Live data from Hacker News

Nvidia is now a $1T company

theverge.com

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#91
post #5

Wow, 213x P/E ratio. To put this into context with other large tech companies: P/E MARKET CAP Salesforce 1,036x $0.2T AMD 519x $0.2T NVIDIA 213x $1.0T Amazon 293x $1.25T Microsoft 35x $2.4T Meta/FB 33x $0.7T Apple 30x $2.7T Google 27x $1.5T TSMC 16x $0.4T Samsung 10x $0.3T EDIT: "P/E" ratio is the Market Cap "Price" / Earnings the company generates. E.g. Samsung is generating $30B in earnings (not revenue, earnings),…

I see salesforce valued at $216/share and $5.25 twelve months trailing per share. that's 41x, not 1000x.

https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/CRM?p=CRM&.tsrc=fin-srch

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#92
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, NVDA is in a similar position to VMware among practitioners--folks hate their pricing and will gladly jump ship to whatever is cheaper with feature parity. They've burned their brand by charging so much and doing licensing fuckery to squeeze as much as possible. Folks are only staying because CUDA has no equivalent (for now).

> folks hate their pricing and will gladly jump ship to whatever is cheaper with feature parity. ... Folks are only staying because CUDA has no equivalent (for now). ah yes, consistent long-term delivery of realized customer value, the shakiest of moats

When most folks are using CUDA indirectly via library abstractions, swapping it out eventually becomes easy and their moat fades away. CUDA alternatives are innovating pretty fast, and the ever present threat of TPUs and things like Apple's Neural Engine aren't helping them. They should've been building better partnerships and giving more margin away for integration and OEM instead of being greedy. But that wouldn't have juiced their short term profits.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#93
post #80
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well NVIDIA depends entirely on TSMC Yes and no. If NVIDIA loses access to TSMC due to geopolitical events, presumedly their competitors do too. There might be a couple years where they face increased competition from their own used market if they're unable to produce chis competitive with the previous generations', but at some point Samsung et. al. will catch up on capability and capacity, and NVIDIA will be as we…

Arguably in this sense their only competitors would be screwed even harder. The last non-TSMC GPU that AMD has released is based on GloFo 12nm/14nm, NVIDIA would actually be ahead with Samsung 8nm. Intel's only dGPUs are TSMC as well, they flatly don't have a product without TSMC.

I think Intel's advantage in this hypothetical is access to foundry space. Porting their current CPU designs from TSMC to their own foundry is non-trivial (although it can't be that hard -- their integrated graphics are fabbed on their own process, and share quite a bit with their discrete units), but at least having completed that effort they have somewhere to go, instead of fighting over what will be extremely over-subscribed Samsung fabs.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#94

Speaking of trillion dollar companies, how is Apple the most valuable one? Their devices are dumb as bricks. Apple is do bad at AI that they can't even get autocorrect right on the iPhone. They are completely out of their element in the age of LLM's. Microsoft's business was bulletproof before investing in OpenAI but now it should be more valuable than Apple.

> how is Apple the most valuable one You misspelled Saudi Aramco.

Saudi Aramco is currently multiple hundreds of millions behind Apple and Microsoft.

https://companiesmarketcap.com/

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#95
post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

TSMC seems real low for a company with a 100% share of the high performance chips market, with a really high moat, and lots of hype that chipmaking will be getting lots of government investment and lots of demand with AI wanting massive amounts more compute...

TSMC is capex heavy. They will see margin compression with higher interest rates, at least in perception - their most over intel is only their ability to efficiently deploy capital.

Isn't being CapEx heavy a sign of constant expansion, though?

I would think that selling (or choosing not to buy) a stock because their P/E is low because their CapEx is high is short-sighted unless you don't think their CapEx spending is going to pay off.

It's like...back in 2012, I was talking to one of my wife's relatives at a Christmas party. He said he'd never buy Amazon stock because they've never been profitable. I said they're not profitable because every dollar they make, they put back into R&D. He would have 10x his money now if he had bought their stock.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#96

Maybe someone can explain. Why hasn’t AMD come out invested $10 billion, poached the necessary engineers from Nvidia, Facebook etc and expanded into the AI space? How much of an advantage does nvidia have when it comes to cuda ?

I have the same question about Google's TPUs (ie, why is Google not selling them, as opposed to just access to them).

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#97

I would be that Nvidia is underpriced by the market. AI apps are still in the infancy and we are just gonna see more demand emerge.

Based on P/E, I don't think so. There's already has a LOT of expected growth priced in.

We're in an AI bubble. AI has a lot of incredible uses, but eventually the bubble will burst and the market will recognize places where AI doesn't really belong.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#98

I've sold my stock, so it will obviously keep going higher. That being said, I don't see how it's a sustainable price, it has massive P/E and Price to Sales ratio. In the past when a stock finally hits the $1 or $2 trillion mark the stock will give it up relatively quickly before it finally reclaims it for good. AI is the new "blockchain" in terms of the level of hype it is getting where every company now can mention…

> AI is the new "blockchain" in terms of the level of hype

In terms of hype, I'd agree.

The difference is that AI is useful.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#99
post #9
post #5

Wow, 213x P/E ratio. To put this into context with other large tech companies: P/E MARKET CAP Salesforce 1,036x $0.2T AMD 519x $0.2T NVIDIA 213x $1.0T Amazon 293x $1.25T Microsoft 35x $2.4T Meta/FB 33x $0.7T Apple 30x $2.7T Google 27x $1.5T TSMC 16x $0.4T Samsung 10x $0.3T EDIT: "P/E" ratio is the Market Cap "Price" / Earnings the company generates. E.g. Samsung is generating $30B in earnings (not revenue, earnings),…

Why TSMC is having such a low PE. Aren't they are the one producing all these chips other than Intel?

It can be a variety of real reasons combined with the swings of exuberance and pessimism that investors have about various stocks.

On the real front, the tech war with China is intensifying a bit. China doesn't want to be locked out of chipmaking and the US is doing that via ASML. When a company is having profits, one needs to ask whether those profits will continue and for how long. Will China invade Taiwan this year? Unlikely. However, there certainly is a risk now and in the future depending on how things go with US/China relations.

Likewise, TSMC's rise has come during an era when they've out-fab'd everyone else. However, if you go back to 2013, that wasn't really the case. Samsung, GloFlo, SMIC, and Intel arguably had slight leads. It's really been the past 5-7 years that TSMC has really taken off. This could change. Intel's roadmap over the next few years possibly looks better than TSMC's with their 20A process supposedly coming to market before TSMC's 2nm. With Intel also offering to fab chips for others, that could potentially steal some business from TSMC.

Are these likely to happen? I don't know. It could just be market pessimism. Still, there are real risks. TSMC started taking off when Apple decided to commit to using them as their only fab. Apple is known to make long-term commitments to companies so that they can invest with confidence. If Apple makes a new long-term deal with Intel in 2024 so that they can get 20A instead of waiting until 2025 for TSMC's 2nm, will that rob TSMC of their strategic planning advantage? Other fabs didn't have the commitments that Apple brings to the table. If TSMC loses that, how much does that impact their progress? It's easy to invest in the latest stuff when you have commitments. It's harder to go with "if you build it, they will come." TSMC has done a great job, but I have to think part of that is aided by Apple's commitments.

At the same time, TSMC's growth has come during a period when Intel was asleep at the wheel. It looks like that period is ending and Intel is rejuvenated toward their fab business. Even if Intel doesn't surpass TSMC, Intel being equal or barely behind will make for a very different market. We know that Qualcomm and AMD want to replace TSMC. They tried with Samsung and were disappointed at the yields. Maybe Intel will become an alternative (at least for Qualcomm). As Intel's fab gets better, it might dampen demand for ARM server chips and AMD chips in general. AMD has been doing well in part because it had a significant fab advantage via TSMC. If that goes away, AMD processors might go back to being second-string. Likewise, a decent amount of ARM datacenter demand is due to the cost and performance/watt advantage that comes from being able to use TSMC's better fab. If that goes away, do we see ARM datacenter adoption slow?

A lot of people treat TSMC as if their market position is unassailable. I don't think TSMC is going anywhere. I think they're in a decent position. However, if Intel actually pulls off their roadmap, it seems like things could be a bit rough. We already saw Apple forego TSMC's 4nm chips for their non-Pro iPhones last year. We've heard rumors of supply constraints on 3nm parts for this year's iPhone and we still haven't seen a 3nm MacBook. Intel was just at Computex showing off its Meteor Lake processor using Intel 4. When Apple launched their 5nm M1 MacBooks, Intel was making the transition from 14nm to 10nm.

Again, I don't want to make this sound too doom and gloom about TSMC. I just want to note that TSMC has significant risk and that risk has been increasing - both from competitors in the industry shifting and from the shifting political climate and rivalry between the US and China. Will those things come to pass? Who knows. Intel might start slipping on its roadmap like it did for years. China might decide that it's fine with the US cutting them off from EUV/ASML and that it has better things to do. But there is risk.

Re: Nvidia is now a $1T company

#100
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems inaccurate. If China will invade (at least 50%), they will definitely do so in the next 10 years or so. So a reasonable guess based on that assumption would be ~6.5% per year.

Based on what? This sounds like you just pulling numbers out of the air, in which case 1% vs. 6.5% means comparatively nothing. And what makes you so sure that if China invades Taiwan they would definitely do it by 2033, and there's a 0% chance it'd happen in 2034? I'm not trying to be [overly] pedantic but HN is littered with comments basically just making shit up in a language of confidence and precision.

He doesn't deserve downvotes, he gave his assumptions and people can make their own judgements. His odds sound reasonable to me.
Post reply on HN