this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2024
1093 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3825 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Intel's stock dropped around 30% overnight, shaving some $39 billion from the company's market capitalization since rumors of a pending layoff first emerged. The devastating results come after the chip giant reported a loss for the second quarter, complained about yield issues with the Meteor Lake CPU, provided a modest business outlook for the next few quarters, and announced plans to lay off 15,000 people worldwide.

When the NYSE closed on July 31, Intel's market capitalization was $130.86 billion. Then, a report about Intel's massive layoffs was published, and the company's market capitalization dropped sharply to $123.96 billion on August 1. Following Intel's financial report yesterday, the company's capitalization dropped to $91.86 billion. Essentially, Intel has lost half of its capitalization since January. As of now, Intel's market value is a fraction of Nvidia's worth and less than half of AMD's.

As Intel's actions look rather desperate, analysts believe that Intel's challenges are existential. "Intel's issues are now approaching the existential," Stacy Rasgon, an analyst with Bernstein, told Reuters.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 19 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (7 children)

There is absolutely no way intel is going under any time soon. They may drop more but it's almost certain that they will recover.

I don't understand a valuation that puts them under AMD given how poor amd's market share is in the gpu market (which intel is now a new valid competitor in for the budget space) alongside the fact that intel's cpu market share is higher than AMD by a large margin.

I'm saying all this as a huge AMD fan. I have a 5800x3d and a 6800xt. I made our work standard laptop be amd based as I set the standards for my organization in my work role. I know my choice is the minority choice. Even in datacenter intel has an overwhelming lead.

[–] Amir@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (4 children)

How is Intel's GPU marketshare any better... Last I heard they were selling their chips at a loss

[–] Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

They are not doing better in the gpu marketshare. They are a new challenger in that space and are no where near getting the lead. The point I was making is that they are just getting into that space, and if they are successful at chipping away at nvidia's giant high margin market share they can very possibly make a ton of money in that space.

Their GPUs however are fairly good price/performance for consumers, meaning they are building market share in that space. Like any business starting out at something they are losing money to gain market share. That's how capitalism works today. You lose money to gain popularity until you get so much market share you can turn screws to make significant profits.

Intel's bread and butter is CPUs. They are the majority market share in the highly lucrative desktop cpu, ~~mobile~~ laptop cpu and datacenter cpu space.

edit: clarification, mobile I mean laptop. I don't think intel is in the cellular phone space?

[–] gnuplusmatt@reddthat.com 2 points 3 months ago

SRIOV in the datacenter without restrictive / Prohibitive licensing costs

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)