[HN Gopher] Nvidia to join Dow Jones Industrial Average, replaci...
___________________________________________________________________
Nvidia to join Dow Jones Industrial Average, replacing Intel
Author : koolba
Score : 367 points
Date : 2024-11-01 22:43 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| talldayo wrote:
| > Intel shares were down 1% in extended trading on Friday. Nvidia
| shares rose 1%.
|
| Riveting
| jameslk wrote:
| DJIA is not taken very seriously outside of mainstream media it
| seems. The news loves to quote big drops or increases to the DJIA
| due to the index being price weighted. "Wow the news is saying
| the DJIA dropped 1000 points today! That's huge." Nah, that's
| like 2%
|
| This seems like another media opportunity about a nothing burger
| event for an index that has lost relevance, when other indices
| like the S&P 500 and QQQ have already incorporated NVIDIA a while
| ago. They're just playing catch up.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > DJIA is not taken very seriously outside of mainstream media
| it seems
|
| AFAIK its only real utility is if you want to make very long
| term comparisons over the years _against old values of itself_
| , where its long baseline may be valuable compared to other
| metrics that don't stretch as far.
|
| Everything else is just flim-flam for getting views/clicks or
| comforting very old viewers with something that is a familiar
| staple.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| Do any index funds track it?
| phil21 wrote:
| Quite a few, pretty much every major ETF provider should have
| one. I recall Vanguard not, and a quick google seems to
| confirm that. I do wonder why?
|
| The one I know of off the top of my head is DIA.
| staticman2 wrote:
| The dow is price weighted. Vanguard, being a sort of non
| profit, probably doesn't want people investing in an
| obviously horrible index that should have gone away decades
| ago.
| Ekaros wrote:
| They don't care about people investing in losing bets.
| But they care about wasting resources on running stuff
| that does not sell. And not having a plus followed by big
| number and percentage sign in column next to name is bad
| seller.
|
| In the end how funds are marketed and presented is
| important part to understand. Also it is better for them
| to sell actively managed fund with bigger number on it
| than index with negative one.
| quickthrowman wrote:
| > I recall Vanguard not, and a quick google seems to
| confirm that. I do wonder why?
|
| It's a crappy price weighted benchmark with 30 stocks
| invented over 100 years ago, that's why Vanguard doesn't
| offer a fund.
|
| The largest DJIA ETF is small potatoes, SPY's average daily
| volume is higher than DIA's _total assets under
| management_.
|
| VOO tracks the S&P 500 and VTI tracks the US total market,
| both of these are much better, more diversified options for
| equity investing.
| stocknoob wrote:
| 100%. It's a good example of how the media wants to entertain,
| not inform.
|
| The DJIA is a price-weighted index and doesn't track dividends,
| yet is somehow supposed to reflect investor sentiment.
| bradleyjg wrote:
| _the media wants to entertain, not inform_
|
| The media wants to not go bankrupt. It's the customers that
| decide whether and how that's possible.
| thimabi wrote:
| > The media wants to not go bankrupt.
|
| I'd say that depends. Many media organizations operate
| without profits -- or even incurring losses -- in order to
| serve the public good, promote an ideology, engage in
| activism, spread misinformation, etc.
| hackernewds wrote:
| spread misinformation? which major media operations are
| operating at a loss how for the public good (discounting
| state run) and how?
| thimabi wrote:
| > spread misinformation?
|
| Yes, several state-run and private media organizations
| operate without profits or at a loss in order to spread
| misinformation.
|
| > which major media operations are operating at a loss
| how for the public good (discounting state run) and how?
|
| Sorry, I was unable to properly understand your question.
|
| In any case, I never said the organizations that are not
| primarily concerned with chasing profits are "major"
| ones. I believe that applies best to lesser-well-known
| entities, like those who live on social media or the
| blogosphere. Though there are some instances of major
| state-run companies, even on TV and on the radio, that
| operate in a similar fashion.
|
| Also, I am surely not equating the spread of
| misinformation with serving the public good -- these are
| just distinct objectives that may be sought by media
| organizations, rather than avoiding bankruptcy.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| As one example, the Chicago NPR affiliate, WBEZ, acquired
| the Chicago _Sun-Times_ as what was widely described as a
| "no-cash" deal.[1] A rather more truthful description is
| that WBEZ was _paid_ $61 million (largely through
| philanthropic support) to take over a long-ailing
| newspaper, as described by the city 's _other_ long-
| ailing paper, the _Chicago Tribune_ :
|
| "Chicago Sun-Times becomes nonprofit newspaper with $61
| million in backing as WBEZ merger closes"
|
| <https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/01/31/chicago-sun-
| times-...>
|
| Of newspapers operating at a loss or as philanthropies,
| there are the _Baltimore Banner_ ,[2] _The Guardian_ ,[3]
| and ProPublica,[4] which all operate as non-profits,
| relying on a mix of advertising, subscriptions, and
| philanthropy. The privately-held, for-profit _Washington
| Post_ is a for-profit paper that 's operated at a loss
| for years, and this before losing ~10% of its subscribers
| due to recent editorial decisions.[4][5]
|
| There are numerous propaganda institutions (usually
| labeled as "think tanks") promulgating various ideologies
| or interests, with the Atlas Network being amongst the
| largest and most influential:
|
| <https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Atlas_Networ
| k>
|
| ________________________________
|
| Notes:
|
| 1. See for example the WSJ's coverage: "Chicago Public
| Media to Acquire Chicago Sun-Times, Creating a Nonprofit
| Local-News Powerhouse"
| <https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chicago-public-media-
| to-acq...> archive/paywall: <https://archive.is/LP3Q6>.
|
| 2. A non-profit newspaper established in 2022:
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Baltimore_Banner>.
|
| 3. A slightly dated take on 2016 turmoil at _The
| Guardian_ : "Everything you need to know about the
| Guardian's giant bust-up" (2026-5-18)
| <https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-
| life/fueding-and...> and Wikipedia's entry on the Scott
| Trust Limited which underwrites the paper:
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Trust_Limited>.
|
| 4. ProPublica was established as a 501(c)(3) in 2007,
| with funding from the Sandler, Knight, MacArthur, and
| Ford foundations, along with the Pew Charitable Trusts,
| Carnegie Corporation, and Atlantic Philanthropies:
| <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ProPublica>.
|
| 5. "The Washington Post publisher disclosed the paper
| lost $77 million last year. Here's his plan to turn it
| around" (2024-5-23)
| <https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/23/media/washington-post-
| will-le...>
|
| 6. "Washington Post cancellations hit 250,000 - 10% of
| subscribers" (2024-10-29) <https://www.theguardian.com/me
| dia/2024/oct/29/washington-pos...>
| bradleyjg wrote:
| That's just a different set of customers ("patrons").
| dredmorbius wrote:
| No.
|
| For most of the listed orgs, it's a different business
| organisation (not-for-profit rather than shareholder-
| based), the organisations aren't intended to run an
| operating profit, and the content is available to far
| more than just those who pay directly for access.
|
| Mind that in the case of ad-supported print media, the
| principle customers (the advertisers) weren't identical
| with the set of readers. But access was _largely_ limited
| to those who subscribed directly, bought a newsstand
| copy, or could access a copy obtained by either method.
| In either case the operation was generally intended to
| run a profit.
|
| There have also been free papers, either supported
| _entirely_ by advertising (frequently "entertainment
| weeklies"), _or_ published as propaganda organs for a
| given organisation, frequently religious or political.
| pessimizer wrote:
| The Guardian has turned a profit in maybe 4 of the last
| 30 years.
| refulgentis wrote:
| Or it's a time-honored way, neutral, way to communicate the
| impact of business news. YMMV, in my experience not based not
| on facts, but how willing I am to catastrophize things in
| order to make things I don't like simple to blame on someone.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _It's a good example of how the media wants to entertain,
| not inform_
|
| It's a good example of the media being split into two
| populations. The free media, which is filler for ads. And
| media one pays for. The financial press isn't really
| headlining this story; it's on CNBC.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| > nothing burger event for an index that has lost relevance
|
| This argument has been around since time immemorial. The right
| way to think of it is more like a country club or a who's who,
| rather than a survey or a directory.
|
| As for the news at hand, it's really more about Intel than
| Nvidia. Sic transit gloria mundi.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Intel hasn't been in the country club for 10+ years.
| worstspotgain wrote:
| If you exclude its pre-Athlon Nvidia-like era, Intel's
| market cap earlier this year was only ~20% below its
| 2020ish peak.
|
| It has engineers. It might yet surprise. Nvidia hasn't
| proven it can turn a ridiculous amount of capital into a
| matrix-multiplication moat.
| rty32 wrote:
| This could be very wrong, but I thought DJIA is relevant mostly
| due to WSJ? Most publications care about S&P 500, but in WSJ
| they always quote DJIA first (for obvious reasons) and maybe
| mention S&P 500.
| anonu wrote:
| The Dow Jones corp used to own the index and the newspaper
| prior to the mid 2000s. Now, News Corp runs the WSJ and the
| index is mostly owned and run by S&P. So there is a
| historical connection and probably some legacy ownership
| today.
| chillingeffect wrote:
| Symbolic of the times. The new wizzy guy edges out the old school
| lumbering giant.
| mananaysiempre wrote:
| For some value of "new", anyway. I remember attending a talk on
| how GPU programming was cool and how GPGPU was the next big
| thing--in the mid 2000s, as a middle schooler. I don't believe
| CUDA was a thing yet (looking at Wikipedia, the first release
| might have been several months later?), instead Cg and
| NV_fragment_program4 were the new hotness.
| kelnos wrote:
| Eh, not really? Nvidia is 31 years old, that's hardly new or
| wizzy. Sure, Intel is a bit older at 56, but I feel like Nvidia
| has been around more than long enough.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Does that mean it's gonna top...
| bhouston wrote:
| The symbolism here is pretty nice.
| m463 wrote:
| I wonder if they have enough clout to change DJIA -> DJAI ?
| MengerSponge wrote:
| Only if they can make it French too
| knowitnone wrote:
| So you can just replace underperforming/flailing companies and
| still call it an average?
| kristopolous wrote:
| Yes that's how it's always worked
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_components_of_the...
| tedsanders wrote:
| According to this, the original DJIA was 11 stocks,
| comprising 9 railroad companies, 1 steamship company, and 1
| telegraph company. Capital was deployed very differently 140
| years ago.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| It was and wasn't.
|
| Those were the telecoms, transport, and infrastructure
| companies of their day. They connected the industrial and
| agricultural output of the United States in much the way
| Apple, Amazon, Boeing, Verizon, and Walmart (all current
| components of the DJIA) do today.
|
| That said, yes, it's interesting to watch how the
| components and industrial sectors represented change over
| time.
|
| The first DJIA proper (26 May 1896) featured cotton oil,
| sugar, tobacco, gas & coke (coal), cattle feed, electrical
| utility, lead, railroads, leather, rubber, and a holding
| company (trust) largely engaged in utilities and
| transportation, and dropped later the same year, along with
| US Rubber. Changes to the average have been a consistent
| feature to its origins.
|
| Think of those which aren't directly comparable to modern
| concerns (e.g., oil & gas, electric utilities) as raw
| materials (mining and ag), transport and logistics, and
| food (or feed).
| RobRivera wrote:
| Its not a market average, its an average of members curated by
| an arbitrary set of rules.
|
| Many exist.
|
| This is how it has always been.
| xnx wrote:
| DJIA is kind of a joke index. SP500 is much better.
| millipede wrote:
| The Dow Jones index serves a different purpose: it's meant to
| be easy to update without the use of a computer. It's easy to
| update and publish the index since the math is a lot easier,
| and doesn't involve pulling in hundreds of quotes and trying
| to tabulate a weighted average.
|
| It's not that useful now that we have computers, but in the
| early 1900s it was a reasonably good approximation of a
| market cap using fast math.
| staticman2 wrote:
| Index funds didn't exist until 1975 while the Dow was
| formed in 1896. So I suppose it didn't really matter if the
| Dow was tracking things well, it wouldn't have impacted
| your investments.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| It was still useful to have a _general_ idea of how stock
| markets were valued, particularly in light of the events
| on and about 29 October 1929, a /k/a Black Tuesday.
| Valuation of equities markets themselves has a profound
| impact on the monetary and financial systems as a whole.
|
| On which point, John K. Galbraith's _The Great Crash:
| 1929_ (1954) remains an excellent history of those events
| (and notes the DJIA 's value frequently), as well as a
| general primer on equities and investments, and how they
| may go wrong.
| irjustin wrote:
| Wonder how much DJIA had to give to get them to list.
| bityard wrote:
| Yes, it is entirely symbolic and has been for decades. The
| only purpose it really serves is differentiating those who
| know a little bit about stock markets and those who don't.
| It's annoying that serious media outlets continue to publish
| it, alongside valid indexes, implying that it has anywhere
| near the same level of legitimacy. Also, I don't like it.
| mrtransient wrote:
| May I know why you consider it a joke? I obviously have no
| much clue about it all
| sooheon wrote:
| If you want to estimate the stock market, would you rather:
|
| 1. sum 500 of the biggest companies by size (price * n
| shares).
|
| or
|
| 2. have WSJ editors select 30 companies by any criteria
| they see fit, but you don't get to see the size of the
| companies, only the share price.
| dredmorbius wrote:
| Note that the DJIA also _changes constantly over time_
| (as discussed elsewhere in this thread), as do the
| weights assigned to the individual companies constituting
| it.
|
| The way that the DJIA changes isn't the same as an index
| of, say, the _n_ most highly capitalised equities might
| (Fortune 5, 10, 20, S &P 500, etc.).
| dkrich wrote:
| I love that so many people keep saying this so confidently
| yet if anyone bothered to look they'd see that the
| correlation between the two is nearly perfect over any
| timeframe including the past five years
| nextworddev wrote:
| This is how the dump begins. Onto the index huggers and pension
| funds
| bhouston wrote:
| You are correct, this will affect both Intel and NVIDIA's stock
| prices, although it may already have been baked in depending
| how predictable this was.
|
| Index funds are big business. Dropping Intel and replacing it
| with NVIDIA will cause a rebalancing of the DJIA index fund
| investments from Intel to NVIDIA. Yup, there is an index
| premium.
| khuey wrote:
| Major index funds don't follow the DJIA. $DIA has 5% of $SPY's
| assets under management.
| nextworddev wrote:
| That's half the story, there's a lot of private funds that
| passively track as well, it just comes down to what's the net
| flow due to rebalance of public + private indices. Could be a
| lot, could be that much
| bhouston wrote:
| DIA has ~$35.62 billion, IYY has ~$2.5B in the DJIA. There
| are only 30 companies in it (~$12T total value), so it
| averages $1.1B per company.
|
| But the S&P 500 index funds has somewhere around ~$2.5T
| invested, but that is spread across 500 companies (~$40T
| total valuation), so it averages $5B per company.
|
| Thus you are correct the S&P 500 is more influential in terms
| of index fund reallocations, but only roughly 5x more
| influential.
| sooheon wrote:
| Put another way, IYY and DIA combined hold <0.1% of NVDA's
| market cap.
| bhouston wrote:
| Sure but the daily volume is only $300M.
| tripletao wrote:
| I think you're looking at the volume in shares per day,
| not dollars per day.
| bhouston wrote:
| You are correct. The daily volume is ~300,042,864 x 135.
| staticman2 wrote:
| The dow has nothing to do with index funds. The dow
| industrial average is price weighted. The s&p 500 is market
| weighted. No competent index would follow the dow- it
| doesn't even make sense conceptually, it has zero relation
| to the economics of the companies when you use price
| weighting, and 30 companies is a stupid low number.
|
| There is, as far as I can tell, zero point to the dow, it's
| a completely useless tracker that is reported on because
| people talk about it because it's reported on.
| bhouston wrote:
| > The dow has nothing to do with index funds
|
| I am not sure what point you're making but there is ~$38B
| invested in index funds (the ones I mention in the
| previous post) that track the DJIA.
|
| Granted it is a fraction of the index funds which track
| the S&P 500.
| dkrich wrote:
| This may make sense in theory but in reality is wrong.
| The DJIA has historically had a very close correlation to
| the S&P. Plus there is an inescapable psychological
| aspect to the Dow that is unique. When the Dow is off
| 1500 points it hits much differently than the S&P falling
| 200 points.
| dubcanada wrote:
| I have a feeling that is because every company in the
| DJIA is also in S&P, and most are very heavily weighted
| in S&P. Rather then companies within the DJIA doing as
| good as companies in the S&P.
| tripletao wrote:
| The S&P 500 is cap-weighted, so the average value per
| company is meaningless. Nvidia is currently 7% of the
| index, while the smallest member is 0.01%.
|
| Since Nvidia was already a part of the S&P 500 (and other
| similar indices) prior to its big run, those index
| investors generally profited from its rise. New flows into
| those funds do help prop it up, though.
|
| The DJIA is a weird historical relic, and there's little
| reason for anyone to buy a fund tracking it. It's possible
| that those who did anyways will end up holding a tiny
| fraction of the bag due to this change, but it's not a big
| effect.
| mrtransient wrote:
| Could you please explain how do you see the proposed dump?
| nextworddev wrote:
| Pumping a big momentum trade and selling it upon index
| rebalance is a classic buy side trade
| mynegation wrote:
| Index funds follow indices and to follow an index asset
| manager holds a weighted basket of respective stocks. If
| stock is excluded from the index, asset manager sell it off
| and that puts downward pressure on the stock price. Reverse
| happens if stock is included into the index.
| jruz wrote:
| That's what common sense makes you think, reality is big
| money needs someone to sell into their NVDA stock and this
| is how they do it. Just look at what happens to the stocks
| every time they get added or removed from the index, the
| complete opposite of common sense.
| csomar wrote:
| Liquidity is held by funds. Funds (some of them pensions)
| have rules where to allocate. They just follow these rules
| and allocate. Now this change will change the allocation to
| Nvidia. Investors can tap into this liquidity. The $$$ are
| then transferred from the funds (some of them are pensions,
| uh I mentioned that) to the investors.
|
| AI bubble then burst. Funds are "adjusted" and someone is not
| getting his pension.
| coffeebeqn wrote:
| Index huggers already own plenty of Nvidia (and Intel)? SP500
| and total stock market funds have 4-7% in Nvidia at this point
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Intel's CEO wanted to buy NVidia 20 years ago. Unfortunately for
| Intel, the board of directors killed the proposal as "too
| expensive" at $20B. Granted no one could see the future of AI on
| GPUs, but think of the ROI on that investment.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Nvidia would've acquired the culture of Intel, so it wouldn't
| be the company it was today if that happened.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Not sure that would have mattered once LLMs emerged. NVidia's
| success is mostly a matter of being the only major advanced
| GPU player at the time when LLMs exploded onto the scene.
| That won't be the case for long. The big players are already
| heavily investing in high performance AI chips to wean
| themselves off a dependance on NVidia.
| kiratp wrote:
| Nvidia's success is due to a decade+ of investment into
| their software stack (CUDA and friends), built on a world
| view that more software can and should be massively
| parallel.
|
| They were a key cause for LLMs being a thing in the first
| place.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| This. I worked in HPC between 2010 and 2013, and people
| were trying to compete with NVidia in the GPGPU space
| even back then, seeing the way the wind was blowing.
| Compute bandwidth, and FLOPS/watt has steadily been more
| and more important the last 15 years, even before AI.
|
| NVidia has continued to stay ahead because every
| alternative to CUDA is half baked trash, even when the
| silicone make sense. As a tech company, trading $$ for
| time not spent dealing with compatibility bugs and broken
| drivers pretty much _always_ makes business sense.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| > half baked trash
|
| > dealing with compatibility bugs
|
| > broken drivers
|
| Describes my experience trying to use CUDA perfectly.
|
| We have a long way to go and we haven't even started yet.
| initplus wrote:
| Given that experience, think about what state the
| alternatives must be in!
| disgruntledphd2 wrote:
| To be fair, Cuda has improved a lot since 2014 or so. I
| messed up my Linux box multiple times trying to install
| Cuda but the last time it was just apt install and maybe
| setting ld library and it all just worked.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| It's pretty bad. just when you think you can order AMD
| chips since there is no shortage, and use a translation
| layer and have a cheap AI datacenter, it turns out AMD is
| fumbling the ball at every step of the way
| bottled_poe wrote:
| It's interesting. They have had plenty of time and
| resources available to mount solid competition. Why
| haven't they? Is it a talent hiring problems or some more
| fundamental problem with their engineering processes? The
| writing has been on the wall for gpgpu for more than 10
| years. Definitely enough time to catch up.
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Have you tried Vulkan Compute or OpenCL? I recommend
| evaluating this relatively, vice compared to an ideal.
| neurostimulant wrote:
| Wasn't Intel's commercial compiler also dominated HPC
| space around that time period? I remember back then
| people would use cuda and icc for hpc stuff.
| rbanffy wrote:
| I believe their compilers still dominate in CPU-bound
| workloads.
| knappe wrote:
| I can't speak to modern hpc, since I've been out of the
| game for a few years but icc was absolutely the preferred
| compiler for almost any workload and Intel procs were the
| desired hardware to run on. AMD was joked about as the
| only reason Intel wasn't considered a monopoly at the
| time and that Intel would happily take wheelbarrows of
| cash over to AMD to prop them up, just to ensure they
| didn't even appear like a monopoly. But no one in the
| field was buying AMD procs for their workloads.
| ghaff wrote:
| Nvidia did a lot of things right. But it sure didn't hurt
| that the crypto bubble gave way to LLMs with almost
| perfect timing. Luck favors the prepared and all that but
| Nvidia also would have had trouble timing market changes
| better.
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Yeah, exactly, it has never been clear that we would find
| a use for parallel computation outside of niches like
| graphics and HPC. And in fact most of the history of
| computing has been evidence of the opposite: useful
| computation has been predominantly serial in nature. But
| here we are now.
| FredPret wrote:
| Nvidia did ride a perfect storm of gaming + bitcoin + AI.
|
| But AMD and others could have done the same, had they
| been better at riding that wave. There's a reason it was
| _Nvidia_ who won out.
| llm_trw wrote:
| More than a decade.
|
| I was using it as soon as it came out in 2007 and my
| dinky desktop workstation was out performing the main
| frame in the basement.
| mullingitover wrote:
| > a world view that more software can and should be
| massively parallel.
|
| Twenty years ago I was thinking we'd be speccing machines
| in kilocores by now.
| epcoa wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| 128 and 512 cores are normal now, so not that far off.
| Keyframe wrote:
| 4090 has 16384 cuda cores, so there's that!
| atq2119 wrote:
| Nvidia's marketing is misleading. Those "cuda cores" are
| more SIMD lanes than cores. Number of SMs is a more
| appropriate equivalent to CPU core count.
| Keyframe wrote:
| you're right
| dahart wrote:
| Are you sure that isn't what @mullingitover meant?
|
| > Number of SMs is a more appropriate equivalent to CPU
| core count.
|
| What do you mean by this? Why should an SM be considered
| equivalent to a CPU core? An SM can do 128 simultaneous
| adds and/or multiplies in a single cycle, where a CPU
| core can do, what, 2 or maybe 4? Obviously depends on the
| CPU / core / hyperthreading / # math pipelines / etc.,
| but the SM to CPU-core ratio of the number of
| simultaneous calculation is in the double digits. It's a
| tradeoff where the GPU has some restrictions in return
| for being able to do many multiples more at the same
| time.
|
| If you consider an SM and a CPU equivalent, then the SM's
| perf can exceed the CPU core by ~2 orders of magnitude --
| is that the comparison you want? If you consider a GPU
| thread lane and a CPU thread lane equivalent, the the GPU
| thread lane is slower and more restricted. Neither
| comparison is apples to apples, CPUs and GPUs are made
| for different workloads, but arguing that an SM is
| equivalent to a CPU core seems equally or more
| "misleading" when you're leaving out the tradeoff.
|
| I'd argue that comparing SMs to cores is misleading and
| that it makes more sense to compare chips is by their
| thread counts. Or, don't compare cores at all and just
| look at the performance in, say, FLOPS.
| atq2119 wrote:
| A single Zen5 core can do 32 single precision FMAs per
| clock.
|
| That's using SIMD, but so is Nvidia for all intents and
| purposes. Those "cuda cores" aren't truly independent:
| when their execution diverges, masking is used pretty
| much like you'd do in CPU SIMD.
|
| A lot of the control logic is per-SM or perhaps per-SIMD
| unit -- there are multiple of those per SM. You could
| perhaps make a case that it's the individual SIMDs which
| correspond to CPU cores (that makes the flops line up
| even more closely). It depends on what the goal of the
| comparison is.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| > An SM can do 128 simultaneous adds and/or multiplies in
| a single cycle, where a CPU core can do, what, 2 or maybe
| 4?
|
| https://images.nvidia.com/aem-
| dam/Solutions/geforce/news/rtx...
|
| An SM is split into four identical blocks, and I would
| say each block is roughly equivalent to a CPU core. It
| has a scheduler, registers, 32 ALUs or FPUs, and some
| other stuff.
|
| A CPU core with two AVX-512 units can do several integer
| operations plus 32 single-precision operations (including
| FMA) per cycle. Not 2 or 4. An older CPU with 2-3 AVX2
| units could fall slightly behind, but it's pretty close.
|
| That doesn't factor in the tensor units, but they're less
| general purpose, and CPUs usually put such things outside
| the cores.
|
| I would say an SM is roughly equivalent to four CPU
| cores.
| dahart wrote:
| Yeah I totally forgot to consider CPU SIMD. Brain fart.
| The other comment corrected me too, you're both right.
| When I said 2 or 4, I was thinking of the SISD math pipe
| and not AVX instructions.
|
| Yes, considering CPU SIMD, maybe comparing a CPU core to
| a CUDA warp makes some sense in some situations. The peak
| FLOPS rate is still so much higher on Nvidia though, that
| the comparison hardly makes sense. So yeah like I and the
| other commenter mentioned, it depends entirely on what
| comparison is being made.
| seanhunter wrote:
| 100%. If you ever tried to build pytorch (or tensorflow)
| gpu accellerated using NVidia vs AMD it was absolutely
| chalk and cheese for the longest time.
|
| Nvidia/CUDA process: Download package. Run the build. It
| works. Run your thing- it's GPU accelerated. Go get a
| beer/coffee/whatever while your net runs.
|
| AMD process: Download package. Run the build. Debug
| failure. Read lots of articles about which patches to
| apply. Apply the patches. Run the build. It fails again.
| Shit. OK ok now I know what to do. I need a special fork
| of the package. go get that. Find it doesn't actually
| have the same API that the latest pytorch/tf relies on.
| OK downgrade those to an earlier version. OK now we're
| good. Run the build again. Aw shit. That failed again.
| More web searches. Oh ok now I know - there's some other
| patches you need to apply to this branch. OK cool. Now it
| compiles. Install the package. Run the thing. Huh. That's
| weird. GPU accelleration isn't on.... sigh....
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| This seems to have cause and effect backwards. LLMs emerged
| because of Nvidia.
| dagmx wrote:
| LLMs absolutely did not emerge because of NVIDIA. you're
| the one imho who is mistaking correlation with causality.
|
| The first transformer models were developed at Google.
| NVIDIA were the card du jour for accelerating it in the
| years since and have contributed research too, but your
| statement goes way too far
| BobbyJo wrote:
| I think their point is that easily accessible hardware
| capable of supporting the research is the reason the
| research has come as far as it has, and I would tend to
| agree. At the very least, GPUs keeping the PCI ecosystem
| going has played a major role in allowing the specialized
| accelerator market to flourish.
| dagmx wrote:
| But that could apply to any of the GPU manufacturers.
| CUDA made for an easier ecosystem but if it didn't exist
| it would have been any of the other APIs.
|
| The first transformer models didn't even use CUDA and
| CUDA didn't have mass ecosystem inroads till years later.
|
| I'm not trying to downplay NVIDIA but they specifically
| mentioned cause and effect, and then said it was because
| of NVIDIA.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| First transformer != LLM. Imagine a world where you had
| to use AMD or CPUs, there would be no AlexNet, there
| would be no LLMs. Nvidia seeded universities with gifted
| hardware accelerators for a over a decade. Nvidia built
| the foundations for modern ML on which transformer lies,
| it's just one step on a long road to LLMs.
| dagmx wrote:
| AMD had GPU compute APIs at the time as well. They also
| used to contribute GPUs (albeit in much smaller
| quantities). They just ended up killing them in favor of
| OpenCL which then withered on the vine.
|
| NVIDIA absolutely contributed to the foundation but they
| are not the foundation alone.
|
| Alexnet was great research but they could have done the
| same on other vendors at the time too. The hardware
| didn't exist in a vacuum.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Alexnet could not have been done on AMD, nope.
| dagmx wrote:
| Please, this is just revisionism. There's nothing
| inherent to AlexNet that relied on NVIDIA hardware or
| even software. It was just what happened to be available
| and most straightforward at the time.
|
| To say it wouldn't have been possible on AMD is ludicrous
| and there is a pattern to your comments where you dismiss
| any other companies efforts or capabilities, but are
| quite happy to lay all the laurels on NVIDIA.
|
| The reality is that multiple companies and individuals
| got us to where we are, and multiple products could have
| done the same. That's not to take away from NVIDIA's
| success, it's well earned, but if you took them out of
| the equation, there's nothing that would have prevented
| the tech existing.
| hnlmorg wrote:
| The crux of the issue is this:
|
| > It was just what happened to be available and most
| straightforward at the time
|
| AMD made better hardware for a while and people wanted
| OpenCL to succeed. The reason why nvidia became dominant
| was because their competitors simply weren't good enough
| for general purpose parallel compute.
|
| Would AI still have happened without CUDA? Almost
| certainly. However nvidia still had a massive role in
| shaping what it looks like today.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Many people here are heavily invested in NVDA stock,
| which certainly clouds the judgement.
| dagmx wrote:
| That's my take away too, even though I'm invested myself.
| The discussion around them has transcended into
| mythology. Imho part of it is because GPUs themselves are
| so foreign to many people as a development target and so
| they're not really as aware of the landscape
| physicsguy wrote:
| OpenCL itself is kinda fine, but the libraries never
| existed because every academic from postdoc up could get
| a free NVidia card. You literally filled a form out and
| they sent you it.
| dagmx wrote:
| I agree the library situation for OpenCL never stood up.
| Khronos tried at the start but then lost steam.
|
| It's one of the projects I think the Khronos group
| mishandled the most unfortunately.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Do they have a project that achieved success?
| echoangle wrote:
| OpenGL, Vulkan, WebGL?
| dagmx wrote:
| Here's a list of projects
|
| https://www.khronos.org/
|
| If I were to categorize the successful ones:
|
| glTF, KTX, SPIR-V, OpenGL and its variants, WebGL
|
| People will say Vulkan but it has the same level of
| adoption as OpenCL, and has the same issue that it
| competes against vendor specific APIs (DX and Metal) that
| are just better to use. It's still used though of course
| as a translation target but imho that doesn't qualify it
| as a success.
|
| OpenCL was and is a failure of grand magnitude. As was
| colada.
| BobbyJo wrote:
| > The first transformer models didn't even use CUDA and
| CUDA didn't have mass ecosystem inroads till years later.
|
| I graduated college in 2010 and I took a class taught in
| CUDA before graduating. CUDA was a primary driver of NN
| research at the time. Sure, other tools were available,
| but CUDA allowed people to build and distribute actually
| useful software which further encouraged the space.
|
| Could things have happened without it? Yeah, for sure,
| but it would have taken a good deal longer.
| llm_trw wrote:
| I was around the space before Alexnet came out. Without
| NVidia the last 15 years of AI would not have happened.
|
| Deep learning was only possible because you could do it
| on NVidia cards with Cuda without having to use the big
| machines in the basement.
|
| Trying to convince anyone that neural networks could be
| useful in 2009 was impossible - I got a grant declined
| and my PhD supervisor told me to drop the useless tech
| and focus on something better like support vector
| machines.
| dagmx wrote:
| I was around then too and people forget that AMD also had
| GPU compute APIs.
|
| The difference is AMD killed theirs to use OpenCL and
| NVIDIA kept CUDA around as well.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Just like how ROCm is supposed to be competitive today
| and it isn't unless you have an army of grad students to
| look after your data center cards.
|
| I tried using AMD Stream and it lacked documentation,
| debugging information and most of the tools needed to get
| anything done without a large team of experts. NVidia by
| comparison could - and was - used by single grad students
| on their franken-stations which we build out of gaming
| GPUs.
|
| The less we talk about the disaster that the move to
| opencl was the better.
| dagmx wrote:
| I agree ROCm was a mess and only recently is even really
| usable.
|
| That said ROCm is quite a recent thing borne out of
| acknowledging that OpenCL 2 was a disaster.
|
| OpenCL 1 had a reasonable shot and was gaining adoption
| but 2 scuppered it.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Did you ever train anything past mnist on AMD? I try
| every five years or so and promise myself never again
| each and every time.
| dagmx wrote:
| Not with Rocm since I've moved my personal stack to
| NVIDIA (for rendering) and Macs for day to day use.
|
| I did write quite a bit of OpenCL prior to that on
| Intel/AMd/NVIDIA, both for training and for general
| rendering though, and did some work with Stream before
| then.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Was it OpenCL1? That's the only one I hadn't tried out
| for AMD GPUs. Everything else I have and can say with
| absolute certainty that you spend more time fighting the
| hardware than you did writing code.
|
| Cuda by comparison JustWorks^tm.
| dagmx wrote:
| Both 1 and 2. I haven't done much with 3 as OpenCL is
| effectively a dead api at this point.
|
| 1 was definitely a lot easier to work with than 2. CUDA
| is easier than both but I don't think I hit anything I
| could do in CUDA that I couldn't do in OpenCL, though
| CUDA of course had a larger ecosystem of existing
| libraries.
| llm_trw wrote:
| Damn, I missed the best one.
|
| Thanks for the trip down memory lane.
| aledalgrande wrote:
| I was not a PhD, but I studied both around that period in
| university and can confirm that neural networks were only
| seen as a kind of theoretical plaything. All the
| libraries were pushing SVMs.
| deelowe wrote:
| As someone who's intimately familiar with both cultures,
| I'm convinced Intel would have killed any innovation Nvidia
| had going for it before it had a chance to really take off.
|
| Management at the two could not be more opposite if they
| tried.
| daedrdev wrote:
| Surely intel would have killed off CUDA
| grogenaut wrote:
| Intels 3rd wave management by MBA would have ruined nvidia
| way back then forcing them into something dumb and blocked
| all of the R&D they did since since that's what they also
| did at intel.
| astrange wrote:
| Other companies are capable of making big GPUs; they aren't
| the only TSMC customer. Intel themselves have perfectly
| fine GPUs. Their issue is that their management never
| allocates enough space in their chips to let them perform
| well.
|
| Nvidia's advantage is that they have by far the most
| complete programming ecosystem for them. (Also honestly...
| they're a meme stock.)
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Other companies don't have CUDA.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Nvidia will make general purpose GPUs while the AI players
| will make ASICS. I guess most data center will prefer GPUs
| so customers can run whatever AI model they need.
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| I think this undersells the story. NVidia's success is
| built on innovating and scaling for 20 years. Vastly
| oversimplifying it:
|
| - CUDA conception in 2006 to build super computers for
| scientific computing.
|
| - CUDA influencing CPU designs to be dual purpose, with
| major distinction of RAM amounts (for scientific compute
| you need a lot more RAM compared to gaming)
|
| - Crypto craze driving extreme consumer GPU demand which
| enabled them to invest heavily into RND and scale up
| production.
|
| - AI workload explosion arriving right as the crypto demand
| was dying down.
|
| - Consistently great execution, or at least not making any
| major blunders, during all of the above.
| no_wizard wrote:
| It's more no major blunders + no real major competition,
| they have not consistently "executed great", it's dumb
| luck + no extremely stupid decisions.
|
| It doesn't mean they didn't make a bunch of mistakes its
| that when they did there was no competition to to
| realistically turn towards, and they fixed a lot of their
| mistakes.
| Shorel wrote:
| You are completely ignoring the impacts of Covid and GPU
| cryptocurrency mining on Nvidia profits.
|
| It could have been AMD/ATI profiting from such random
| events, as they were the ones that financed AI development.
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| BTW, when GPUs were used for Bitcoin mining (up until
| year 2013, obsoleted by spacialized chips after that),
| AMD chips were used exclusively, because they had much
| better integer math performance, compared to Nvidia
| cards, which focused on floating point performance.
| kylebenzle wrote:
| And when the LLM hype dies NVDA will be the hardest to
| fall.
| albertop wrote:
| 100% on target. The Intel culture was a big contributor to
| Intel fall.
| hinkley wrote:
| And the danger of Nvidia buying Intel is the same.
|
| See also MD/Boeing
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Nvidia buying Intel would be doing Intel a great service.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Does nvidia contribute anything to OSS? Its drivers are
| closed, that much I know. Whereas intel is the top corp
| contributor to the Linux kernel
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Nvidia buying Intel would mean some damn fast CPUs. I'd
| like to see that.
| homebrewer wrote:
| And most likely the death of Intel being one of the
| largest contributors to the Linux kernel.
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Can you expand on what is the Intel culture and why it would
| hurt growth?
| pixelpoet wrote:
| Some of my favourite reading on this topic is Matt Pharr's
| retrospective on ISPC:
| https://pharr.org/matt/blog/2018/04/30/ispc-all
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Second this. A great read in general and, to the extent
| that it's accurate, very instructive about dysfunction at
| Intel.
| princearthur wrote:
| I doubt they would have actually merged operations. The NIH
| at Intel is so strong that it would have virtually
| annihilated it otherwise.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Indeed. A friend of a friend of a friend was in the room when
| the decision was made. The reason for not buying: Huang won't
| be a team player and is hard to work with.
|
| So yes, they would have tried to integrate it into the rest
| of Intel.
| thijson wrote:
| Just look at what happened to Altera under Intel.
| Preacquisition it was similar in size to Xilinx. Now it's
| just a shadow of its former self, latest few quarters shows
| it in the red. The person they have in charge of it. Sandra
| Rivera was formerly the head of HR.
|
| From 2019 to 2021, Rivera was Intel's chief people officer,
| leading the company's Human Resources organization
| worldwide.
|
| I heard a rumor that Jensen wouldn't agree to the
| acquisition unless he became CEO of the combined entity.
| pseudosavant wrote:
| Intel of that era would have also required Nvidia to only fab
| their chips with Intel. That would have been fine initially
| when Intel was a process leader. But it'd have killed Nvidia
| for the last 10 years. AMD would have enjoyed a consistent
| process advantage over Nvidia.
| bogwog wrote:
| Imagine where we'd (not) be if that happened.
| Acquisitions/consolidation kill innovation.
| metadat wrote:
| And if the Intel board jumped on every expensive acquisition
| novelty that came to the table, how does that go?
|
| Everyday I look at stocks and wish I'd known to buy the ones
| that went up today.
|
| Overall, pretty uninteresting and uninsightful, unless you have
| Doc Brown's DeLorean with the Mr. Fusion upgrade (BTTF II).
| Even then, would it actually be good if you built your own
| reality to such an extent? I'm sure life's weird for the
| UHNW's, unclear if it's actually better. We're all still stuck
| on the same planet, our kids and kid's kids will all face the
| same struggles.
|
| Even still, today is a pretty interesting temporal location to
| occupy!
| mrpippy wrote:
| Not gonna say they jumped on every one, but...McAfee,
| Havok(!), Infineon's wireless business, Mobileye, etc
| metadat wrote:
| Yeah, McAfee..
|
| https://youtube.com/watch?v=bKgf5PaBzyg
|
| _metadat slowly saunters off into the nearby foggy
| embankment, disappearing, Homer Simpson style_
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| > Everyday I look at stocks and wish I'd known to buy the
| ones that went up today.
|
| You can't compare yourself to the board of the premiere
| microchip manufacturing company (at the time). They should
| have more information than you and they are paid to be making
| more informed decisions (obviously they can be wrong too).
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Before AI Nvidia made some nice money from the crypto craze.
| Also, during pandemics and after, but before AI, there was a
| severe shortage of Nvidia GPUs.
| trhway wrote:
| >during pandemics and after, but before AI, there was a
| severe shortage of Nvidia GPUs.
|
| you'd think that such multi-year shortage of a product would
| be used as an opportunity by other players to jump in and
| make great money. Yet that major machinery of capitalism is
| failing here.
| Applejinx wrote:
| Implies that 'that major machinery of capitalism' is an
| assumption. If it doesn't happen even under optimal
| conditions, you've learned something about the assumptions
| you've been taught as axioms.
| Shorel wrote:
| Intel involvement would have killed any initiative that would
| lead to what Nvidia is now.
|
| So, the ROI would have been much, much lower.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| AMD at one point wanted to buy Nvidia too.
| asah wrote:
| Every big techco was the target of numerous buyout offers along
| the way. Yahoo! tried to buy Google and Facebook got any number
| of offers.
|
| It makes sense when the growing company doesn't have a path
| forward (e.g. YouTube's bandwidth costs) or the price is truly
| crazy (e.g. WhatsApp).
|
| It's not clear to me why Instagram sold out to Facebook for
| $1B.
| wellthisisgreat wrote:
| AI wouldn't have had a future in its current form.
|
| Or maybe Intel would be partitioning off Nvidia like the memory
| unit.
| Animats wrote:
| The "Dow Jones Industrial Index" isn't that industrial any more.
| Six of the companies are financial. Only about half actually run
| factories.
| dehrmann wrote:
| And MTV doesn't play music. The DJIA is curated slice of the
| American economy with a goofy weighting.
| wodenokoto wrote:
| For what it's worth, they have MTV MEA running in my local
| gym and it plays nothing but music all the time.
| Animats wrote:
| EMA, the European Music Awards?
|
| My local gym has a tier of cable so low that they don't
| even get CNN. For music, there's K-pop.
| slater wrote:
| Middle East & Asia, I'd guess.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Ok so why switch?
| httpz wrote:
| Nobody should take Dow Jones Industrial Average seriously. It's
| only relevant because it's been around for 139 years. It only
| tracks arbitrarily selected 30 large companies and it's not even
| weighted by market cap.
|
| It was made this way because 139 years ago we didn't have
| computers and someone had to manually calculate the average.
| ulfw wrote:
| May I suggest a merger of intel with Boeing?
|
| Two back-in-the-day engineering driven future-forward companies
| and today run into the ground by Quarterly Reports And Nothing
| Else Matters culture and meandering around.
|
| They'd be a lovely cultural fit.
| tippytippytango wrote:
| A cautionary tale for Nvidia to not become the next Intel.
| guerrilla wrote:
| I've been assuming that Intel will eventually catch up, because
| that's the world we grew up in, but that's not going to happen,
| is it?
| DeathArrow wrote:
| Long time ago Nvidia tried to make it's own x86 CPU but was
| threatened with lawsuits by Intel. Now Nvidia can buy Intel for a
| song.
| h2odragon wrote:
| Just buy the patents and stuff. You wouldn't want to infect a
| working company with the Intel disease.
|
| I wonder how bad "worked as a manager at Intel" poisons a
| resume.
| result2vino wrote:
| Certainly less than the HN sewing circle (yourself included)
| would think. People that actually know what they're doing
| tend to make more informed and nuanced decisions than beating
| on their chest and yelling "Intel bad!"
| h2odragon wrote:
| I have Nothing against anyone who does the best they can in
| a bad situation.
|
| Observing Intel, my feeling has been that "best you can"
| has been "bail out" since just after the PPro. The company
| has worked hard to waste a whole generation of talent and
| possibility. It took immense effort.
|
| Anyone who looks at that performance and says "I was proud
| to be part of that" is not someone who will be happy
| working beside me, anyway.
| FredPret wrote:
| I don't know - there are a couple of companies that are a
| red flag on a resume.
|
| Some companies get results, and some specialize in
| Powerpoint and politics. It all comes down to the managers
| in charge.
|
| Would you hire a VP/manager that spent too much time at IBM
| or similar? How long can you work there without getting
| infected?
| eigenspace wrote:
| There's no way in hell Nvidia could buy Intel. There's more in
| this world than just money.
| Kwpolska wrote:
| To boards, investors, and other parasites, money is the only
| thing that matters.
| eigenspace wrote:
| Sure, but in reality money will only get them so far.
| Regulators will not allow Nvidia to buy Intel.
| dubcanada wrote:
| That's a really silly thing to say, in the sake of "buying" a
| company, nothing matters more then money lol
| eigenspace wrote:
| Maybe at small scales, but at larger scales, absolutely
| not. Among big strategically important companies, the
| barrier to acquisitions is not money, but regulatory
| approval, and I think there's no way regulators around the
| world will allow Nvidia to buy Intel.
| jumping_frog wrote:
| Is there an example of a company which could have gotten
| a new lease of life after acquition was denied a
| regulatory approval and then the company failed?
| AbstractH24 wrote:
| I was recently looking at Intel's performance during the dotcom
| bubble and then burst
|
| If Google is the new Microsoft, is AMD the new Intel?
| jruz wrote:
| Shit the top is in, time to sell NVDA and buy INTC.
|
| Was fun ride.
| Havoc wrote:
| That's assuming intel can sort itself out. I'm not entirely
| convinced
| anonu wrote:
| The DJIA is a dinosaur and irrelevant. Its price-weighted because
| that was easier to calculate than a market-cap weighted fund when
| the thing was created ~140 years ago. Which means that high
| dollar value stocks have more weight in the index which doesn't
| really make sense.
|
| But worse, how we talk about the index, even today on radio and
| TV, in terms of nominal points up or down is completely
| ridiculous. Just yesterday "the Dow Jones was up 100 points". Ok
| - no reference value, no percentage change: means nothing to me.
| And we wonder why we are financially illiterate in this country.
| bluGill wrote:
| The dow was useful in pre computer times when a reborter could
| calculate it every few minutes. The s&p500 Is a better
| indicator but that took hours by hand and so was only done
| overnight. now that we have computers and index you want can be
| done in milliseconds and so the dow needs to die.
| makeitdouble wrote:
| In this day and age we could skip all of that and report on
| the actual average of all the stocks in the exchange, instead
| of only a fraction.
| david-gpu wrote:
| SP500 represents something like 85% of market
| capitalization. Adding a few more thousand stocks would
| make little difference, especially when you consider how
| heavily correlated they are. Just compare SPY with VT --
| nearly the same thing.
| dmoy wrote:
| Minor nit:
|
| SPY and VTI are 80-85% the same thing
|
| VT includes a ton of non-US stocks and is significantly
| different
| david-gpu wrote:
| Thank you. I misremembered.
| devoutsalsa wrote:
| You just described a total market fund like VTI :)
| e_y_ wrote:
| As I understand it, they don't own _every_ stock. Right
| now VTI has about 3700 stocks out of the ~4300 on US
| publicly traded markets (excluding OTC). But it 's more
| representative than the S&P 500 and similar.
| stackghost wrote:
| I agree that nowadays the Dow is somewhat obsolete, but:
|
| The DJIA is not meant to be viewed in isolation but in the
| context of other indexes like DJTA, the idea being that if
| industrial companies are doing well but the railroads or
| shipping aren't, it will be reflected in those respective
| averages diverging, hinting at deeper economic problems.
|
| Also they adjust for stock splits now.
| JJMcJ wrote:
| Most news reports also give the percentage change as well as
| the point difference. That began about 20 years ago.
| ninth_ant wrote:
| Even with this objective, using the share prices and not the
| market cap of the companies involved creates enormous skew.
|
| For example UNH and especially GS take up the largest
| individual components despite not being being amongst the
| largest companies, giving their share movement
| disproportionate weight in the "index".
|
| Perhaps it made sense 140 years ago but today it belongs in
| the rubbish.
| manojlds wrote:
| How is the second point anything to do with DJIA and this news?
| EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK wrote:
| Maybe splits and reverse splits weren't a thing back then, so
| price really meant something?
| hanklazard wrote:
| re: up XX number of points, I haven't bothered for many years,
| but that sounds like NPR's "All Things Considered" or
| "Marketplace". Always drove me nuts too and does nothing to
| help people understand financial markets.
| jacobjjacob wrote:
| Everyone reports it this way. It used to bother me, but I
| think it does provide some interesting information vs the %
| day-to-day. Because % is relative to the previous day, number
| of points isn't.
|
| Personally I prefer the %
| pjfin123 wrote:
| Another advantage of a price-weighted stock index is that it's
| easier to track with a real portfolio because they don't need
| to rebalance as frequently. To replicate the performance of the
| DJIA you just have to buy one share of each stock and hold
| them, you only need to place trades when a company is added or
| removed from the index.
|
| With a market cap weighted index you have to make more frequent
| trades every time a company does a buyback or issues new
| shares.
| anonu wrote:
| > you only need to place trades when a company is added or
| removed from the index.
|
| Not true for a price-weighted index. If there is a stock-
| split, the price will change as will the weighting. AAPL
| split in August 2020 4 for 1. It was 11% in the DJIA before
| the split - and close to $500 stock price. Post-split, all
| DJIA tracking funds had to sell AAPL as it probably went down
| to 2.5% weight. Consequently, all other stocks in the DJIA
| were to buy. Luckily, there aren't too many dollars tracking
| the DJIA.
|
| > With a market cap weighted index you have to make more
| frequent trades every time a company does a buyback or issues
| new shares.
|
| It depends. If the index is free-float market-cap weighting
| then yes, there will typically be a free-float adjustment at
| each rebalance (typically quarterly). But if there's no free-
| float adjustment then you need not do anything. Though
| managing a fund that tracks a free-float weighted index is
| not really an issue - there's some operational work to do on
| each rebalance.
| pjfin123 wrote:
| > Just yesterday "the Dow Jones was up 100 points". Ok - no
| reference value, no percentage change: means nothing to me.
|
| This always really bugged me
| the_clarence wrote:
| Why do we care about the dow jones again?
| KronisLV wrote:
| The past few years have been pretty unfortunate for Intel, even
| though I think they could have been a pretty decent player in the
| market.
|
| Their new Core Ultra chips have pretty okay performance and good
| energy efficiency, their P/E core design seems to make sense,
| even their entry into the dedicated graphics segment seemed like
| a good thing for the average consumer.
|
| But the 13/14th gen issues were a pretty major hit, I do have an
| Intel Arc card that I got for a really nice price (cheaper than
| similar AMD/Nvidia GPUs) but it's not without its own share of
| issues even with pretty decently developed drivers, people seem
| to have taken the Core Ultra being a bit of a sidegrade pretty
| badly and the pricing doesn't always seem all that competitive
| when it comes to CPUs (even the motherboards seem more expensive
| when compared to AMD).
|
| What a bummer.
|
| That said, when it comes to the consumer segment, even AMD
| doesn't seem to be doing all that well, for example their net
| revenue for gaming is down 69%: https://ir.amd.com/news-
| events/press-releases/detail/1224/am...
| pedalpete wrote:
| Isn't Intel still the primary supplier of server CPUs? (as well
| as windows?)
|
| They're taking a beating, but I feel like every few years we hear
| an "intel has fallen behind", and then they dust themselves off
| and are at the top again.
|
| Though Nvidia can charge a huge premium for GPUs, those machines
| still need a CPU (if I'm wrong, please correct me).
|
| Is anyone building ARM based servers? It looks like Intel has
| fought back against the Arm on Windows battle, and possibly won
| with their newest power saving Ultra 2s.
|
| Do they really need to beat Nvidia?
| blinded wrote:
| Nvidia makes cpus. A ton of their server grade and network gear
| has arm cpus. my company almost exclusively buys amd cpus. With
| apple doing their own arm cpus, its doesn't leave a large
| market for intel.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-11-02 23:01 UTC)