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.

  • tempest@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    4 months ago

    It is dead.

    The only reason it seems like it’s not is because AMD server CPUs are just getting physically larger and larger

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Check out 3D stacked ram for example. Moores law isn’t about some size measure.

      And now I have to eat another snickers…

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Well yes exactly.

          Edit: you just showed the law is still alive and kicking:

          It is dead.

          The only reason it seems like it’s not is because AMD server CPUs are just getting physically larger and larger

          • tempest@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            4 months ago

            Fair enough.

            Though if density is irrelevant then the entire thing is meaningless.

            Should instead be talking about how large of a silicon wafer can be produced.