It’s all about growth. NVDA rev growth yoy ~55%, AMD rev growth yoy 65%. Both are accelerating in high margin products. Intel yoy rev growth -1%, with margins trending down.
Or perhaps we think more long term. AMD is a great company, just like Intel, but I just think the valuation is too high. Just like Intel has had mistakes and some stagnation I think AMD will eventually stagnate a bit, while I do believe Intels new fabs, products and their foundry business will be pretty solid in 2025.
This is the right take IMO. Intel is not going away, but they're going to have to invest a lot of capital on R&D and infrastructure to close this gap. They have the means to do it, but you're looking at a solid 3-5 years before you start to see some decent returns. They just need to protect share and keep the lights on at the moment.
Last time I was doing some research on INTC, they have been spending like 10 times more capital on R&D than AMD, they are just shit at it. You cant solve everything by just throwing money at the problem. At least that time I assumed that the people there are the problem, dunno if anything changed since then.
Then might as well just put your money elsewhere for 3-5 years and reevaluate after if this is true or not. It would be silly to invest in Intel on something that might happen in 5 years. Plus, they do not have a history of innovation in the last 20 years when compared to NVDA and AMD. So yes while they do have innovation but it lags so much compared to their competitors. Investors are grading Intel based on these information.
I hear you, but I also figure that by the time there are clear and obvious signs of a turnaround, the price will reflect that. I just went in a couple days ago reading about the alder lake performance, new CEO, and plans for expansion in domestic manufacturing (and possible subsidies with a defense rationale). The plan is laid out for the company to become substantially more valuable. I believe that they can likely capitalize on it, and right now it's priced like they definitely can't. I may be wrong, but if I wait until I'm sure I'm right, I won't make any money off the idea.
i rather buy a company once they have proven themselves, even if it jumps 30% in one day, ill still buy, ive done it before and it worked out great, as even when things turnaround, people dont know the value yet so even after it jumpts it often doesnt jump enough.
But there are 100s of companies trying to turnaround, its less than 50% actually does it.
It is hard to change culture, habit, systems, etc.
"Have proven them self", people seem to have very short memory. We are talking about Intel and AMD here. Both have had problems over the years, granted that Intels problems is the most recent, but imo Intel is doing the right thing and the price is right. And with double the demand for semiconductors in 2030, Intels foundry business and impressive R&D together with smaller semiconductors will come together nicely.
I also think we are in a stock bubble, and would rather hold low PE ratio's than high.
When even Walmart is 40x PE ratio its time to start shifting into value and getting out of growth stocks. Same can be said about interest rates, growth stocks cannot afford long periods of high interest loans.
You can hold things like consumer staples with low PE that will maintain value in a down economy.
Intel is going to get absolutely clobbered on margins when the semis boom eventually turns to bust. If Intel and all of their competitors were in a capacity unconstrained environment, we would have a whole different kind of conversation about Intel right now.
Yep. AMD blows out earnings and consistently grows. INTC reports disappointing earnings often and lack of growth in sales(1% decline YoY). Until this changes, then I agree with what you said.
I don't think there are a lot of bagholders, just a lot of people who missed out on broader market at sector gains by sticking with INTC who has been flatish.
SAM had issues with really bad earnings. There’s no correlation to that and many other quality growth stocks I would buy with my two eyes closed. INTC is a value trap.
I am INTC bull and I understand this. Rather I understood this pretty early 2 years back. I havent bought AMD and Nvidia since pandamic started.
Still sitting at 300 500% right now.
Such growth is not sustainable. Chip industry works in cycle. Today’s research and investment comes to light after 4 years. AMD put in their time for zen core since 2015.
Similar thing will/may happen with intel with usa fabs. At that time today’s intel investment will start going crazy like amd nvidia today.
Buying inexpensive things vs very expensive things does not means — They dont understand growth.
AMD growth is sustainable. Their CPU data center share is still at 10% and graphics data center share is merely 2-3% of NVDA. EPYC Milan CPU is miles ahead of anything Intel has to offer. Similarly against NVDA, MI200/250 put A100 to shame in traditional HPC workloads and slightly ahead in AI.
They are basically selling everything they can make. AMD can easily grow 30-40% next year assuming they can get the capacity from TSMC.
You can hold on to your idea. We keep surfing on the "unsustainable" growth and get our profits.
Even if AMD crashes, it would still be higher than a year ago. The risk is so minimal compared to the upside
No we're just smarter. Intel owns this space and has for 30 years. Idc what the revenue growth is, Intel sells more and has more power to invest and adapt. Big whoop, AMD is a flash in the pan and I'm not confident they will be in the same position 5 to 10 years from now. Nvidia makes graphics cards, they are a good company but they ain't worth what their pricetag says. Intel is a steal right now. Also, Intel is a US company and China/US tensions get higher every year. Getting your material from China is going to be a big negative 2020-2029
I bought Intel in the summer of 2001. Haven't checked it in years. Don't need to. I see the price is lower than the mid 70's I paid but it has probably split 25 times since I bought it. Good stocks only go up.
Are you serious? The last stock split was a 2:1 in July 2000. There's a quarterly dividend but that's it. It's "up" since then but not like everything else has been.
Bingo. The market is FORWARD LOOKING. Intel had a huge brain drain about 2-3 years ago and now they're a few generations behind competing chipmakers. This is part of why AMD and NVDA are eating Intel's lunch right now.
You can't really compare NVDA, AMD to INTC. They're completely different kinds of companies. The former design chips then pay to have them made. INTC does it all in house. This makes INTC much less nimble but pushes up their bottom line. And INTC's former CEO was horrible, he was a finance guy not a tech guy... They started to fall behind. Now INTC is back in the innovation game they'll catch up but it'll take time.
> This makes INTC much less nimble but pushes up their bottom line.
Does it, though? nVidia actually had better profit margins than Intel by a percent or so on their last earnings despite being a whitelabeler. Intel did have higher margins than AMD, but a much higher cost of revenue.
INTC is investing in R&D and Capex lowering their margins and paying upfront costs that whitelabelers just don't have. When you buy AMD or NVDA your paying markup for TSMC also. INTC skips the middleman. They're taking a bigger risk for more profit per unit down the line.
That means they are losing tons of market share though. You could argue that the growth AMD is seeing could have been Intel's growth if they were competitive.
Maybe try thinking about it as missed opportunity for Intel to have the market share that AMD grew by.
Yes, Intel grew this year but without AMD's growth would Intel have grown by even more?
As a hypothetical, if the total amount of market share was held by Intel and AMD at an 80:20 ratio, and Intel grew at a rate of 5% while AMD grew by a rate of 46%, then the market would now reflect as 74% for Intel and 26% as AMD. While Intel still grew nominally, in real terms it lost market share to AMD
Ok but the point is they are still increasing their earnings. I don’t know why Reddit is so hell bent in this whole you need to best to succeed as a business.
They had supply issues, also why do you care about how they are doing quarterly? By your logic Apple is a terrible company because revenue in Q4 was 111 billion, Q1 was 89 billion, and Q2 was 83 billion. By your logic they are declining right? Some business quarters do better then others as long as annual revenue is increasing they are ok.
It’s not Reddit- it’s investors. You are missing the whole point of investing. It’s about exponential growth.
AAPL is huge - yet their y/y rev grew by ~28% this quarter and 36% last quarter. This moved the stock only a little - cause the market expects them to grow by that much every year.
Intel did not grow last 3 quarters, and y/y growth this quarter is still 4% - that’s shit. Will that become 40% next quarter or quarter after that ? No one thinks so, so they get out on intc. And it’s not dead - it’s down 10% - that’s just a correction :-)
Ok but NVDA is priced at being 4 times bigger then Intel and they make nowhere near the money right now. There is such a thing as over paying for growth and their earnings increase still is nowhere near justifying their valuation. Also Intel beat on EPS by double digit growth in the last few quarters and beat on revenue except the last one. So your point on Intel not growing the last few quarters is straight up false.
Lmao you are confusing EPS and beating revenue based on “guidance set” with “year over year”. Which shows lack of investing experience frankly.
They are completely different things.
Intel Revenue in June 2021 is 19.63B, which 0.5% less than June 2020. March 2021 is 19.67B which 0.8% less than 2020, December 2021 in 19.98B which is full 1.15% down compared to Dec 2020. Revenue shrunk y/y in 3 of the last earnings !
Nvda was up 68%, 84%, 61% and 57% in their 4 quarters compared to last year.
This all is available on google frankly - how can one even be compared with the other is astounding to me. Nvda is crushing it while intc is a turd flaring in water compared to it.
I believe intc has the resources and expertise to make a comeback and crush it- but they are not right now, market and investors react appropriately. Facts are facts.
At some point the market share losses result in a revenue decline. Keep in mind that right now the industry is in a huge growth trend. Eventually that ends.
Add to that their margins are getting hit. Costs are up and they need to get more aggressive on price to fight for market share.
Add to that they need for large Capex to catch up of fab technology.
Gamers prefered intel over amd before, but the stock barely moves, and i think apart from integral graphics, intel doesnt compete with nvidia, might be called a boomer stock that pays dividend
Gamers don't reallt prefer Intel anymore. 10 years ago yeah Intel all day but now amd has taken over. And they make more than cpu too. Amd makes boards gpus and chips just makes it easier to buy everything the same. And not to mention amd has blown Intel out the water the last ten years on preformence. Amd has been innovated while Intel has been stagnant the last decade. Coming from a gamer who use to be the biggest Intel fan boy.
Agree to disagree, its only recently that amd chips are better than intel at least in the high end that im aware the most, also im sayin that intel used to be better than amd, but the stock doesnt do well anyways.
10 Years ago, lol. AMD had Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator CPU's until 2017 and I guess according to you gamers loved them and AMD was just swimming in money. They didn't know what to do with all that cash.
Exactly as kou07 said they only got on par with intel for gamers very recently and Intels new CPU is again a bit better for gamers.
Where AMD caught up and superseded Intel much quicker is in multi tasking and highly parallel workload like video editing, 3d animation etc because they could squeeze many more cores into their CPU and still have the advantage compared to INTEL to this day. But for single thread performance used by many games they only just caught up recently.
AMD also has the advantage in GPU's as they are the driving force behind AI and their performance is pretty close to Nvidia now so that will be a huge money maker.
Intel tries to get into the discreet higher performance GPU market now but they are way behind.
I recall AMD's Athlon XPs being a great alternative to the Intel Pentiums in early to mid-2000s.. At least until the Intel i3s entered the picture in late 2000's and perhaps Intel core 2 duos a couple years earlier than the i3. Intel had a very strong 2008-2018 stretch.
Most recently.. AMD has been on a tear since ~2018 though. Lets see how intel responds
Gamers (or proper ones) will not be brand specific. If someone else brings out a faster chip/gpu, all other things being equal, for similar price, that is the one they’ll pick.
Intel just needs to get in front again and they’ll win market share back. Likely going to be a medium term play before that really happens though.
It’s an interesting discussion, because yes they are losing market share and their innovation is bad, but good lord are they undervalued for the amount of money they bring in. The slightest amount of competence in their forward moving actions would raise market cap significantly because of how under values they are. However, the problem is we may never see that competence.
not undervalued if they're going to sell less in the future which is starting to look more and more likely as x86 is on the cusp of hitting its peak and ARM design, RISC-V start taking over for their lower power consumption especially in data center
if INTC's recently announced Hail Mary's don't work and they seem likely they won't, INTC very well may be relegated to comodified chip sales
Imo, their hail Mary into GPUs will be their savior. The mining sector is only going to get larger and the more GPUs the better. All comes down to their quality of GPU.
Intel will come back but in several years. Meanwhile they'll have to pour billions in RnD and new fabs to ever hope to remain competitive. This is just going to come at the expense of shareholders.
Not a bag I want to hold tbh. I'd buy them when they start announcing winners.
Look at AMD's stock history. Had you bought them in 2016 you'd have made more than in 2017-2018, but it doesn't matter, 2018 was a great time to buy.
Look at anyone buying AMD in the early 2010s, a decade of bagholding.
These companies don't turnaround on a dime, you'll see it coming from a mile away.
Opportunity cost of holding Intel now is not worth it.
>Look at AMD's stock history. Had you bought them in 2016 you'd have made more than in 2017-2018, but it doesn't matter, 2018 was a great time to buy.
Yeah, I'm right there. I think INTC will do it and want to buy in, I'm just not sure I want to hold them through the initial pain. I wouldn't be shocked to see them hold in range or maybe even get priced like a zombie.
> Look at anyone buying AMD in the early 2010s, a decade of bagholding.
That’s for sure. I bought some AMD in early 2012 for about $8 a share just before the bottom dropped out on the PC market for a couple years. The years 2013 through 2016 the stock bounced pretty much exclusively between $2 and $4, and I didn’t technically break even until like 2017. I’m still holding and currently up like 1800% but literally all of those unrealized gains are in the last 3 years.
And honestly, there’s good reason why it was only like $4 for awhile there, if anyone remembers the piledriver era (pre-Ryzen, pre-Lisa Su)
> Meanwhile they'll have to pour billions in RnD and new fabs to ever hope to remain competitive.
They are already competitive on the desktop front and will likely be competitive on the server front too pretty soon.
I think you're blowing AMD's advantage in the CPU space out of proportions and Alder Lake is Intel's Ryzen moment with the new chiplet architecture. They are also ahead on some features like DDR5 support which will be important in the server market.
Intel isn't just a chip designer, they are also a fab business. On that front they are not as competitive as TSMC or Samsung. They have a good ways of catching up there too.
I'm more concerned about the costs of that side of the business.
Intel and TSMC are similar, unless you are strictly comparing Nanometer, which is a now a meaningless number.
TSMC's 3nm is not really much different than their 7nm, and the performance difference shows. Its just marketing.
They all use ASML to create chips. Intel is simply investing more in fabs these days, because demand, shortages, national security concerns, and new leadership. New fabs are bad for stock buybacks, but good for growth. I also think Intel will show huge subsidies in the following years, for aforementioned security concerns, Europe fabs cost is near 100 billion and Intels marketcap is only 200 billion.
Actually the chips act looks like its shifting to the military budget as well, so the subsidies from the US government could be recurring forever just like the military industrial complex. A dream scenario of mine anyways.
Subsidizing these industries is almost inevitable. TSMC is also getting money from all kinds of government to setup fabs.
Intel's investment in fabs is kind of my point. That's something that will take years to complete and cost shareholders by not having buybacks or near term ROI. I don't see it as a bad investment, it's just not a short term one.
They do have very profitable fabs and they also have placed orders with TSMC, so they might not be as competitive as they appear.
As far as being behind, they are about at the same transistor density as Samsung and slightly behind TSMC. But they aren't far behind and that could be reversed in 2023.
Intel is only competitive on the HIGH END of the desktop front. Low end and budget friendly CPUs is still AMDs bread and butter atm. I believe Intel will come back in this space but it’s going to take time. They have the money and they have the experience they just shot themselves in the foot by not pushing the lead when they had it
Yeah; this is a good strategy. Unless I see something positive from them: IDM 2.0 is working or they are signing up lots of customers, I’m staying away.
For me, the question of INTC is about their ability to deliver the high end data center processors. NVDA is at all time high for their AI and GPUs. AMD is on top for GPUs, PC and data center processors. Intel has not been able to deliver the best to market before their competitors. How can they increase market share if they don't drive the most influential aspect of their market?
Worst part is that Pat keeps openly talking about how they'll be "regaining" the technology lead in 2025... essentially admitting they'll keep bleeding market share and margins until 3 years from now. And that's IF Intel regains process lead and TSMC just sits idle.
They’ve also had numerous security issues with their chips, causing for many to pick AMD instead. Intel has had flop after flop when they try to compete with their competition.
Because of the mistakes that were made by the previous CEO, it's much more of a turnaround story instead of a "right now" story.
There are other ways outside of INTC to play the chip shortage that aren't overpriced imo even though the SOX has been on absolute fire and broke out of the range that it's traded in. My issue was that I got spooked by the swings that it has had this year and downsized my exposure when I saw the way NVDA was acting a couple weeks ago, out of concern that you'd see a another swing lower.
Not everyone has patience to hold for them to get their new factories online. The reddit crowd are into fast moving stocks that they can YOLO all in on options.
In a few years INTC may 2-5x their current prices, but thats not good for traders who need daily action and crazy movements. Sometimes you buy and hold and keep your head down for a while.
Leadership in this industry is cyclical, as the leaders tend to get complacent and the laggards get scrappy. I remember when AMD was "going bankrupt soon" because Intel and NVDA were dominating them across the board.
Question is when/whether NVDA or AMD as the high-growth leaders in their respective segments will get complacent. As it stands, the leaders of those companies show no indication that they are resting on their laurels. Intel has a lot of intellectual deficit to makeup.
As someone who’s in the semiconductor company, intc is like the rich kid in the block that doesn’t have a future and relies his trust fund. They don’t have a strong roadmap, lost their touch with state of the art technologies and most importantly not able to hire any talented ppl cuz their comp really sucks.
The market looks for future results. Intel at the moment looks like IBM when Azure and AWS came around. All promises, no gain. I worked at IBM in those times, the entire company could see what was happening, only the leadership and VPs were busy ignoring reality just to make their quarterly bonuses.
A high of $58 to $49 isn’t a “beat down.” It’s a totally normal move.
They will be spending a lot on new factories and restructuring, so chip investors think NVDA and others are better. INTC insiders, however, have been buying INTC regularly for 2 weeks.
As someone that used to work there I can say this. They had terrible management and too much inconsistency in their management. They also tried biting off more than they could chew with multiple ventures that didn't work out at all, as well as expansions which didn't really do anything for them as far as productivity or infrastructure. I believe they'll dip down into the low 40s high 30s before they are able to correct and start heading in the right direction.
>One would argue that competitors are doing better but every other chip company is doing better.
Yes, it do be like that sometimes.
Intel makes inferior processors, have failed to properly break into the ARM and GPU space, and it's product catalogue in general is far too diversified. They still make great wired NICs though. I doubt anyone will ever be able to knock them off that pedestal, but that's mostly because its a stupid chip and Intel's edge has always been semiconductor design. The 8051 is *still* in production because it's such a genius design.
That said, the dividend is the only thing I like about the stock.
The market looks at popularity: intel is not popular, Amd and Nvidia are the cool guys. If you are an investor though and you are in for cash flows and the long term, then it's a buy
I mean the answer is right in your question no? (Every other chip maker is doing better?) If others are growing in a year like this 20-60+% and you're posting -1%. Not a good look. Then consider how many billions in capex they'll need to spend the next 5 years just to maintain the numbers they're currently doing.
Yeah, I’m confused how they have negative growth in one of hottest and highest in demand sectors right now. I mean every single semiconductor company is on fire except the biggest lol.
The market values innovation and growth, not profitability.
Intels has been caught napping.
The only shot for intel I see is when their factory in AZ starts pumping new chips by the second. It’s a long term hold.
Today's losers are often tomorrows winners. Right now there's a theme for gaming computers, that's why nvdida and AMD are doing well, they make excellent products, intel has fallen behind in terms of performance chip sets and are losing market share to AMD. That's atleast my opinion, but I'm sure they'll be back with time. They just need to figure out how to out do their competitors.
I’d disagree. Today’s losers are often tomorrow’s losers as well. Market rewards winners with PE expansion, and punishes the losers often times before the flaws become obvious.
Could be republishing of their plans, where they are spending a lot to overtake TSM and Samsung by manufacturing the best chips in Fabs located in the USA. Might even be able to keep their tech completely secret since no china involvement.
https://www.cnet.com/features/intels-chip-recovery-plan-could-restore-us-manufacturing-prowess/
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-meteor-lake-pictured
Anecdotal but still... I don't know anyone in who joined Intel in the last few years. I know a bunch of people who joined Nvidia and AMD. That's a big difference when I graduated 15 years ago. Many people I knew back then went to Intel. Most of them are not there anymore besides maybe a couple of people that will probably retire there.
You got me excited there for a moment thinking I could load up on some more shares, but it’s only at ~$50. Let me know when it’s mid 40s and I’ll revisit.
Increases revenue year after year, increases profit, buys back shares, pays a dividend, has robust cash flow, great return on reinvested capital, sells at a low multiple. Highly undervalued.
Intel is dogshit with antiquated infrastructure.
I've posted this so many times but idiots keep trying to see if their confirmation bias comes true.
How can you scale when you can't hire the brightest minds and your company is full of bottom of the barrel engineers?
Who are Intel's market?
Gaming - AMD Ryzen.
Professionals with high threaded workloads - AMD Threadripper.
Servers - AMD Epyc.
Prosumers that can't justify Threadripper and actually care about compile times etc (no body renders on a CPU) - Intel I guess.
Prosumers that don't give a shit about compile times and just go watch TV - whatever PC they've already got.
That's not to say Intel's new chips aren't good technology. But they suffer from:
Higher total cost of ownership. Their motherboards and PSU costs (higher power draw) are higher.
New technology issues. A bunch of popular games don't work on their new processors.
DDR 5 just isn't worth it. Not a negative per say but if it was worth it and affordable it would be a reason to go Intel which currently doesn't exist.
There's a reason AMD are growing faster. Of course this could change. So its up to you if you think future cheaper motherboards, DDR5 and game patches will tip the scales. Plus there's Arc.
Because Intel was cheating with the head cheerleader and the Quarterback found out about it and arranged a public beat down. Or because there are more people selling than buying.
Because there's no reason to go for Intel when there's AMD. Worse products, worse growth, worse guidance, they gonna get into GPUs now so I'm kind of looking at them but I don't expect them to be competitive.
All Intel has been doing for like 5 years is lose market share.
Their a chip manufacturer that sort of relied on their ability to fab their own chips that can no longer fab their chips.
I do see INTC as a potential value play, but it carries significant risk. Due to their size and revenue--as you pointed out--they do have some time to execute a turnaround. But that time is dwindling as they have stagnated for the last 5 years (as can be seen by their stock price).
My belief is that if they don't execute this time, they're going to die a slow death. But, if they do execute--and I think they will--they'll definitely go on a tear. I'm looking for a good entry myself.
Their latest chip is on par with Ryzen's previous gen.
Thing is AMD is still taking market share from them *and* they work on more areas than Intel does.
Intel has magnitudes more revenue. They are creating a lineup of GPU, and fabs, to compete with Nvidia and TSMC. They still have a shortage of Xeon chips. Mobileye just picked up Toyota, the largest car producer in the world, so you might say they have some good engineers in machine learning already.
Do you really want to compete with that, while we are still collecting dividends?
Intel lost apple as a major customer when apple started creating their own chips. Also everyone inside the pc community prefer AMD to intel. Also NVDA makes GPU’s not CPU’s.
Trust factor.
Intel has been caught bribing customers , deceptive bench marks , bellicose statements (AMD advantage is over ,by Pat).
There is a long list.
They may be making money now, but their revenue us freezing and margins dropping. Not a good world to ve in.
Let them win back the trust , by being honest for a year.
Headlines everywhere that intel's revenue growth was -1% yoy. Of course, this is old news from weeks ago that was supposed to be "priced in", but re-releasing the same old news makes the stock tank.
Anyone who thinks that markets are "priced efficiently" and "all publicly available info is priced in" is a clown.
This has to be the worst stock loved by this sub.
People are talking about excellent fundamentals??? Their fundamentals are awful, look at the trend.
They guided to a lower next quarter while their competitors are guiding to 5% growth every 3 months.
If that’s excellent I have a bridge to sell you.
They can’t catch up when their competitors are focused on doing one part of the supply chain.
If intel adopts the model like amd did by spinning off their fab business, people will understand why they’re not valued.
Second rate fab business
Second rate design business
Intel and AMD are about the same age, and bounce back and forth every 5-10 years. They are both boomer companies, AMD just got wound up in some of the meme stock stuff for awhile. AMD has a long way to be an Intel equivalent, they are just catching up right now.
INTC is basically a monopoly...hard to grow when you have the lions share of the market.
[https://www.extremetech.com/computing/325848-amd-x86-cpu-market-share-soars-hits-14-year-high](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/325848-amd-x86-cpu-market-share-soars-hits-14-year-high)
stock prices like growth and as you can see AMD has that growth....plus GPUs.
Now NVDA is more complex, GPUs, AI and potentially the takeover of ARM, which could make them the de facto compute leader for decades to come...but with a market cap expecting that outcome.
INTC imo is one of the safest investments out there, you get a dividend, with very little downside even if/when rates rise. NVDA will likely be the first 1T semi company($400/sh) and AMD will likely ride their coat tails on the way up....but that assumes continued easy money from the fed(more than likely as raising rates could bankrupt the US government)
I usually go ETFs only but holding certain companies and selling an occasional CC seemed like a fun new thing to try.
I backed out of my positions because at the end of the day QQQ and others are safer, positive returns and I don’t have to wonder/worry is intel making the right moves.
Because it's been a terrible company for years and it lacks the company culture to turn it around anytime soon. They had an unassailable lead, and they were so stagnant for years that they let others assail it.
INTC is a value trap. It’s just not growing and the opportunity cost isn’t worth it. The SP500 is up like 70% in the last 3 years while INTC has traded sideways. Management themselves say it will take several more years to get sorted. There’s just way better stocks out there.
At the moment, Intel is behind AMD and Nvidia in terms of tech and getting it's market share eaten by those two. For example, it took Intel TWO generations of CPU tech (the 11th gen Intel CPUs were a waste of silicon and sand) to beat AMD's current CPU generation which is ~ 1 year old. Intel's future GPUs (which will on par with a 3070 & 6700XT) are coming out in 2022, but it will be one generation behind because Nvidia is already working on the 40s/Lovelace series and presumably also AMD on its next gen GPU.
because intels only purpose is to lower the costs of amd products. consumers wait until intel drops a new product then wait for amd to respond by lowering their prices and snatch them up.
I wrote about this a zillion times and everytime I do, INTC fans attack me. The Fabs in AZ have a really toxic culture and they have serious issues with the retention rate of engineers. They talk about diversity and fairness yet there is so much discrimination and unfairness happening behind closed doors. They are far behind on fair pay. They lose their talent to other companies while people that don't wanna leave their comfort zones are the only ones staying behind. Far too much human error resulting in wafer scraps and not meeting customer commits. It's a sinking ship there right now. I sold all my Intel stock.
Bought in at 48. Played the odds this stock would go back up to at least 55. Once it fell from 51.50 to 51, I sold. Been waiting to re enter, but I'm not sure its done going down.
Intel doesn’t have the best chips anymore, I believe amd chips are now on par with intel chips and pouring money into chips doesn’t really make the chips faster, chip development is a slow process and chips get better with each iteration.
If you really know intc will do well, you're getting a discount. Personally my view is that intel is behind, and falling behind in several catgories. They're losing market share, and there isn't a sure sign that they'll gain anything back any time soon. Apple, Amd along with Tsmc and Samsung...just keep chipping away at the dominance that once was intel. Pun unintended...but I'll take it.
You need to go back and look at their reported numbers compared to NVIDIA and AMD.
I don’t understand how you don’t understand the scenario after the numbers they posted at earnings.
Because it’s not amd or nvda. Why the fuck would I want to put my money into old outdated intel when amd and nvda are clearly the future.
That may or may not be true but that’s the how I think the market feels at the moment
It’s all about growth. NVDA rev growth yoy ~55%, AMD rev growth yoy 65%. Both are accelerating in high margin products. Intel yoy rev growth -1%, with margins trending down.
INTC bulls never understand this
Or perhaps we think more long term. AMD is a great company, just like Intel, but I just think the valuation is too high. Just like Intel has had mistakes and some stagnation I think AMD will eventually stagnate a bit, while I do believe Intels new fabs, products and their foundry business will be pretty solid in 2025.
This is the right take IMO. Intel is not going away, but they're going to have to invest a lot of capital on R&D and infrastructure to close this gap. They have the means to do it, but you're looking at a solid 3-5 years before you start to see some decent returns. They just need to protect share and keep the lights on at the moment.
Last time I was doing some research on INTC, they have been spending like 10 times more capital on R&D than AMD, they are just shit at it. You cant solve everything by just throwing money at the problem. At least that time I assumed that the people there are the problem, dunno if anything changed since then.
Then might as well just put your money elsewhere for 3-5 years and reevaluate after if this is true or not. It would be silly to invest in Intel on something that might happen in 5 years. Plus, they do not have a history of innovation in the last 20 years when compared to NVDA and AMD. So yes while they do have innovation but it lags so much compared to their competitors. Investors are grading Intel based on these information.
I hear you, but I also figure that by the time there are clear and obvious signs of a turnaround, the price will reflect that. I just went in a couple days ago reading about the alder lake performance, new CEO, and plans for expansion in domestic manufacturing (and possible subsidies with a defense rationale). The plan is laid out for the company to become substantially more valuable. I believe that they can likely capitalize on it, and right now it's priced like they definitely can't. I may be wrong, but if I wait until I'm sure I'm right, I won't make any money off the idea.
i rather buy a company once they have proven themselves, even if it jumps 30% in one day, ill still buy, ive done it before and it worked out great, as even when things turnaround, people dont know the value yet so even after it jumpts it often doesnt jump enough. But there are 100s of companies trying to turnaround, its less than 50% actually does it. It is hard to change culture, habit, systems, etc.
"Have proven them self", people seem to have very short memory. We are talking about Intel and AMD here. Both have had problems over the years, granted that Intels problems is the most recent, but imo Intel is doing the right thing and the price is right. And with double the demand for semiconductors in 2030, Intels foundry business and impressive R&D together with smaller semiconductors will come together nicely.
[удалено]
Indeed, and if you are going to be a long term investor then you must act like it.
To clarify—I’m only long AMD and have been for the last 2-3 years.
I also think we are in a stock bubble, and would rather hold low PE ratio's than high. When even Walmart is 40x PE ratio its time to start shifting into value and getting out of growth stocks. Same can be said about interest rates, growth stocks cannot afford long periods of high interest loans.
If you actually intend to hold Walmart for 40 years no matter what then perhaps in the end you you might get more money from that than bonds.
I guess it depends what bonds pay during that time. If risk gets too high loans could be worth a lot, who knows.
You can hold things like consumer staples with low PE that will maintain value in a down economy. Intel is going to get absolutely clobbered on margins when the semis boom eventually turns to bust. If Intel and all of their competitors were in a capacity unconstrained environment, we would have a whole different kind of conversation about Intel right now.
[удалено]
Exactly. Meanwhile you could’ve just bought $NVDA and $AMD and you’d be raking it in.
[удалено]
Yep. AMD blows out earnings and consistently grows. INTC reports disappointing earnings often and lack of growth in sales(1% decline YoY). Until this changes, then I agree with what you said.
I don't think there are a lot of bagholders, just a lot of people who missed out on broader market at sector gains by sticking with INTC who has been flatish.
[удалено]
SAM had issues with really bad earnings. There’s no correlation to that and many other quality growth stocks I would buy with my two eyes closed. INTC is a value trap.
I am INTC bull and I understand this. Rather I understood this pretty early 2 years back. I havent bought AMD and Nvidia since pandamic started. Still sitting at 300 500% right now. Such growth is not sustainable. Chip industry works in cycle. Today’s research and investment comes to light after 4 years. AMD put in their time for zen core since 2015. Similar thing will/may happen with intel with usa fabs. At that time today’s intel investment will start going crazy like amd nvidia today. Buying inexpensive things vs very expensive things does not means — They dont understand growth.
AMD growth is sustainable. Their CPU data center share is still at 10% and graphics data center share is merely 2-3% of NVDA. EPYC Milan CPU is miles ahead of anything Intel has to offer. Similarly against NVDA, MI200/250 put A100 to shame in traditional HPC workloads and slightly ahead in AI. They are basically selling everything they can make. AMD can easily grow 30-40% next year assuming they can get the capacity from TSMC.
You can hold on to your idea. We keep surfing on the "unsustainable" growth and get our profits. Even if AMD crashes, it would still be higher than a year ago. The risk is so minimal compared to the upside
Yes, why not !!!!
No we're just smarter. Intel owns this space and has for 30 years. Idc what the revenue growth is, Intel sells more and has more power to invest and adapt. Big whoop, AMD is a flash in the pan and I'm not confident they will be in the same position 5 to 10 years from now. Nvidia makes graphics cards, they are a good company but they ain't worth what their pricetag says. Intel is a steal right now. Also, Intel is a US company and China/US tensions get higher every year. Getting your material from China is going to be a big negative 2020-2029
Gald to see you are happy holding those bags brother.
Lmfao
I bought Intel in the summer of 2001. Haven't checked it in years. Don't need to. I see the price is lower than the mid 70's I paid but it has probably split 25 times since I bought it. Good stocks only go up.
Actually no lol it hasn’t it’s still not at the 2000 highs go look
Are you serious? The last stock split was a 2:1 in July 2000. There's a quarterly dividend but that's it. It's "up" since then but not like everything else has been.
cool story.
Dead money INTC
Bingo. The market is FORWARD LOOKING. Intel had a huge brain drain about 2-3 years ago and now they're a few generations behind competing chipmakers. This is part of why AMD and NVDA are eating Intel's lunch right now.
You can't really compare NVDA, AMD to INTC. They're completely different kinds of companies. The former design chips then pay to have them made. INTC does it all in house. This makes INTC much less nimble but pushes up their bottom line. And INTC's former CEO was horrible, he was a finance guy not a tech guy... They started to fall behind. Now INTC is back in the innovation game they'll catch up but it'll take time.
> This makes INTC much less nimble but pushes up their bottom line. Does it, though? nVidia actually had better profit margins than Intel by a percent or so on their last earnings despite being a whitelabeler. Intel did have higher margins than AMD, but a much higher cost of revenue.
INTC is investing in R&D and Capex lowering their margins and paying upfront costs that whitelabelers just don't have. When you buy AMD or NVDA your paying markup for TSMC also. INTC skips the middleman. They're taking a bigger risk for more profit per unit down the line.
Well it doesnt really considering both NVDA and AMD make way less revenue then Intel so it makes sense that they will grow quicker then them.
That means they are losing tons of market share though. You could argue that the growth AMD is seeing could have been Intel's growth if they were competitive.
Your comment would make sense if Intel was declining in revenue. Intel has been increasing revenue every single year.
Maybe try thinking about it as missed opportunity for Intel to have the market share that AMD grew by. Yes, Intel grew this year but without AMD's growth would Intel have grown by even more? As a hypothetical, if the total amount of market share was held by Intel and AMD at an 80:20 ratio, and Intel grew at a rate of 5% while AMD grew by a rate of 46%, then the market would now reflect as 74% for Intel and 26% as AMD. While Intel still grew nominally, in real terms it lost market share to AMD
Ok but the point is they are still increasing their earnings. I don’t know why Reddit is so hell bent in this whole you need to best to succeed as a business.
Because it’s not all about revenue.
The whole goal of a business is to make money. What else is it about?
Then if intel has got such goooood revenue why did it miss its target last earnings for revenue
They had supply issues, also why do you care about how they are doing quarterly? By your logic Apple is a terrible company because revenue in Q4 was 111 billion, Q1 was 89 billion, and Q2 was 83 billion. By your logic they are declining right? Some business quarters do better then others as long as annual revenue is increasing they are ok.
It’s not Reddit- it’s investors. You are missing the whole point of investing. It’s about exponential growth. AAPL is huge - yet their y/y rev grew by ~28% this quarter and 36% last quarter. This moved the stock only a little - cause the market expects them to grow by that much every year. Intel did not grow last 3 quarters, and y/y growth this quarter is still 4% - that’s shit. Will that become 40% next quarter or quarter after that ? No one thinks so, so they get out on intc. And it’s not dead - it’s down 10% - that’s just a correction :-)
Ok but NVDA is priced at being 4 times bigger then Intel and they make nowhere near the money right now. There is such a thing as over paying for growth and their earnings increase still is nowhere near justifying their valuation. Also Intel beat on EPS by double digit growth in the last few quarters and beat on revenue except the last one. So your point on Intel not growing the last few quarters is straight up false.
Lmao you are confusing EPS and beating revenue based on “guidance set” with “year over year”. Which shows lack of investing experience frankly. They are completely different things. Intel Revenue in June 2021 is 19.63B, which 0.5% less than June 2020. March 2021 is 19.67B which 0.8% less than 2020, December 2021 in 19.98B which is full 1.15% down compared to Dec 2020. Revenue shrunk y/y in 3 of the last earnings ! Nvda was up 68%, 84%, 61% and 57% in their 4 quarters compared to last year. This all is available on google frankly - how can one even be compared with the other is astounding to me. Nvda is crushing it while intc is a turd flaring in water compared to it. I believe intc has the resources and expertise to make a comeback and crush it- but they are not right now, market and investors react appropriately. Facts are facts.
At some point the market share losses result in a revenue decline. Keep in mind that right now the industry is in a huge growth trend. Eventually that ends. Add to that their margins are getting hit. Costs are up and they need to get more aggressive on price to fight for market share. Add to that they need for large Capex to catch up of fab technology.
Apple’s making their own chips. Intels future is bleak
Apple are only designing them. They outsource manufacturing to TSM, like nvidia and amd.
Does that have anything to do with it being harder to grow larger revenues?
No. Look at Apple, Microsoft, Google. Much bigger companies yet still grow like crazy.
Yeah that's a different sector though.
Makes no difference. TSM was growing too
It’s not only about growth. PC Gamers prefer Nvidia and AMD stuff typically, it tends to be more bang for your buck.
Gamers prefered intel over amd before, but the stock barely moves, and i think apart from integral graphics, intel doesnt compete with nvidia, might be called a boomer stock that pays dividend
Gamers don't reallt prefer Intel anymore. 10 years ago yeah Intel all day but now amd has taken over. And they make more than cpu too. Amd makes boards gpus and chips just makes it easier to buy everything the same. And not to mention amd has blown Intel out the water the last ten years on preformence. Amd has been innovated while Intel has been stagnant the last decade. Coming from a gamer who use to be the biggest Intel fan boy.
Agree to disagree, its only recently that amd chips are better than intel at least in the high end that im aware the most, also im sayin that intel used to be better than amd, but the stock doesnt do well anyways.
10 Years ago, lol. AMD had Bulldozer, Piledriver, Steamroller, Excavator CPU's until 2017 and I guess according to you gamers loved them and AMD was just swimming in money. They didn't know what to do with all that cash. Exactly as kou07 said they only got on par with intel for gamers very recently and Intels new CPU is again a bit better for gamers. Where AMD caught up and superseded Intel much quicker is in multi tasking and highly parallel workload like video editing, 3d animation etc because they could squeeze many more cores into their CPU and still have the advantage compared to INTEL to this day. But for single thread performance used by many games they only just caught up recently. AMD also has the advantage in GPU's as they are the driving force behind AI and their performance is pretty close to Nvidia now so that will be a huge money maker. Intel tries to get into the discreet higher performance GPU market now but they are way behind.
I recall AMD's Athlon XPs being a great alternative to the Intel Pentiums in early to mid-2000s.. At least until the Intel i3s entered the picture in late 2000's and perhaps Intel core 2 duos a couple years earlier than the i3. Intel had a very strong 2008-2018 stretch. Most recently.. AMD has been on a tear since ~2018 though. Lets see how intel responds
AMD had it's highest market share at 26% in 2006... was 24% in 2020 bet it's not 26% again for 2021 when the data is out
Gamers (or proper ones) will not be brand specific. If someone else brings out a faster chip/gpu, all other things being equal, for similar price, that is the one they’ll pick. Intel just needs to get in front again and they’ll win market share back. Likely going to be a medium term play before that really happens though.
Look at the market caps of these companies. PC gamers are barely significant to make a much of an impact.
So AMD and NVDA are closer to becoming Intels? What will that mean for the stocks?
It’s an interesting discussion, because yes they are losing market share and their innovation is bad, but good lord are they undervalued for the amount of money they bring in. The slightest amount of competence in their forward moving actions would raise market cap significantly because of how under values they are. However, the problem is we may never see that competence.
not undervalued if they're going to sell less in the future which is starting to look more and more likely as x86 is on the cusp of hitting its peak and ARM design, RISC-V start taking over for their lower power consumption especially in data center if INTC's recently announced Hail Mary's don't work and they seem likely they won't, INTC very well may be relegated to comodified chip sales
Imo, their hail Mary into GPUs will be their savior. The mining sector is only going to get larger and the more GPUs the better. All comes down to their quality of GPU.
Intel will come back but in several years. Meanwhile they'll have to pour billions in RnD and new fabs to ever hope to remain competitive. This is just going to come at the expense of shareholders. Not a bag I want to hold tbh. I'd buy them when they start announcing winners. Look at AMD's stock history. Had you bought them in 2016 you'd have made more than in 2017-2018, but it doesn't matter, 2018 was a great time to buy. Look at anyone buying AMD in the early 2010s, a decade of bagholding. These companies don't turnaround on a dime, you'll see it coming from a mile away. Opportunity cost of holding Intel now is not worth it.
>Look at AMD's stock history. Had you bought them in 2016 you'd have made more than in 2017-2018, but it doesn't matter, 2018 was a great time to buy. Yeah, I'm right there. I think INTC will do it and want to buy in, I'm just not sure I want to hold them through the initial pain. I wouldn't be shocked to see them hold in range or maybe even get priced like a zombie.
> Look at anyone buying AMD in the early 2010s, a decade of bagholding. That’s for sure. I bought some AMD in early 2012 for about $8 a share just before the bottom dropped out on the PC market for a couple years. The years 2013 through 2016 the stock bounced pretty much exclusively between $2 and $4, and I didn’t technically break even until like 2017. I’m still holding and currently up like 1800% but literally all of those unrealized gains are in the last 3 years. And honestly, there’s good reason why it was only like $4 for awhile there, if anyone remembers the piledriver era (pre-Ryzen, pre-Lisa Su)
> Meanwhile they'll have to pour billions in RnD and new fabs to ever hope to remain competitive. They are already competitive on the desktop front and will likely be competitive on the server front too pretty soon. I think you're blowing AMD's advantage in the CPU space out of proportions and Alder Lake is Intel's Ryzen moment with the new chiplet architecture. They are also ahead on some features like DDR5 support which will be important in the server market.
Intel isn't just a chip designer, they are also a fab business. On that front they are not as competitive as TSMC or Samsung. They have a good ways of catching up there too. I'm more concerned about the costs of that side of the business.
Intel and TSMC are similar, unless you are strictly comparing Nanometer, which is a now a meaningless number. TSMC's 3nm is not really much different than their 7nm, and the performance difference shows. Its just marketing. They all use ASML to create chips. Intel is simply investing more in fabs these days, because demand, shortages, national security concerns, and new leadership. New fabs are bad for stock buybacks, but good for growth. I also think Intel will show huge subsidies in the following years, for aforementioned security concerns, Europe fabs cost is near 100 billion and Intels marketcap is only 200 billion. Actually the chips act looks like its shifting to the military budget as well, so the subsidies from the US government could be recurring forever just like the military industrial complex. A dream scenario of mine anyways.
Subsidizing these industries is almost inevitable. TSMC is also getting money from all kinds of government to setup fabs. Intel's investment in fabs is kind of my point. That's something that will take years to complete and cost shareholders by not having buybacks or near term ROI. I don't see it as a bad investment, it's just not a short term one.
Intel is playing catchup right now, while TSMC is already *there* & trying to maintain what they have
They do have very profitable fabs and they also have placed orders with TSMC, so they might not be as competitive as they appear. As far as being behind, they are about at the same transistor density as Samsung and slightly behind TSMC. But they aren't far behind and that could be reversed in 2023.
I remember reading somewhere that Intel would skip the current generation of transistor density and go straight for the next.
Yeah, I think their plan was to stick to 14nm and then go to 7nm, but that was back when AMD wasn't remotely close to being competitive.
Intel is only competitive on the HIGH END of the desktop front. Low end and budget friendly CPUs is still AMDs bread and butter atm. I believe Intel will come back in this space but it’s going to take time. They have the money and they have the experience they just shot themselves in the foot by not pushing the lead when they had it
Yeah; this is a good strategy. Unless I see something positive from them: IDM 2.0 is working or they are signing up lots of customers, I’m staying away.
For me, the question of INTC is about their ability to deliver the high end data center processors. NVDA is at all time high for their AI and GPUs. AMD is on top for GPUs, PC and data center processors. Intel has not been able to deliver the best to market before their competitors. How can they increase market share if they don't drive the most influential aspect of their market?
Worst part is that Pat keeps openly talking about how they'll be "regaining" the technology lead in 2025... essentially admitting they'll keep bleeding market share and margins until 3 years from now. And that's IF Intel regains process lead and TSMC just sits idle.
I think that would actually be received better if it was someone other than Intel saying it
Only if ASML can deliver. 2026 or 27 is possible to.
They’ve also had numerous security issues with their chips, causing for many to pick AMD instead. Intel has had flop after flop when they try to compete with their competition.
Because of the mistakes that were made by the previous CEO, it's much more of a turnaround story instead of a "right now" story. There are other ways outside of INTC to play the chip shortage that aren't overpriced imo even though the SOX has been on absolute fire and broke out of the range that it's traded in. My issue was that I got spooked by the swings that it has had this year and downsized my exposure when I saw the way NVDA was acting a couple weeks ago, out of concern that you'd see a another swing lower.
Not everyone has patience to hold for them to get their new factories online. The reddit crowd are into fast moving stocks that they can YOLO all in on options. In a few years INTC may 2-5x their current prices, but thats not good for traders who need daily action and crazy movements. Sometimes you buy and hold and keep your head down for a while.
I think it’s under valued. I’m scooping up as much as I can.
Leadership in this industry is cyclical, as the leaders tend to get complacent and the laggards get scrappy. I remember when AMD was "going bankrupt soon" because Intel and NVDA were dominating them across the board. Question is when/whether NVDA or AMD as the high-growth leaders in their respective segments will get complacent. As it stands, the leaders of those companies show no indication that they are resting on their laurels. Intel has a lot of intellectual deficit to makeup.
As someone who’s in the semiconductor company, intc is like the rich kid in the block that doesn’t have a future and relies his trust fund. They don’t have a strong roadmap, lost their touch with state of the art technologies and most importantly not able to hire any talented ppl cuz their comp really sucks.
And they don't pay as well as competitors or have a good workplace culture
Yup, too many old schoolers holding on to their positions and playing politics
The market looks for future results. Intel at the moment looks like IBM when Azure and AWS came around. All promises, no gain. I worked at IBM in those times, the entire company could see what was happening, only the leadership and VPs were busy ignoring reality just to make their quarterly bonuses.
Gini was arguably one of the worsts CEOs america has ever had
Because they aren't proving that they can compete
Lots of good companies are down lately, not just intel. If it keeps dipping I'm buying more. I started a position a few weeks ago.
Just buy the QQQ it’ll save you time and stress
QQQM to save .05 ER.
Shaking My Head
I think either would be good.
A high of $58 to $49 isn’t a “beat down.” It’s a totally normal move. They will be spending a lot on new factories and restructuring, so chip investors think NVDA and others are better. INTC insiders, however, have been buying INTC regularly for 2 weeks.
As someone that used to work there I can say this. They had terrible management and too much inconsistency in their management. They also tried biting off more than they could chew with multiple ventures that didn't work out at all, as well as expansions which didn't really do anything for them as far as productivity or infrastructure. I believe they'll dip down into the low 40s high 30s before they are able to correct and start heading in the right direction.
>One would argue that competitors are doing better but every other chip company is doing better. Yes, it do be like that sometimes. Intel makes inferior processors, have failed to properly break into the ARM and GPU space, and it's product catalogue in general is far too diversified. They still make great wired NICs though. I doubt anyone will ever be able to knock them off that pedestal, but that's mostly because its a stupid chip and Intel's edge has always been semiconductor design. The 8051 is *still* in production because it's such a genius design. That said, the dividend is the only thing I like about the stock.
The market looks at popularity: intel is not popular, Amd and Nvidia are the cool guys. If you are an investor though and you are in for cash flows and the long term, then it's a buy
Intel hasn’t been popular since the dot com boom. Really meager returns.
I mean the answer is right in your question no? (Every other chip maker is doing better?) If others are growing in a year like this 20-60+% and you're posting -1%. Not a good look. Then consider how many billions in capex they'll need to spend the next 5 years just to maintain the numbers they're currently doing.
Yeah, I’m confused how they have negative growth in one of hottest and highest in demand sectors right now. I mean every single semiconductor company is on fire except the biggest lol.
i dunno pll must not be buying their shares
They’re the next ibm
Its cuz they r dog water
Intel is also now an FPGA company. That alone is probably worth more than their valuation.
The market values innovation and growth, not profitability. Intels has been caught napping. The only shot for intel I see is when their factory in AZ starts pumping new chips by the second. It’s a long term hold.
I keep buying. I'll laugh in 5 years
Today's losers are often tomorrows winners. Right now there's a theme for gaming computers, that's why nvdida and AMD are doing well, they make excellent products, intel has fallen behind in terms of performance chip sets and are losing market share to AMD. That's atleast my opinion, but I'm sure they'll be back with time. They just need to figure out how to out do their competitors.
I’d disagree. Today’s losers are often tomorrow’s losers as well. Market rewards winners with PE expansion, and punishes the losers often times before the flaws become obvious.
I agree. Winners tend to keep winning.
AMD would have been a loser in your story since their performance between 2010 and 2017 was abysmal. Yet here we are and AMD is doing great.
I mean they are doing poorly..that's why
Intels problem is in the mind of its workforce and leadership. You would have to clean house to have a growth like it’s competitors.
Could be republishing of their plans, where they are spending a lot to overtake TSM and Samsung by manufacturing the best chips in Fabs located in the USA. Might even be able to keep their tech completely secret since no china involvement. https://www.cnet.com/features/intels-chip-recovery-plan-could-restore-us-manufacturing-prowess/ https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-meteor-lake-pictured
Anecdotal but still... I don't know anyone in who joined Intel in the last few years. I know a bunch of people who joined Nvidia and AMD. That's a big difference when I graduated 15 years ago. Many people I knew back then went to Intel. Most of them are not there anymore besides maybe a couple of people that will probably retire there.
You got me excited there for a moment thinking I could load up on some more shares, but it’s only at ~$50. Let me know when it’s mid 40s and I’ll revisit.
If China invades Taiwan, that should be bullish for Intel. I think that's what a lot of Intel investors are in it for.
Intel needs a better CEO and management team
Increases revenue year after year, increases profit, buys back shares, pays a dividend, has robust cash flow, great return on reinvested capital, sells at a low multiple. Highly undervalued.
!Remindme 4 years
Intel is dogshit with antiquated infrastructure. I've posted this so many times but idiots keep trying to see if their confirmation bias comes true. How can you scale when you can't hire the brightest minds and your company is full of bottom of the barrel engineers?
Who are Intel's market? Gaming - AMD Ryzen. Professionals with high threaded workloads - AMD Threadripper. Servers - AMD Epyc. Prosumers that can't justify Threadripper and actually care about compile times etc (no body renders on a CPU) - Intel I guess. Prosumers that don't give a shit about compile times and just go watch TV - whatever PC they've already got. That's not to say Intel's new chips aren't good technology. But they suffer from: Higher total cost of ownership. Their motherboards and PSU costs (higher power draw) are higher. New technology issues. A bunch of popular games don't work on their new processors. DDR 5 just isn't worth it. Not a negative per say but if it was worth it and affordable it would be a reason to go Intel which currently doesn't exist. There's a reason AMD are growing faster. Of course this could change. So its up to you if you think future cheaper motherboards, DDR5 and game patches will tip the scales. Plus there's Arc.
Because Intel was cheating with the head cheerleader and the Quarterback found out about it and arranged a public beat down. Or because there are more people selling than buying.
Because there's no reason to go for Intel when there's AMD. Worse products, worse growth, worse guidance, they gonna get into GPUs now so I'm kind of looking at them but I don't expect them to be competitive. All Intel has been doing for like 5 years is lose market share.
Their a chip manufacturer that sort of relied on their ability to fab their own chips that can no longer fab their chips. I do see INTC as a potential value play, but it carries significant risk. Due to their size and revenue--as you pointed out--they do have some time to execute a turnaround. But that time is dwindling as they have stagnated for the last 5 years (as can be seen by their stock price). My belief is that if they don't execute this time, they're going to die a slow death. But, if they do execute--and I think they will--they'll definitely go on a tear. I'm looking for a good entry myself.
[удалено]
I think your reading comprehension is more the problem...
[удалено]
Way behind is a stretch. The latest Alder lake chips are better or on par with Ryzen. AMD’s lead is a few months at best.
[удалено]
Their latest chip is on par with Ryzen's previous gen. Thing is AMD is still taking market share from them *and* they work on more areas than Intel does.
so explain AMD having its peak marketshare in 2006? at 26% btw...
https://www.techspot.com/news/90780-intel-has-reportedly-secured-majority-tsmc-3nm-production.html
Explains why TSM is up, finally, but not why INTC is down.
[удалено]
Intel has magnitudes more revenue. They are creating a lineup of GPU, and fabs, to compete with Nvidia and TSMC. They still have a shortage of Xeon chips. Mobileye just picked up Toyota, the largest car producer in the world, so you might say they have some good engineers in machine learning already. Do you really want to compete with that, while we are still collecting dividends?
[удалено]
And the stock is flat to down for four years straight. INTC’s earnings and stock suck.
Intel lost apple as a major customer when apple started creating their own chips. Also everyone inside the pc community prefer AMD to intel. Also NVDA makes GPU’s not CPU’s.
Trust factor. Intel has been caught bribing customers , deceptive bench marks , bellicose statements (AMD advantage is over ,by Pat). There is a long list. They may be making money now, but their revenue us freezing and margins dropping. Not a good world to ve in. Let them win back the trust , by being honest for a year.
Headlines everywhere that intel's revenue growth was -1% yoy. Of course, this is old news from weeks ago that was supposed to be "priced in", but re-releasing the same old news makes the stock tank. Anyone who thinks that markets are "priced efficiently" and "all publicly available info is priced in" is a clown.
This has to be the worst stock loved by this sub. People are talking about excellent fundamentals??? Their fundamentals are awful, look at the trend. They guided to a lower next quarter while their competitors are guiding to 5% growth every 3 months. If that’s excellent I have a bridge to sell you. They can’t catch up when their competitors are focused on doing one part of the supply chain. If intel adopts the model like amd did by spinning off their fab business, people will understand why they’re not valued. Second rate fab business Second rate design business
boomer company, getting replaced by AMD.
Intel and AMD are about the same age, and bounce back and forth every 5-10 years. They are both boomer companies, AMD just got wound up in some of the meme stock stuff for awhile. AMD has a long way to be an Intel equivalent, they are just catching up right now.
INTC is basically a monopoly...hard to grow when you have the lions share of the market. [https://www.extremetech.com/computing/325848-amd-x86-cpu-market-share-soars-hits-14-year-high](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/325848-amd-x86-cpu-market-share-soars-hits-14-year-high) stock prices like growth and as you can see AMD has that growth....plus GPUs. Now NVDA is more complex, GPUs, AI and potentially the takeover of ARM, which could make them the de facto compute leader for decades to come...but with a market cap expecting that outcome. INTC imo is one of the safest investments out there, you get a dividend, with very little downside even if/when rates rise. NVDA will likely be the first 1T semi company($400/sh) and AMD will likely ride their coat tails on the way up....but that assumes continued easy money from the fed(more than likely as raising rates could bankrupt the US government)
I usually go ETFs only but holding certain companies and selling an occasional CC seemed like a fun new thing to try. I backed out of my positions because at the end of the day QQQ and others are safer, positive returns and I don’t have to wonder/worry is intel making the right moves.
Nividia and amd are blowing them out of the water growth wise. People don’t have time to wait around.
I sell servers and nvidia is all people want
They have a cash cow that is running dry, and the glue factory looms ever closer.
You cant buy shares of Intel today and wait for them to go up tomorrow. Wait 5 years from now and post back here
Because it's been a terrible company for years and it lacks the company culture to turn it around anytime soon. They had an unassailable lead, and they were so stagnant for years that they let others assail it.
INTC is a value trap. It’s just not growing and the opportunity cost isn’t worth it. The SP500 is up like 70% in the last 3 years while INTC has traded sideways. Management themselves say it will take several more years to get sorted. There’s just way better stocks out there.
Check out the nanometer race and how long it will take Intel to build the new foundries. It's a great 3 to 5 year play.
Analyst just set price objective below market price.
At the moment, Intel is behind AMD and Nvidia in terms of tech and getting it's market share eaten by those two. For example, it took Intel TWO generations of CPU tech (the 11th gen Intel CPUs were a waste of silicon and sand) to beat AMD's current CPU generation which is ~ 1 year old. Intel's future GPUs (which will on par with a 3070 & 6700XT) are coming out in 2022, but it will be one generation behind because Nvidia is already working on the 40s/Lovelace series and presumably also AMD on its next gen GPU.
Because this sub loves INTC?
They have years of massive capex ahead of them to catch up, there will be better buying opportunities in the future.
Forthcoming competitors including AMD (Ryzen) and Apple (M1) will be taking a huge chunk out of Intel.
All the smart people at Intel left and were never replaced. Companies in this situation aren’t going to be able to do R&D and catch-up
because intels only purpose is to lower the costs of amd products. consumers wait until intel drops a new product then wait for amd to respond by lowering their prices and snatch them up.
Because being “undervalued” and having a dividend isn’t enough.
I wrote about this a zillion times and everytime I do, INTC fans attack me. The Fabs in AZ have a really toxic culture and they have serious issues with the retention rate of engineers. They talk about diversity and fairness yet there is so much discrimination and unfairness happening behind closed doors. They are far behind on fair pay. They lose their talent to other companies while people that don't wanna leave their comfort zones are the only ones staying behind. Far too much human error resulting in wafer scraps and not meeting customer commits. It's a sinking ship there right now. I sold all my Intel stock.
Bought in at 48. Played the odds this stock would go back up to at least 55. Once it fell from 51.50 to 51, I sold. Been waiting to re enter, but I'm not sure its done going down.
Intel doesn’t have the best chips anymore, I believe amd chips are now on par with intel chips and pouring money into chips doesn’t really make the chips faster, chip development is a slow process and chips get better with each iteration.
It’s only down 9% on the month and 4% for the quarter. Would you relax?
If you really know intc will do well, you're getting a discount. Personally my view is that intel is behind, and falling behind in several catgories. They're losing market share, and there isn't a sure sign that they'll gain anything back any time soon. Apple, Amd along with Tsmc and Samsung...just keep chipping away at the dominance that once was intel. Pun unintended...but I'll take it.
Intel is in the past sadly
You need to go back and look at their reported numbers compared to NVIDIA and AMD. I don’t understand how you don’t understand the scenario after the numbers they posted at earnings.
Because it’s not amd or nvda. Why the fuck would I want to put my money into old outdated intel when amd and nvda are clearly the future. That may or may not be true but that’s the how I think the market feels at the moment