It's trading significantly below book? $120 B vs $82 B.

Downside is that most of their assets are their fabs...

That can also mean they haven’t done asset writeoffs they should have already done in previous quarters.

If you have billions in obsolete equipment you can technically get away with not doing an asset write off so it doesn’t show in the books of current quarterly performance. Just claim it’s not actually obsolete yet. It catches up eventually though.

So the above may be more of a timebomb than a value signal. It can indicate that Intel hasn’t written off ~$40billion of assets it should have and it would seem a lot of investors are aware of this. They are already losing $10billion a quarter without counting those write off so I understand the hesitance.

Their revenue is >twice AMD's. If IFS disappeared they'd probably have a better valuation than they do right now solely based on processor performance, but their success in the foundry business is probably contributing negative value to their market cap (presumably because it's soaking up so much cash for nil returns)

Intel upside right now is possibly very high, if they can fix the foundry. Their current stock is pricing in complete catastrophe, rightly or wrongly (TSMC is priced at 750B mkt cap, for perspective). Yes, intel isn't as successful as TSMC right now, but only ten years ago intel foundry was better than TSMC.

I don't know where they'll go. But I feel you have much better risk/reward with intel right now.

And it seems like they don't have a whole lot to fix to be back on top or at least extremely competitive. They know how to run foundries, they just need to catch up on the tech side, it's going to take a bit of time and cash but it's not like if they don't have experience doing it previously.

On the chip design side of things, they seemed to have almost caught up (at least to AMD/Qualcomm, Apple is another story) because their upcoming low power laptop chips generation looks like it will be very competitive in terms of power per watts. And they benefit from years of refinement in the software side as well as quite competitive GPU stack, people seem to forget too easily but AMD products still have many annoyances that Intel ones just dont (recently WIFI issues on their latest laptops) and Qualcomm is a no go unless you do browser-based stuff for the most part.

I don't understand people giving up Intel for dead, because even at their worse in the past few years, they were still competitive, both in performance and price; once they figure out the process and design (seems to be on good way) I would worry a lot more about the other side of competition, but who knows...