News AMD Stock Price Surpasses Intel's for First Time in 15 Years

May 8, 2020
2
0
10
0
I am not from finance background but what i understand about share market its all about influencing people .
Here in this case its a obvious choice for investors why they gone invest in a back dated company who actually forgot to innovate.If this situation happed few more year then my prediction is that intel gone die from chip buisness like IBM.
 

Deicidium369

Permanantly banned.
BANNED
Mar 4, 2020
390
59
290
7
I am not from finance background but what i understand about share market its all about influencing people .
Here in this case its a obvious choice for investors why they gone invest in a back dated company who actually forgot to innovate.If this situation happed few more year then my prediction is that intel gone die from chip buisness like IBM.
LOL. With a 95x P/E ratio at AMD vs an 11x P/E at Intel - of course AMD will have a higher stock price - $7B/ year in revenues vs $75B in revenue is what matters. AMD is not larger than Intel - also doesn't mean that Intel is in trouble - they are about to introduce a full portfolio of new products, all of which will be market leaders. AMD's high PE is over exuberance from Wall Street - at some point AMD has to start to deliver to justify that sky high PE - if they don't they will be down to a $5-6/share stock commensurate with their anemic revenue.

Tesla has a larger market cap than Toyota - do you think that Tesla poses a threat to Toyota?
 
Reactions: A_jana
Jan 17, 2020
43
6
35
0
"Of course, it must be said that the stock price says nothing about the company's value. For that, you would need to multiply the stock price by the number of shares, and that's when things end up looking totally different. "

Making this article totally and completely irrelevant. Share price means absolutely nothing at all in a vacuum. If Intel were to do a reverse split, making its shares worth 2x as much, what would that mean? Nothing. Zero. Bupkis.
 

Deicidium369

Permanantly banned.
BANNED
Mar 4, 2020
390
59
290
7
"Of course, it must be said that the stock price says nothing about the company's value. For that, you would need to multiply the stock price by the number of shares, and that's when things end up looking totally different. "

Making this article totally and completely irrelevant. Share price means absolutely nothing at all in a vacuum. If Intel were to do a reverse split, making its shares worth 2x as much, what would that mean? Nothing. Zero. Bupkis.
Multiplying the Share price x the outstanding shares is how you calculate Market Cap - which determines the company's value. The stock price is manipulated through P/E ratios - Price to Earnings. So the stock price is P/E x Revenue divided by outstanding shares- which in AMD's case as of Today (Thursday July 23 2020) is almost 105x. Intel is a little over 11x. So every dollar of revenue at AMD represents $105 of it's valuation/market cap. One dollar of revenue at Intel represents $11.00 of it's valuation/market cap. A little simplistic but accurate.

Average P/E industry wide is 15-16X - Intel is below that, and AMD is 7x the average. Some would say that AMD's high PE is based on optimism that they will do great in the future - at some point - they have to deliver - and so far they have not. I don't care about mouth frothing fan boys, revenues are revenues. IF AMD was even at the market average, it would be less than $10 per share. Nvidia's high stock price is a function of their increase P/E as well - they haven't really started booking revenue for Ampere yet - and Intel's doesn't reflect that they are introducing a full portfolio of new products, including the meat and potatos of the data center - 2 socket servers (with the same 128 PCIe4 lanes, same 8ch DDR43200ECC memory as Epyc).

Stock market is largely a rigged game. Hardware stocks are even more rigged. Revenues are all that matters back in reality.
 

artk2219

Distinguished
Jun 30, 2010
423
21
18,865
29
Back in 2017-2018 I predicted this upward trend. Unfortunately, I wasn't in a financial position to put my money where my mouth was..... Deeply regret not getting into a 4x-5x gain.
I did NOT predict it, but wondered if I should invest when Ryzen came out. But, I was gun-shy, so, here I am, in the same position you are.
I did buy into AMD back in 2016 when they were around $3, but I didn't put enough money in since i'm not exactly awash in it, and was even less so at that point in time. But I did put in roughly $250, and unfortunately had to sell 80 precent of it when it was at $13 dollars a share for some bills. The remaining 20% has been interesting to watch though, what was worth $50 dollars at that point in time, is now worth almost $1200, more than what I got for 80 percent of my shares back in 2017 :-/.
 

timberland67

Distinguished
Apr 30, 2010
6
0
18,510
0
If you own Intel I would recommend selling today before the earnings. The stock is up in anticipation of good earnings, but I predict bad things. Here is the reasoning.

Intel motherboards have been easy to obtain through the pandemic even with lower supply. AMD motherboards on the other hand have been selling out. Intel continues to use 14nm lithography whereas everyone else has moved to 7nm. The last generation of CPU's increased TDP and thermals to obtain faster speeds, but at the cost of efficiency. They have nothing in the pipeline to compete with AMD's Ryzen 3 CPU's that have just been released, and finally Apple is no longer using Intel chips in their products.

Verdict...The previous quarter and guidance should be bad. I think traders are expecting good news because of the influx of technology purchases during the pandemic, but I believe Intel has dropped the ball here and the stock price will suffer.
 
May 8, 2020
2
0
10
0
LOL. With a 95x P/E ratio at AMD vs an 11x P/E at Intel - of course AMD will have a higher stock price - $7B/ year in revenues vs $75B in revenue is what matters. AMD is not larger than Intel - also doesn't mean that Intel is in trouble - they are about to introduce a full portfolio of new products, all of which will be market leaders. AMD's high PE is over exuberance from Wall Street - at some point AMD has to start to deliver to justify that sky high PE - if they don't they will be down to a $5-6/share stock commensurate with their anemic revenue.

Tesla has a larger market cap than Toyota - do you think that Tesla poses a threat to Toyota?
LOL. With a 95x P/E ratio at AMD vs an 11x P/E at Intel - of course AMD will have a higher stock price - $7B/ year in revenues vs $75B in revenue is what matters. AMD is not larger than Intel - also doesn't mean that Intel is in trouble - they are about to introduce a full portfolio of new products, all of which will be market leaders. AMD's high PE is over exuberance from Wall Street - at some point AMD has to start to deliver to justify that sky high PE - if they don't they will be down to a $5-6/share stock commensurate with their anemic revenue.

Tesla has a larger market cap than Toyota - do you think that Tesla poses a threat to Toyota?
Thanks for sharing the information ,but my point is that intel is big its obvious but intel stop their innovation for a long time ,and they are also failed to meet consumer demand.only for this reason intel slip the market share .
Here i said that if this things is continuing then probably intel stop their chip fab unit but the company is still exists in AI field .
 
If you own Intel I would recommend selling today before the earnings. The stock is up in anticipation of good earnings, but I predict bad things. Here is the reasoning.
...
snip
...
Verdict...The previous quarter and guidance should be bad. I think traders are expecting good news because of the influx of technology purchases during the pandemic, but I believe Intel has dropped the ball here and the stock price will suffer.
Even if intel's quarter is incredibly bad and drops by 50% they will still be at the normal net income they should have anyway,there is no fear there for anybody with intel stock.
 
Back in 2017-2018 I predicted this upward trend. Unfortunately, I wasn't in a financial position to put my money where my mouth was..... Deeply regret not getting into a 4x-5x gain.
Before Polaris was released in 2016 AMD was around $2/share. Knowing what products they had coming out in the next couple of years made me wish I had a spare $1k at the time to invest in them.
 
Some would say that AMD's high PE is based on optimism that they will do great in the future - at some point - they have to deliver - and so far they have not.
How have they not delivered? So far Zen, Zen+, and Zen 2 have all been released on schedule. Zen 2 took the IPC crown from Intel for the first time in over a decade. All while Intel has been stuck on the same uarchitecture and node since 2015's Skylake. Only differences from Skylake to Comet Lake are clock speed and cores. There is nothing in the uarch to increase IPC in any meaningful way. Now we have to wait for Rocket Lake to be released which will be a back ported 10nm into 14nm design for an actual increase in IPC. However, do to the added complexity and die size odds are clock speed will be significantly lower so overall performance will be a wash.

Intel's doesn't reflect that they are introducing a full portfolio of new products, including the meat and potatos of the data center - 2 socket servers (with the same 128 PCIe4 lanes, same 8ch DDR43200ECC memory as Epyc).
Here is the issue with that, Ice Lake Xeon isn't out. Is it sampling...yes...but general availability isn't there. We are told it will be Q3, so that means between now and September. It will be interesting to see what it is able to do. Right now the Cascade Lake Xeons are behind Epyc 2 in IPC, absolute performance, per core performance, and I/O. Ice Lake might take back the first 3, but still be behind in I/O. Dual socket Epyc 2 has a max of 160 PCIe 4.0 lanes available for I/O. This is done by taking an extra 16 lanes/CPU away from the CPU/CPU communication links. That makes a huge difference when you want massive hyper-converged infrastructure. Instead of 24x PCIe 3 or 4 SSDs & 2x dual port 100GbE you can do 24x PCIe 3 or 4 SSDs & 4x single port 200GbE or 4x dual port 100GbE, etc...

I don't care about mouth frothing fan boys, revenues are revenues.
Revenue doesn't mean anything if the products continue to be inferior. Eventually the ancient thinking in corporations will catch up to modern times and that revenue will fall. Right now the thinking in a lot of corporations is "no one ever got fired for buying Intel." That is the 2000s version of what was said in the late 80s and 90s of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM." Guess what...IBM faltered and their products were bad and people eventually got fired. Same thing will happen with the current line of thinking. All it takes is the right people to be able to make a case about how going AMD will save money but not hurt performance or uptime and guess what companies will buy AMD. I don't know a single corporate CEO who wouldn't seriously consider going AMD on an upgrade if it will save them $millions. That extra savings will help the CEOs pocket book by having higher profits.
 

tennis2

Dignified
Right now the thinking in a lot of corporations is "no one ever got fired for buying Intel." That is the 2000s version of what was said in the late 80s and 90s of "no one ever got fired for buying IBM." Guess what...IBM faltered and their products were bad and people eventually got fired. Same thing will happen with the current line of thinking.
My own opinion, and I'll try to keep this focused on CPUs & mobos only:
AMD still has a lot to prove on the stability and reliability front. Home PC enthusiasts may not notice or care because they have time to troubleshoot or live with quirks. Therefore their opinions/decisions/recommendations are based solely off of saving $100 or less for roughly equivalent performance with little/no regard for downtime costs or IT/tech support costs of maintaining hundreds or thousands of users of varying needs, etc etc.

I think the "no one ever got fired for buying Intel" statement is still sound. Sure, Intel CPUs consume more power than AMD (clock an AMD CPU to 5GHz [oh wait...] and it's not going to be a power sipper either), but thats not a huge deal outside of server farms and OCing. With 9th and 10th gen, Intel has responded in a good way with core counts. AMD likes to tout its massive core counts since [aside from lower(*) power consumption] that's it's only shining light at the moment. But there's still a point of rapidly decreasing return on core counts for the majority of uses/users (yes, that will continue to evolve as time progresses).

Sure, AMD has been making waves by catching up to Intel through finally having a decent architecture and a process node advantage. But their lack of R&D budget and aggressive product release schedule is showing up in their product quality. If they can't get that under control, their stock price is going to TANK once Intel gets back up off their faces.

Of course, even if we boil this down to Intel vs AMD CPUs (which isn't the sole revenue of either company), we're still talking about a wide-ranging product stack from low end $100 CPUs to $5000+ CPUs. So the minutia within specific slices of those stacks may swing one way or the other depending on user needs.

And so nobody accuses me of fanboy-ism, I'm planning on upgrading my personal gaming PC later this year. I'll probably end up with an AMD Ryzen CPU.


...just can't resist. How well do you think AMD is going to fare against Nvidia when they're BOTH playing on 7nm process nodes later this year?.... AMD have always been good at hyping their products pre-launch.
 
Last edited:

gg83

Honorable
Jul 10, 2015
149
20
10,585
0
Back in 2017-2018 I predicted this upward trend. Unfortunately, I wasn't in a financial position to put my money where my mouth was..... Deeply regret not getting into a 4x-5x gain.
I was watching amd when it was $6 a share and didn't put any money into it. That's the stock market for you. It looked like amd was going bankrupt back then too.
 
My own opinion, and I'll try to keep this focused on CPUs & mobos only:
AMD still has a lot to prove on the stability and reliability front. Home PC enthusiasts may not notice or care because they have time to troubleshoot or live with quirks. Therefore their opinions/decisions/recommendations are based solely off of saving $100 or less for roughly equivalent performance with little/no regard for downtime costs or IT/tech support costs of maintaining hundreds or thousands of users of varying needs, etc etc.

I think the "no one ever got fired for buying Intel" statement is still sound. Sure, Intel CPUs consume more power than AMD (clock an AMD CPU to 5GHz [oh wait...] and it's not going to be a power sipper either), but thats not a huge deal outside of server farms and OCing. With 9th and 10th gen, Intel has responded in a good way with core counts. AMD likes to tout its massive core counts since [aside from lower(*) power consumption] that's it's only shining light at the moment. But there's still a point of rapidly decreasing return on core counts for the majority of uses/users (yes, that will continue to evolve as time progresses).

Sure, AMD has been making waves by catching up to Intel through finally having a decent architecture and a process node advantage. But their lack of R&D budget and aggressive product release schedule is showing up in their product quality. If they can't get that under control, their stock price is going to TANK once Intel gets back up off their faces.

Of course, even if we boil this down to Intel vs AMD CPUs (which isn't the sole revenue of either company), we're still talking about a wide-ranging product stack from low end $100 CPUs to $5000+ CPUs. So the minutia within specific slices of those stacks may swing one way or the other depending on user needs.

And so nobody accuses me of fanboy-ism, I'm planning on upgrading my personal gaming PC later this year. I'll probably end up with an AMD Ryzen CPU.
As the hardware decision maker in a small corporate data center I can tell you first hand that Epyc is VERY good. The ability to have 32 cores on a single VMware license is huge. We could have gone with the Intel CPUs but for the same cost would have only gotten 20c/40t CPUs and 768GB RAM instead of 32c/64t & 1TB RAM. We are 100% virtualizied so the added resources at the same cost are a bonus. The stability of the systems is rock solid. I haven't had a single minute of downtime due to system stability. The only "crash" we had was because an SSD with ESXi on it went bad.

From a pure performance perspective the current Intel is slower, fewer cores, and hotter than the AMD equivalent. Ice Lake is now shipping at the end of this year rather than Q3. https://www.anandtech.com/show/15927/intel-roadmap-update-alder-lake-in-h2-21-ice-lakesp-late-this-year Now instead of having Ice Lake against Zen 2 for a few months, it will be Ice Lake against Zen 3. Odds are Intel will still be at a performance disadvantage and while catching up on RAM, still be lower on I/O 160 max lanes vs 128 lanes.

I have built 2 different Ryzen desktops and they haven't had an issue with stability at all. The initial stability problems with X370 have been fixed for years. In terms of laptops the company I work for has purchased a good 10 Ryzen laptops and they are all working just fine. The quality of said products has been fine as well. The biggest problem there are the OEMs who decide what type of laptops the chips are used.
 

PCWarrior

Distinguished
May 20, 2013
99
26
18,560
0
Intel’s stock has now fallen to $50.59 while AMD’s shot to $69.40. So AMD’s shares are now worth $18.81 more than Intel’s! Absolutely unbelievable.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS