio showing its around average for the last 7 years.0 -
Forum posts are publishing and are subject to liable law not slander law I know this from 15 years moderating.
And when you see me libel someone, you can remind me of that. :P Until then, it remains a fierce strong way to describe a forum post.Reading about a topic from reliable independent sources is what research is.
These aren't independent sources though Fitz, they've skin in the game themselves. You can't look at industry and academia as the same thing as we both well know.Do you have any to support you opinion? Tech bubbles tend to burst much more dramatically, Nvidia is also massively profitable, its just the profits were not what was flagged and dividends will suffer.
Sure, I've a link to Jean-Paul Rodrigue on bubbles below.
Bubbles come in all sorts of shapes and sizes. The tech bubbles you're talking about, unless I'm very much mistaken, are companies with a single overhyped product and no past record. Nvidia doesn't fit that profile - it does however not have profits or revenue that support this current level of shareprice.
It's super profitable as a company but bad as an investment at the moment - unless you intend on using the shareprice itself to drive your returns (which, again, fits into the characterization of this as a speculative bubble).Of course nobody should risk any money they cannot afford to loose and I am in no way giving advice, it just seems to be the consensus that a buy on Nvidia may be a good idea.
Definitely - never invest what you can't lose. I can also see what the consensus is. I just happen to disagree with it, but, you know, Dunning-Kruger so amateurs beware.I dont know about a bull trap, but I do know when somebody is bullsh1tting., nice try all the same.
You're getting oddly personal about it again Fitz. I'm not really sure why? Is it true what people say? Do you happen to be sitting on a good bit of Nvidia stock? :P
This is what a bull trap is btw.
Note the features of the Classic bubble stages.
Now look below. See any features that look oddly familiar? This scale looks a little funky for the bull trap, but if you look at just the last six months or so, it'll snap into focus.
And here are the company stats for an idea of the fundamentals in relation to those figures. And the historic Price earning ratio showing its around average for the last 7 years.
Now look at the earnings per share and compare that to the rise in share price over the same period. They don't line up - and when they don't line up, that means the share price is based on speculation. And when the price of something is primarily based on speculation, that means that there's a strong chance it's a ...0 -
Advertisement
-
Ok now that you have done the research and edited your previous posts with some accurate information, has you opinion on the shares changed? I know what a bull trap is thanks.
Earnings per share means nothing over time as there was a stock dilution and EPS does not take into account reinvestment, R&D and all that jazz. Its doesnt scale with stock price. Price earnings ratio is what matters if you want to see if a stock is overpriced in comparison of the PE ratio of the comparable shares in the industry, thats why I put in that graph. People call bubbles all the time...you can find correlation in pretty much any stock price over time with a classical bubble. Stocks go up and stocks go down. The up and down of Nvidia has had very good reasons for it, not just speculation.
Its not personal, its just your opinion does not seem that informed, but I am glad this discussion has given you the impetus to do the research, and its made me look more closely than I have in a while.
No I am not sitting on Nvidia stock, 0
Advertisement