Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Nvidia shares fall after Morgan Stanley says the performance of its new gaming card is disappointing

MikehaMikeha Member EpicPosts: 9,163

Nvidia shares are down 2.6 percent Thursday.

Moore noted that Nvidia's new RTX 2080 card performed only 3 percent better than the previous generation's 1080Ti card at 4K resolutions.

"We are surprised that the 2080 is only slightly better than the 1080ti, which has been available for over a year and is slightly less expensive," he said. "With higher clock speeds, higher core count, and 40% higher memory bandwidth, we had expected a bigger boost."

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/20/nvidia-falls-after-morgan-stanley-calls-new-gaming-card-disappointing.html?__source=yahoo|finance|headline|story|&par=yahoo&yptr=yahoo




Comments

  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,629
    Yes, because for the business world these are very disappointing results. "High end" are PR cards. They're neat and people like to buzz over them, but not many buy them.

    Nvidia has sold the gaming and tech world a big score, but nothing for the business world. AMD has been rocking for a couple years now with GPUs. It's an exaggeration to say they own "mid-range" but they are strongly competitive there. They're cards have been sold out for a couple years now between gaming and mining. That's a business home run.

    Nvidia has been doing very well too. They're cards haven't stayed on the shelves either. So why the downturn now?

    AMD is heading into new smaller process nodes and Nvidia is lagging a bit. Nvidia has big PR gains withe enthusiasts, but hasn't said one word about mid-range. In fact they've downplayed mid-range cards (also while attempting to shift goalposts and rebrand GTX/RTX) because they aren't expected to support their flagship features well. When they do slightly edge out an AMD card it will be because they're throwing more metal at the problem at a much higher cost.

    The TL;DR is that the business sector expects the higher cost per performance ratio and anemic mid-range offering to translate into poorer sales and less overall revenue.

    It's not all bad for Team Green though. This expected stock valley sets Nvidia up for a huge surge when they launch 7nm cards next year. Everyone will gasp at the great stock gains Nvidia will make.
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    Yeah I don't think this played out quite the way that nVidia planned. This is a minor drop in price, so it's mostly just a clickbait headline, but it's interesting none the less.

    Had they paired the release with some actual Raytracing-enabled shipping software (by waiting a few weeks for Windows to catch up, for example), you could have been looking at an entirely different narrative. Without raytracing (and DLSS to a smaller extent) to showcase the difference in Turing, all anyone had to look at was the increase in price for .... the promise of something to come in the future.

    (not saying I buy into the raytracing thing as it has been presented by nVidia so far, but with nothing available now it's a moot point ... )

    I don't think many companies will intentionally suppress their stock just so they can set up for the rebound later on.. I wouldn't say never, but I'm sure it's against some SEC regulation (otherwise, companies would do it all the time for stock buybacks, then rebound back later on to inflate their worth). It would be a big gamble even if it were a tactic - there's the strong chance you don't bounce back enough to overtake the initial loss.

    I still feel like Turing RTX was more a play for stock to buy time for their 7nm generation - they knew on rasterizing it wasn't significantly better than Pascal, so everything hinged on the hype of the added functions. The snafu was in the timing, those added functions weren't ready in time, the hardware beat them out so the hardware doesn't have anything to showcase. 
  • PhryPhry Member LegendaryPosts: 11,004
    msnbc etc. are like the huff post, never take them seriously. Same pretty much with Morgan Stanley, they aren't tech, i'd be looking for validation from more credible sources before reading too much into it all. :/
    Torval
  • HashbrickHashbrick Member RarePosts: 1,851
    Despite the ridiculous asking price, I'm not sure how they figured out their stats.  This is the first single card to run 4k above 60fps.  There is also untapped potential as games start coming out supporting RTX that performance boost will be much larger.  But even at it's core it's way more than just 3%...Morgan Stanley let the fuckin tech guys do the reviews...
    [[ DEAD ]] - Funny - I deleted my account on the site using the cancel account button.  Forum user is separate and still exists with no way of deleting it. Delete it admins. Do it, this ends now.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 20,629
    Ridelynn said:
    Yeah I don't think this played out quite the way that nVidia planned. This is a minor drop in price, so it's mostly just a clickbait headline, but it's interesting none the less.

    Had they paired the release with some actual Raytracing-enabled shipping software (by waiting a few weeks for Windows to catch up, for example), you could have been looking at an entirely different narrative. Without raytracing (and DLSS to a smaller extent) to showcase the difference in Turing, all anyone had to look at was the increase in price for .... the promise of something to come in the future.

    (not saying I buy into the raytracing thing as it has been presented by nVidia so far, but with nothing available now it's a moot point ... )

    I don't think many companies will intentionally suppress their stock just so they can set up for the rebound later on.. I wouldn't say never, but I'm sure it's against some SEC regulation (otherwise, companies would do it all the time for stock buybacks, then rebound back later on to inflate their worth). It would be a big gamble even if it were a tactic - there's the strong chance you don't bounce back enough to overtake the initial loss.

    I still feel like Turing RTX was more a play for stock to buy time for their 7nm generation - they knew on rasterizing it wasn't significantly better than Pascal, so everything hinged on the hype of the added functions. The snafu was in the timing, those added functions weren't ready in time, the hardware beat them out so the hardware doesn't have anything to showcase. 
    Agreed, this didn't go down quite as nVidia hoped. I don't think nVidia intentionally tanked their stock. I think that's how they'll try to rebound and play it though. If indeed it really does materialize that way. It may not be as bad as Morgan Stanley claims.

    I do think their big hot air PR campaign didn't impress the business sector though. Wall Street wants something reliable and nVidia gave them none of that. AMD stock has been going up (mostly due to CPU stuff though) because they are delivering and the roadmap for the future is solid where it counts.

    If they do well on 7nm no will remember this anyway. Tech is weird like that.
    Ridelynn
    Fedora - A modern, free, and open source Operating System. https://getfedora.org/

    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    edited September 2018
    Sometimes you can dazzle wall street with just a lot of bravado and glitter.

    Amazon did it for years. Tesla is doing it now. 

    But eventually, Wall Street will tell you to show them the money. You can't baffle them with bullshit forever.
    Torval
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,643
    Nvidia stock dropped about 2% today, while the broader markets are up about 1%.  So on net, that's about a 3% drop as compared to the market, which is the proper metric.  So it apparently didn't perform as well as expected.

    For comparison, Nvidia stock is up about 3% since announcing Turing, while the S&P 500 as a whole is also up about 3% in that time.  That means that Turing has been a net was wash as far as stock price is concerned.

    I think it's entirely appropriate for the reviews to mean Nvidia stock is down as a result of the Turing reviews, though the Morgan Stanley guy doesn't seem to know why.  There are two reasons.

    One reason is that performance per mm^2 went down.  You can ordinarily increase performance by adding die space, but it adds to the cost. That's the difference between higher and lower end cards of a given generation.  It's the reason why Pascal is a better gaming architecture than Vega:  a GTX 1080 and an RX Vega 64 are competitive in performance, but the latter takes a lot more die space to do it.

    When I've brought this up in the past, some people have been unconvinced that gamers should care about die size.  But if you're hoping to make a profit by investing in Nvidia, expenses are every bit as important as revenue.

    Performance per mm^2 going down is in spite of moving to a new and theoretically better process node, which makes it even worse.  If the GeForce RTX 2080 die had been of the Pascal architecture rather than Turing, but exactly the same die size on the same process node, and with GDDR6 instead of GDDR5X, it likely would have been about 25% faster than a GeForce GTX 1080 Ti, and for exactly the same cost of production as an RTX 2080.

    The RTX 2080 didn't get there.  While it will likely look somewhat better with driver improvements, that's probably not going to be enough to catch what Pascal could have offered.

    The second reason is that you don't get a new architecture very often.  This is Nvidia's first since Maxwell in 2014.  That its efficiency went down doesn't just mean that the RTX 2080 series isn't as efficient as expected.  It means that the GeForce 3000 and likely 4000 series are probably also going to be less efficient than you'd have expected two months ago.

    Again, I think the real problem is that Nvidia wasted too much die space on stupid stuff that doesn't matter.  I'm not sure how much space the ray tracing cores take, but I'd bet on the tensor cores taking quite a bit.  Suppose that you were going to buy one of the new cards and had the choice between:

    1)  The option to run DLSS on the cards as they are,
    2)  A 10% lower price tag, but no DLSS, or
    3)  A 10% performance increase across the board, but no DLSS

    Nvidia basically had that choice and went with option (1).  I doubt that that is what very many gamers would have chosen.  The 10% figure is something pulled out of thin air, but there is some percentage figure, and it could as easily be larger than that as smaller.

    Maybe Nvidia can redo Turing without the tensor cores on 7 nm and get the die space savings back.  But historically, they haven't been able to get major mid-architecture efficiency gains like that, apart from the Fermi respin to fix yields.
    MadFrenchieTorval
  • RidelynnRidelynn Member EpicPosts: 7,143
    Interesting looking at this now a few days removed. Stock price has rebounded some from RTX announcement but it still down noticeably overall for the month.
    Torval
  • OzmodanOzmodan Member EpicPosts: 9,726
    Hashbrick said:
    Despite the ridiculous asking price, I'm not sure how they figured out their stats.  This is the first single card to run 4k above 60fps.  There is also untapped potential as games start coming out supporting RTX that performance boost will be much larger.  But even at it's core it's way more than just 3%...Morgan Stanley let the fuckin tech guys do the reviews...
    Actually the extra memory on the 1080ti lets them beat the 20xx cards at 4k, check all the benchmarks, it is quite obvious when you read them.
  • VrikaVrika Member EpicPosts: 6,692
    Ozmodan said:
    Hashbrick said:
    Despite the ridiculous asking price, I'm not sure how they figured out their stats.  This is the first single card to run 4k above 60fps.  There is also untapped potential as games start coming out supporting RTX that performance boost will be much larger.  But even at it's core it's way more than just 3%...Morgan Stanley let the fuckin tech guys do the reviews...
    Actually the extra memory on the 1080ti lets them beat the 20xx cards at 4k, check all the benchmarks, it is quite obvious when you read them.
    Actually no. RTX 2080 Ti is hands-down fastest card and it has just as much memory as GTX 1080 Ti. Your claim is complete hoghwash.

    If you meant to compare GTX 1080 Ti to RTX 2080, then they trade blows with each other, but overall RTX 2080 is still a bit faster. GTX 1080 is a lot better price/performance ratio.
    Ozmodan
     
  • QuizzicalQuizzical Member LegendaryPosts: 22,643
    Ozmodan said:
    Hashbrick said:
    Despite the ridiculous asking price, I'm not sure how they figured out their stats.  This is the first single card to run 4k above 60fps.  There is also untapped potential as games start coming out supporting RTX that performance boost will be much larger.  But even at it's core it's way more than just 3%...Morgan Stanley let the fuckin tech guys do the reviews...
    Actually the extra memory on the 1080ti lets them beat the 20xx cards at 4k, check all the benchmarks, it is quite obvious when you read them.
    The GeForce RTX 2080 Ti has 11 GB of memory, just like the GTX 1080 Ti.

    Monitor resolution barely affects memory requirements anymore.  It used to, when a single 1024x768 frame buffer could require a considerable fraction of the 16 MB that a video card had.  But since then, memory capacities have grown massively faster than monitor resolutions, and today, some tens of MB for a frame buffer is nearly a rounding error as compared to the several GB of memory that a video card has.  For graphics today, memory capacity requirements are mostly driven by the need to store textures in GPU memory, and higher resolution textures can inflate memory requirements in a hurry.
    Waan
Sign In or Register to comment.