It took the slow arse Wall Street players long enough to realize this... smh.

Intel's execs will panic about it again & this time they won't have anything to fight back against AMD's upcoming offerings.

Intel's market cap is $215B as of right now. The $255B market cap was before the stock tanked over 15%.

It is obvious what will happen next, Intel will poach some more AMD talent...

i recall that at some point, 5 year ago, the stock as worth less than 2$

This is quite a big raise. people who own these stocks can make some juicy profits. The market caps between both company isn't that big anymore and Intel does way more than just CPU and have theirs own Fabs...

it's not looking good for Intel, but they can rebound at any time if they start taking better decision.

But Stock price is one thing, that give to AMD more financing options. In the end, Intel Revenues are still way ahead of AMD by an order of magnitude.

" A first in many years for the green company. "

What does NVIDIA have to do with this article? Seriously, AMD has been advertising themselves as " Team Red " for years! :p

For the true fan, AMD will always be green. But anyway, Intel still makes more than 10 times more money than AMD, each year. They make 65 Billions USD, with a B, more money, each year. Let that sink in.

mtcn77It is obvious what will happen next, Intel will poach some more AMD talent...

Remind me, how it worked with Jim Keller...

Large corporations that are used to dominant position act like swamps when you try to change them.

SihastruIntel still makes more than 10 times more money than AMD, each year.

Lol, son.
Intel's INCOME is several times bigger than NVidia's REVENUE.
It easily makes about 100 more money than AMD who just turned profitable.

SihastruBut anyway, Intel still makes more than 10 times more money than AMD, each year. They make 65 Billions USD, with a B, more money, each year. Let that sink in.

The profit flow will slow down even to a halt once more people realise that the only move forward is AMD systems only..

Who would have thought - the company that was facing the bankruptcy threat just mere 3 or 4 years ago, is now the market leader.

Everything happens in cycles. There's always ups and downs. The thing is that large companies have (slowly) built a sort of partial immunity to these cycles. Small companies can sometimes sync up to the up and up, but, eventually, there will be a downfall. Intel can eat up that downfall while the whole company is asleep, while AMD really can't. And AMD needs to fight on two fronts at the same time.

Intel is in markets and market segments where AMD just doesn't and can't operate in. So, while it's nice to acknowledge AMD right now, they made incredible jumps, they made us think 16, 32 or 64 cores can have a home on any enthusiast's desk, it only takes a small wrong step and everything can turn sour. Intel can afford to dance the Macarena with all the wrong steps several times over and still come out on top.

And we've been here before, AMD had glory days before, and yet, Intel still came out on top. So let's be happy for AMD right now, because good things always come to their end. Hopefully rather later than sooner. But stop dreaming of the underdog taking out the giant, because that's not going to happen very soon.

SihastruEverything happens in cycles. There's always ups and downs. The thing is that large companies have (slowly) built a sort of partial immunity to these cycles. Small companies can sometimes sync up to the up and up, but, eventually, there will be a downfall. Intel can eat up that downfall while the whole company is asleep, while AMD really can't. And AMD needs to fight on two fronts at the same time.

Intel is in markets and market segments where AMD just doesn't and can't operate in. So, while it's nice to acknowledge AMD right now, they made incredible jumps, they made us think 16, 32 or 64 cores can have a home on any enthusiast's desk, it only takes a small wrong step and everything can turn sour. Intel can afford to dance the Macarena with all the wrong steps several times over and still come out on top.

And we've been here before, AMD had glory days before, and yet, Intel still came out on top. So let's be happy for AMD right now, because good things always come to their end. Hopefully rather later than sooner. But stop dreaming of the underdog taking out the giant, because that's not going to happen very soon.

I wouldn't be optimistic about Intel's future.
They are married to their x86 chips and don't see that ARM is coming.

Intel Plunges as It Weighs Exit From Manufacturing Chips
(Bloomberg) -- Intel Corp. Chief Executive Officer Bob Swan spent almost an hour on Thursday discussing an idea that would once have been unthinkable for the world’s largest semiconductor company: Not manufacturing its own chips.
finance.yahoo.com/news/intel-considers-once-heresy-not-013625863.html

ARM-based Japanese supercomputer is now the fastest in the world
www.theverge.com/2020/6/23/21300097/fugaku-supercomputer-worlds-fastest-top500-riken-fujitsu-arm

It's just the beginning of a very different world order.

Why does price per share even matter? It's an insignificant metric in every sense. Even a worthless metric as market cap is much more realistic measure for comparison.

ARFI wouldn't be optimistic about Intel's future.
They are married to their x86 chips and don't see that ARM is coming....

I kind of agree with this, we'll see soon with the new ARM macbooks. I suspect Apple would not have gone this route if it didn't have some serious performance advantages to offer, and not just on power consumption.

If we get an ARM Macbook that say outperforms Intel \ AMD on single core by 50% and multi-core by 25-50%, it will be a seismic shift that could doom not only Intel but AMD as well along with a dozen or more PC / Server manufacturers.

This is not outside the realm of possibility given that the Developer system that Apple sent out benched very well against Intel/AMD - almost matching them even under emulation - and is based on what is now a 2 year old A12 that was made on foundry 10nm (essentially the same density / characteristics as Intel 14nm).

What happens when they put in an 5nm A14 with optimizations for desktop / server...

chodaboy19Why does price per share even matter? It's an insignificant metric in every sense. Even a worthless metric as market cap is much more realistic measure for comparison.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

Share price generally doesn't mean anything as far as value because, for example, if there were only 1 share for Intel how much would it be worth.

Intel has a market cap of > 250B and revenue of ~$75B vs 66B and 7B for AMD. So AMD has about 1/10th of Intel's revenue and about 1/4th their market cap. Real big thing - Intel has a 30% profit margin and AMD has just over 6%.

This translates into Intel having 42B in gross profit and AMD having 2.9B in gross profit.

From a bean counter perspective, Intel is greatly undervalued and AMD is greatly overvalued. Those numbers don't lie, Intel has 10x the revenue 5x the profit margin and 10x the profitability. This can change but it will / would take years.

Hmm. What exactly does Intel sell ? :confused:

When the Ryzen 9 3900X destroys Core i9-10900K.

Cinebench R15 Multi (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 3159
Core i9-10900K: 2624

Cinebench R20 Multi (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 7155
Core i9-10900K: 6155

Blender 2.81a - BMW27 (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 116
Core i9-10900K: 139

Ryzen 9 3900X: 350
Core i9-10900K: 454

POVRay 3.7 1920x1080 AA 0.3 (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 200
Core i9-10900K: 251

SPECworkstation 3 (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 1.13
Core i9-10900K: 1.09

Ryzen 9 3900X: 4.38
Core i9-10900K: 3.51

Ryzen 9 3900X: 1.61
Core i9-10900K: 0.92

CPU-Z Multi (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 8397
Core i9-10900K: 7159

7-Zip Compressing (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 62
Core i9-10900K: 54

7-Zip Decompressing (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 1547
Core i9-10900K: 1221

Google Chrome - Mozilla Kraken (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 719
Core i9-10900K: 747

FryBench x64 (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 82
Core i9-10900K: 87
www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-10900k-processor-review,15.html

VRayNEXT 4.10.7 Multi (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 19987
Core i9-10900K: 17621
www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-10900k-processor-review,16.html

IndigoBench 4.0.64 (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 4.462
Core i9-10900K: 4.301

Corona Benchmark (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 74
Core i9-10900K: 79

Handbrake 2017 (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 68.7
Core i9-10900K: 60.02

Magix Vega Pro 14.0 Ultra HD Video Render (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 675
Core i9-10900K: 694

WPrime 1024M (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 56
Core i9-10900K: 70
www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/intel-core-i9-10900k-processor-review,20.html

PassMark (higher is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 32868 www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+Ryzen+9+3900X&id=3493
Core i9-10900K: 24014 www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i9-10900K+@+3.70GHz&id=3730

Price (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: $419
Core i9-10900K: $550

TDP (lower is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: 105 watts
Core i9-10900K: 125 watts?

Security vulnerabilities (no is better):
Ryzen 9 3900X: No
Core i9-10900K: Yes

Process node:
Ryzen 9 3900X: TSMC N7
Core i9-10900K: Intel 14nm


And this is without mentioning the Ryzen 9 3950X and the Ryzen 9 4900H.

ARFThe profit flow will slow down even to a halt once more people realise that the only move forward is AMD systems only..

Who would have thought - the company that was facing the bankruptcy threat just mere 3 or 4 years ago, is now the market leader.

And yet, Intel's revenue went up 20% YoY in the last quarter, with a 7% rise in pc-centric market revenue.
I mean yes, AMD fanboy-ism might be strong in some places, but I built several systems and bought several laptops for acquaintances in the past few months, with just one request for an AMD system and rest being based on Intel. Most consumers just buy whatever is on a shelf and has names they heard previously, ones who care enough to check benchmarks just look at gaming and see Intel on top. The rest is just a tiny minority barely worth a mention in a footnote. Personally, I don't care is a video converts an hour longer. I care if I get 10fps more or less in a game, which is a more immediate problem.

TheUn4seenAMD fanboy-ism

TheUn4seenMost consumers just buy whatever is on a shelf and has names they heard previously, ones who care enough to check benchmarks just look at gaming

This is idiotism. You know productivity - gaming is for kids and people without jobs.

ARFThey are married to their x86 chips and don't see that ARM is coming.

ARM has yet to demonstrate its ability to scale up.
One needs to turn it into CISC for that to happen, in my opinion, and there is a number of issues with that way.

ARM chips are so laughably cheap, you could as well kiss goodbye to AMD/Intel CPU divisions, if it is to take over x86.

TheUn4seenMost consumers just buy

AMD is trouncing Intel in DIY market.
But the said market is, at best, one fifth of the total, so it's imprtant for AMD to penetrate OEM lineups. Which seems to just have happened with 4xxx series.

ARFThis is idiotism. You know productivity - gaming is for kids and people without jobs.

Riiight, and those kids and unemployed people make for an 2.5 billion human strong market worth 255 billion dollars a year. They can also easily afford all those 2080s with their welfare checks and pocket change.

thesmokingmanIt took the slow arse Wall Street players long enough to realize this... smh.

Jim Cramer mocked investing in AMD right before it went on to lead the stock market. Wall Street players are just that playing people.

TheUn4seenAnd yet, Intel's revenue went up 20% YoY in the last quarter, with a 7% rise in pc-centric market revenue.
I mean yes, AMD fanboy-ism might be strong in some places, but I built several systems and bought several laptops for acquaintances in the past few months, with just one request for an AMD system and rest being based on Intel. Most consumers just buy whatever is on a shelf and has names they heard previously, ones who care enough to check benchmarks just look at gaming and see Intel on top. The rest is just a tiny minority barely worth a mention in a footnote. Personally, I don't care is a video converts an hour longer. I care if I get 10fps more or less in a game, which is a more immediate problem.

Rendering doesn't just happens for the final output, when you work on a project having to do several preview renders is not uncommon, it's an immediate problem. But yes, outside of tech forums Intel still get to benefits from their stronger brand image as being the premium product.

dyonoctisRendering doesn't just happens for the final output, when you work on a project having to do several preview renders is not uncommon, it's an immediate problem. But yes, outside of tech forums Intel still get to benefits from their stronger brand image as being the premium product.

Premium means higher quality and more expensive - Intel's products are inferior to AMD's in every single metric, so this "premium" feeling is just virtual. That, of course, will fade away sooner rather than later.

Zen 3 should come soon.

That's just stupid, if you rethink it. How ON EARTH can an 5 year old 14nm CPU be premium compared to the cutting edge and best available N7 ?

incoming PR wall from Intel on how "real life" usage is different than "reality" and thus they are still the top dog and dominate AMD with a "Valles Marineris" (Mars "grand canyon") gape between them, instead of trying to recognize the situation and improve (preferably not via induced vulnerabili.... errrr "optimisation" )


well ...their recent attitude does not help me to like them (i.e.: locking features that were available to all chipset and CPU before to the higher end only or the whole "in real life performances we are better than AMD, FOOLS!" )

"Real" life in their reality means that users must be imprisoned in their ecosystem without thinking about anything else or any choice, no development, no progress, nothing.
Just quad-cores for life.... :kookoo:

Considering how fast stock price is changing, you would think it was AMD that made $18B this quarter. I think Intel is doing a good thing tapping into other foundries.
I hope AMD does good too. We need better AMD for more competition considering how far ahead Nvidia is.

Good news for AMD and Nvidia.

Intel to soon go semi fabless to address this.