Intel’s investments in the Titanium chipset have effectively dead-ended. They can’t get below 7nm efficiently. Meanwhile, you’ve got companies in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan breaking into the 3nm and 2nm scales. To catch up, they’re looking at hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in technical debt.
Yes, they can keep churning out existing processors at huge profits in the moment. But the face value of these processors plummets with every new step in Moore’s Law. This amounts to asset depreciation, which means Intel’s value is heavily overstated on the basis of asset cost alone.
I won’t argue that NVIDIA is overvalued. But I think the degree to which they are overvalued is often misattributed to speculation and avoids the real specter haunting the company… competition. NVIDIA’s market dominance and the escalating demand for their technology means the sky really should be the limit for their growth. Demand for AI processing is at the forefront of these expectations. But a rival manufacturer capable of cutting into demand for their units would dramatically undermine their profitability.
Its the same with firms like Microsoft and Facebook and Boeing. So much of their dominance is predicated on the theory that people will never leave these walled gardens and their margins being enormous purely because they controlled a critical commodity/patch of technical real estate.
There was - incidentally - another enormous company that seemed to have the market cornered in its industry and got complacent with its R&D and long-term investment strategies… Intel.
Meanwhile, you’ve got companies in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan breaking into the 3nm and 2nm scales.
The mainland Chinese SMIC is doing everything they can without access to ASML’s EUV machines, and have gotten further than anyone else has on DUV. It remains to be seen just how far they can get without plateauing on the limits of that tech. Most doubted that they could get past 10nm, but some of their recent chips appear to be comparable to 7nm, and there are rumors that they have a low yield 5nm process that isn’t economically feasible but can be a strong political statement.
TSMC is delaying the transition to Gate All Around, announcing that they won’t be trying it on the 3nm processes, and waiting until 2nm to roll that out. They’re the undisputed leader today, so they’re milking their current finFET advantage for as long as it will sustain them.
Samsung has already switched to Gate All Around for their 3nm process, so they might get the jump on everyone else (even if they struggled with the previous paradigm of finFET). But they’re not lining up external customers, as their yields still can’t compete with TSMC’s. It’s entirely possible though that as the industry moves from finFETs to GAAFETs, Samsung could take a lead.
Intel basically couldn’t get finFETs to work, and are already trying to skip ahead to GAAFETs (which they call RibbonFET). Plus Intel (like the others) is trying to introduce backside power delivery, which, if it can be commercialized and mass produced, would achieve huge gains in power efficiency. Intel did introduce both technologies in its 20A process (supposedly 2nm class), but then canceled it due to low yield. So they’re basically betting the company on their 18A process, and hoping they can get that to market before TSMC and Samsung hit their stride on 2nm.
The mainland Chinese SMIC is doing everything they can without access to ASML’s EUV machines, and have gotten further than anyone else has on DUV.
You can’t say that, though, because it implies Chinese engineers and information technology scientists are trailblazers rather than plagarists and IP thieves.
Intel did introduce both technologies in its 20A process (supposedly 2nm class), but then canceled it due to low yield. So they’re basically betting the company on their 18A process, and hoping they can get that to market before TSMC and Samsung hit their stride on 2nm.
And I’ve got a few shares in my retirement account riding on that success. But its more a hedge against my own cynicism than a sincere expectation. Intel, like Boeing, seems far more interested in rewarding investors in the short term than maintaining a foothold in the market long term.
How is Intel’s market cap less than their total assets?
Debt, both on-the-books and anticipated.
Intel’s investments in the Titanium chipset have effectively dead-ended. They can’t get below 7nm efficiently. Meanwhile, you’ve got companies in Taiwan, Korea, China, and Japan breaking into the 3nm and 2nm scales. To catch up, they’re looking at hundreds of billions if not trillions of dollars in technical debt.
Yes, they can keep churning out existing processors at huge profits in the moment. But the face value of these processors plummets with every new step in Moore’s Law. This amounts to asset depreciation, which means Intel’s value is heavily overstated on the basis of asset cost alone.
I won’t argue that NVIDIA is overvalued. But I think the degree to which they are overvalued is often misattributed to speculation and avoids the real specter haunting the company… competition. NVIDIA’s market dominance and the escalating demand for their technology means the sky really should be the limit for their growth. Demand for AI processing is at the forefront of these expectations. But a rival manufacturer capable of cutting into demand for their units would dramatically undermine their profitability.
Its the same with firms like Microsoft and Facebook and Boeing. So much of their dominance is predicated on the theory that people will never leave these walled gardens and their margins being enormous purely because they controlled a critical commodity/patch of technical real estate.
There was - incidentally - another enormous company that seemed to have the market cornered in its industry and got complacent with its R&D and long-term investment strategies… Intel.
The mainland Chinese SMIC is doing everything they can without access to ASML’s EUV machines, and have gotten further than anyone else has on DUV. It remains to be seen just how far they can get without plateauing on the limits of that tech. Most doubted that they could get past 10nm, but some of their recent chips appear to be comparable to 7nm, and there are rumors that they have a low yield 5nm process that isn’t economically feasible but can be a strong political statement.
TSMC is delaying the transition to Gate All Around, announcing that they won’t be trying it on the 3nm processes, and waiting until 2nm to roll that out. They’re the undisputed leader today, so they’re milking their current finFET advantage for as long as it will sustain them.
Samsung has already switched to Gate All Around for their 3nm process, so they might get the jump on everyone else (even if they struggled with the previous paradigm of finFET). But they’re not lining up external customers, as their yields still can’t compete with TSMC’s. It’s entirely possible though that as the industry moves from finFETs to GAAFETs, Samsung could take a lead.
Intel basically couldn’t get finFETs to work, and are already trying to skip ahead to GAAFETs (which they call RibbonFET). Plus Intel (like the others) is trying to introduce backside power delivery, which, if it can be commercialized and mass produced, would achieve huge gains in power efficiency. Intel did introduce both technologies in its 20A process (supposedly 2nm class), but then canceled it due to low yield. So they’re basically betting the company on their 18A process, and hoping they can get that to market before TSMC and Samsung hit their stride on 2nm.
You can’t say that, though, because it implies Chinese engineers and information technology scientists are trailblazers rather than plagarists and IP thieves.
And I’ve got a few shares in my retirement account riding on that success. But its more a hedge against my own cynicism than a sincere expectation. Intel, like Boeing, seems far more interested in rewarding investors in the short term than maintaining a foothold in the market long term.