Thursday, July 9th 2020
NVIDIA Surpasses Intel in Market Cap Size
Yesterday after the stock market has closed, NVIDIA has officially reached a bigger market cap compared to Intel. After hours, the price of the NVIDIA (ticker: NVDA) stock is $411.20 with a market cap of 251.31B USD. It marks a historic day for NVIDIA as the company has historically been smaller than Intel (ticker: INTC), with some speculating that Intel could buy NVIDIA in the past while the company was much smaller. Intel's market cap now stands at 248.15B USD, which is a bit lower than NVIDIA's. However, the market cap is not an indication of everything. NVIDIA's stock is fueled by the hype generated around Machine Learning and AI, while Intel is not relying on any possible bubbles.
If we compare the revenues of both companies, Intel is having much better performance. It had a revenue of 71.9 billion USD in 2019, while NVIDIA has 11.72 billion USD of revenue. No doubt that NVIDIA has managed to do a good job and it managed to almost double revenue from 2017, where it went from $6.91 billion in 2017 to $11.72 billion in 2019. That is an amazing feat and market predictions are that it is not stopping to grow. With the recent acquisition of Mellanox, the company now has much bigger opportunities for expansion and growth.
If we compare the revenues of both companies, Intel is having much better performance. It had a revenue of 71.9 billion USD in 2019, while NVIDIA has 11.72 billion USD of revenue. No doubt that NVIDIA has managed to do a good job and it managed to almost double revenue from 2017, where it went from $6.91 billion in 2017 to $11.72 billion in 2019. That is an amazing feat and market predictions are that it is not stopping to grow. With the recent acquisition of Mellanox, the company now has much bigger opportunities for expansion and growth.
136 Comments on NVIDIA Surpasses Intel in Market Cap Size
Their behavior and market situation proves they are.
You are an underdog if you HAVE TO price your products lower compared to the competition.
More importantly, their revenue and profit margins are absolutely nothing compared to Intel, they have a long way ahead of them to become a serious threat to Intel.
I honestly think ARM is more worrisome than AMD to Intel in the long term.
"As of November 2019, all supercomputers on TOP500 are 64-bit, mostly based on CPUs using the x86-64 instruction set architecture (of which 474 are Intel EMT64-based and 6 are AMD AMD64-based). The few exceptions are all based on RISC architectures). "
Should make the most of it while it lasts,intels fabrication problems wont last forever
www.statista.com/statistics/263562/intel-expenditure-on-research-and-development-since-2004/
www.statista.com/statistics/267873/amds-expenditure-on-research-and-development-since-2001/
www.statista.com/statistics/988048/nvidia-research-and-development-expenses/
AMD: 1.55 billion
Nvidia: 2.83 billion
Intel: 13.36 billion
Now, I can't find how these budget get broken down in CPU or GPU or consumer or professional etc...
www.statista.com/statistics/263562/intel-expenditure-on-research-and-development-since-2004/
www.statista.com/statistics/267873/amds-expenditure-on-research-and-development-since-2001/
www.statista.com/statistics/988048/nvidia-research-and-development-expenses/
AMD: 1.55 billion
Nvidia: 2.83 billion
Intel: 13.36 billion
Now, I can't find how these budget get broken down in CPU or GPU or consumer or professional etc...
AMD is doing the same. People wouldn't reach for nvidia. They have tensors yeah, but that is not heterogeneous.
Consoles are the sandbox for future AMD hardware. Change my mind.
Cloud / centralized data processing combined with localized inferencing and application, the future is truly bright for AI in our soceiety.
AMD's demise had to do with their CPUs not their GPUs. They lost time with Barcelona, not to mention that TLB bug, they messed up with the FX line and if they had insisted with their factory business, those 5 billions would have gone to the trash can, for nothing a few years later. In the end those 5 billions probably forced them to do something that seems a great decision today. Get rid of their fabs before it is too late. And I am not thinking of Intel while saying this. I am thinking of how much money someone would have to spend today to develop a new node.
And of course thanks to ATI, they had the best integrated graphics in the market, THE ONLY selling point for some of their products in that horrible Bulldozer era and also brought them the consoles to them. Without the consoles, AMD would have been dead. Call it a speculation if you wish. Also in the future they will have a chance in the AI market, because of those GPUs.
As for Zen. There would have been no Zen if there was no Radeon group in AMD. No money, no Zen. 10-15 years ago I was very very very favorite to that idea. Then Intel in one night throw out of the chipset business EVERYONE. SiS, VIA, Nvidia. They did had to pay Nvidia some money for the next few years - i don't know about the others - but NO Antitrust regulators rush to make sure that there was more than one maker of chipsets for the Intel platform. Do you know anyone making Intel chipsets other than Intel today? I don't.
Then it is ARM and other CPU architectures. You can argue that more than one x86 maker is needed in a healthy market, but you can't say that Intel is a monopoly in the CPU business. Even 10+ years ago they where not. So, are you sure that Intel would have to split or at least pay beefy fines? Best case scenario AMD was going bankrupt and someone else, like Samsung, was coming in to bought everything, including of course the x86 license. Yeah, speculation. Like that "Antitrust regulators will never allow a single x86 player" phrase. Speculation. Intel was making BILLIONs for years, while AMD was losing BILLIONs for years, but yeah, Intel got fined a couple of billions so justice had prevailed. Oh...my..... Damn, every post you do is completely wrong. Do I have to quote more?
Haven't you following the market those last years? Don't you see what is going on in the laptop market? OEMs DO build AMD systems now, they don't make Dell's error to avoid building even a single model, but they make.... strange choices. Single channel memory, small battery, bad screen, stupid price, illogical choices like touchscreens in a form factor that is useless and of couse, the new fashion of limiting the top GPU with Renoir models.
If a company suddenyl pops up to deliver 2x the internet speeds at 80% of hte price, bring it on, sure they want to make a profit (by hopefully attracting tons of people with this package) but as a consumer its better for me as well so I would be rooting for that company to do well.
Tesla makes and pushes electric cars/vehicles now and idk how much experience you have with them but an electric car pulling away in the morning, the silence of it, or an electric scooter passing you, no sound, no smell, its fantastic, more of that pls.
AMD tried multiple things that are good imo, think of Mantle, a close to the metal API push that spawned Vulcan and pushed DirectX a bit in a similair direction, the concept of True Audio, finally a company that values audio improvement (50% of the experience) over the always pushed graphics all the time. Or what about Freesync as opposed to the competitions "extra money pls" G-sync, that even pushed the competition to work on that same concept.
And that is just the graphics devision, Ill be rooting for AMD because I like these sort of approuches and mindset.
Meanwhile Nvidia has....upped their prices by a ton, bought and effectively killed what could have been with PhysX and a lot more shady stuff that Im not in favor off.